What do you think?
Rate this book
Feminist Research Practice: A Primer
Feminist Research A Primer provides a unique, hands-on approach to exploring a range of feminist perspectives of the research process in order to bridge the divide between theory and research methods. Editors Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Lina Leavy engage students with a clear and concise writing style and in-depth examples of a range of research methods from ethnography, oral history, focus groups, and content analysis to interviewing and survey research.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 8, 2025
What I found interesting in Hesse-Biber’s writing was how she reframes interviews, not as neutral exchanges, but as relational, situated, and often emotionally charged encounters. That made sense to me, especially when I think about how uneven research relationships can be, regardless of intent. She draws on her own and others’ feminist research experiences to show how interviews are shaped by power, identity, and emotional undercurrents, something you can’t really ignore if you're taking feminist ethics seriously.
Her focus on reflexivity was probably the part I found most useful. Not just the surface level idea of acknowledging your positionality, but a more sustained form, like questioning not just what you’re asking or how, but why you’re asking it in the first place. She suggests using memos to track the researcher’s own thoughts and reactions alongside the interview process, which seems like a practical way of making the researcher’s influence more visible, rather than pretending it isn’t there. I've planned to pick this method up myself. It also reinforces the idea that research isn't just about collecting information, it’s shaped in real time by the relationship between interviewer and participant, and by the assumptions both bring with them.
This also made me think about something specific to the UK: the role of accent. In Britain, the social hierarchy is often silently reinforced through speech, and accent plays a major role in that. It’s not something you can easily neutralise. No matter how carefully a researcher dresses or how well they mask class signals in other ways, the second they speak, and the second a participant speaks, assumptions are made. Accent doesn’t just affect how we’re perceived; it can shape how much authority or trust is granted, whether someone feels comfortable or defensive, and what kinds of knowledge are seen as “credible.” As someone with a thick and very obviously working class accent (or a dialect if I let it be), accent is something I am constantly thinking about when I'm talking, especially when talking to someone who seems to be "ranked" higher than me. Speaking is automatically humiliating. It's distracting. You automatically feel, and often are even treated as, stupid, based on accent alone. In interview settings, this adds another layer to the power dynamics. Even if you think you’re being inclusive or approachable, your voice might already be doing something else. That’s why reflexivity can’t just be about ideology. It has to be about attention to the everyday ways power circulates, often in ways that feel small but have real effects.
I’m aware that there are limits to how much these dynamics can actually be “managed.” There’s a danger in overestimating how much control we have, or in assuming that attentiveness and good intentions can undo structural inequalities in the research relationship. There’s something to be said for accepting that some level of discomfort, misunderstanding, or even misrepresentation is unavoidable. Perhaps the point isn’t necessarily to create a perfectly ethical encounter, but to remain accountable for the discomforts that emerge. But Hesse-Biber seems more optimistic than that: She thinks power imbalances can be negotiated with care. I’m not completely convinced, but I think her practical strategies at least make the process more transparent, even if they don’t erase the asymmetry.
Research encounters are never neutral and rarely fully ethical. Even feminist ethnography carries the risk of betrayal, especially when researchers assume solidarity based on shared identity. That’s a discomforting point, but one that feels realistic. Just because you belong to a marginalised group doesn’t automatically mean you can understand or represent someone else’s experience without tension.
One thing I did appreciate in Hesse-Biber’s writing was how she questions the split between data collection and analysis. She argues that analysis happens during the interview, not just after. That view treats knowledge as something co-created, which I think is a more honest way of approaching qualitative work. It also fits with the idea that the line between theory and practice is always blurred, something feminist researchers are often more willing to admit than others.
This book does offer some [more] useful tools and a reminder that qualitative research, especially on sensitive topics, demands more than just asking questions. It requires thinking carefully about what kind of relationship you're entering into and what your presence does to the space.
