OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 Walker, Carlene. 2002. Utah State Senator, District 8. Interview by author, 22 April. Yoder, Janice D. 1991. "Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers." Gender and Society 5 (2): 178-192. APPENDIX: METHODS After assessing the numerical ratio between male and female elected officials in the Utah State Legislature, I determined that the legislature did, in fact, meet Ranter's specifications for a skewed group. With twenty-one percent of the body being female, the women potentially represented a token group. After contacting the six female officials, I then determined that interviewing the entire universe, all six senators, was a realistic possibility. Five interviews were completed; the sixth interview was not possible due to scheduling conflicts. Although interviewing all female legislators, senators and representatives, would give a fuller picture of female representation, time constraints made study of the Senate a more reasonable project. I researched the background of each senator, paying special attention to education, profession, marital status, parental status, age, party affiliation, and district makeup. I then reviewed each senator's committee assignments and apparent policy priorities (Utah State Senate 2002). I interviewed each senator individually. Each senator quickly agreed to an interview, once I got in touch with her. All interviews were held at the Utah State Capitol, save one that was held in a downtown restaurant. Privacy was maintained during each interview, with virtually no outside presence except the waiter at the restaurant and the occasional passerby. Each senator agreed to have the entire interview tape-recorded. There was no promise of anonymity. Each senator was told that the interview was for my Honors Thesis, which centered on women in elected office and the perceptions of their abilities and capabilities. The interviews varied in length, depending on schedule constraints. The longest interview was over two hours; the shortest approximately forty-five minutes. I began each interview with a general background inquiry, such as how she got involved in political process or her first experiences with the legislature. From there, depending on the answer to the initial questions, I explored issues of equality, policy prioritization, her perception of herself in relation to the body at large, to constituents, and to lobbyists. Because I have interned in the state senate, I am well acquainted with the parlance of the body. I was quickly able to build rapport with all interviewees. I stressed my position as a researcher to mitigate the effect of my known party affiliation. I focused on asking questions and probing the answers given rather than following a script (Glesne, 1999). This approach allows for a freer exchange and casual environment, where each of these senators felt that she could talk openly and teach me about her specific perspective. I asked each senator if she thought she had to work harder than her male counterparts, if she had to prove herself in ways different than her male counterparts, if she felt that she was seen differently than male senators, and if being a senator was different than what she expected. Each senator answered differently, accordingly very different follow-up questions were asked. I am specifically interested in role entrapment, so whenever I heard words or sentiments that connected with Ranter's defined roles, I probed. When I heard about the perceived natural differences between women and men, I asked for clarification. When any of the senators connected their legislative experience with their domestic experience, I asked for examples. I never used Ranter's terms, but followed and used the same language provided by the interviewee. This allowed for rich extrapolation of some elements of role entrapment. Each senator led me through her perception of herself in relation to the body and the community at large. Though the words used were not always exactly the same, each woman exhibited clear understanding of the role expected of her. I also paid careful attention to the awareness and consciousness exhibited by each senator. When there appeared to be a collective sense and intention for action to directly affect women, I took note. Each senator had a clear level of consciousness, but the level of that consciousness varied based upon subject matter discussed and personal contact with the barrier in question. After each interview, I took careful notes from the tapes. I used the notes and the tapes to look for evidence that both supported and countered Ranter's theory. The results are striking. 31 |