Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net.
1. AIMS & SIGNIFICANCE
This research project will explore the complexities of contemporary feminist activism through interviews with new wave feminist activists. This study aims to investigate how new wave feminists are “doing feminism” in their everyday lives (Ahmed 2017) and whether they are actively involved in feminist activism and politics. There is a perception from some of new wave activists as postfeminist or “surface” feminists who have abandoned political action. New wave feminists have been understood in relation to various negative stereotypes, including the idea that new wavers as postfeminists (Rivers 2017), neoliberal consumerists (Gray & Boddy 2010), too focused on popular culture (Strong & Maddison 2013), too invested in ideas of empowerment (Rivers 2017), and operate under a simple rhetoric of “choice” feminism (Harris 2010). This study seeks to interrogate and test these particular narratives of contemporary feminism. Using a qualitative approach, the researcher will gather data by facilitating semi-structured interviews. The project aims to recruit a diverse range of research participants who have experience or knowledge in contemporary activism in Melbourne, Victoria. The student researcher will make a considerable effort to embrace difference and practice intersectionality by approaching a variety of feminist activist groups and organisations to recruit a diverse group of feminist activists (including people of colour, non-binary people, LGTBQI+ people, students, workers and other community members) in order to gain a deeper understanding of the contemporary complexities of feminist activism. The data collected will be analysed and interpreted using thematic analysis.
1.2 Proposed Study
Title: Understanding the Complexities of Contemporary Feminist Activism
Aim: The aim of this project is to speak with new wave feminists to understand the complexities of contemporary feminist activism and to investigate the kinds of feminist activities they are involved with as part of their activism and politics. The overall objective of this project is to find out how new wave activists are ‘doing feminism’ in their everyday lives and how this compares with stereotypes created about ‘third wave’, ‘fourth wave’, or ‘new wave’ feminists.
1.3 Key Questions
The key questions for this research project include:
- What are the complexities of contemporary feminist activism, according to new wave activists?
- How do new wave activists ‘do feminism’ and how does this compare with existing stereotypes of new wavers?
- How are new wave feminists actively involved in feminist politics and activism?
- What do new wave activists think about feminist identity and politics?
1.4 Literature Review
Defining what constitutes “new wave” feminism is difficult, given debates around whether third wave feminism has been replaced by subsequent waves, or, whether we are in a period of “postfeminist” backlash (McRobbie 2008; Gill 2017; Rivers 2017). Talk of the “third wave” emerged in the 1990s, with some third wave feminists stereotyped by an older generation of feminists as individualistic and consumeristic feminists who thought they could “have it all” (Bulbeck 2010, p. 21). While some have argued that the third wave’s agenda was to “disrupt a white, heteronormative, middle class view” (Rivers 2017, p. 10), others have argued that the period since the 1990s has been marked by arguments that postfeminism has been situated within the third wave. Further, there are suggestions that we are now entering a fourth wave of feminism (Rivers 2017, p. 23).
Nicola Rivers (2017) questions the development of the supposed fourth wave, particularly in relation to popular culture. She queries whether this new wave has emerged from a postfeminist backlash against older feminist ideas, or whether it intersects with previous waves. According to Rivers (2017), Rosalind Gill’s concept of postfeminism as a “sensibility” best characterises the complexities of the fourth wave (p. 4). “Postfeminist sensibility”, according to Gill (2017), refers to current neoliberal portrayals of femininity within popular culture as existing “post” feminism (p. 611). In itself, “postfeminism as a sensibility is not fixed or reliant on a singular understanding of the term” (Rivers 2017, p. 16); instead it “emphasizes the contradictory nature of postfeminist discourses and the entanglement of both feminist and anti-feminist themes within them” (Gill 2007, p. 149). Here, postfeminism emerges as a set of contradictory ideas, where feminist and antifeminist discourse manages to coexist. For Rivers (2017), contemporary discussions of feminism are so saturated in postfeminist sensibility that it’s difficult to locate where postfeminism finishes and where the new waves begin (p. 16).