Her focus on reflexivity was probably the part I found most useful. Not just the surface level idea of acknowledging your positionality, but a more sustained form, like questioning not just what you’re asking or how, but why you’re asking it in the first place. She suggests using memos to track the researcher’s own thoughts and reactions alongside the interview process, which seems like a practical way of making the researcher’s influence more visible, rather than pretending it isn’t there. I've planned to pick this method up myself. It also reinforces the idea that research isn't just about collecting information, it’s shaped in real time by the relationship between interviewer and participant, and by the assumptions both bring with them.
This also made me think about something specific to the UK: the role of accent. In Britain, the social hierarchy is often silently reinforced through speech, and accent plays a major role in that. It’s not something you can easily neutralise. No matter how carefully a researcher dresses or how well they mask class signals in other ways, the second they speak, and the second a participant speaks, assumptions are made. Accent doesn’t just affect how we’re perceived; it can shape how much authority or trust is granted, whether someone feels comfortable or defensive, and what kinds of knowledge are seen as “credible.” As someone with a thick and very obviously working class accent (or a dialect if I let it be), accent is something I am constantly thinking about when I'm talking, especially when talking to someone who seems to be "ranked" higher than me. Speaking is automatically humiliating. It's distracting. You automatically feel, and often are even treated as, stupid, based on accent alone. In interview settings, this adds another layer to the power dynamics. Even if you think you’re being inclusive or approachable, your voice might already be doing something else. That’s why reflexivity can’t just be about ideology. It has to be about attention to the everyday ways power circulates, often in ways that feel small but have real effects.
I’m aware that there are limits to how much these dynamics can actually be “managed.” There’s a danger in overestimating how much control we have, or in assuming that attentiveness and good intentions can undo structural inequalities in the research relationship. There’s something to be said for accepting that some level of discomfort, misunderstanding, or even misrepresentation is unavoidable. Perhaps the point isn’t necessarily to create a perfectly ethical encounter, but to remain accountable for the discomforts that emerge. But Hesse-Biber seems more optimistic than that: She thinks power imbalances can be negotiated with care. I’m not completely convinced, but I think her practical strategies at least make the process more transparent, even if they don’t erase the asymmetry.
Research encounters are never neutral and rarely fully ethical. Even feminist ethnography carries the risk of betrayal, especially when researchers assume solidarity based on shared identity. That’s a discomforting point, but one that feels realistic. Just because you belong to a marginalised group doesn’t automatically mean you can understand or represent someone else’s experience without tension.
One thing I did appreciate in Hesse-Biber’s writing was how she questions the split between data collection and analysis. She argues that analysis happens during the interview, not just after. That view treats knowledge as something co-created, which I think is a more honest way of approaching qualitative work. It also fits with the idea that the line between theory and practice is always blurred, something feminist researchers are often more willing to admit than others.
This book does offer some [more] useful tools and a reminder that qualitative research, especially on sensitive topics, demands more than just asking questions. It requires thinking carefully about what kind of relationship you're entering into and what your presence does to the space.
I wrote this about a certain portion of the book. There’s more things covered I haven't written about in this review
November 17, 2012
This book is ok. It's an overview of feminist research practices and offers students a standpoint lens of different researchers and how they use the idea in their research. The chapters felt needlessly long to me and sometimes the standpoints were overzealous. However, all-in-all, it's been helpful to my work.
December 1, 2019
points out very crucial issues for those working on (a) research - a bit academic, yet includes plenty of examples and eventually an easy read - Arabic translation is good but includes lots of English expressions in the middle of the text which is a bit confusing.
Read
July 27, 2011This was am excellent resource for how to do different types of research with a feminist perspective, such as content analysis, survery research, etc. It also explains at length the interviewing process and when to use cerrtain types of interviewing for research purposes.
October 23, 2012
A really helpful and compelling resource for feminist research methodologies.
September 9, 2016
Comprehensive review of various methods through a feminist lens, but also rather repetitive. Perhaps best for undergrad or beginner grad students, then supplemented by a more challenging text.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews