At the Heart of Feminist Transnational Organizing: Exploring Postcolonial Reflexivity in Organizational Practice at World Pulse

Abstract

This article extends research on transnational feminist networks (TFNs), organizations that bring women together across national borders for collective action. A case study of World Pulse, a TFN with online community members from 190 countries that aims to amplify women's voices globally, reveals the nonprofit organization engages in ongoing reflexive practices to negotiate tensions related to voice. Using the analytical lens of postcolonial reflexivity, two themes of reflexive practices were identified: speaking from within (direct and formal inclusion of members’ voices) and speaking for (staff displaying ethical consciousness around members’ voices). Questions TFNs can ask to promote reflexivity are proposed.

Keywords:

• Reflexivity
• Voice
• Transnational Feminist Networks
• Postcolonial Feminism
• Nonprofits

Transnational feminist networks (TFNs), organizational forms bringing self-identified women and their allies together across national borders for collective action (Moghadam, 2005), provide rich sites for studying the intersections of globalization, gender, and organizing. The study of TFNs answers calls for increased attention to forms of organizing for social change on a global scale, as well as to the tensions inherent in such practices (Stohl, 2005). Previous research on TFNs has begun to explore the “organizing tensions” present in their self-representations (Dempsey, Parker, & Krone, 2007, p. 3), but little attention has been given in current scholarship to the tensions related to voice, especially around who gets to speak when and for whom in these diverse networks. Scholars have recognized a need for further investigation of organizational practices in creating and constricting opportunities for voice, participation, and democracy (Best, 2005; Ganesh, Zoller, & Cheney, 2005).

World Pulse, a Portland, Oregon-based nonprofit and online community, provides a context to explore these issues. The organization's mission is to accelerate the global changes women seek by using digital communication to unite and amplify women's voices. World Pulse provides a web-based platform that, at the time of this study, included an online magazine, digital action campaigns, resource exchanges, and an online community newswire and social networking site, with members from more than 190 countries. World Pulse is different from most other nonprofits in the women's empowerment and development arena in that it looks and acts like a technology start-up. The organization responds quickly to its dynamic online community, targeting grassroots women leaders with information, tools, and other resources to facilitate women's empowerment and organizing. World Pulse is currently staffed mostly by Western women and funded primarily by Western organizations and individuals, but represents a network of community members and voluntary community leaders located across the globe, with large pockets in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. This creates inherent tensions as World Pulse attempts to navigate speaking with, as, and to its community. This study uses the analytical framework of postcolonial reflexivity to examine how World Pulse negotiates tensions related to voice by engaging in reflexivity in its organizational practices.

Transnational Feminist Organizing

TFNs either explicitly or implicitly share many characteristics associated with other feminist organizations, but have a few unique attributes (D'Enbeau, 2011). First, TFNs are organized around a shared set of issues and interests rather than nationalities (D'Enbeau, 2011; Moghadam, 2005). These networks, which bring women from three or more countries together, typically employ lobbying, advocacy, and direct action to achieve their goals as well as to further information exchange and encourage solidarity among members (Dempsey et al., 2007; Moghadam, 2005). Secondly, TFNs are facilitated by and often dependent on new communication technologies that allow for connections across borders as well as access to global audiences at reduced costs (D'Enbeau, 2011; Diani, 2000; Moghadam, 2005).

Research on participatory and alternative organizations, including feminist organizations like TFNs, has recognized intersecting tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes embedded in such organizational forms (Ashcraft, 2006; Dempsey et al., 2007, 2011; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). A “tension-centered approach” calls attention to the ways that organizations are inherently “conflicted sites of human activity” and how bringing tensions to the fore has implications for both theory and practice (Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004, p. 82). Organizing tensions reflect the ways “reoccurring tensions arise from, and are enacted through, organizing practices” and the ways in which organizational members attempt to actively organize, or manage, such tensions as part of their everyday organizational experience (Dempsey et al., 2007, p. 24). Previously identified tensions related to feminist organizations, such as TFNs, include a desire to be transparent about their identities and agendas while staying accountable to various stakeholders, a struggle to balance solidarity and diversity both internally and externally, and a push for both decentralization and professionalization (Dempsey et al., 2007, 2011; D'Enbeau, 2011).