Other scholars, such as Retallack, Ringrose and Lawrence (2016), have argued postfeminism as obsolete due to the arrival of a ‘new’ wave of feminism and the rise of internet activism (p. 85). According to Rivers (2017), those advocating for a contemporary ‘revival’ of feminist identity and activism have been heard and has resulted in a groundswell of activity conceptualised as the ‘forth wave’. However, she cautions against those celebrating the appearance of this ‘new’ wave (p. 25). As Gill (2017) argues, current media celebrations of feminism often portray “a distinctively postfeminist and neoliberal tenor” (pp. 612). As such, she continues to argue the relevance and interrogation of existing “post” feminism(s) (p. 618). Rivers (2017) agrees that postfeminist sensibilities continue to offer feminist scholars a ‘valuable scope’ for examining feminism within popular culture and the ways in which feminism is “simultaneously celebrated and undone” (p. 14).
Some scholars go as far as to affirm that that feminism is “lost”. As Hannah McCann (2018) argues, the narrative of loss is widespread in mainstream feminist texts such as those of Ariel Levy (2005) and Nina Power (2009) (p. 44; 46). Levy, for one, grieves the collapse of past feminist activism and argues past feminist activism as immensely more analytical, bold and thrilling (2005, p. 85). Power too laments the demise of the women’s liberation movement and poses the question: “Where have all the interesting women gone?” (2009, p. 1). She argues that “feminism” has been misappropriated by conservative and capitalist “feminists” (p. 2). Similarly, Angela McRobbie (2008) argues that postfeminist ideas have neutralised feminism as a social movement (p. 24), which has prompted some young people to feel as though feminism is irrelevant to their lives (p. 8). There are benefits for young people who chose to abandon feminism, McRobbie (2008) argues; for instance, young women gain opportunities for “freedom” and “agency” in exchange for agreeing to a “new sexual contract” (p. 57). This agreement involves clauses such as renouncing feminist identities and activism and behaving in an acceptably feminine fashion (McRobbie 2008, p. 57). Hence, “post” feminism can be understood as a replacement for feminism as a social movement (McRobbie 2008, p. 26).
In this way, McRobbie believes that feminism has come “undone” and a return to 1960s/1970s styles feminist organising is needed (2008, p. 11). As McCann (2018) points out, Natasha Walter (2010) too advocates for a return to 1960s/1970s feminism in which she argues “the gains of the past have not yet been lost” (p. 231). Walter (2010) argues that reflecting upon the feminist past can assist with addressing contemporary feminist issues. Further, she calls on initiatives such as “Pinkstinks” (a lobbying campaign countering the sexualisation of girl’s toys and clothing) as examples of effective feminist organising that show potential for change (Walter 2010, p. 233). It is evident here that Walter feels projects such as Pinksticks are an indication of a revival of feminist activism and a return to the feminist past (McCann 2018, p. 45). McCann (2018) argues that many feminist writers and scholars often express a “nastaglic memory of the feminist past” (p. 41), which according to Jonathon Dean (2012), develops from feelings of 1970s/1980s feminist activism and a widespread disapproval of young people and new wave activists, and the assumption they are uninterested in politics (p. 319). As McCann (2018) appropriately notes: “in these texts we see a focus on young women at the centre of the problematic of lost feminism” (McCann 2018, p. 46).
Some feminist scholars have argued the prevalence of these narratives of postfeminism, loss and return as problematic. For example, Clare Hemmings (2011) argues that feminism needs to re-consider how to tell the history of feminism (p. 2). A fundamental underpinning of her work challenges assertions that feminism is “over” and that gender equality has been won; she suggests that it is not a case of feminism being over, rather it is a case of feminist storytelling needing to be rethought (p. 4). According to Hemmings (2011), the typical narrative that feminism has been “lost” includes the idea of a formerly unified women’s movement in the 1960s/1970s destroyed by infighting and depoliticisation, the institutionalisation of feminist ideology promoting feminism as “dead”, and a political shift to the right which has killed leftist politics (p. 4). Hemmings (2011) urges feminists to remain skeptical of this narrative, which does not necessarily reflect the only possible story of the feminist present. Instead, she argues that we need to challenge the ‘amenabilities’ of our feminist storytelling in order to create subversive and unpredictable narratives that do not reproduce a singular version of the Western present (p. 226).
