Introduction to Focus Section: Feminist Research and Knowledge Production in Geography

Abstract

Over the past two decades, feminist geographers have contributed in critical ways to thinking on the conduct, complications, and consequences of feminist research. The robust existing body of work is testament to the foundational import of these contributions, but the articles in this Focus Section suggest that there are still important things to argue, talk about, and reflect on with regard to the epistemological aspects of doing feminist geography. These six articles bring together real-life examples of complex issues that feminist researchers in geography face today, with the overarching aim of sparking discussions about the relationship between feminist research and knowledge production. Specifically, the articles expand key concepts facilitating reflexive processes and offer new tools for feminist researchers. This Introduction reviews the existing literature pertaining to both of these goals, and summarizes and situates the articles that follow.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpg20
Download by: [AAG] Date: 11 September 2016, At: 08:42
The Professional Geographer
ISSN: 0033-0124 (Print) 1467-9272 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpg20
Introduction to Focus Section: Feminist Research
and Knowledge Production in Geography
Nancy Hiemstra & Emily Billo
To cite this article: Nancy Hiemstra & Emily Billo (2016): Introduction to Focus Section:
Feminist Research and Knowledge Production in Geography, The Professional Geographer,
DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2016.1208103
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1208103
Published online: 29 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 27
View related articles
View Crossmark data

FOCUS: FEMINIST RESEARCH AND
METHODOLOGY
Introduction to Focus Section: Feminist Research and Knowledge
Production in Geography
Nancy Hiemstra
Stony Brook University
Emily Billo
Goucher College
Over the past two decades, feminist geographers have contributed in critical ways to thinking on the conduct, complications, and
consequences of feminist research. The robust existing body of work is testament to the foundational import of these
contributions, but the articles in this Focus Section suggest that there are still important things to argue, talk about, and reflect
on with regard to the epistemological aspects of doing feminist geography. These six articles bring together real-life examples of
complex issues that feminist researchers in geography face today, with the overarching aim of sparking discussions about the
relationship between feminist research and knowledge production. Specifically, the articles expand key concepts facilitating
reflexive processes and offer new tools for feminist researchers. This Introduction reviews the existing literature pertaining to
both of these goals, and summarizes and situates the articles that follow. Key Words: feminist methods, knowledge
production, methodological tools, reflexivity, research methodology.
过去二十年来，女权主义地理学者对于思考女权主义研究的行为、复杂性及后果做出关键的贡献。既有的强健研究，是这
些贡献的关键重要性之证据，但此一焦点文集则主张，关于从事女权主义地理学的认识论面向，仍有诸多重要之事须进行
辩论、探讨及反思。这六大文章结合了地理学中的女权主义研究者今日所面临的真实经验与复杂议题，而其总体目标便是
激发讨论女权主义研究和知识生产之间的关联性。这些文章特别延伸促进反身过程的关键概念，并提供女权主义研究者崭
新的研究工具。本引文回顾有关上述两大目标的既存文献，并摘要、定位接下来的数篇文章。关键词:女权主义方法,
知识生产，方法论工具，反身性，研究方法论。
Durante las pasadas dos d
ecadas, los ge
ografos feministas han contribuido con actitud crítica a pensar en la conducci
on,
complicaciones y consecuencias de la investigaci
on feminista. Testimonio de la importancia fundacional de estas contribuciones
es el robusto cuerpo de trabajo existente, pero los artículos que aparecen en esta Secci
on Focal sugieren que todavía hay cosas
importantes sobre las cuales argumentar, discutir y reflexionar en relaci
on con los aspectos epistemol
ogicos del quehacer
geogr
afico feminista. Estos seis artículos recogen ejemplos de la vida real plena de complejidad que los investigadores feministas
en geografía confrontan en la actualidad, con la meta primaria de incitar discusiones acerca de la relaci
on entre la investigaci
on
feminista y la producci
on de conocimiento. Específicamente, el artículo amplía sobre conceptos claves que facilitan los procesos
reflexivos y ofrecen nuevas herramientas para los investigadores feministas. Esta Introducci
on revisa la literatura disponible
relacionada con estos objetivos, y resume y situa los artículos que se publican enseguida. Palabras clave: m
etodos feministas,
producci
on de conocimiento, herramientas metodol
ogicas, reflexividad, metodología de investigaci
on.
