This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 17 November 2014, At: 14:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK
Feminist EconomicsPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfec20
Poor Women SurveyPoor Women: FeministPerspectives in SurveyResearchMarlene KimPublished online: 20 Jan 2011.
To cite this article: Marlene Kim (1997) Poor Women Survey Poor Women:Feminist Perspectives in Survey Research, Feminist Economics, 3:2,99-117, DOI: 10.1080/135457097338717
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135457097338717
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
99
POOR WOMEN SURVEY POOR WOME N :FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES IN SURVEY
RESEARCH
Marlene KimRutgers University
ABSTRACT
This essay examines how applying feminist principles in scienti� c inquirychanges both the process and the results of research. Overall, I � nd that includ-ing feminist perspectives improves research. Involving a women’s communityin the research process and allowing poor women to interview poor womenmay reduce interviewer bias, improve response rates and facilitate trust inanswering questions that are often quite sensitive. Including poor women inthe interviewing process also enables these women to learn about scienti� cinquiry and to participate in the research process.
KEYWORDSMethodology, survey research, feminist methodology, feminist research
methods
Over the past two decades, feminists have begun to outline principles for afeminist research methodology. Many feminists use these principles inorder to improve the process of research, by promoting more interactiveand empowering experiences for their research subjects (Patti Lather 1988;Maria Mies 1983). In addition, many expect feminist research methods toproduce more complete knowledge than do traditional methods ( JoanAcker et al. 1983; Mies 1983).
In this essay, I examine how incorporating feminist perspectives altersresearch on job training programs for the poor. I � nd that using feministprinciples can improve research by expanding the scope of the questionsasked and by changing the nature of the research process. Broadening thequestions that were asked and allowing for fuller answers by respondentsyields a fuller analysis of these training programs and indicates that theseprograms are not as effective as previously thought. In addition, usingfeminist research methodologies that allow for more input and partici-pation in the research process from women’s organizations and fromresearch subjects may lead to higher response rates and less biased answers.
Feminist Economics 3(2), 1997, 99–117 1354–5701 © IAFFE 1997
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
I use a case study of a telephone survey of female job training graduatesin the United States to illustrate the differences between traditionalresearch methods and one that includes some feminist principles in itsmethodology. The feminist principles used come out of critiques of tra-ditional research and an ongoing search for alternative methods that wouldinclude the perspectives of women.
1 . TRADITIONAL SCIENCE AND FE MINISM
Feminists have four main objections to traditional methods of inquiry. First,many feminists object to the focus of research, which frequently overlooksissues regarding women (Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter 1975;Janet Seiz 1992; Sandra Harding 1986). Second, many feminists object toresearch outcomes, which frequently justify the status quo and thus the exist-ing power relationships and myths about women (Seiz 1992). In economics,for example, neoclassical theories of home production explain that lowerearnings and greater home responsibilities of women result from women’scomparatively greater productivity at home (Seiz 1992).
Third, many feminists reject the assumption in traditional scienti� cinquiry that research is value-free1 (Diana Strassmann 1993; Jane Rosetti1992; James Clifford 1986; Helen Longino 1990, 1992; Sandra Harding1986, 1991; Judith Stacey 1988, 1990; Millman and Kanter 1975; PatriciaMaguire 1987; Elizabeth Fee 1983; Lorraine Code 1991; Barbara Du Bois1983). Traditional science purports that unbiased scientists formulategeneral laws out of their objective, disinterested observations. Yet manyfeminists argue that what we accept as truths are affected by our individualexperiences and social location (race, class, gender, geography) and by thecultural, institutional and historical in� uences of our environment (Code1991; Mies 1983; Sandra Harding 1986, 1987, 1991; Millman and Kanter1975; Longino 1990, 1992; Sharon Traweek 1988; Diana Strassmann andLivia Polanyi 1995; Seiz 1992; Du Bois 1983). As Harding (1991: 11) argues,all “scienti� c knowledge is always, in every respect, socially situated. Neitherknowers nor the knowledge they produce are or could be impartial, disin-terested, value-neutral.” Thus, all researchers have inherent values, experi-ences and perspectives that guide our research, and these affect theconstant judgments and choices demanded in the research process – fromchoosing which problems to research, choosing among alternative theoriesand explanations, deciding which facts constitute evidence, interpretingdata, assessing and evaluating our own and other’s research, and com-municating our research � ndings (Francine Blau 1981; Marianne Ferberand Julie Nelson 1993; Longino 1990, 1992; Strassmann 1993; Clifford 1986;Rosetti 1992; Seiz 1992; Sandra Harding 1986, 1995; Evelyn Fox Keller 1982;Du Bois 1983).
In addition, the scienti�c process is highly in� uenced by relations of
ARTICL ES
100
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
power (Seiz 1992). Often members of the scienti� c community are eitherpart of the dominant (e.g. androcentric) group or are selected and trainedto conduct research that veri� es the dominant social and scienti� c frame-works. It is not surprising, therefore, that more often than not, researchersselect problems and reach conclusions that re� ect the perspectives of thisgroup (Thomas Kuhn 1962; Harding 1986; Traweek 1988; Seiz 1992).Furthermore, the theories and methods that are judged to be the best arenot those that offer the fullest explanations, but those which are consistentwith a certain ideology – usually the dominant one (Evelyn Fox Keller 1985;Seiz 1992; Du Bois 1983). Many feminists therefore argue that more com-plete knowledge can result from including the viewpoints of people whotraditionally have been ignored (Harding 1986). For example, includingmore women in the sciences (economics among them) could improve ourknowledge because women “might ask new questions, obtain new obser-vations, suggest new explanations, and uncover and correct the � aws pro-duced by androcentric bias” (Seiz 1992: 277).