Rationale for Study
Following Hemmings (2011), this study aims to tell a different story about the new wavers of contemporary feminist activism with a focus on how new wavers are “doing feminism” in their everyday lives (Ahmed 2017). As outlined above, there is a perception from some of new wave activists as postfeminist or “surface” feminists who have abandoned political action. New wave feminists have also been understood in relation to various negative stereotypes, including the idea that new wavers are postfeminists (Gill 2017), neoliberal consumerists (Gray & Boddy 2010), too focused on popular culture (Strong & Maddison 2013), too invested in ideas of empowerment (Rivers 2017), and operate under a simple rhetoric of “choice” feminism (Harris 2010). As such, some believe the new waves of feminism have actively supported the rise of “the individual” under neoliberal politics and have focused on notions such as “choice”, “empowerment” and “agency” (Rivers 2017, p. 24). Many of these debates have been conceptualised without input of new wave feminists. As such, this research aims to interrogate these stereotypes and narratives of contemporary feminism, and to consider new wave feminists in greater depth by conducting empirical research and speaking directly with new wave feminist activists to investigate how they enact feminism in their everyday lives and how they are engaging in feminist activism (Ahmed 2017).
In recent years feminist theorists have laid an appropriate foundation for empirical research in this area. Ahmed (2017), for instance, explores the challenges associated with becoming a feminist in contemporary society. One of the foremost concepts underpinning her work is “homework”, which are tasks that feminists assign themselves. Feminist homework is not just work that feminists can do at home, it is work they do to improve their “home”. In other words, it is work that feminists can do to help themselves feel more at home in the world (p. 7). Ahmed (2017) argues that feminist theory is intellectual and emotional homework that all feminists do; therefore, taking feminist theory home is key to encouraging more people to engage in feminism in all spheres, including home, work and in everyday life (pp. 7-8). As such, this project aims to explore whether new wave activists are doing their “feminist homework” and how they are thinking about and enacting their feminist politics on a daily basis (Ahmed 2017).
Not dissimilar to the concept of “homework” (Ahmed 2017), is Angela McRobbie’s concept of the feminist classroom, or a pedagogic “third space”, in which feminists gather to foster an existence based on postcolonial critique (2008, p. 165). Despite McRobbie (2008) remaining skeptical about the future of feminism, she ultimately argues for the appearance of a new movement of feminist politics (p. 165). Nicki Charles (2015), more optimistically, offers an account of a new wave of poststructuralist feminist activists who embrace intersectionality and form coalitions based on social issues. Such coalitions have been conceptualized as “transversity”, a concept originally coined by Guattari (1974), and later expanded upon by Yuval-Davis (1997) and Cockburn (2007), to describe the formation of cross cultural coalitions (Charles 2015, p. 46). As Charles (2015) argues, new wave feminists have given transversal politics their own “poststructuralist twist” as they begin to dismiss unitary gender categories and the essentialist notion that feminism is only for women (p. 46). Instead, it is argued new wavers are embracing difference across class, age, (dis)abilities, race and geolocation (Gillis et al 2007, p. 62). Charles (2015) argues that the notion of transversial politics appears to have created “an upsurge in feminist activism in the last few years”, following a stagnant period of “post” feminism (p. 46).
Other feminists too argue that new wave feminists have not abandoned activism altogether, and instead are simply responding in new ways to current social conditions. For instance, rather than understanding new wave feminists as capitulating to popular culture representations of gender, we might see that they have been successful in appropriating popular culture for feminist ends (Maddison 2013, p. 133).
As such, this study aims to tell a different account about the new wavers of contemporary feminism in order to investigate how they are engaging in feminist activism and politics in their everyday lives.
2. RESEARCH STRATEGY
2.1 Methodological Framework
The aim of this research project is to explore the complexities of contemporary feminist activism. For this purpose, a qualitative feminist methodological approach will be utilized. Qualitative methodology is an inductive approach to research which acknowledges various standpoints and political agendas, and places significance on quality over quantity, as a way of exploring social complexities and lived experiences (O’Leary 2014, p. 120). For instance, in the field of International Relations, feminists have adopted qualitative research tools (such as in-depth interviews and narrative) as a way of understanding how the state affects the lives of women. Approaches such as these encourage the development of research ‘for’ women as opposed to research ‘about’ women (Gayle 2015, p. 82). Historically, the primary concern of second wave feminism was to elevate the often-repressed voices and experiences of women, which is a sentiment that still endures today (Gayle 2015, p. 79).