Feminist geography has long pushed the discipline
of geography as a whole to carefully consider crit-
ical questions of epistemology and methodology in
research. Just over twenty years ago, feminist geogra-
phers signaled a profound frustration with the lack of
“systematic attempts to look at what constitutes geo-
graphic field research or how women’s experiences
and ways of knowing affect the stuff and processes of
fieldwork”(Nast 1994, 56). At that time, feminist
geographers initiated sustained attention to research
and method, building on groundbreaking earlier work
from inside (e.g., Hanson and Monk 1982; McDowell
1992) and outside of geography (e.g., Harding 1986;
Haraway 1991, 1998; Smith 1987), in a number of
venues, such as special collections of articles in Cana-
dian Geographer (Moss 1993, “Feminism as Method”),
The Professional Geographer (Nast 1994, “Women in
the Field”), Antipode (Farrow, Moss, and Shaw 1995,
“Symposium on Feminist Participatory Research”),
and again in The Professional Geographer (Mattingly
and Falconer Al-Hindi 1995, “Should Women
Count?”). Since then, feminist geography has pro-
duced a rich body of scholarship exploring what makes
research and analysis feminist, as well as the
The Professional Geographer, 0(0) 2016, pages 1–7 © 2016 by American Association of Geographers.
Initial submission, April 2015; revised submission, February 2016; final acceptance, April 2016.
Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

relationship between methodology and feminist
knowledge production. Feminist geographers today
carefully consider and define feminist epistemology
and goals in research, as well as potential hazards and
shortcomings of feminist approaches.
At the Feminist Geography Conference in Omaha,
Nebraska, USA, in 2014, two paper sessions invited
scholars to explore what it means to do feminist
research in geography today. All presenters, primarily
junior scholars, had been trained in and heavily influ-
enced by this body of scholarship. The papers pre-
sented in Omaha—as well as the vigorous discussion
the sessions sparked—suggest that although this foun-
dational work continues to guide and inspire, there are
still important points to reflect on and debate with
regard to the epistemological aspects of doing feminist
geography. That is, as geographers continue to apply
feminist principles to new research topics and spaces,
additional questions and conundrums arise.
The six papers from Omaha featured in this Focus
Section collectively advance conversations in feminist
geography on the relationship between research method-
ologies and knowledge production in two primary ways.
First, they debate, expand, and add complexity to key con-
cepts in feminist research, specifically reflexivity, position-
ality, and subjectivity. Second, they introduce to feminist
geography new methodological tools to facilitate and
strengthen research design and conduct. Together, the
papers suggest innovative ways for geographers to engage
in feminist knowledge production.
Research and Feminist Knowledge
Production
Feminist knowledge production is ontologically
grounded in the recognition that there is no one, abso-
lute truth (Harding 1986; Moss 1993; Moss and Fal-
coner Al-Hindi 2008). In the conceiving, planning,
and doing of research, feminist geographers therefore
center the idea that all knowledge is partial and that
there are multiple valid perspectives (Harding 1986;
Haraway 1998), recognizing on a fundamental level
that the knowledge they create is not objective, singu-
lar, or irrefutable (Moss 1993, 2002; Cope 2002;
Raghuram and Madge 2008). They also hold constant
the recognition that all social norms and relationships
are constructed in ways that critically influence what
has typically counted as knowledge (Cope 2002).
These precepts have undergirded the development of
critical concepts as well as understanding of and
approaches to power in feminist geography.
Key Concepts in Feminist Geography
Feminist geographers have adopted and developed a
number of key concepts to facilitate ongoing efforts to
reconcile feminist epistemologies with their conduct
of research. Since the early 1990s, feminist researchers
in geography have engaged in deliberate processes of
reflexivity, foregrounding critical self-reflection to
think through the multiple ways in which various
aspects of our identities and personal situations influ-
ence all aspects of research (D. Rose 1993; England
1994, 2008; Gilbert 1994; Katz 1994; Kobayashi 1994;
Nast 1994; Mullings 1999; Dyck 2002; Moss 2002).
Geographers have also raised critical questions regard-
ing the limits of reflexivity (G. Rose 1997; Pratt 2000;
Kobayashi 2003, 2009; Bondi 2009), such as caution-
ing that even the most careful process of reflexivity
cannot result in total transparency (G. Rose 1997).
Despite critiques, however, reflexivity remains a criti-
cal component of feminist research frameworks, and
scholars continue to expand the concept even as they
debate its shortcomings (Falconer Al-Hindi and
Kawabata 2002; Nagar 2002; Kobayashi 2009; Billo
and Hiemstra 2013).
To facilitate self-reflective thinking, additional con-
cepts have emerged to guide feminist research in geog-
raphy. The concept of positionality addresses how we are
always already situated in a particular epistemological
milieu influenced by our gender, race, class, sexuality,
ability, nationality, and myriad other factors (McDowell
1992; England 1994; Katz 1994; Mattingly and Falconer
Al-Hindi 1995; G. Rose 1997; Mullings 1999; Valentine
2002; Kobayashi 2003). Feminist geographers have also
thought through the role of the related concept of sub-
jectivity, which refers to how one’s individual thoughts,
perceptions, and decisions are discursively and materi-
ally constituted, and constantly dynamic. In other
words, subjectivity refers to how people negotiate their
sense of self in relation to their surroundings (G. Rose
1997; Nelson 1999; Cupples 2002; Cahill 2007; Sultana
2009; Truelove 2011; Moss 2014). Additionally, scholars
in the subdiscipline consider researchers’shifting and
multiply sited relationships with the people and commu-
nities that become the focus of our research. For exam-
ple, discussions about betweenness emphasizethatweare
constantly “negotiating various degrees and kinds of dif-
ference”in our relationships with research participants
(Nast 1994, 57; see also England 1994; Katz 1994;
Kobayashi 1994). Scholars also debate the advantages
and disadvantages of insider versus outsider positioning in
relationship to communities in which we conduct
research, as well as the instability of this boundary
(Dyck 1993; Kobayashi 1994; Mullings 1999).
This Focus Section contributes to these conversa-
tions in a number of ways. All six contributors to this
Focus Section engage in critical processes of self-
reflection to explore precisely what it means to do
feminist research (e.g., Dyck 2002; Moss 2002;
Kobayashi and Peake 2008; Billo and Hiemstra 2013).
Three of the articles focus on expanding key concepts
in the feminist geographic practice of reflexivity.
In “Troubling Positionality: Politics of ‘Studying
Up’in Transnational Contexts,”Sanjukta Mukher-
jee examines uncomfortable interactions in the
research process not only to explore her own posi-
tionality but also to challenge and expand conven-
tional ideas of positionality in feminist geography.
Drawing on a project that traced shifting gender
2Volume 0, Number 0, XXX 2016

and class relations amidst the neoliberalized devel-
opment of Bangalore, India’s software industry,
Mukherjee argues for a conceptualization of posi-
tionality that includes all participants in a research
project, instead of restricting the concept to
researchers’negotiation of their own identities. She
also urges a broader understanding of positionality
as both relational and highly contingent. Feminist
geographers must bear in mind that both
researcher and researched are situated in a com-
plex, unstable matrix of geopolitical, institutional,
and social responsibilities and relationships.
Although it is impossible to ever fully catalog and
account for all of the positionalities that emerge
and recede in a project, it is important to recognize
the critical influence that they undoubtedly have on
the research process and data collected.
In “Painting Pictures of Ourselves: Researcher
Subjectivity in the Practice of Feminist Reflexivity,”
Risa Whitson cautions researchers to carefully dif-
ferentiate between the concepts of subjectivity and
positionality, arguing that doing so can foster novel
insights into the research process. She draws com-
paratively on research conducted with garbage
recyclers in Argentina and groups of women in
direct sales in Ohio, USA, to examine what our
decisions about research projects say about our-
selves. Whitson scrutinizes her own feelings of
greater affiliation with garbage recyclers in another
country than with women in her own neighbor-
hood, who she perceived as somehow more ideo-
logically and politically different than her. She
argues that an expanded concept of subjectivity
pushes the researcher to question her goals and
desires as a researcher and her position toward the
research community. She urges geographers to pay
special attention to their emotional reactions during
research, rather than ignoring or shrugging them
off. By carefully parsing researcher subjectivity
and positionality, moments of discomfort and
enthusiasm as well as feelings of affiliation and dis-
affiliation with research participants become oppor-
tunities for insight into researcher identity and the
research process.
Denise Goerisch critically examines the conceptual-
ization of volunteering as a feminist participatory
research practice in “‘Doing Good Work’: Feminist
Dilemmas of Volunteering in the Field.”She draws on
her experience of volunteering with the Girl Scouts of
America in California, USA, for purposes of research
to contend that the roles of researcher and of volun-
teer do not overlay comfortably and in fact can create
significant dilemmas for feminist researchers. She
makes the case for special attention to insider–outsider
positioning when volunteering, both for scrutinizing
the ethics of a project and for examining the knowl-
edge produced. Goerisch further challenges feminist
geographers to consider the ways in which the
researcher balances both the practice of gathering data
with that of giving back to research communities. In
addition, feminist goals of political and social change
might be at odds with the goals and practices of the
organizations in which researchers volunteer, with the
consequence that it is impossible for the researcher or
volunteer to be ethically comfortable in—and perhaps
successful at—either role.
Power, Methodology, Ethics
Feminist geographers’understandings of knowledge
shape “all aspects of the research process—from choos-
ing a research topic to selecting data collection methods,
from setting a research question to conceptualizing the-
oretical constructs, and from designing a research proj-
ect to presenting and circulating analyses”(Moss 2002,
3; McDowell 1992; Cope 2002). Feminist researchers
link the theoretical questions associated with relations of
power together with an explicit focus on exposing and
transforming relationships of power, hierarchy, and
exploitation (Moss 1993, 2002; Staeheli and Lawson
1995; McDowell 1997; England 2006; Moss and Fal-
coner Al-Hindi 2008; Raghuram and Madge 2008).
This means that goals of political and social change are
at the core of feminist research (Moss 1993, 2002; D.
Rose 1993; Nast 1994; Kobayashi 2003), including
expanding ideas of what constitutes knowledge. As Moss
(1993) wrote, “Liberation of subjugated knowledge is a
political aim of feminism”(49).
For feminist geographers, there is no singular
approach to research or method. Instead, “what
creates feminist inquiry is the worldview or theo-
retical orientation that guides the conceptual fram-
ing of research, its questions, and the choice of
data collection and analysis techniques”(Dyck
1993, 53; see also McDowell 1992; Moss 1993;
Canadian Geographer special issue 1993; Dyck 2002;
England 2002). Research methods, therefore, can
be qualitative, quantitative, or a mixture of both
(Moss 1993; Lawson 1995; Mattingly and Falconer
Al-Hindi 1995; McLafferty 1995; Kwan 2002b;
England 2006). Methodological approaches in femi-
nist geography aim to center the voices and experi-
ences of previously overlooked groups in research
(McDowell 1992; Dyck 1993; England 1994;
Hyams 2004; Liu 2006; Billo and Mountz 2016).
Endeavoring to liberate these voices, expose under-
valued experiences, and uncover the “ambivalence”
and “contradictoriness”of spaces (Bondi 2004, 5),
feminist geographers have focused on the everyday
(G. Rose 1993; Dowler and Sharp 2001; Nagar
2002; England 2008; Moss and Falconer Al-Hindi
2008). They have also developed ideas of embodi-
ment, to better understand how both researchers
and those whom they research internalize (both
physically and mentally) and exemplify differential
power relations (McDowell 1999; Dyck 2002;
Mountz 2004; Moss 2005). Feminist geographers
have also expanded ideas of what constitutes “the
field”in fieldwork in critical ways (Katz 1994;
Kobayashi 1994; Nast 1994; Hyndman 2001).
Introduction: Feminist Research and Methodology 3

Although discussions regarding feminist methodol-
ogies often focus on qualitative approaches, quanti-
tative methods also play an important role in
feminist geographic research (Lawson 1995; Mat-
tingly and Falconer Al-Hindi 1995; McLafferty
1995; Moss 1995; Kwan 2002b; England 2006;
Moss and Falconer Al-Hindi 2008). Feminist geog-
raphers’use of quantitative methods has ranged
from a basic (and necessary) process of “counting
women to show that women count”(Mattingly and
Falconer-Al-Hindi 1995, 429), to sophisticated
measuring of how gender shapes mobility and how
space is inhabited (McLafferty 1995; Kwan 2002b),
to recognition of the potential of geographic infor-
mation systems (GIS) as a powerful feminist repre-
sentational tool (Kwan 2002a).
Feminist geography has turned awareness of power
and privilege critically inward, specifically to the seem-
ing inability of feminist geography to really root out
traditional systems and hierarchies within the subdisci-
pline despite its stated goals (Pulido 2002; Mahtani
2006; Browne 2008). This awareness has extended to
its own projects and methodologies, including and
extending beyond reflexity, to a consideration of the
constant risk that even feminist research can reinscribe
hierarchy and exploit participants (McDowell 1992;
Moss 1993). Feminist geographers have thought
through implications of imbalances of power in rela-
tionships between researcher and researched alongside
strategies for recognizing and mitigating these imbal-
ances (Kobayashi 1994; England 2002; Falconer Al-
Hindi and Kawabata 2002; Nagar 2008). They have
also asked whether there are limits to what we can
research, especially if we are concerned about exploita-
tion and appropriation (Farrow 1995). Sultana (2007)
argued that Western biases or the risk of speaking for
populations has led to a “withdrawal of fieldwork,”
especially in the Global South. To avoid these biases,
however, she suggested that researchers must remain
“politically engaged, materially grounded, and institu-
tionally sensitive”by practicing critical reflexivity and
positionality (Sultana 2007, 375; see also Nagar 2002).