In particular, TFNs’ efforts to actively engage differences require organizational members to manage the tendency for privileged members to speak for marginalized groups, drawing attention to organizing tensions related to voice that merit further attention (Dempsey et al., 2011). By voice, we refer to a complex and situated agentic experience that reflects the ability not only to speak but also to have one's speech “heard and taken into account in social and political life” (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, p. 95). Scholars have called for increased attention to the “problematic” of voice—who gets to speak for whom—within organizational communication research (Mumby & Stohl, 1996), as well as identified a need for further investigation into the role of organizational practices in facilitating and denying opportunities for voice in transnational advocacy efforts (Best, 2005; Ganesh et al., 2005). Additionally, feminist scholars have recognized the power and privilege involved in claiming voice and the dilemmas that arise from attempting to speak as and for “women” (Alcoff, 1991; Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004). Tensions related to voice can include those surrounding silence and expression, inclusion and exclusion, consensus and dissent, as well as those related to formal/informal and equitable/hierarchical relationships (Barge & Andreas, 2013).

In the context of TFNs, voice becomes contested as variously positioned individuals and collectives strive to participate and be heard within organizational processes as well as when an organization attempts to speak on behalf of its members in ways that do not silence or distort their voices. Members of global organizations may also face barriers to voice that include language use, technology access, digital literacy and different member vulnerabilities to external influences and structures (Dempsey, 2007). These organizations must find ways then to authentically and ethically balance the ability to speak for others while not further marginalizing or constraining the voices of their members and stakeholders. They can do this by attending to whose voices are included and considered in organizational processes as well as how those voices are represented and acted upon. Asking members to continuously provide feedback using multiple forums and technologies and privileging their voices in organizational decision-making are examples of communicative practices TFNs might employ.

Postcolonial Reflexivity

Tensions related to voice in transnational organizing forms then demand reflexivity within organizational practices. Reflexivity generally refers to the need for ongoing critical self-analysis and awareness, particularly around issues of positionality and power (Barge, 2004; Finlay, 2002; Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012). Given the challenges of negotiating difference, the global positioning of various organizational members, and a legacy of Western feminism speaking for “women,” postcolonial reflexivity is particularly relevant to the work of TFNs (Broadfoot & Munshi, 2007; Norander & Harter, 2012; Shome, 1996). Postcolonial reflexivity emerges from postcolonial theory, and more specifically the work of postcolonial feminists who have taken issue with Western feminists’ legacy of erasing, essentializing, and/or otherwise “Other”-izing the experiences of women in the so-called “Third World” (Mohanty, 2003; Narayan, 1997). In turn, these scholars call attention to the ways variously positioned women's experiences are shaped by the interactions of diverse socio-cultural contexts and ideologies (Mohanty, 2003). Postcolonial reflexivity then applies both as a research strategy for scholars as well as an organizational practice. For scholars, postcolonial self-reflexivity can involve constantly examining our socio-cultural positions and the ways our manners of thinking, speaking, and acting are tied to our positions and contexts within the global system (Shome, 1996). Postcolonial reflexivity can also be conceptualized as a process by which organizations critically examine the paradoxes involved in transnational advocacy efforts (Norander & Harter, 2012). Reflexivity can be seen as a “practice by which members strive to make sense of their work, their organizations, and their personal and collective political convictions” (Norander & Harter, 2012, p. 87). This can materialize in specific communicative practices that allow for questioning, exchanging information, mobilizing resources, creating alternative media spaces, and engaging in advocacy (Norander & Harter, 2012).

As a nonprofit media network that aims to unite and amplify the voices of women globally, World Pulse must work to constantly address tensions surrounding voice(s) within its organizational practices. With a mantra for its online community of “No one speaks for me. I speak for myself,” World Pulse's practices require a level of ethical consciousness about the history and structures that put staff members in a position to create a space for other women's voices, as well as the problematic legacy of Western women attempting to speak for and as “women.” Following Norander and Harter (2012), the present study uses postcolonial reflexivity as an analytical framework through which to examine the tensions related to voice within the transnational feminist network World Pulse and specifically the organization's reflexive practices. In this effort, the following research question was posed: How do transnational feminist networks practice reflexivity in negotiating tensions related to voice?

Methods

Procedures

This study draws on participant observations of workshops and meetings, a series of written and in-person interviews with organizational stakeholders, and the analysis of organizational documents over a nine-month period (November 2013–July 2014) as the researchers assisted World Pulse in the development of an organizational theory of change. The second author facilitated a two-day workshop for 15 staff and board members (3 male and 12 female), including World Pulse's founder and all administrative staff. Workshop participants engaged in a self-study of the organization's vision, mission, and impact. The workshop included group discussions and experiential activities (e.g., backwards causal mapping to identify impact and organizational functioning). All documents produced at the workshop were collected or photographed and observations were recorded. Ten staff and board members and six community members provided written responses about organizational success and barriers prior to the workshop. During a second phase of the self-study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine board and staff members as well as five community members, each based in a different country. These interviews, primarily conducted by Skype or phone, were recorded for transcription and ranged from 20 to 90 minutes in length. We also reviewed internal and external documents provided by World Pulse administrators and World Pulse site content related to the organization's public narrative, branding, press coverage, program descriptions, and strategic planning. We were given broad access to internal documentation; however, only those relevant to the current research question related to World Pulse's reflexivity in negotiating tensions related to voice were analyzed in the current study.

