女性研究者在田野中的性別處境與政治

Gender Politics Affecting Female Researchers in Their Field Work

10.6255/JWGS.2005.20.93

畢恆達(Herng-Dar Bih)；謝慧娟(Sally Shieh)

性別政治 ； 田野研究 ； 女性研究者 ； gender politics ； field research ； female researchers

女學學誌：婦女與性別研究

20期（2005 / 12 / 01）

93 - 130

繁體中文

儘管有很多證據顯示男性與女性研究者的田野研究經驗不同，但是質性研究方法的書籍仍然持續忽視田野研究的性別差異。近年來研究者受到鼓勵反省其在研究過程中的角色，然而研究者的性別與研究田野的互動卻仍然受到忽視。本研究的目的即是探討台灣女性研究者在田野中的性別處境與性別政治。 當研究者進入田野，田野中的人會試圖把研究者放入一個位置，給她定位，研究者也同時在找尋一個適合於她的位置。根據受訪者的陳述，田野對象給她的定位其實反映的就是一般社會的性別價值。雖說因著女性研究者的年齡、學術位置與穿著等而有些許差異，但是最常見的遭遇即是忽視女性研究者的專業角色，而把她們當作是一般傳統女人的角色，如視而不見、作為服務者，以及女性的身體成為關注的焦點。本文同時討論女性研究者因應的策略，以及在這樣的脈絡下，女性研究者如果順勢利用女性的優勢與田野對象互動，其後果為何？最後則分別討論研究者的性別理解如何影響其田野研究的進行，以及知識生產的結果。

Although many studies have shown that field experiences of male and female researchers generally vary, most qualitative research method textbooks still neglect to discuss the impact that gender issues have in the course of a field research. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the ways in which gender politics may affect female researchers in their field work. When a researcher begins her field work, informants often try to allocate her an appropriate position. In the meantime, the researcher herself strives to negotiate the new relationships in an effort to find her place. As the views expressed in this study's interviews suggest, the ways female researchers are treated during their field work generally reflect the gender values shared by the larger society. Thus, informants often ignore female researchers' professional roles, and instead expect them to assume traditional female roles, such as care-giving and emotional labor, or even treat them as sexual objects by focusing on their bodies. Is sum, this paper discusses what strategies female researchers employ to negotiate such gender politics and how their gender consciousness affects the outcomes of their field research.

1. 嚴祥鸞(1997)。訪談的倫理和政治：女性主義社會學者的自我反思。婦女與兩性學刊，8，199-220。
   連結：
2. Anonymous(1980).New space for women.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
3. Bell, D.,Caplan, P.,Karim, W. J.(1993).Gendered fields: Women, men and ethnography.New York:Routledge.
4. Easterday, L.,Papademas, D.,Schorr, L.,Valentine, C.(1977).The making of a female researcher: Role problems in field work.Urban life,6(3),333-348.
5. Ellis, C.,Flaherty, M. G.(1992).Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience.Newbury Park:Sage.
6. Freeman, D.(1983).Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth.Cambridge:Harvard Uvivrsity Press.
7. Gadamer, H.(1989).Truth and method (2nd ed.).New York:Crossroad.
8. Golde, P.(1986).Women in the field: Anthropological experience (2nd ed.).Berkeley:University of California Press.
9. Gurney, J. N.(1985).Not one of the guys: The female researcher in a male-dominated setting.Qualitative sociology,8(1),42-62.
10. Haraway, D. J.(1991).Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature.New York:Routledge.
11. Harding, S.(1991).Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women s lives.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
12. Hobbs, D.,May, T.(1993).Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
13. Horn, R.(1997).Not 'One of the boys': Women researching the police.Journal of gender studies,6(3),297-308.
14. Hsiung, P.-C.(1996).Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork.Boulder:Westview Press.
15. Hunt, J. C.(1984).The development of rapport through the negotiation of gender in field work among police.Human organization,43,283-296.
16. Jackson, B.,Ives, E. D.(1996).The world observed: Reflections on the fieldwork process.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
17. Lewin, E.,Leap, W. L.(1996).Out in the field: Reflections of lesbian and gay anthropologists.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
18. Lewis, O.(1951).Life in a Mexican village: Tepoztlan restudied.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
19. Macdonald, N.(2001).The graffiti subculture: Youth, masculinity and identity in London and New York.New York:Palgrave.
20. Malinowski, B.(1967).A diary in the strict sense of the term.New York:Harcourt, Brace, and World.
21. Malinowski, B.(1979).The ethnography of Malinowski: The Trobriand Islands 1915-18.New York:RKP.
22. Markowitz, F.,Ashkenazi, M.(1999).Sex, sexuality, and the anthropologist.Chicago:University of Illinois Press.
23. Mead, M.(1949).Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for Western civilization.New York:New American Library.
24. Redfield, R.(1973).Tepoztlan: A Mexican village: A study of folk life.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
25. Reinharz, S.(1984).On becoming a social scientist.New Brunswick:Transaction.
26. Reinharz, S.(1985).Exploring clinical methods for social research.Beverly Hills:Sage.
27. Shaffir, W. B.,Stebbins, R. A.(1991).Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research.Newbury Park:Sage.
28. Smith, C. D.,Komblum, W.(1996).In the field: Readings on the field research experience (2nd ed.).Westport:Praeger.
29. Warren, C. A. B.(1988).Gender issues infield research.Newbury Park:Sage.
30. Warren, C. A. B.,Hackney, J. K.(2000).Gender issues in ethnography (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks:Sage.
31. Wengle, J. L.(1988).Ethnographers in the field: The psychology of research.Tuscaloosa:The University of Alabama Press.
32. Wolf, D. L.(1996).Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork.Boulder:Westview Press.
33. 林秀芬(2002)。絕處逢生：探討九二一地震喪偶女單親災變後之社會支持過程。台北:台灣大學社會學研究所。
34. 胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
35. 唐筱雯(1999)。台北市公娼之從業歷程及生活世界。台北:台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。
36. 高敬文(2002)。質化研究方法論。台北:師大學苑。
37. 黃瑞琴(1994)。質的教育研究方法。台北:心理。
38. 齊力、林本炫(2003)。質性研究方法與資料分析。嘉義:南華大學教育社會學研究所。
39. 潘慧玲(2004)。教育研究方法論：觀點與方法。台北:心理。
40. 謝臥龍(2004)。質性研究。台北:心理。

1. 黃湘貽(2016)。藝術田野踏查--以許淑真與盧建銘的共同創作為地圖。國立臺北藝術大學藝術跨域研究所學位論文。2016。1-78。