Ttitle: Seen but Not Heard: Risks and Dilemmas Of/for Researching Women

Feminist political projects are currently characterized by a desire on the part of feminist researchers to unmask the apparent neutrality of contemporary contexts exposing the ways in which women and men are positioned differently. This position, in turn, postulates that there are political consequences of being positioned as a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’ within particular geographical, temporal and cultural contexts. In this paper therefore I address the risks and dilemmas for academic women in a regional university by exploring two key contexts around the notion of academic women as stakeholders. Firstly I attend to the way in which these women can be seen as stakeholders in a feminist research process ? a context where their voices are heard. Secondly I present the notion of academic women as stakeholders in their workplace ? a context where academic women are seen but their voices are not heard. Introduction There has been much feminist research highlighting the ways in which universities are perceived as ‘masculine’ spaces where the experiences, skills and perspectives of women have either been ignored or marginalized (Brooks, 1997; Evans, 1997; Game & Pringle, 1984; Rowan, 1998; Rowan & Bartlett, 1997; Sofia, 1995; Sutherland, 1986; Wise, 1997). Indeed McInnis (2000) argues that there is continuing gender segregation within the academic workplace, with women located predominantly in teaching roles and forming part of the feminized casual labour market. Currie, Harris and Thiele, (2000) suggest that significant parts of academic women’s work are rendered invisible by dominant phallocentric discourses that reproduce and entrench a masculinist culture. This gender segregation has consequences for women academics who are attempting to raise their research profiles. In this paper I am concerned with the political dimension in ‘doing’ research when dominant research discourses at a regional Australian university position some academic women where they are seen but not heard in their workplace. This paper draws from a study that investigated the ways in which four academic women negotiate formal and informal discourses and practices played out in their workplaces within Milton University (MU) (Moore, 2003). MU is what is regarded as a ‘new university’, having been granted university status through the Dawkins reforms that saw the amalgamation of universities and Colleges of Advanced Education. With this change in status there was also a change in focus within MU, where dominant discourses now value research over teaching. I have divided the paper into three sections. In the first section I highlight a dominant research discourse circulating within MU that identifies both stakeholders and gatekeepers and concerns developing collaborative research with industry partners. I argue that this discourse positions some academic women as invisible at MU in the research process. In the second section I present what a feminist methodology can offer the researcher engaging with women as stakeholders within a research process. The third section looks at the risks and dilemmas for academic women in developing faculty/industry research partnerships and what this means for their opportunity to do research. A dominant research discourse: Developing faculty/industry partnerships A dominant research discourse circulating at MU, suggests that the university both values and rewards the development of closer ties with industry and the local community where these ties establish research partnerships. One particular faculty has developed strong research networks with key government agencies such as the Department of Primary Industry, the Environment Protection Agency and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). This faculty markets itself as having considerable strength in research (Milton University, 2001). This is possibly a conseque nce of the largest percentage of university staff members being in this ‘mega’ faculty. However as a result of its favoured partnerships with specific local industry the university has rewarded this faculty by endorsing its position as host of four of the six designated research centres of the university. The faculty justifies the legitimacy of these arrangements through statements such as “these liaisons bring a ‘real world’ focus to the Group’s activities and contribute significantly to the funding of scholarships and equipment” (Milton University, 2001, p. 10). Australian universities are currently re-conceptualizing themselves as ‘market orientated businesses’ (Currie, 1996, p.1), with a focus on the customer. These partnerships represent on the whole connections to traditional ‘masculine’ industries such as cattle, mining, railways and occupations associated with the ‘rural’ (Milton University, 2001), reflecting a phallocentric image of masculine interests (Currie & Newson, 1998; Evans, 1997). With this particular choice of research focus, the university is sending a clear message about where MU is positioning itself in the competitive research arena and about what is seen as legitimate research in this particular