Fourth, many feminists object to the process of traditional research,which they argue maintains traditional power relationships (Acker et al.1983; Fee 1983). Feminists argue that historically the elite were able tomaintain their positions by monopolizing the ability to create knowledge;this knowledge was then used to justify their power (Fee 1983; Code 1991).For example, in some cultures royalty created myths that they were thedescendants of the gods; these religious beliefs, in turn, helped upholdtheir authority. Although today the ability to create knowledge is moreaccessible, not everyone has access to this ability, and among those whodo, resources are far from equitable. Often, only those who agree with theperspectives of the dominant group are admitted into the scienti� cacademy (Strassmann and Polanyi 1995; Traweek 1988; Seiz 1992; Keller1985). In addition, researchers who are trained at or are employed by eliteinstitutions usually have access to more resources for their research, andthose whose research is contrary to the mainstream � nd it more dif� cultto receive funding and to disseminate their research (Longino 1990; Strass-mann 1993). The result is that the dominant group is able to reproduceits perspectives (Strassmann and Polanyi 1995). Because the ability tocreate knowledge frequently generates and perpetuates power, somefeminists argue that researchers who monopolize the ability to createknowledge perpetuate the existing power hierarchies (Mies 1983;Shulamit Reinharz 1992).2
These objections have led to substantial agreement among feministsregarding how an alternative methodology could proceed. Although thereis no single or de� nitive feminist method, most feminists try to incorporateone or more of the following principles in their research, which have beenpreviously articulated by Acker et al. (1983), Renata Duelli-Klein (1983),Mies (1983) and Reinharz (1992).3
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
101
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
i. Bring feminist perspectives into the research
Feminist research criticizes nonfeminist scholarship, addresses the con-cerns of women or other traditionally less powerful social groups, andfocuses on topics that are usually omitted from traditional research. Theresearch makes visible and validates the experiences of women and of thesegroups.4 Researchers also try to be conscious of inherent sexism, racism andother social biases in their assumptions.
ii. Use research to induce social change
In order to reverse the historical pattern of having research serve the inter-ests of the elite and legitimize their power, feminist research often focuseson the needs of socially dominated groups. These frequently de� ne theresearch questions, and the resulting research enables these groups toimprove their lives. In order to accomplish this, researchers often partici-pate in women’s struggles (or in those of other dominated groups) so thatthey are knowledgeable about the needs of the dominated. In addition,research is undertaken with action in mind. In theory, there should be com-plete integration between action and research, so that research is only per-formed with an eye towards actions that can improve the lives of thedominated.
iii. Use “conscious subjectivity” instead of value-freeobjectivity
Many feminists acknowledge that scienti� c inquiry is culturally and sociallyconstructed, and that values, including feminist values, are imbedded intheir research. Instead of purporting to be impartial and distant from theirresearch subjects, they identify with and advocate for those whom they areresearching, and they are aware of their own biases. This does not make thisresearch less valid, because all research is in� uenced by the values andbeliefs of the researchers. (Indeed, researchers who claim that they areimpartial and objective often have values that uphold the status quo.) Inaddition, while acknowledging that absolute truth and objectivity are un-attainable, feminists can make the process of science more honest bymaking one’s own values and social location (race, class, ethnicity, geogra-phy, gender) explicit (Seiz 1992; Strassmann and Polanyi 1995; Blau 1981).This information helps to acknowledge the limits of science and also canbe used to assess research outcomes (see Strassmann and Polanyi 1995).
iv. Bring the researcher into the research
Feminists can share personal information about themselves with those theyare researching, and they can discuss their personal experiences and what
102
ARTICLESD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Illin
ois
Chi
cago
] at
14:
40 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
they personally learned from conducting their research when writing-uptheir research � ndings. This reminds the research subjects and the even-tual readers of the � ndings that persons with particular histories, experi-ences and values are making important decisions that in� uence theresearch design and the interpretations of results. Sharing this informationalso reduces the distance between the researchers and the researched: Itreduces the dichotomy between the expert and the researched by indicat-ing that the researcher is still learning, and it provides an equal exchangeof information instead of one in which the research subjects disclose muchinformation (often very personal) about themselves without the researcherdivulging any in return.
v. Reduce the distance between the researcher and theresearch subjects
Scholars can minimize the amount of hierarchy in their research and thuscontribute towards a more egalitarian power structure.5 Instead of actingas an outside expert, we can close the distance between us and our researchsubjects, by “making our processes accessible to each other” (Du Bois 1983:110), for instance by teaching our research subjects scienti� c inquiry andinvolving them in our research. We can encourage input from research sub-jects, such as by having them help design studies or choose research topics.The process of creating knowledge then becomes a shared experience.
Many feminists have used participatory action research (see for exampleMies 1983; Acker et al. 1983; and Lather 1988), in which the research sub-jects become the researchers – designing and conducting the research them-selves. The resulting research is used for direct action, such as organizing,in order to bring immediate redress to their communities. Having victimsof oppression decide on a research topic, study their own reality and createtheir own knowledge builds research skills and validates the knowledge thatcommunities have always possessed.6 This method completely demysti� esthe knowledge-creating process and centers this process upon people whohave traditionally been excluded from this activity. Moreover, becauseresearch subjects often have knowledge about the research area, the result-ing research will often contain new and more complete information.Harding (1986) argues that the objectivity of science can improve when newvoices are heard and when social problems are examined from the per-spectives of the traditionally oppressed, who have fewer interests in main-taining traditional dogma.7
2. THE JTPA PRO GRAM AND TRAD ITIONALRESEARCH
Evaluations of the Job Training Partnership Act ( JTPA) provide a case studyfor examining how incorporating feminist principles can change the nature
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
103
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
of inquiry. JTPA is a government training program in the United States forthe economically disadvantaged. It serves approximately 1 million peopleat an annual cost of 4 billion dollars. Slightly more than half the partici-pants are women, 45 percent belong to racial or ethnic minorities, and48 percent receive public assistance (U.S. Dept. of Labor 1993; JamesHeckman et al. 1996).