Additionally, expanding on ideas of representation and
privilege, feminist geographers ask what it means
when landscapes are presented “through white eyes,”
resulting in a “normative vision”of raced bodies and
acceptable ideas of how those bodies are interpreted
(Kobayashi and Peake 2008, 177; see also Kobayashi
and Peake 2000; Peake and Kobayashi 2002).
Although the discussions in the articles that follow are
situated more in qualitative than quantitative research,
they have implications and applications for the conduct of
any feminist research endeavors. All of the articles in this
Focus Section build on and extend feminist geographic
thinking on the relationship among power, methodology,
and knowledge creation. Three of the contributions
introduce new methodological tools to facilitate feminist
research in geography.
In “Voice under Scrutiny: Feminist Methods, Anti-
colonial Responses, and New Methodological Tools,”
Kate Coddington critiques feminist geography’s
emphasis on foregrounding voice as potentially
exploitative and colonialist. Drawing on her work with
the research-fatigued Aboriginal population of Dar-
win, Australia, she cautions researchers to carefully
assess their desire to “authenticate”via participants’
voices alongside the power relations through which
they attain those voices. Coddington pulls cutting-
edge work on settler colonialism into geography to
argue that feminist geographers must be mindful of
situations in which an overly dogged insistence on
including participants’voices can conflict with antico-
lonial goals. Coddington also offers critical methodo-
logical tools to feminist geographers concerned with
replicating colonialist power structures in their own
projects: proceeding and refusing. In proceeding, the
researcher consciously revisits and dwells within her
doubts and discomforts, constantly evaluating and
adjusting the research approach. In refusing, the
researcher recognizes and honors points at which a
project cannot or should not continue, to shift direc-
tion or even abruptly terminate a particular research
endeavor. With these tools, Coddington offers
important alternatives for feminist geographers, who
struggle with making the space for marginalized and
new voices, experiences, and knowledges to be heard.
In “The Feminist Geographer as Killjoy: Excavating
Gendered Urban Power Relations,”Brenda Parker
explores how feminist geographers might better unearth
overlapping and underlying power relations and hierar-
chies in their research. She draws on feminist cultural
studies scholar Ahmed’s (2010) concept of the feminist kill-
joy: the feminist who exposes heterosexism, racism, and
sexism only to be consequently criticized for “killing joy”
by disturbing happiness and social harmony. Parker puts
the figure of the feminist killjoy in conversation with femi-
nist geographic scholarship on reflexivity and subjectivity
to understand resistance to research with potentially
emancipatory aims. Drawing on her own project on gen-
der, race, and urban development politics in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, USA, Parker considers the implications of
practicing “feminist killjoy researcher subjectivities”
when engaging in such research. Feminist killjoy
researchers, she argues, must constantly acknowledge and
revisit the limits of reflexivityandpayspecialattentionto
the role of emotion in research. Parker proposes the
figure of the double killjoy to make a space for critical per-
spectives on even progressive institutions and movements,
arguing that feminist geographers must not waiver in
their critiques of oppressive and discriminatory structures
wherever they might be buried.
In “Periscoping as a Feminist Methodological
Approach for Researching the Seemingly Hidden,”
Nancy Hiemstra proposes the metaphor of the peri-
scope as a strategy for critical, feminist scholars
researching subjects and places that appear to be inac-
cessible. Periscoping builds on feminist geography’s
focus on daily life to offer a new approach for research-
ers endeavoring to study things previously assumed out
of reach. Hiemstra contends that regardless of efforts
4Volume 0, Number 0, XXX 2016

by powerful actors to contain and obscure, all spaces
somehow emit bits and pieces. Although research
approaches centering embodiment and institutional
ethnography are powerful tools to feminist researchers,
use of these research strategies might seem limited to
what is plainly visible and directly accessible. Periscop-
ing is meant to facilitate the conceptualization of new,
innovative approaches in feminist research. Hiemstra
draws on fieldwork in Cuenca, Ecuador, on the conse-
quences of U.S. immigration enforcement policies to
illustrate how the periscope metaphor can expand femi-
nist research possibilities. She then explores ethical
implications of framing research goals and methods
within a periscopic approach, including the militaristic,
surveillance uses of periscopes and feminist concerns
regarding researcher–participant relationships. Hiem-
stra argues that if these ethical considerations are con-
stantly held in mind, periscoping can enable innovative
research, as well as add to feminist geographic tools for
contesting power and liberating repressed knowledge.
