Rohini has given another pertinent reminder of the stakes involved that
this discussion has revealed.
Has it all really been "just a little diversion in our frantic research
activities"?
NO! What links us altogether in this discussion group is an interest in
qualitative research. I would imagine, just going a tiny bit further,
that that means that we're nearly all involved in the social or human
sciences. And that, going a tiny bit further again, means that we're all
concerned with understanding how structures and preconceived ideas, such
as historical gender roles, can influence the way women and men are
interacting... and reacting. Reacting? Yeah, not JUST in the studies we
do but also in our own professional groups, like this discussion
group-cum-public arena.
If necessary, we can translate all that into a question about which
qualitative program is the best for understanding the way men and women
code in relation to their professionnal gender-affected status. Or, how
are women faring in this CADQAS field? As far as this last question goes,
I have the feeling that they /we are doing rather well... as long as we
continue to use our understanding of gender differences and social
movements in our OWN professional situations... such as this discussion
group.
Bye
Kerrie
Kerralie Oeuvray
Dept. Social Work and Social Policy
University of Fribourg
Switzerland
>Dear listmembers,
>
>That was an interesting discussion.
>
>It reminded me of an experience during a research project that I was
>coordinating a few years back. A few male-researchers assisted me in
>data collection during that project. All of them were at least 15 years
>younger to me. They visited with me a number of villages and the
>organizations conducting development work in those villages. In one of
>those organizations I became faintly aware that my way of mentioning my
>research assistants had become a joke. I used to mention them as pora or
>mula, which in the local language (Marathi) means boys. However the
>words are also used informally to mention young men. Later a colleague
>pointed out to me that I don't just call them pora or mula, but I
>actually think about them as if they are children. When I thought about
>it, I realized that I certainly was protective towards them and they
>used to confide their personal problems in me as they would in an
>elderly relative. Afterwards I made it a point to mention them as
>researchers.
>
>The parallel words in case of women are pori and muli. I happened to
>think about the contexts in which I have come across the use of these
>words. Apart from the meaning female children/young women, the uses of
>these words that I have come across in real life and during research are
>as follows: single women above 50; to insult a woman of about 40 at her
>workplace; and; the commercial sex workers.
>I cannot think of parallels in case of words pora or mula.
>
>The joke that was created when I called my research assistants pora or
>mula was because I was being informal in a formal situation. But when an
>adult woman is called poragi/mulgi it has quite different connotations!
>
>Though I appreciate humour, I feel it is necessary to point it out when
>it is at the expense of women.
>
>Rohini Lele
>Pune, India
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|