Traditional evaluations of training programs for the poor in the U.S.examine whether job placement rates and earnings of participants arehigher than those of nonparticipants. These evaluations have proceeded inthree stages. During the � rst stage, a sample of training participants wascompared to a sample of the poverty population drawn from a U.S. dataset, such as from the Current Population Survey. Data on JTPA participantswere collected by using traditional survey techniques, which involved con-tacting former participants after they completed their training and askingthem whether they were currently employed and how much they earned.Job placement rates and earnings between these two populations were thencompared (Burt Barnow 1987; U.S. Dept. of Labor 1993). Because those intraining programs were voluntary, however, any differences in earnings andjob placement may have resulted from self-selection bias: Those who volun-teered for training were likely to possess more initiative and motivation, andthese characteristics, rather than the training program itself, may have con-tributed to higher employment rates and earnings for participants.
Thus in the second phase of job training evaluation, researchers supple-mented their basic methodology with corrections for self-selection biasusing econometric techniques, foremost the Heckman correction ( JamesHeckman 1979). Yet econometric techniques are only as good as theirmodeling and their assumptions. There was no means to verify that self-selection bias had been corrected, or which model best corrected for it.Moreover, specifying different self-selection models often yielded differentresults (Barnow 1987; U.S. Dept. of Labor 1993). Due to these limitations,the third phase in training evaluation was born: Evaluation researchersclaimed that the only way to analyze the effects of training programs was toperform an experiment (Gary Burtless and Larry Orr 1986). Those whoquali� ed for the program should be placed into one of two groups: acontrol group would be denied JTPA services; an experimental groupwould be granted these services. Differences in employment and earningscould then be calculated without bias. In 1986, such a multi-million dollarexperiment was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. The mandate forthis research was to examine whether earnings and employment ratesincreased and whether welfare participation decreased. (The results of thisstudy will be discussed in Section 4.)
Throughout this evolution in research design, the traditional evaluationsfocused upon computing a narrow range of quantitative measures andfailed to consider other measures that were necessary in order to properly
ARTICL ES
104
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
assess the program. Most evaluations only examined post-training earningsand employment rates. They failed to examine long-term employmentrates, post-training job tenure, the kind of jobs women received (occu-pations, industries and bene� ts provided by these jobs), whether post-train-ing earnings were suf� cient to bring women out of poverty, and whetherthe jobs in which participants were placed were improvements for them.Thus, even though most of these studies showed short-term employmentand wage gains for women, without additional information, it was imposs-ible to evaluate whether women had become self-suf� cient or whether theywere better off than they had been before their training.
From a feminist perspective, the traditional evaluations failed by neglect-ing to incorporate any of the principles for a feminist methodology in eitherthe content or the process of research. First, the poor participated in theresearch only in so far as answering the questions posed to them. Had theybeen included in the research process, they could have improved thestudies by exposing the limited scope of inquiry. Second, the needs of thepoor were never the focus of inquiry – rather, following the evaluation cri-teria prescribed by law (or funders) governed the research questions. Thisresulted in very narrow questions ( job placement and wage improvements)being investigated, to the exclusion of others. Focusing on the needs of thepoor would have improved this research by broadening the nature ofinquiry. Third, the methodological debate among traditional researchersbecame narrowly de� ned in terms of how best to control for self-selectionbias, rather than broadening this debate to examine alternative (such asfeminist) methods. Thus, the result of failing to implement any feministprinciples was a narrowly prescribed research agenda.
Even from a mainstream perspective, there are serious limitations withthese studies. Certainly, overlooking many other outcomes (besides jobplacement and earnings) from JTPA is an egregious omission. In addition,the national experiment – of assigning training candidates to either acontrol or an experimental group – failed to be the controlled experimentthe researchers had envisioned. Many JTPA service providers refused toparticipate in the experiment (they did not want to refuse services to halfof those who quali� ed), and many of those in the control group sought andreceived training elsewhere. Thus, the sample was neither controlled norrandom (see Joseph Hotz 1992). Ironically, while the experiment solved theself-selection problem, other problems – such as sample bias – took itsplace.
3 . INTEGRATING FEMINIST PRINCIPLES INRESEARCH
This section describes an alternative methodology that has many advan-tages over traditional methods of inquiry. It incorporates some feminist
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
105
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
principles in order to enhance the research and also follows some tra-ditional methods in order to maintain credibility in the scienti� c com-munity. The study began when I approached a U.S. women’s organizationand asked about their research needs. They suggested undertaking a surveyof women who completed JTPA in order to assess the barriers to self-suf� ciency for low-income women. Having the organization suggest theresearch topic ensured that the research would address an important issuefor women and that it would help the organization advocate for socialchange.
The research process was collaborative between myself and this organiz-ation. Besides suggesting the research topic, the organization providedaccess to the data, coded the data and hired the interviewers, who con-ducted the phone surveys. I designed the telephone survey and the train-ing materials for the interviewers, analyzed the data and wrote the initialreport, which was then rewritten collaboratively. Throughout the dataanalysis, the women’s organization suggested research angles to addressand investigate; I would discuss initial research � ndings, and we woulddiscuss how to proceed in analyzing the data.
Our own beliefs about women and poverty generated questions thathad been excluded from traditional evaluations. We believed thatpoverty among women in the U.S. was due to inadequate jobs, wages andworking conditions (rather than primarily due to the lack of motivationto work); thus, we included many questions that examined the qualitativedetails of the jobs women received: their wages, bene� ts, occupationsand industries; the occupations they held before they undertooktraining; whether they were still employed, and if not, the reasons for jobseparations. The research analysis focused on examining improvements inthe standard of living for each of these women (rather than improvementsrelative to a control group) after their training was completed. We usedsimple descriptive statistics to examine the quality of the jobs they received,and whether these jobs provided them an adequate standard of living. Wealso examined whether these women were better off after their training (bycomparing their jobs before and after training), and the extent to whichthese women were forced out of their jobs through involuntary termina-tions.