Pushing the Boundaries of Feminist
Knowledge Production
Collectively, the articles in this Focus Section expand
understandings of feminist methods and methodology in
geography and provocatively push the boundaries of
feminist geographic research and its possibilities. All
contributors dwell in pivotal moments of uncertainty,
ambivalence, and discomfort they encountered in their
own research endeavors. In so doing, they turn bumps
and barricades into opportunities for contemplating how
and what knowledge is produced and ultimately expand
efforts to provoke change through research (Kobayashi
and Peake 2008). The articles are attentive to concepts of
reflexivity, positionality, and subjectivity that influence
the research process, and expand these in productive
ways. The authors also propose new tools and concepts
to facilitate the doing of feminist research ingeography.
In addition, the articles illustrate persistent as well as
emerging themes in feminist research in the discipline.
They show feminist geography’s sustained interest in the
origins and disruption of oppression and inequality.
Whitson, for example, warns that if feminist researchers
are overly focused on selecting only “proper”research
subjects, they might risk overlooking oppressive systems
and covertly reinforcing existing gender and class hierar-
chies. Coddington raises questions about feminist meth-
odology and the research process, asking all of us to
consider what research questions we have the right to ask.
With the idea of a periscopic approach, Hiemstra seeks
ways to interrogate closed-off, power-laden spaces.
Mukherjee demonstrates the power of “studying up”to
scrutinize broader social and political systems. The
authorsalsoaskallofusto(re)considerwhatitmeansto
participate in, write about, and attempt to make sense of
structures that produce uneven relationships of power
and privilege. Parker, for instance, offers a way to think
through contradictions and tensions within feminist
endeavors with the concept of the feminist killjoy. Goer-
isch scrutinizes the ethics of volunteering and cautions
feminist researchers against overestimating the value of
what they give back to those they research. Furthermore,
the Focus Section illustrates new avenues of research in
feminist critiques of power. Several of the articles describe
research involving powerful people, indicative of a shift in
feminist geographic research from the marginalized to
participants with power. Some of the articles also repre-
sent an emerging trend in feminist geography of research
that does not necessarily center questions of women, gen-
der, or sexuality but still employs methodologies
grounded in feminist principles to interrogate oppressive
structures (Falconer Al-Hindi and Moss 2008; Codding-
ton 2015).
Almost twenty-five years ago, McDowell (1992)
remarked on the continued marginalization of feminist
scholarship in geography, noting that it presented a
“serious challenge”(401) to dominant modes of think-
ing. The articles presented in this Focus Section are
testimony to the fact that today feminist ways of know-
ing are very much at the center of knowledge produc-
tion in geography, pushing all geographers to
incorporate critical, liberatory goals as well as creative
approaches in their work.&
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the contributors to the Focus Section
for their unflagging enthusiasm, creativity, and hard
work on their individual articles; and the organizers of
the Feminist Geography Conference in Omaha for
orchestrating an inspirational and well-organized gath-
ering. They also thank the three anonymous reviewers
for their keen insights and encouragement to further
develop the introduction. Finally, thanks to The Profes-
sional Geographer editor and staff for their support in
bringing this Focus Section to publication. Both authors
contributed equally in the editing of the contributions.
Literature Cited
Ahmed, S. 2010. The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Billo, E., and N. Hiemstra. 2013. Mediating messiness:
Expanding ideas of flexibility, reflexivity, and embodiment
in fieldwork. Gender, Place and Culture 20 (3): 313–28.
Billo, E., and A. Mountz. 2016. For institutional
ethnography: Geographical approaches to institutions and
the everyday. Progress in Human Geography 40 (2): 199–220.
Bondi, L. 2004. 10th anniversary address: For a feminist
geography of ambivalence. Gender, Place and Culture 11:3–15.
———. 2009. Teaching reflexivity: Undoing or reinscribing
habits of gender? Journal of Geography in Higher Education
33 (3): 327–37.
Browne, K. 2008. Power and privilege: (Re)making feminist
geographies. In Feminisms in geography: Space, place and
knowledges, ed. P. Moss and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, 140–48.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Introduction: Feminist Research and Methodology 5

Cahill, C. 2007. The personal is political: Developing new
subjectivities through participatory action research.
Gender, Place and Culture 14 (3): 267–92.
Coddington, K. 2015. Feminist geographies “beyond”
gender: De-coupling feminist research and the gendered
subject. Geography Compass 9 (4): 214–24.
