(including the listener’s social context) to the story. The second reading (Step 2) makes note of the use of the word ‘I’ in the interviews – putting together ‘I’ (first-person) statements into lists called ‘I-Poems’. This step is meant to draw the listener into the interviewee’s life in a way that minimizes objectification of the speaker. The third reading (Step 3) is based on the musical idea of counterpoint, in which multiple melodic lines interweave to create a complex piece of music. As such, Step 3 involves listening for two or more voices within the narrative – voices that may either contradict or complement each other, but are nevertheless in relationship to each other. It therefore allows the reader/listener to recognize that one statement may have multiple meanings or reflect multiple voices on the part of the speaker, and that actions undertaken in relation to those meanings are reflective of the ‘sense’ the speaker makes of ‘social existence’ (Roberts, 2002). The exploration of the relationships between these meanings/voices is key to producing a rich analysis that is faithful to the speaker’s voice(s). Additionally, this exploration assists in avoiding what Bridget Byrne (2003) refers to as the under-theorization of subjection resulting from neglecting to recognize relationships between multiple narratives. Its use in this study, in particular, contributes to scholarly debates through the utilization of Gilligan et al.’s (2003) method in examining the process of leadership development – an aspect of women’s experience for which her earlier work has been criticized for addressing insufficiently (Auerbach et al., 1985).
It is important to note, in proceeding to the final step of the method, the presence of concerns regarding the ‘soft’, or ‘feminine’, nature of such methods in the writings of those who would place them over and against quantitative (or ‘hard’/‘masculine’) research (Gardner, 2001). Gardner addresses these concerns via the mandate to apply a rigorous and thorough analysis that creates room for the presence of multiple voices, which here culminates in the final step of the Listening Guide (Step 4). Having ‘listened’ to the transcripts a minimum of four times, with detailed notes and markings being made each time through, the reader/listener revisits the original research question and asks the following: ‘What have you learned about this question through this process and how have you come to know this?’ and ‘What is the evidence on which you are basing your interpretations?’ (Gilligan et al., 2003). Having asked these questions, the researcher then proceeds to bring each of the listenings back into relationship with each other, and – in exploring these relationships – to reveal the complexities of individuals’ experiences in such a way as to produce a multi-faceted analysis that avoids objectifying the speakers or reducing their experiences to one-dimensional data (Gilligan et al., 2003). This is especially important in light of methodological concerns regarding establishment of the veracity of such narratives (Gardner, 2001), and Byrne’s (2003, p. 32) assertion that ‘Not all individuals are able to present themselves at all times as coherent, whole subjects of a storied narrative’.
The voice-centred relational method proved particularly useful for analysis of the semi-structured interview data, in that it facilitated the hearing of narratives related to particular topics in unexpected places and in unexpected forms, intertwined with narratives relating to other topics. For example, in examining the women’s accounts of their parents’ community involvement, I had initially intended to limit ‘community involvement’ to participation in community organizations. However, it quickly became apparent that the women were telling highly relevant stories of community involvement in other contexts. A story from Gwen’s narrative demonstrates this especially well. In speaking of her parents’ livelihood as proprietors of a pub, and the sectarian bombing that had caused them to build a house separate from the pub (as opposed to living over the pub as they had before the bombing), Gwen related the following:
It was always a mixed community, and our bar was always mixed. And my parents would have influenced me very strongly too. A lot of the locals would have been outraged by [the bombing], and very supportive. And certainly, my parents always gave us a message about being non-sectarian. Everybody welcome, regardless of what- w- I grew up with a strong, I suppose, a- a sense of being Irish myself and my family, but equally, people came in, that, you know, w- would have seen themselves as British. And, and whatever. And that wasn’t a problem. It was just- Because it was the local pub, it was just a very much a focal point in the community.
In this particular narrative, it becomes apparent that she is not only speaking of her parents’ leadership roles as business owners, but also their commitment to fostering a welcoming cross-community space. This example clearly illustrates the nuances found in each of the transcripts, as participants’ responses to questions at times housed multiple, shifting contexts and layers of meaning in relation to the study topic (Pini, 2004b). Two case studies are presented as examples in Chapter 3 to demonstrate the full process of this analysis and the quantity of rich data it produces.
2.3.2 Limitations of analysis and representation of participants
Although the researcher may speak with some authority in the writing up of the analysis, it is vitally important to the validity of the study that the researcher also admits to the limitations of their perspectives and portrayal of the reality of the research field (Brewer, 2000). Rural research has come to embrace similar criteria as the importance of reaching ‘shared understandings about a topic’ between researcher and researched has grown within the discipline (Hughes et al., 2000). In the words of Pini (2003a, p. 422): ‘It is not the method we use, but how we use the method that gives value to women’s experience’.
2.4 Participant Profiles
In order to provide a context facilitative of an informed and relational hearing of the women’s accounts of their ‘lived reality’ (Jack, 1991), it will be helpful here to profile the range of social locations that they occupied (Emirbayer, 1997). These profiles are drawn from the women’s responses to the interview questions, and so broadly adhere to the contours of the interview schedule beginning with participants’ identities as rural/woman/leader and continuing from their families of origin to the subjects of religion and church involvement, educational experiences, extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities.
In the final step (Step 4) of Gilligan et al.’s ‘Listening Guide’ (2003, p. 168), the listener is instructed to ‘return to the research question that initiated this inquiry’ and ask what she or he has ‘learned about this question through this process’. In revisiting this study’s primary research question, it became apparent that listening to the women’s verbalizations of themselves as rural, as women and as leaders was primary to any discussion of their leadership development. Bearing this in mind, a summary of the ways in which participants identified themselves as ‘rural’, as ‘woman’ and as ‘leader’ is presented below.
The women’s articulations of their identities as ‘rural’ and ‘woman’ were often less formal than their articulations of the definition of leadership and how they saw themselves filling (and/or not filling) that role. In part, this can be attributed to the directness of the questions I asked regarding their definition of leadership and fulfilment of the role of leader, as opposed to the more generalized discussions of the subjects of rurality and womanhood dispersed throughout the interviews. This may also be partially attributed to their comfort level in self-identifying as ‘rural’ and ‘women’ (which appeared as well-defined concepts in their narratives) and the nebulous nature of the definition of leadership. Nevertheless, clear articulations of their self-concepts in all three areas emerged as they narrated their lived experiences.
2.4.1 Identity: Rural
I will always say that my, um, the fact that I was brought up in a rural community, that I’ve chosen to live there and bring my children up in a rural community, it’s very much part of my cultural identity. Um, and the, and, the fabric of my culture and identity. It’s another layer.
-Barbara (emphasis hers)
But,