In order to record women’s responses completely, respondents neverhad to choose between categories of predetermined answers – they simplyanswered the questions posed, and the interviewers recorded their re-sponses.8 Because of the different kinds of questions we asked and becausethe respondents were free to give any answer, we were able to obtain morecomplete information about the circumstances of these women after theycompleted their training. This resulted in different and better knowledgethan had previously been found.
Seven women were trained as telephone interviewers and were paid for
ARTICL ES
106
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
their work. All were poor women themselves. Many had participated in jobtraining programs and were familiar with JTPA. Three of them worked onthe project because they needed the income: one was unemployed, one hadonly a part-time job and one needed extra hours and income. The remain-ing four had previously volunteered to work with the women’s organizationin order to advocate for social change. These interviewers were trained inphone survey interviewing techniques: how to follow the survey’s “skip pat-terns,” how to record answers, how to answer respondents’ questions, andhow to probe if the answers they received were unclear.
Using low-income women to survey low-income women was critical to theresearch process. First, it employed women who needed jobs, taught themskills and provided requisite income. By employing and training poorwomen, we were able to implement some of the policies we thought werecrucial to improve women’s lives – teaching low-income women new skillsand paying them for their work. Second, using low-income women allowedfor more participation among the researched than is common, whichhelped to demystify the process of scienti� c inquiry. For example, the inter-viewers learned about hypothesis testing by asking why certain questionswere included in the survey. Often these questions were included to refutethe expected arguments against the results we might � nd, so their relevancewas not immediately apparent. Thus there was a dialogue about theresearch process – hypothesis testing and further testing for other causa-tions – among myself and the interviewers. Involving them in this processtaught them about research and helped to reduce the distance between theresearched and the researcher. In addition, their involvement was clearlyhelpful. They suggested wording for questions and caught errors and over-sights in the survey.
Traditional interviewing techniques and standards were also followed inthis study. For example, following standard survey methodology, weemphasized that the interviewers were to be as “neutral” as possible inanswering any questions or probing for further details – they were neverto provide clues of what answers they expected from the respondents orotherwise pressure respondents to answer questions in any given way. Inaddition, also following standard practice, in order to reduce survey bias,the respondents were never told the details of the survey purpose.Although a letter was sent to those interviewed approximately two weeksprior to being telephoned, the letter simply stated that they would be con-tacted to discuss the training and jobs they received. Furthermore, in orderto minimize any bias during the interview, the interviewers were also nevertold anything more speci� c than this (i.e. about our speci� c interest in bar-riers to self-suf� ciency). This clearly circumscribed the role of the inter-viewers during the research process. Yet because the women’s organizationhad a clear political agenda, I felt this was necessary in order to lend credi-bility to the study.
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
107
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
4. WH AT D IFFERENCE DOE S A FEMINISTPERSPECTIVE MAKE?
Following feminist research principles changes and in many ways improvesresearch. This is � rst illustrated by comparing the � ndings from the JTPAexperiment (described in Section 2), which used traditional methods, withthe � ndings from the collaborative study just described. The traditionalstudy found that eighteen months after their training, adult women hademployment rates 4 percent higher and annual earnings $1,200 higherthan the control group (higher earnings were largely due to working morehours). Adult men also increased their earnings by $1,000 (also throughincreased hours worked), but they were not more likely to be employed.Youths faced no gains from training, and no group reduced their welfareparticipation (Howard Bloom et al. 1994). After � ve years, however, any ben-e� ts of the program disappeared. Neither employment rates nor earningswere signi� cantly different from the control group for either adult men orwomen (U.S. General Accounting Of� ce 1996).
In contrast, although the collaborative study also found high job place-ment rates for adult women who completed their training, the quality ofthese jobs was deplorable. Because their pay was so low, although 71 percentof the women received jobs after their training programs, 40 percentremained in poverty. The reason women remained poor was that all of thejobs they received were among the lowest-paying of traditionally femalejobs, such as house cleaners, home health care aides and clerks. These have� at earnings pro� les and little opportunity for advancement. In addition,these jobs were highly unstable: one-third of the women were involuntarilyterminated from the jobs they received. The result was that women wereneither self-suf� cient after they completed their training nor did they facepromises of self-suf�ciency in the long term. In addition, women did notappear to be better off from their training, since they were placed in jobsthat were no better than those they had held before their training (MarleneKim 1996).
Because it asked different questions, the collaborative study was able todocument how the jobs women received were able (or unable) to alter thecircumstances of their lives. By doing so, it was able to provide a context –which had long been missing – for the � ndings from the traditional studies.This resulted in the following more complete story: Although women mayindeed gain higher wages and employment from training (found in the tra-ditional studies), the jobs in which they are placed do not enable many toclimb out of poverty and are too unstable to allow for long-term self-suf� ciency (collaborative study). Moreover, any short-run gains for womendisappear after � ve years (traditional study) because women are placed inthe lowest-paying, traditionally female jobs, which have � at earnings pro-� les, little job mobility and little job security (collaborative study). Thus,
ARTICL ES
108
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
� ve years later, those who completed training have no employment or wageadvantages compared to those who never undertook training (traditionalstudy) because of the jobs they are in (collaborative study).