Cope, M. 2002. Feminist epistemology in geography. In
Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods, ed. P. J.
Moss, 43–56. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cupples, J. 2002. The field as a landscape of desire: Sex and
sexuality in geographical fieldwork. Area 34 (4): 382–90.
Dowler, L., and J. Sharp. 2001. A feminist geopolitics? Space
and Polity 5 (3): 165–76.
Dyck, I. 1993. Ethnography: A feminist method? Canadian
Geographer 37 (1): 52–57.
———. 2002. Further notes on feminist research: Embodied
knowledge in place. In Feminist geography in practice: Research
and methods, ed. P. Moss, 234–44. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
England, K. 1994. Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and
feminist research. The Professional Geographer 46 (1): 80–89.
———. 2002. Interviewing elites: Cautionary tales about
researching women managers in Canada’s banking
industry. In Feminist geography in practice: Research and
methods, ed. P. Moss, 200–13. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
———. 2006. Producing feminist geographies: Theory,
methodologies and research strategies. In Approaches to
human geography, ed. S. Aitkin and G. Valentine, 286–97.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
———. 2008. Caregivers, the local-global, and the geographies
of responsibility. In Feminisms in geography: Rethinking space,
place, and knowledges,ed.P.MossandK.FalconerAl-Hindi,
199–206. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Falconer Al-Hindi, K., and H. Kawabata. 2002. Toward a
more fully reflexive feminist geography. In Feminist
geography in practice: Research and methods, ed. P. Moss,
103–15. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Falconer Al-Hindi, K., and P. Moss. 2008. Shared mobility:
Toward rhizomatic feminist geographies. In Feminisms in
geography: Rethinking space, place and knowledges, ed. P. Moss
and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, 247–55. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Farrow, H. 1995. Researching popular theater in southern
Africa: Comments on a methodological implementation.
Antipode 27 (1): 75–81.
Farrow, H., P. Moss, and B. Shaw, eds. 1995. Symposium on
feminist participatory research. Antipode 27 (1): 71–74.
Gilbert, M. R. 1994. The politics of location: Doing feminist
research at “home.”The Professional Geographer 46 (1): 90–96.
Hanson, S., and J. Monk. 1982. On not excluding half of the
human in human geography. The Professional Geographer
34 (1): 11–23.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The
reinvention of nature. London and New York: Routledge.
———. 1998. Situated knowledges: The science question in
feminism and the privilege of a partial perspective. Feminist
Studies 14 (3): 575–99.
Harding, S. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Hyams, M. 2004. Hearing girls’silences: Thoughts on the
politics and practices of a feminist method of group
discussion. Gender, Place and Culture 11 (1): 105–19.
Hyndman, J. 2001. The field as here and now, not there and
then. Geographical Review 91 (1–2): 262–72.
Katz, C. 1994. Playing the field: Questions of fieldwork in
geography. The Professional Geographer 46 (1): 67–72.
Kobayashi, A. 1994. Coloring the field: Gender, “race,”and the
politics of fieldwork. The Professional Geographer 46 (1): 73–80.
———. 2003. GPC ten years on: Is self-reflexivity enough?
Gender, Place, and Culture 10 (4): 345–49.
———. 2009. Situated knowledge, reflexivity. In International
encyclopedia of human geography, ed. R. Ktchin and N.
Thrift, 138–43. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kobayashi, A., and L. Peake. 2000. Racism out of place:
Thoughts on whiteness and an anti-racist geography in the
new millennium. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90 (2): 392–403.
———. 2008. Racism in place: Another look at shock, horror,
and racialization. In Feminisms in geography: Rethinking
space, place, and knowledges, ed. P. Moss and K. Falconer Al-
Hindi, 171–78. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kwan, M. P. 2002a. Is GIS for women? Reflections on the
critical discourse in the 1990s. Gender, Place, and Culture 9
(3): 271–79.
———. 2002b. Quantitative methods and feminist geographic
research. In Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods,
ed. P. Moss, 160–72. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lawson, V. 1995. The politics of difference: Examining the
quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist
research. The Professional Geographer 47 (4): 449–57.
Liu, L. Y. 2006. On being “hen’s teeth”: Interdisciplinary
practices for women of color in geography. Gender, Place
and Culture 13 (1): 39–48.
Mahtani, M. 2006. Challenging the Ivory Tower: Proposing
anti-racist geographies within the academy. Gender, Place,
and Culture 13 (1): 21–25.
