'righteousness and antagonism too often prevail'

The above quote comes from Daphne Patai (When method becomes power (response) in A Gitlin (ed) 1994 Power and Method: Political activism and educational research p64). I have been returning to some texts (on methodology where that is understood as being a very broad church) that I read some time ago and often refer to. I thought it would be a good idea to remind myself of what was actually written instead of basing my interpretation on what I had last written about them. Daphne Patai expresses my feelings about some (most even) of the writing on methodology really well in the quote above. Unfortunately her paper seems to be written in the same spirit of righteousness and antagonism that she criticises. I won't bore you with why I take issue with her opinions, but it amazes me that discussions about methodology seem to unleash the beast. I refer here both to what is said and how it is expressed. Here's an example (there are so many it's quite hard to choose) .

Sara Delamont says 'I don't believe in interviewing' ... because she doesn't trust interview data... because people lie and delude themselves. (Confessions of a ragpicker in H Piper and I Stronach Educational research: Difference and Diversity p89). Well yes they do, but surely the point is that your methodology and the methods that support this have to be those which are demanded by what you set out to do. There is no way I could have done my study using the observational method that she terms 'proper fieldwork'. She could have made her point without rubbishing what other people do but that doesn't seem to be the way it's done in debates over methodology (I choose my words deliberately here - I could equally have said in the bun fight over methodology). Now I have a lot of time for Sara Delamont and learnt so much from 'Knowledgeable Women' (1989) and I was quite shocked (and, I have to say, disappointed) to hear her being so dismissive.

I'll probably be accused (again choosing my words deliberately) of relativism here but why can't supposedly intelligent people state their case without demolishing others? To my mind this shows a lack of sophistication that I find quite staggering. The 'debates' here remind me more than anything of the 'bickering' that my sons used to indulge in a while back ('is' 'not' 'is' not' 'is' 'not'). I got bored of it then and I'm still bored with it now. It makes me want to leave the room or shout 'that's enough' or 'grow up'.

That's why reading Stanley and Wise (Breaking Out 1993) and Stanley (Feminist Praxis 1990) was such a refreshing change. Others may disagree but to me their approach may well resonate with other accounts and epistemological, ontological, theoretical and methodological stances and certainly leaves me in no doubt about where they are 'coming from' but somehow they are also able to be 'generous' in their reading of other positions, perspectives and views. I first read these texts when I did an MA in Women's Studies at Bradford University way back in 1990 (the 1983 edition of Breaking Out obviously) and they blew my mind. I have since then developed my own thoughts and am not quite so awestruck (not quite) but I still have the utmost respect for the way they do it. We are academics not the 'nodding dogs' you get on the parcel shelves of cars but being critical is not a byword for being nasty. Or maybe it's me that needs to grow up.