On 16th of January 2025, the Department of Political Science (School of Social Sciences), University of Hyderabad, organized a lecture titled ‘Life History as a Feminist Method’, delivered by Prof. Sundari Anitha, Chair in Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, UK. Prof. Aparna Rayaprol, Department of Sociology, chaired it. Dr. Sneha Banerjee from the Department of Political Science was the discussant.
The lecture focused on the Life History method as a powerful tool for understanding lived experiences through deep, personal narratives. It was emphasized that this approach goes beyond incident-centred studies, offering a contextualized view of individual experiences within broader societal structures and power dynamics. The method often involves extended interviews. The process is resource-intensive, requiring careful recording and transcription, and the researcher must navigate both the risks and rewards of establishing rapport with interviewees.
A key element of Life History research is its feminist epistemological stance, which rejects neutrality and acknowledges the subjectivity of both the researcher and the subject. The researcher’s presence in the research process is vital, and power imbalances are not eliminated but made visible. This approach fosters reciprocity between researcher and participant, enabling interviewees to share intimate and vulnerable stories. However, such reciprocity can be complex and involves risk on the part of the researcher as well. The speaker highlighted the importance of triangulating Life histories with other methods, such as media analysis and archives, to strengthen findings and mitigate the risks of relying solely on interviews. Additionally, the lecture addressed the methodological tensions between maintaining a loose interview structure to allow for the participant’s voice and ensuring the researcher’s priorities are met through active listening.
One illustrative example discussed was the Grunwick Dispute of 1976-77, where South Asian women workers faced dual disadvantages of race and gender, challenging both employers and trade unions. The dominant media narrative erased their struggle, but the Life History method helped uncover their personal stories, revealing a nuanced understanding of class-based shame experienced by the workers. Prof. Anitha described how common-sensical assumptions are often layered with complexities. Taking an example of a participant in these protests, who confessed to having felt ‘shame’ when out in the streets – the speaker described that it was not merely a gendered but also a dislocated-class experience of ‘having to beg’.
Thus, the Life History method is critical to understanding locations of intersectionality. She highlighted that the interview process is also an ‘active construction of the Self’- and a researcher can understand the power dynamics at play only with a careful and contextualized reading of the transcript. The constructed self is to be understood in the context of the interview and thus becomes a part of the research, not an accretion to be rejected.
A reflection on data analysis was provided, emphasizing the importance of understanding both the story being told and how it is told. The speaker also discussed research on transnational marriage abandonment, highlighting how laws and border regimes enable forms of domestic violence that affect women married to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). This research led to significant policy changes, such as the inclusion of transnational abandonment in the definition of domestic violence and a new law in the UK to support victims in 2022.
The lecture concluded with a discussion on the role of research in both academic and practical realms. The speaker stressed that the boundaries between theory and practice should not be seen as rigid, with the aim being to enact change, especially in areas like law where strategic approaches are necessary. The emotional cost of researching violence was also acknowledged, with the speaker drawing strength from the resilience of the women interviewed.
The chair applauded Prof. Anitha for ‘walking the talk’ and setting an example for further feminist research and intervention. The discussant, Dr. Sneha Banerjee, commented on the need to see theoretical and policy research in tandem and asked how the inter-disciplinary boundaries are to be navigated when, for instance, a political scientist not trained in ethnographic methods, was to adopt a Life History approach. In reply, the speaker recalled her training as a political scientist, which helped her find appropriate theoretical frames for her study and reaffirmed that theory and practice should not be separately compartmentalized.
This was followed by an engaging round of questions from the audience, which revolved around methodological parallels between Life History and oral history method, emotional costs of ‘active listening’ to stories of violence, and the complexities of navigating the tensions within the community being interviewed.
Report by: Rajat Pratap Singh (MA Political Science)