The contrast in the � ndings of these studies can be explained by theirdifferent purposes. Because the goal of training programs for women is toreduce the amount of public assistance by placing them into jobs, short-term job placement rates, usually thirteen weeks after their training, aretypically examined (Sharon Harlan 1989). Although wages or earnings arealso recorded, these are not examined in the context of whether partici-pants are able to live above poverty or eventually become self-suf� cient.This oversight and the narrow scope of traditional evaluations stem fromthe JTPA statute, which speci�es that by law, JTPA programs are to be evalu-ated by job placement rates and wages (Barnow 1992). Because broader cri-teria are not included in how JTPA is evaluated, data to examine alternativecriteria are unavailable. If one cares about the needs of women, however,one would examine whether the jobs in which women are placed allowthem to climb out of poverty. This leads to asking entirely different ques-tions – such as the quality and adequacy of these jobs. Because data toexamine such questions are unavailable, feminists must resort to collectingtheir own data. Collecting such data and using alternative evaluation cri-teria such as the effects of JTPA in improving women’s standard of livingleads to more complete information and indicates that the JTPA programis less effective than previously thought.
Besides providing more complete information, using feminist principlesin research led to other improvements through collaborating with thewomen’s organization. Collecting the data would have been impossiblewithout the cooperation and assistance of the women’s community. Inaddition, because the organization was trusted, it is likely that the zeropercent refusal rate was due to their high reputation. It is also likely thatthe extreme commitment and dedication to the research by the inter-viewers improved the survey. Previous research suggests that having respectfor the research staff and respondents increases response rates: Theenthusiasm of the research staff can be transmitted to the respondents, whocan in turn be eager to contribute (Toby Epstein Jayaratne 1983).
Finally, including feminist principles in research methods may haveimproved the validity of the answers received. Traditional evaluations ofJTPA use telephone surveys conducted by survey research centers, whichask former participants about their current earnings and employmentstatus. But a major criticism of this method of collecting data is that fre-quently the data are � awed. Poor people distrust strangers who ask thempersonal questions about their wages, jobs, marital status and living arrange-ments – and for good reason. Many of the poor can lose their welfare ben-e� ts if they give complete and honest answers and this information isreported to government authorities. Kathryn Edin (Kathryn Edin and
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
109
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Christopher Jencks 1992), for example, discovered that when she inter-viewed poor women identi� ed through personal contacts (whom therespondents trusted), the information she gathered was more completeand honest. Respondents reported jobs that were often illegal as well asunder-the-table income which, if reported to welfare agencies, would havereduced their bene� ts. Thus, having a trusted women’s organizationadminister the survey most likely increased the level of honesty in respon-dents since their fear of unwanted consequences – especially of beingreported to the government – would have diminished. Many also felt thata reputable women’s organization would be sympathetic to their problems,conditions and livelihoods, which also produced more honest and com-plete answers.
Having poor women survey poor women may have further improved thevalidity of the research � ndings by reducing interviewer bias in the survey.Feminist standpoint theory suggests that because one’s social location struc-tures and limits knowledge, female researchers may be better positioned touncover truths about women, since they share the same knowledge that isstructured by gender (Acker et al. 1983). Likewise, low-income women maybe better at questioning low-income women because they share similarexperiences of gender and class; the information they collect may be lessdistorted than if men or middle-class women had interviewed the women.
Mies (1983) argues that data gathered using traditional methods are notvalid, since traditional methods create social distance and distrust in theresearch subjects. This distrust is present when women and other under-privileged groups are being interviewed by those in higher social strata. Asa result, research subjects report what they think the interviewers expect tohear rather than the truth. Thus, having interviewers and intervieweessimilarly placed in the power structure may produce more valid results(Harding 1987; Mies 1983).
Sociometric research con� rms that using low-income women mayproduce more honest answers from respondents, because they may bebetter able to foster trust during the interview. The sex, race and class ofthe interviewers bias results when the questions asked are highly chargedwith sex, race or class issues; when the questions ask for attitudes oropinions rather than facts; or when the questions address socially dif� cultor embarrassing issues such as income and occupation (Robert Groves andLou Magilavy 1980). These “interviewer effects” indicate that who performsthe interviewing in� uences the answers one receives, since respondentstend to report answers that are compatible with what they think interviewerswant to hear.9 According to theories of deference, respondents discloseanswers they believe are socially acceptable when they are asked highly sen-sitive questions by those who have higher social status. Those with less socialstatus are more susceptible to this behavior than those with higher socialstatus. Thus, more reliable data should result when interviewers are similar
ARTICL ES
110
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
to the respondents, or as J. Allen Williams (1964) says, have less “social dis-tance” in terms of race, class, gender and age. The greater the disparity ofstatus by gender, race, ethnicity, age and social class, the greater the pres-sure by respondents to bias their answers (Williams 1964).10
For example, Howard Schuman and Jean Converse (1971) � nd that therace of the interviewers in� uences the answers given by blacks when ques-tioned about black militancy or hostility towards whites; Shirley Hatchettand Howard Schuman (1975–76) � nd that whites are more tolerant ofsocial integration with blacks when interviewed by a black interviewer; andStephen Reese et al. (1986) � nd that whites are more likely to state that theyprefer Mexican-American culture or tolerate bilingual education wheninterviewed by Hispanic rather than by white interviewers. The sex of inter-viewers also affects responses of questions that are gender-related ( JudsonLandis et al. 1973), and age in� uences the responses given by girls if thequestions relate to adult authority. (See Seymour Sudman and NormanBradburn 1974, for a summary of this literature.) Finally, Daniel Katz(1942) �nds that class differences between the interviewer and the respon-dent can in� uence survey results. These effects even occur during phoneinterviews, when it may be dif�cult to discern certain demographic charac-teristics (Patrick Cotter et al. 1982).11
Thus applying the feminist principle of reducing the distance betweenthe interviewer and interviewees has important implications for allresearch. By using interviewers who are similar to those who are inter-viewed, one receives more valid responses. In addition, having interviewerswho are similar to respondents reduces the inhibitions of the latter(Williams 1964). For this reason, survey organizations select interviewers byrace, gender and age to match those who are interviewed (Sudman andBradburn 1974), although rarely do they select interviewers of the sameclass.