However, as deconstructionist feminists have pointed out, feminist research is not merely concerned with elevating the voices of women; it is committed to raising the voices of the marginalised, including people of colour, non-binary and the LGBT+ community, whose voices are often obscured in traditional research production (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2007, p. 128). In the 1980s and 1990s, deconstructionists began to challenge the essentialist nature of feminist research. Through questioning whose stories were being included and excluded, deconstructionists successfully advocated for a turn towards difference and a recognition of pluralities of lived experiences. Research sensitive to difference began to emphasise concerns around the categories of class, race, gender and sexuality, and criticised feminists of the past for ignoring the intersections between these different categories (Hesse-Biber 2014, p. 18). Feminists of colour, for instance, have a significant history of challenging privileged white women to face their racism and their exclusion of the ‘other’ (Hirsch and Keller 1990, p. 379). Hesse-Biber (2014) emphasises that listening to the experiences of marginalised people “leads to a more complete understanding of knowledge” (p. 18).
However, deconstructionist scholars have also troubled the emergence of such emancipatory research approaches that have the aim of creating social change and liberating marginalised groups from an oppressive society. Whilst feminist praxis-orientated approaches maintain their commitment to emancipatory research, “post” approaches chose to incorporate deconstructionist perspectives and to trouble such dominant methodological approaches (Gannon & Davies 2014, p. 3; Lather 2007, p. 164). For deconstructionists, there is no one ‘grand narrative’ or one single approach to feminist research. For Gannon and Davies (2014), grand narratives discount pluralities of reality, privilege certain stories over others, and portray a singular account of history (p. 3).
This echoes the work of other feminist scholars who aim to challenge dominant methodological discourses, such as Hemmings (2011), Dean (2012) and Lisa Adkins (2004). Adkins, for instance, problematises the dominant narrative of loss as it promotes the “passing on of feminism” and causes rifts between generations of feminists (2004, p. 429). Similarly, Dean argues that the narrative of loss in feminist literature has caused an erasure of the “possibility of a more hopeful affective orientation towards the feminist present” (2012, p. 320). As McCann (2018) emphasizes, the narrative of loss has remained a grand narrative of feminist literature since the commencement of this century (2018, p. 39). As such, Hemmings (2011) questions why feminist theory has trapped itself into sustaining a homogenous version of history. She argues that current framework of Western feminist theory (positioned within the dominant narratives of progress, loss and return) is in desperate need of troubling. It is argued that feminist researchers to consider the ‘amenability’ and ‘political grammar’ of their stories in order to disentangle themselves from repetitive narratives and to transform stories of the present (Hemmings 2011, p. 15-16). Following these theorists, this study aims to tell a different story about the new wavers of contemporary activism which is sensitive to difference and mindful of dominant methodological approaches such as emancipatory research and discourses of loss.
This project aims to explore the complexities of feminist activism; therefore, interviewees will be sought based on their experience of being involved with feminist activism. A maximum of ten new wave feminists will be recruited due to the limited scope of an Honours project.
Feminist scholars have argued for some time that feminist theory is limited without meaningful intersectional engagement with questions of difference starting with class, race, ethnicity, culture, gender and sexuality (Dill & Kohlman 2014, p. 2). Some argue that feminism is ‘inherently contradictory’ as gender only makes up one (or none) of the intersections of a person’s experience. As a way of transforming feminism, categories of difference must be considered, as well an understanding of the intersections between these different categories (Gayle 2015, p. 80). With this in mind, there will be a considerable effort made to recruit a diverse range of participants including trans and non-binary folks, LGBTQI+, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people of colour, students, workers and other community members.
To achieve this, the student researcher will approach a diverse range of groups and organisations to recruit feminist participants. Organisations to be contacted include Slut Walk protest group, Rainbow Network, Women’s March group, Women’s Melbourne Network, Reclaim the Night group, The Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Woman’s Coalition, ButchFemmeTran Melbourne, RhED (Resourcing Health & Education in the Sex Industry), We are Union Women and various student university unions, including women’s and queer collectives specifically. Potential participants will initially receive an email from the student researcher with information outlining the project. Prior to participation, participants will be provided with a Plain Language Statement and a Consent Form which must be signed prior to their involvement in the research project. Due to the limited scope of an Honours project, no financial or other incentives will be offered.