The data were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As part of an iterative open-coding process, the researchers engaged in multiple readings of the data throughout the research process and participated in regular discussions about emerging themes. A second round of analysis involved subsequent readings focused specifically on thematically identifying points of reflexivity within World Pulse's organizing practices. The identified practices were then constantly compared, refined, and reviewed with the data. In line with this study's use of postcolonial feminist theory and specifically postcolonial reflexivity, a third round of analysis involved paying particular attention to the privileging/subjugation of voices, experiences, and knowledge within the research process (Norander & Harter, 2012).

Researcher Reflexivity

Similar to World Pulse, we have also actively grappled with how to practice reflexivity in our work. As feminist communication researchers, we have sought to interrogate the ways in which our privileged positions as white, Western women at U.S. universities have influenced the research process given the:

colonizing tendency of the act of research itself as a practice particularly when it is carried out in contexts in which the individuals have been stripped of their power for self-definition and self-expression by being cast in the role of the marginalized Other. (Mutua & Swadener, 2004, p. 12)

We also recognize the challenges of our dual roles as academic researchers and organizational consultants, and have attempted to be mindful of the ways in which those interdependent roles have shaped our data collection, findings, and representations. We have attempted, not always successfully, to engage in practices to account for these various, shifting positions in relation to our participants who occupied various social locations, organizational positions, and cultural contexts. These included engaging in ongoing conversations with each other to reflect on our observations, inviting participation by stakeholders at various stages in the research process, and attending to differences in observations and experiences of participants. We engaged in reflexive conversations after each interview and organizational meeting. These conversations were documented through notes and/or recordings. Throughout, we have also tried to engage in a “process of listening deeply and humbly” in our interactions with participants (Mutua & Swadener, 2004, p. 8). Additionally, the initial findings and a final draft of this manuscript were shared with World Pulse staff and community members who were invited to reflect on and provide feedback on the accuracy of the findings through a member checking process.

Practicing (Postcolonial) Reflexivity

Two dominant themes of reflexive practices addressing tensions related to voice emerged repeatedly in our analysis of the case study data and appear central to World Pulse's modus operandi. As one staff member said, “Grassroots women leaders speaking for themselves is embedded in everything, absolutely everything we do.” The two themes identified in the study are: speaking from within (direct inclusion of community members’ voices to inform organizational strategy and operations) and speaking for (staff informally practicing ethical consciousness around members’ voices). It should be noted that constantly and meaningfully engaging in the identified reflexive practices appears to be an ideal that organizational members strive toward, but one that is not always fully achieved. Additionally, these practices are not mutually exclusive, but interact with one another in important ways that shape organizational processes. For example, ethical consciousness surrounding issues of inclusion eventually resulted in the formal creation of the Community Advisory Board, which was inaugurated in May 2014. Likewise, formal feedback received from community members may then be drawn upon or become salient in the organizational discourses in later staff discussions.

Speaking from Within

To attempt to ensure community members have an ongoing impact on World Pulse's infrastructure, the nonprofit has created several formal mechanisms for them to speak from within. First, community members constitute a newly formed and voluntary Community Advisory Board (CAB), comprised at the time of this study of women from six different countries. This geographically dispersed board is convened virtually, enabled by tools and platforms like email and Skype, to provide feedback to World Pulse on topics ranging from operations and marketing to strategic planning and long-term organizational goal setting. However, World Pulse staff members are highly protective of this group and try to ensure they are not oversaturated with solicitations for feedback. One community member expressed that she feels the CAB, despite its solely advisory role, is contributing to the new direction World Pulse is taking to help women to connect around specific local issues that matter to them in a global way:

That's one thing I like, even though its advisory nature, I do think that's one thing that will go on to happen—that the members will go and will bring issues that are regional nature but that have global relevance.

A second formal mechanism for inclusion is that the chair of the CAB holds a formal seat on the World Pulse Board of Directors, along with other internationally based and U.S.-based board members. Board members’ backgrounds include those with media, corporate, nonprofit, and leadership sector experience among others. World Pulse's board charge also indicates a formal commitment to diversity in stating that more than half of the board will be members raised in a culture outside the U.S. mainstream, that over 75 percent will be women, and that they will represent diverse ages and economic backgrounds.

