I would like to thank Karisa Cloward for her generous review and the editors of Perspectives on Politics for inviting this exchange. I appreciate Cloward’s careful reading of my book and succinct summary of its main arguments. Let me respond to her critical comments in turn.
The number of interviews that the book draws on is indeed small, especially in light of increasingly ambitious qualitative studies, which, perhaps under the influence of large-scale quantitative research, recruit ever-larger numbers of research participants. With the in-depth nature of the interviews and the close reading that I adopt in Complicit Sisters, I followed the principle of data saturation to determine the final number of interviews and finally arrived at a sample size not dissimilar to comparable studies. In the concluding chapter of the book, I suggest developing future research that “systematically compares, rather than analyzes together, the similarities and differences . . . in career trajectories and processes of politicization between those working inside the global North in the area of gendered migration versus those working on gender in the international field” (p. 192). The so-called refugee crisis and the solidarity initiatives that this provoked provides fertile ground for comparative research along these lines, and would require a different sampling strategy to ensure representativeness across categories.
In terms of the rationale for the selection of research participants, there were several considerations, such as including key women’s and gender organizations based in Geneva and Brussels as prime international sites, while also targeting organizations grounded in national and local settings. This was in recognition of the fact that global aid relations are articulated across different scales. The women selected could be characterized as “global citizens,” described in global civil society literature not only as embracing nationally bound rights and duties but also as performing a sense of global responsibility, a responsibility that is often tied to privilege. For a research project concerned with subjectivities, it was important to allow the women to speak in their personal capacity, rather than as organizational representatives. Balancing demands of confidentiality and the need to give readers relevant details about the women’s backgrounds, I could not provide further information about the organizations included in the sample. I met some of the women in their offices, while other research participants chose to speak to me in separate locations after work time. I attribute the women’s openness during these intense but single interview encounters to the fact that they embraced the opportunity to speak to an outsider about the tensions inherent in their work; many noted that professional demands and time pressures limited spaces for critical exchange.
My hope is, therefore, that the book reaches not only academic audiences but also practitioners in development, humanitarian, and migration international NGOs and domestic nonprofit organizations that address women’s inequality and gender issues in their work. Some have told me that recognizing themselves in the stories of my research participants made them critically reflect on their own professional practices. For others, the book could serve as confirmation that their seemingly personal dilemmas in fact emerge from the structural conditions under which attempts to “do good” take place, inviting further frank conversations within and beyond the sector.