This research project will involve ten semi-structured interviews with new wave feminists in Melbourne, Victoria. Interviews will take place in a mutually negotiated location, such as a café, where the respondent feels comfortable. Interviews will last approximately one hour. As Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007) emphasizes that it is vital to go over this information with the participant prior to the interview, as they should to fully understand their rights during the entire research process (p. 20). Prior to the interview, participants will be informed that the interview will be recorded with a mobile device and transcribed for the purpose of conducting research. They will also be informed that they do not have to answer any questions they do not feel comfortable with and that they can stop the interview at any time, and that they withdraw any data they have provided at any stage during the research project prior to publication. It will also be mentioned that the interviewer will take notes throughout the interview for the purposes of conducting research, with the intention of putting the interviewee at ease and to ensure they do not feel self-conscious or as if they are not being listened to.
Furthermore, participants will be asked if they would like to choose their own ‘Feminist Pseudonym’ (a feminist-themed nickname of the respondent’s choice, such as a “spin off” of a favourite fictional character or superhero) prior to the interview; otherwise, a pseudonym will be allocated to the participant. The purpose of a pseudonym is to shield the identities of research participants and any organisations they mention during the interviews (DeVault & Gross 2014, p. 30). Participants will also be reassured that any identifying information they provide throughout the interview will be de-identified in the transcript and for future publications. The participants pseudonyms will be noted at the top of their consent forms which after the interview be locked in a secure filing cabinet in the responsible researcher’s office. Further, as Olsen (2012) suggests, a wider pseudonym list will be prepared, just in case the interviewees mention other people such as other interviewees or people from organizations they are involved with. This list will be recorded electronically and saved in a password-protected file on the student researchers computer (p. 2).
In order to effectively explore the issues affecting new wave feminists, the student researcher is required to gain the trust of the interviewees. According to Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2007), semi-structured interviews are an effective way of building rapport with interviewees as it allows them to explore issues relevant to them (p. 115). The nature of an in-depth interview should come across as a conversation in which the researcher poses questions and clarifies the input of the interviewee. Importantly, the researcher must listen intently to the story of the researched without interruption (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2007, p. 126). The interview process can be thought of as the ‘co-creation of meaning’, in which the researcher must listen with great interest to the input of the interviewee with a willingness to drop their agenda if the interview goes in a different direction. It is vital to acknowledge that the agenda of the researched may be different to that of the researcher, alas there is a need for flexibility in order to give a voice to the researched (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2007, pp. 132-133). Notions of difference, as outlined in the methodology section above, should also be considered in the interview process.
In order to conduct semi-structured interviews, researchers require a clear-cut ‘Interview Guide’ which includes a list of questions that need to be covered. These questions can be asked in any order; however, it is important all the questions are covered. In this sense, the researcher has an agenda and some regulation over data collection, however still leaves room for spontaneity in the conversation (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2007, p. 115-116). Even if the researcher does not utilize the interview guide, it is a vital tool for preparing for the interview as it assists the researcher to identify key issues and what kinds of questions to ask interviewees (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2007, p. 121).
- Do you identify as a feminist? Why?
- What does feminism mean to you?
- How do you ‘do’ feminism?
- Do you interact with other feminists online?
- Do you meet up with other feminist’s face to face?
- Do you attend feminist events, groups or rallies? Are you involved in organising these events?
- What activities do you do that relate to feminist politics?
- What do you think of the state of feminist politics today?
At the end of the interview, the participant will be asked if they would like to have their transcript and/or a summary of findings sent to them. The interviews will be transcribed by the student researcher.
2.4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
The interview data will be analyzed with the aim of investigating themes in relation to the complexities of feminist activism and how new wave activists enact their feminist politics. Qualitative data is most commonly interpreted through themes that emerge from the overall data, which is a valuable way of building new areas of research or theory (Miner et al 2014, p. 5). The data will be analyzed using thematic analysis which consists of ‘closely inspecting’ the interview data to uncover recurring themes or concepts and cataloguing these correlations to use for future data analysis and theory development. Thematic analysis is a way of condensing and compiling extensive amounts of data and which assists with facilitating the process of interpretation. NVivo will be used to make this process more manageable, which is a specialized computer program which assists with thematic analysis of qualitative data with inbuild research facilities which includes coding, searching and linking which can assist in analyzing even the largest of data sets. Thematic analysis is characteristic as an inductive approach to coding as themes tend to emerge from the data as opposed to imposing theory on to the data (Lapadat 2010, pp. 2-3).