Mattingly, D. J., and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, eds. 1995. Should
women count? A context for debate. The Professional
Geographer 47 (4): 427–35.
McDowell, L. 1992. Doing gender, feminism, feminists and
research methods in human geography. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 17:399–416.
———. 1997. Women/gender/feminist: Doing feminist
geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education
21:381–400.
———. 1999. Gender, identity, and place: Understanding feminist
geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McLafferty, S. L. 1995. Counting for women. The Professional
Geographer 47 (4): 436–42.
Moss, P., ed. 1993. Focus: Feminism as method. Canadian
Geographer 37 (1): 48–49.
———. 1995. Embeddedness in practice, numbers in context:
The politics of knowing and doing. The Professional
Geographer 47 (4): 442–49.
———. 2002. Taking on, thinking about, and doing feminist
research in geography. In Feminist geography in practice: Research
and methods, ed. P. Moss, 1–17. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
———. 2005. A bodily notion of research: Power, difference,
and specificity in feminist methodology. In A companion to
feminist geography, ed. L. Nelson and J. Seager, 41–59.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
———. 2014. Some rhizomatic recollections of a feminist
geographer: Working toward an affirmative politics.
Gender, Place and Culture 21 (7): 803–12.
Moss, P., and K. Falconer Al-Hindi. 2008. Feminisms, geography,
and knowledge. In Feminisms in geography: Rethinking space, place,
and knowledges,ed.P.MossandK.FalconerAl-Hindi,1–27.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mountz, A. 2004. Embodying the nation-state: Canada’s
response to human smuggling. Political Geography 23 (3):
323–45.
6Volume 0, Number 0, XXX 2016

Mullings, B. 1999. Insider or outsider, both or neither: Some
dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting.
Geoforum 30:337–50.
Nagar, R. 2002. Footloose researchers, “traveling”theories,
and the politics of transnational feminist praxis. Gender,
Place, and Culture 9 (2): 179–86.
———. 2008. Languages of collaboration. In Feminisms in
geography: Spaces, places and knowledges,ed.P.MossandK.
Falconer Al-Hindi, 120–29. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Nast, H. J., ed. 1994. Opening remarks on “women in the
field.”The Professional Geographer 46 (1): 54–66.
Nelson, L. 1999. Bodies (and spaces) do matter: The limits of
performativity. Gender, Place and Culture 6 (4): 331–53.
Peake, L., and A. Kobayashi. 2002. Policies and practices for
an anti-racist geography at the millennium. The Professional
Geographer 54 (1): 50–61.
Pratt, G. 2000. Research performances. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 18 (5): 639–51.
Pulido, L. 2002. Reflections on a white discipline. The
Professional Geographer 54 (1): 42–49.
Raghuram, P., and C. Madge. 2008. Feminist theorizing as
practice. In Feminisms in geography: Spaces, places and
knowledges, ed. P. Moss and K. Falconer Al-Hindi, 221–29.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rose, D. 1993. On feminism, method and methods in human
geography: An idiosyncratic overview. Canadian
Geographer 37 (1): 57–61.
Rose, G. 1993. Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical
knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
———. 1997. Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities
and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography 21 (3): 305–
20.
Smith, D. 1987. Institutional ethnography: A feminist
research strategy. In The everyday world as a problematic:
A feminist sociology,151–79. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Staeheli, L., and V. Lawson. 1995. Feminism, praxis, and
human geography. Geographical Analysis 27 (4): 321–38.
Sultana, F. 2007. Reflexivity, positionality and participatory
ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international
research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical
Geographies 6 (3): 374–85.
———. 2009. Fluid lives: Subjectivities, gender, and water in
rural Bangladesh. Gender, Place, and Culture 16 (4): 427–44.
Truelove, Y. 2011. (Re-)conceptualizing water inequality in
Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology
framework. Geoforum 42:143–52.
Valentine, G. 2002. People like us: Negotiating sameness and
difference in the research process. In Feminist geography in
practice: Research and methods, ed. P. J. Moss, 116–32.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
NANCY HIEMSTRA is Assistant Professor in the Depart-
ment of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Stony
Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794–5355. E-mail:
nancy.hiemstra@stonybrook.edu. Her research interests
include migration policymaking, immigration enforcement
practices, constructions of borders and sovereignty, and femi-
nist methodologies.
EMILY BILLO is Assistant Professor in the Environmental
Studies Program at Goucher College, Baltimore, MD 21204.
E-mail: emily.billo@goucher.edu. Her research interests
include resource governance and development in Latin
America and feminist methodologies.
Introduction: Feminist Research and Methodology 7