Third, the organization's approximately 25,000 online community members around the globe are also solicited for feedback in a variety of ways including direct calls from World Pulse staff, researchers, and consultants. For example, after campaigns or training, participants are often asked to complete a brief survey to gather input on the process and outcomes. While the community members’ feedback is valued and often discussed, staff members are again mindful of oversaturation and resist contacting them for direct feedback on World Pulse operations too frequently.

When they are asked for their input, community members themselves may also face constraints in providing feedback to World Pulse, including time, distance/geography, language, literacy, technology access, and material resources, among others. One CAB member explained:

These women [on the board] are from different parts of the world … There are two from West Africa, one is from South America like Bolivia, one from U.S., and there is one lady from Somalia, so it's very varied and it's a very, very diverse group. One woman … in this group [name withheld], she's from Somalia … She lives far, far away from the capitol by the riverside … It's a very rural setting, difficult setting, very isolated. And yesterday she joined us from a public cyber cafe … but it didn't have electricity, and they were running on generator and we had to, so, she couldn't hear us properly, so we had to type up everything we discussed so she could—just to give you idea of the kind of difficulty that [board] members actually face. Now, ignoring overcoming, of these difficulties, the woman is still coming to take part in a meeting, and to take part in a role that will not pay her. It's a completely unpaid role. She's coming to a public cafe to be part of this. And why? Because it's worth everything.

Despite attempts to formalize their involvement in the organization, some of the community members we spoke with lamented the prevalence of volunteer opportunities as opposed to those that are accompanied by material resources (e.g., paid positions). During interviews with CAB members, two members indicated they would like to see World Pulse's commitment to hire community members in paid staff positions realized. Without having community members in paid staff roles, access to formalized power and resources falls along traditional global power lines, raising questions about who stands to benefit and in what ways.

Other community members spoke of conversations they had with each other about a perceived “Westernization” of World Pulse. While expressing their extreme appreciation for all that World Pulse does and tries to do, they indicated that some community members ask why speaking and organizing opportunities in their host countries are not mentioned and the ones that are exist mostly in the United States. One community member stated:

On the one hand it has a presence in more countries than anyone else—most spread-out-ever network. And yet, it's such a U.S. format. One woman particularly from Africa told me, “There is no Africa World Pulse—why is everyone U.S.?” So that's been something. I have heard similar voices from other people, not a big number, but the comments, but the view that they've had is pretty strong.

Speaking For

The second set of reflexive practices identified repeatedly involves engagement in informal self/other-monitoring practices when staff members attempt to speak for the community. As one staff member noted, “The technical feat of ‘presenting voices in unison without undermining individuality’ is not trivial.” As a whole, World Pulse staff members have considerable experience in global activism, journalism, and international development work, and this “on-the-ground” expertise has created a hyper-awareness that they must be cautious about how they might be speaking on behalf of community members. Staff and board members openly acknowledge their own, as one member put it, “limited understanding of all of the local issues and contexts of our members and the issues they are speaking about.” The embeddedness of “women speaking for themselves” and importance placed on “owning one's voice” is so closely tied to their mission it serves as a self-disciplinary mechanism that reveals itself in their language, organizational practices, and individual and collective ethical consciousness around the representation of community members’ voices. We observed many instances of (1) backtracking, hedging in conversation, and self-correcting; (2) gentle and pointed reminders to bring the community members and their diversity into the conversation; (3) calling out others but also relying on external collaborators and community members to “bring the women back” into the conversation; and (4) engaging in direct and ongoing conversations about organizational goals and processes.

As an organization with multiple and variously located stakeholders and at times divergent voices, World Pulse has engaged in consensus-based decision-making, which, as some staff members noted, can be time-consuming and challenging. One staff member wrote:

Sometimes there are very strong and differing views within the team. I *love* that these discussions and the differences of opinion arise. But get concerned that at times we don't move forward on something, because it is not clear how to move forward when such divergent opinions are present. What is our guiding light for making decisions at these times, so that differences can be voiced *and* we can still move forward?

In such instances, the ethical consciousness of World Pulse staff emerged repeatedly as staff members engaged in self-policing communication. Examples include statements to remind themselves, and others in the room, that they are “thinking of the community members” or “bringing the conversation back to the women and challenges she faces.” Repeatedly staff would stop mid-sentence, backtracking to state they needed community members’ feedback or that they were being inclusive of prior feedback and input from the online community by citing a specific woman by name. At one point during a strategy session, an organizational leader suggested they stop and read written input from community members because their voices help to simplify and cut through the complexity of the organizational challenges they face and help them to focus on what is most important. In this instance, written feedback from the community members was read aloud by various staff. Community members’ voices in this context were treated as a privileged source of expertise.

While attempts were continuously made during the study period to be inclusive of community members’ voices (in writing or via Skype or phone) in meetings related to internal operations and strategic planning, many times they were formally absent from the conversation, to the obvious discomfort of staff. During these times, World Pulse staff experienced the tension of needing to act with the speed of a technology start-up, yet also attend to the organization's role in the women's empowerment process with careful deliberation. In particular, with rapid growth of the organization, staff reported being “overloaded” and “pulled in too many directions.” As such, their desires for collaboration with community members during strategic planning at the time of the study translated into early involvement and inclusion that would sometimes taper off as time and resource constraints necessitated faster turnarounds on decisions.

Negotiating Tensions in Practice

This study has attempted to represent the formal and informal reflexive practices one transnational feminist network (World Pulse) engages in as it seeks to ethically navigate tensions related to voice within its organizational processes. World Pulse's position is fraught with tensions inherent in any organization that attempts to “unite” voices from economically, geographically, and culturally diverse contexts. Additionally, various power structures and socio-historical circumstances have put World Pulse, its founder, board, and staff in a position to create spaces for variously located women's voices. As such, they open themselves up to increased scrutiny and potential criticism for replicating existing power structures and privileging certain voices. While World Pulse's efforts to facilitate women's empowerment can be further interrogated, we follow Norander and Harter (2012) in arguing that a postcolonial feminist framework can be applied in various ways across contexts, and those that focus on organizations’ practices for resistance and reflexivity provide value in illuminating both the promises and perils of transnational organizing.

Consistent with Dempsey et al.’s (2007) findings that TFNs actively embrace strategies to negotiate ethical dilemmas around privileging more powerful voices over those that are traditionally less privileged, World Pulse employs various practices to enable women's participation in their internal organizational planning and decision-making. Specifically, this study revealed: (1) the creation and regular use of formal and informal advisory roles for women to provide input, and (2) explicit and implicit reminders to ensure women's voices are heard and acknowledged in everyday organizational micro-practices as well as within larger discourses. The findings also indicate that World Pulse may engage what Dempsey (2007) called bounded voice, a dynamic process in which “opportunities for voice are strategically and provisionally limited to particular forums” as a way to manage the tensions surrounding multiple stakeholder voices within global organizations (p. 312). Such organizational practices present both possibilities and limitations to addressing and negotiating tensions related to voice (Dempsey, 2007).

Yet, World Pulse's attempts to promote the inclusion of community members’ voices within organizational processes are challenged by various constraints. These constraints include, but are not limited to, (1) time and distance, (2) language and culture, (3) resources and funding, (4) technological capacities, and (5) traditional power structures. Despite these constraints, World Pulse's reflexive practices are instructive, especially with regard to navigating the tensions related to voice in intercultural contexts. We pose the following questions, derived from these practices, that TFNs and other organizations can ask to promote reflexivity:

1. Who has formal and/or informal access to voice (both speaking and being heard) within international organization's practices and decision-making processes?

2. In what spaces are variously situated (e.g., based on nationality, class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, etc.) organizational members/stakeholders able to speak for themselves?

3. What are the barriers to participation in intercultural/international organizations?

4. In what ways might the voices of variously situated organizational members/stakeholders be silenced, distorted, and/or co-opted in organizational practices?

5. Who stands to benefit from organizational resources (e.g., material, informational, etc.)?

6. In what ways are the voices of variously situated organizational members and stakeholders explicitly and implicitly accounted for within organizational practices?

7. In what ways do solutions to address voice or lack of voice in organizational practices negate, alleviate, or recreate existing power structures?

While this study aimed to describe when and how reflexivity takes place within the context of World Pulse's organizing practices, it does not fully indicate their effectiveness, particularly the extent to which voices are actually heard and taken into account and the extent to which these measures do disrupt traditional power relationships. Future research should explore exemplars of constructive disruptions, and the conditions that facilitate them, to reshape organizational practices and provide new avenues for voice within TFNs and other organizational contexts. Future research investigating the role World Pulse plays in facilitating women's empowerment and their practices used in garnering a global audience for women's solutions to global problems is also needed. This type of research would be instructive for TFNs with similar goals and those interested in developing a shared transnational organizational ethic to streamline partnering and collaborative practices.