2.5 Ethical Considerations
For some scholars, ethical issues are of secondary importance to the research process. However, the significance of research ethics and moral integrity should not be understated as it can determine whether the scholar is trustworthy and whether their approach to research is valid (Hesse-Biber 2014, p. 25). It can be argued that feminists hold themselves to a higher ethical standard due to their experience of marginalisation within traditional academia, which makes ethics an issue of great importance to feminists beyond institutional processes. For instance, in 1983, the Nebraska Feminist Collective developed a statement of ethics which argued that ethical considerations should include a commitment to women, and not simply a compulsory academic process (DeVault & Gross 2014, p. 30). Today, the commitment of many feminists has broadened to embrace difference and to elevate the voices of marginalised people and to promote social change.
Alas, while some argue that the ethics review process has become a ‘fact’ of academic existence, others argue that feminist scholars should approach the ethics process in a way that promotes feminist ethics and upholds feminist scholarship (DeVault & Gross 2014, p. 31). Research conducted at the University of Melbourne is regulated by the Code of Conduct for Research and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and specifies ethical and regulatory obligations researchers must abide by when engaging in scholarship at the University of Melbourne. As this research project will include human subjects, a minimal risk Human Research Ethics Application Form was submitted to HEAG on the 21st of March, 2018. As DeVault and Gross (2014) emphasis, a researcher must have been granted ethics approval by their university prior to conducting field work (p. 31).
There are potential risks associated with research projects, whether they be high or low. For this research project, a potential issue is sensitive topics arising during the interviews in discussing the complexities of feminist politics today. For instance, a sensitive issue that commonly comes up in feminist politics is the exclusion of minority groups (such as trans or non-binary people, sex workers or people of colour) from the feminist movement. Some participants may find these topics distressing. Participants will be given a “Mental Health Information Sheet” hand out prior to the interview commencing, in the event that they experience any emotional discomfort during or after the interview. The sheet includes a list of contact numbers and services they can access if they feel distressed.
Another potential risk is that participants may speak in depth about specific feminist groups or organizations, which could include bringing up issues or complaints associated with specific groups. For instance, radical feminist groups and trans/sex worker groups have been known to have public value-based arguments about feminism at protests or on social media, which has sometimes included verbal and written abuse between parties. If a participant were to express such views in an interview, this could be potentially damaging to some feminist groups. To prevent the potential stigmatisation of any feminist groups, organisational pseudonyms will be allocated, and information will be de-identified to protect the reputation of the organization/s that are identified by interviewees.
The risks associated with this research project are low and will be minimised through the procedures outlined above. Minimal risks may be balanced out by the potential benefits of undertaking this study. Though participants may experience some discomfort in talking about the complexities of feminist activism, this study will also provide a space for activists to talk about issues of interest to them which are rarely heard or acknowledged. This study will provide an important contribution to the conversation about feminist activism more broadly and empower feminist activists to feel that their practices are interesting and worthy of discussion. Overall, participants will be given the opportunity to have a voice and contribute to local feminist knowledge. The student researcher aims to make the knowledge assessible to the activist community by creating a one-page summary of the findings which she will distribute to her interviewees and potentially feminist organizations. Interviewees will also have the option of having their transcripts sent to them for their records.
3. PLAN & STRUCTURE
3.1 Project Timeline
February: Submit Thesis Title Form
March: Apply for Ethics Approval
April: Submit Research Proposal
May: Conduct Field Work Interviews
June: Complete Progress Report, Transcription and Thematic Data Analysis
July: Begin writing up the Literature Review, Methodology, Chapters and Conclusion
August: Continue writing up and micro editing
September: Submit draft to Supervisor and continue micro editing
October: Get thesis copyedited, printed and bound ready for submission
3.2 Proposed Thesis Chapters
Chapter 1: What are the Complexities of Contemporary New Wave Feminist Activism?
Chapter 2: What do New Wave Feminists think of Feminist Identity and Politics?