Thus, having low-income women, most of whom were members of racialor ethnic minorities (similar to the composition of the respondents), inter-view similarly-situated women may have produced less-biased results than ifwe had used traditional interviewers.12 Having these women survey simi-larly-situated women may have also reduced the refusal rate, since similarstudies have a positive rate of refusal, whereas we had none.
Yet these improvements from including feminist principles in researchmust be compared with the problems caused by this research methodology.First, because the interviewers were inexperienced, some surveys wereincomplete because the interviewers failed to follow the skip patterns andask all the questions. In addition, the interviewers became frustratedbecause many of the women they telephoned were not at home when theycalled. They thought they were not performing as well as they should, sincethey were unable to complete many surveys on any given night. Although Ireassured them that the dif�culties they were encountering in reaching
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
111
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
these women were common and expected, their frustrations continued.Because work output and the progress of the study were so easily measuredby the number of questionnaires completed, it was easy to become dis-couraged. Ironically, because the interviewers were extremely motivated toparticipate in the study since they knew it was meant to help poor women,their motivation easily turned to frustration when they were not successfulat contacting respondents.
Second, there were contradictions and tensions in the research due tousing both feminist and traditional research methods. For example, inten-tionally withholding the true purpose of the research from the interviewersand the respondents contradicts a feminist principle because it exacerbatesthe split between the researcher and the researched and limits access to theknowledge-acquiring process.13 Because the interviewers strongly identi� edwith the study and wanted it to be successful, I felt it was necessary to bevague about our research agenda, or else the entire study would be subjectto criticism – charges, for example, that there was a bias in the interview-ing process. Standard survey practices indicate that this is wise. Thus, inorder for the study to affect policy for women (principle ii), it must oftenmeet mainstream standards, which makes it necessary to compromise onother feminist principles (such as more inclusion of the research subjects).(See Reinharz 1992 and Acker et al. 1993, who discuss this dilemma.)
Of course, traditional methods would also have kept from interviewersand respondents the true purpose of the research. Thus, what is relevant iswhether adding feminist principles to traditional methods can improveresearch. This study indicates the af� rmative. Even from a traditional per-spective, this study was important for examining issues that had been pre-viously ignored. This led to new � ndings and more damning conclusionsabout the JTPA program. In addition, response bias and response rateswere probably improved. From a feminist perspective, the research wasclearly relevant to women, women had collaborative input into the re-search, and poor women had a greater role in the process of research thanthey have had in previous job training studies. In addition, the research wasused to promote social change. It publicized the obstacles poor womenfaced and helped the women’s organization in their ongoing campaign toinclude and organize low-wage women workers.14
5. CONCLUSIONS
Seiz asks, “What difference would a feminist perspective make to the sci-ences?” (Seiz 1992: 283). Previous research indicates that the process ofresearch would be different – more humane, interactive and minimizingthe disempowerment of research subjects (Lather 1988; Mies 1983; Ackeret al. 1983; see also Seiz 1992). This paper argues that feminist perspectivescan also improve research outcomes. Collaborative research with women’s
ARTICL ES
112
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
organizations can make new research possible and increase response rates.Involving research subjects in conducting interviews can also improve theresponse rates and the validity of survey research. Finally, taking women’sneeds into account leads to including very different survey questions, andthus contributes new knowledge concerning women’s experiences. Thus,including feminist principles can improve both the process as well as theoutcomes of research.
The proper balance between using feminist and traditional methodolo-gies to examine policy questions remains unclear, however. This balance islikely to vary according to the purpose of the study and the issues investi-gated (Reinharz 1992). Following what is de�ned as the traditional and mostrigorous scienti�c methodology can help legitimize one’s research in orderto affect policy (Reinharz 1992; Acker et al. 1993). This must be balanced,however, with any feminist principles that will be compromised. Disciplineswith a larger presence of women and feminists are likely to require less com-promise. Those such as economics, and those which are relatively less toler-ant of alternative methodologies, will probably require more.
This is unfortunate. If science is a social process, in which many assump-tions and choices are implicit, allowing for more criticism, alternativemethods and different points of view can be effective in exposing theseassumptions (Longino 1992; Harding 1986). Those who have alternativeperspectives, such as feminists, may be best able to advance better expla-nations, since they are not tied to the prevailing biases and assumptions(Seiz 1992; Harding 1986). Thus, expanding knowledge requires increas-ing divergent points of view in the scienti� c process. Including morewomen, feminists and those with heterodox views in the academy is likelyto yield new and more reliable knowledge (Seiz 1992; Harding 1986).Expanding knowledge also requires challenging the existing power struc-tures that restrict scienti� c inquiry and those who practice it.
Certainly, more research is needed to continue to build an alternativeresearch methodology. We stand at the crossroads of what Thomas Kuhncalls a crisis in paradigms: Our traditional research methods have beenunder attack for a number of decades. This crisis presents a historic oppor-tunity in which we can revise our existing research methodologies. AsHarding states (1986: 277), “The very success of modern science . . . restson a new methodology that protects its inquiries from the idiosyncratic swayof human motivation.” Feminists are well-positioned to contribute to thisdialogue and to create methodologies that allow for more participatory andhumane research processes as well as for more complete knowledge.
Marlene Kim, Labor Studies and Employment Relations Department, SMLR,Ryders Lane and Clifton Avenue, Rutgers University,
Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USAe-mail: [email protected]
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
113
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks to Diana Strassmann, Marianne Ferber, Randy Albelda, SusanFeiner, Julie Nelson, Larry Boland, Elaine McCrate, and three anonymousreferees who provided exceptional suggestions and information.
NO TES1 This view is widely shared among social constructionists in sociology and history
of science (see Helen Longino 1990); post-Kuhnian philosophers and epis-temologists; poststructural and antifoundationalist schools of literary theory (seeJane Rosetti 1992); interpretive perspectives (see James Clifford 1986); post-modernists, and those subscribing to feminist standpoint theory.
2 Some feminists argue further that the simple existence of a dichotomy betweenthe knowledge-creator and the research subjects perpetuates power hierarchies(Mies 1983; Reinharz 1992). Delegating the researcher to be the “expert” createsa dichotomy between the researcher and the researched, replicating the experi-ence of having the more privileged construct and embody knowledge, while theless privileged are prevented from obtaining and producing knowledge. It alsoperpetuates the myths that the research subjects (e.g. women) lack knowledgeabout their own lives; instead, the expert knows more about the lives of the womenthan the women themselves do. Thus, the more distance between the researcherand the researched, the more one replicates the all-too-common experience ofhaving an expert construct knowledge about women, without the participation ofthe women themselves and without recognizing women’s own knowledge.
3 For a more complete and detailed elaboration of feminist methodologies, seethese sources.
4 This often means that feminists must collect their own data, since existing datasources are often inadequate to address issues of interest to feminists.
5 However, see Stacey (1988, 1990), who discusses the problems inherent in thisapproach.
6 For a description of participatory research, see Budd Hall (1981) or Maguire(1987). For a description of the link between feminist methodology and partici-patory research, see Maguire (1987).
7 Promoting participation by the traditionally oppressed may also be a matter ofjustice. Paulo Freire argues that “people have the right to participate in theprocess of producing knowledge” (Myles Horton and Paulo Freire 1990), andMaguire (1987: 104) that “until feminist researchers more actively . . . make theprocess, not merely the products, empowering for both the researcher andresearched, the goal of producing knowledge for women’s emancipation may notbe fully reached.”
8 Although the survey included categories of answers to facilitate recording theinformation requested, it always contained an “other” category to record anyanswer that might arise. For example, when asking about why they were no longeremployed, “laid off ” and “lack of child care” were some answers already recordedthat interviewers could simply circle; however, if someone said “to take care of asick parent” they would circle the “other” category and write in the answer given.
9 For a review of this literature, see Seymour Sudman and Norman Bradburn(1974).
10 In one study, Barbara Anderson et al. (1988) � nd less honest voting behaviorreported when research subjects were similar to their interviewers. Most of theliterature, however, argues that less-biased answers would occur.
ARTICL ES
114
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
11 These studies assume that subtle and often unconscious clues about the inter-viewers are revealed through the interviewers’ speech patterns.
12 Because we did not have middle-class as well as low-income women interviewingrespondents, I could not test the differences in responses obtained by these twogroups. However, I was able to compare my results with some of those obtainedby a survey research center in Wisconsin, which interviewed JTPA trainees threemonths prior to our survey. Hourly pay was identical in both studies ($4.57 com-pared to $4.56 in 1984 dollars), but women in our study worked a greater numberof hours (37 compared to 26 hours per week) and received fewer fringe bene� tsthan those in this other study. No other questions (such as occupations orreasons for leaving the job) were similar in these two studies. Because too few ofthe questions overlapped, it is impossible to test empirically the effect of usinglow-income women interviewers.
13 Although the women’s organization staff knew the true purpose of the survey,the interviewers were told about it only in general terms.
14 The interviewers were informed of the research results, and respondents whowere interested in the results of the survey were sent copies of the report. Thewomen’s organization continued this research by interviewing some respondentsin focus groups to gather more information regarding their circumstances andneeds. The organization is currently organizing a national campaign for low-wage women workers.
REFERE NCES
Acker, Joan, Kate Barry and Joke Esseveld. 1983. “Objectivity and Truth: Problemsin Doing Feminist Research.” Women’s Studies Forum 6(24): 423–35.
Anderson, Barbara A., Brian D. Silver and Paul R. Abramson. 1988. “The Effects ofRace of the Interviewer on Measures of Electoral Participation by Blacks in SRCNational Election Studies.” Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 53–83.
Barnow, Burt. 1987. “The Impact of CETA Programs on Earnings: A Review of theLiterature.” Journal of Economic Literature 22(2): 157–93.
––––. 1992. “The Effects of Performance Standards on State and Local Programs,”Ch. 8 in Charles Manski and Irwin Gar� nkel (eds.) Evaluating Welfare and Train-ing Programs, pp. 277–309. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blau, Francine. 1981. “On the Role of Values in Feminist Scholarship.” Signs 6(3):538–40.
Bloom, Howard S., Larry L. Orr, George Cave, Stephen H. Bell and Fred Doolittle.1994. The National JTPA Study: Overview: Impacts, Bene�ts, and Costs of Title II-A.Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Burtless, Gary and Larry L. Orr. 1986. “Are Classical Experiments Needed for Man-power Policy?” Journal of Human Resources 21 (Fall): 606–39.
Clifford, James. 1986. “Introduction: Partial Truths,” in James Clifford and GeorgeE. Marcus (eds.) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 1–26.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction ofKnowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cotter, Patrick R., Jeffrey Cohen and Philip B. Coulter. 1982. “Race-of-InterviewerEffects in Telephone Interviews.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 278–84.
Du Bois, Barbara. 1983. “Passionate Scholarship: Notes on Values, Knowing, andMethod in Feminist Social Science,” Ch. 8 in Gloria Bowles and Renata Duelli-Klein (eds.) Theories of Women’s Studies. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
115
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Duelli-Klein, Renata. 1983. “How to Do What We Want To Do: Thoughts AboutFeminist Methodology,” Ch. 7 in Gloria Bowles and Renata Klein (eds.) Theoriesof Women’s Studies. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Edin, Kathryn and Christopher Jencks. 1992. “Welfare,” Ch. 5 in Christopher Jencks(ed.) Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass, pp. 204–25. Cam-bridge: Harvard University Press.
Fee, Elizabeth. 1983. “Women’s Nature and Scienti� c Objectivity,” Ch. 2 in MarianLowe and Ruth Hubbard (eds.) Women’s Nature: Rationalizations of Inequality, pp.9–28. New York: Pergamon Press.
Ferber, Marianne A. and Julie A. Nelson. 1993. “Introduction: The Social Con-struction of Economics and the Social Construction of Gender,” Ch. 1 in Mari-anne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson (eds.) Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theoryand Economics, pp. 1–22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Groves, Robert M. and Lou J. Magilavy. 1980. “Estimates of Interviewer Variance inTelephone Surveys.” Proceedings of Survey Research Methods Section, American Statis-tical Association, pp. 622–7.
Hall, Budd L. 1981. “Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A Per-sonal Re� ection.” Convergence 14: 6–17.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.
––––. 1987. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Indianapolis: Indiana Uni-versity Press.
––––. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking From Women’s Lives. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
––––. 1995. “Can Feminist Thought Make Economics More Objective?” FeministEconomics 1(1): 7–32.
Harlan, Sharon L. 1989. “Women and Federal Job Training Policy.” Ch. 2 in SharonL. Harlan and Ronnie Steinberg (eds.) Job Training for Women: The Promise andLimits of Public Policies, pp. 55–90. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hatchett, Shirley and Howard Schuman. 1975–76. “White Respondents and Race-of-Interviewer Effects.” Public Opinion Quarterly 39(4) (Winter): 523–8.
Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Speci� cation Error.” Econo-metrica 47(1): 153–62.
––––, Jeffrey A. Smith and Christopher Taber. 1996. “What Do Bureaucrats Do? TheEffects of Performance Standards and Bureaucratic Preferences on Acceptanceinto the JTPA Program.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working PaperNo. 5535. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Horton, Myles and Paulo Freire. 1990. We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations onEducation and Social Change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hotz, V. Joseph. 1992. “Designing an Evaluation of the Job Training PartnershipAct,” Ch. 2 in Charles Manski and Irwin Gar� nkel (eds.) Evaluating Welfare andTraining Programs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jayaratne, Toby Epstein. 1983. “The Value of Quantitative Methodology for Femin-ist Research,” Ch. 10 in Gloria Bowles and Renata Duelli-Klein (eds.) Theories ofWomen’s Studies, pp. 140–61. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Katz, Daniel. 1942. “Do Interviewers Bias Poll Results?” Public Opinion Quarterly6(1942): 248–68.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1982. “Feminism and Science.” Signs 17(3): 589–602.––––. 1985. Re�ections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Kim, Marlene. 1996. “Jobs After JTPA Training.” Rutgers University. Mimeo.Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scienti�c Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
ARTICL ES
116
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Landis, Judson R., Daryl Sullivan and Joseph Sheley. 1973. “Feminist Attitudes asRelated to Sex of the Interviewer.” Paci�c Sociological Review 16(3) ( July): 305–14.
Lather, Patti. 1988. “Feminist Perspectives on Empowering Research Methodolo-gies.” Women’s Studies International Forum 11(6): 569–81.
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.
––––. 1992. “Essential Tensions – Phase Two: Feminist, Philosophical and SocialStudies of Science,” in Ernan McMullin (ed.) Social Dimensions of Science, pp.198–216. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Maguire, Patricia. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Center forInternational Education. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Mies, Maria. 1983. “Toward a Methodology for Feminist Research,” Ch. 9 in GloriaBowles and Renata Duelli-Klein (eds.) Theories of Women’s Studies. Boston: Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul.
Millman, Marcia and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 1975. Editorial Introduction in MarciaMillman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter (eds.) Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives onSocial Life and Social Science, pp. vi–xvii. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
Reese, Stephen D., Wayne A. Danielson, Pamela J. Shoemaker, Tsan-Kuo Chang andHuei-Ling Hsu. 1986. “Ethnicity-of-Interviewer Effects Among Mexican-Ameri-cans and Anglos.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 563–72.
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Rosetti, Jane. 1992. “Deconstruction, Rhetoric, and Economics,” in Neil de Marchi(ed.) Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics: Recovering Practice, pp. 211–24.Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.
Schuman, Howard and Jean M. Converse. 1971. “The Effects of Black and WhiteInterviewers on Black Responses in 1968.” Public Opinion Quarterly 35(1): 44–68.
Seiz, Janet. 1992. “Gender and Economic Research,” in Neil de Marchi (ed.) Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics: Recovering Practice, pp. 273–319. Boston: KluwerNijhoff.
Stacey, Judith. 1988. “Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Studies Inter-national Forum 11(1): 21–7.
––––. 1990. Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth CenturyAmerica. New York: Basic Books.
Strassmann, Diana. 1993. “The Stories of Economics and the Power of the Story-teller.” History of Political Economy 25(1): 147–65.
–––– and Livia Polanyi. 1995. “The Economist as Storyteller: What the Texts Reveal,”in Edith Kuiper and Jolande Sap (eds.), with Susan Feiner, Notburga Ott, andZa� ris Tzannatos Out of the Margin: Feminist Perspectives on Economics, pp. 129–50.New York: Routledge.
Sudman, Seymour and Norman M. Bradburn. 1974. Response Effects in Surveys: AReview and Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration. 1993. TheNational JTPA Study: Title II-A Impacts on Earnings and Employment at 18 Months.Research and Evaluation Report Series 93-C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO.
U.S. General Accounting Of� ce. 1996. Job Training Partnership Act: Long-Term Earn-ings and Employment Outcomes (GAO/HEHS-96-40). Washington, D.C.: U.S.General Accounting Of� ce.
Williams, J. Allen Jr. 1964. “Interview–Respondent Interaction: A Study of Bias inthe Information Interview.” Sociometr y 27(3): 338–52.
POOR W OMEN SURVEY POOR W OMEN
117
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
4:40
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