Chapter 3: How do New Wave Feminists ‘Do Feminism’?
Bibliography of References
Adkins, L 2004, ‘Passing on Feminism: From Consciousness to Reflexivity?’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 11, no.4, pp. 427-444.
Ahmed, S 2017, Living a Feminist Life, Duke University Press, Durham.
Bulbeck, C 2010, ‘Unpopularising Feminism: “Blaming Feminism” in the Generation Debate and the Mother Wars’, Sociology Compass, vol. 4, no.1, pp. 21–37.
Charles, N 2015, ‘Feminist Politics: From Activism to Representation’, in V Robinson & D Richardson (eds.), Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies, 4th edn, Palgrave, London & New York, pp. 40-56.
Dean, J 2012, ‘On the March or on the Margins? Affirmations and Erasures of Feminist Activism in the UK’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 19, no.3, pp. 315-329.
DeVault, ML & Gross, G 2012, ‘Feminist Qualitative Interviewing: Experience, Talk, and Knowledge’, in S Hesse-Biber (ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 206–236.
Dill, BT & Kohlman, MH 2012, ‘Intersectionality: A Transformative Paradigm in Feminist Theory and Social Justice’, in S Hesse-Biber (ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 154–174.
Gannon, S & Davies, B 2012, ‘Postmodern, Post-Structural, and Critical Theories’, in S Hesse-Biber (ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 65–91.
Gayle, L 2015, ‘Gender Sensitive Method(ologies)’, in V Robinson & D Richardson (eds.), Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies, 4th edn, Palgrave, London & New York, pp. 58-73.
Gill, R 2017, ‘The Affective, Cultural and Psychic Life of Postfeminism: A Postfeminist Sensibility 10 Years On’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 20, no.6, pp. 606–626.
Gillis, S, Howie, G, & Munford, R 2004, Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Gray, M & Boddy, J 2010, ‘Making Sense of the Waves: Wipeout or Still Riding High?’, Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 368–389.
Harris, A 2010, ‘Mind the Gap: Attitudes and Emergent Feminist Politics since the Third Wave’, Australian Feminist Studies, vol. 25, no. 66, pp. 475–484.
Hemmings, C 2011, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, Duke University Press, Durham.
Hesse-Biber, SN & Leavy, P 2007, Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hesse-Biber, SN 2012, Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hirsch, M & Keller, EF 1990, Conflicts in Feminism, Routledge, New York.
Lapadat, J 2010, ‘Thematic Analysis’, in A Mills, G Durepos & E Wiebe (eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Lather, PA 2007, Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts Toward a Double(d) Dcience, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Levy, A 2005, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Free Press, New York.
Maddison, S 2013, ‘SlutWalking: Where is the Next Generation of Australian Feminists?’, in S Maddison & M Sawer (eds.), The Women’s Movement in Protest, Institutions and the Internet: Australia in Transnational Perspective, Routledge, New York, pp. 132-147.
McCann, H 2018, Queering Femininity: Sexuality, Feminism and the Politics of Presentation, Routledge, New York.
McRobbie, A 2012, The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change, Los Angeles, SAGE, London.
O’Leary, Z 2014, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Olsen, W 2012, Data Collection: Key Debates and Methods in Social Research, SAGE Publications, London.
Power, N 2009, One-Dimensional Woman, [Zero] Books, Winchester.
Retallack, H, Ringrose, J, & Lawrence, E 2016, ‘“Fuck Your Body Image”: Teen Girls’ Twitter and Instagram Feminism in and Around School’, in J Coffey, S Budgeon & H. Cahill (eds.), Learning Bodies, Springer, Singapore, pp. 85–103
Rivers, N 2017, Postfeminism(s) and the Arrival of the Fourth Wave: Turning Tides, Macmillian, Switzerland.
Stanley, L 1993, ‘Feminist Theory’, in L Staney & S Wise (eds.), Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology, 2nd edn, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 45-65.
Strong, C & Maddison, S 2013, ‘Role Models and Roller Derby: Feminism and Popular Culture’, in S Maddison & M Sawer (eds.), The Women’s Movement in Protest, Institutions and the Internet: Australia in Transnational Perspective, Routledge, New York, pp. 105-118.
Walter, N 2010, Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, Virago, London.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this dissertation proposal and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: