Methods of data collection – a multi-method approach

3.2.1. In-depth interviews

The first and main part of the data collection, from which I have gathered the bulk of my data, consists of in-depth interviews with different actors and actor

groups in the field. These actors include organizations representing different sectors of the field, including consumers, the government, manufacturers, and standardization organizations. Examples of actors interviewed include the Swedish Chemicals Agency, SIS, the Swedish Consumers’ Association, Essity, Johnson & Johnson, and MonthlyCup. I conducted 40 in-depth interviews with 25 different respondents selected through purposive sampling (Saunders, 2012).

The responses from interviewees were treated as clues on how the social world of destigmatization processes that require interpretation to be understood. By collecting clues from as many different perspectives as possible, I am able to construct a multifaceted picture of interpretations simultaneously as a deep understanding of each interviewee’s angle (Charmaz, 2006).

I have secured access to respondents in multiple ways but mainly through my own and my supervisor’s contact networks, where people have referred me further to the most knowledgeable and relevant person on the matter within each organization (Yin, 1994). Interviews have lasted between 10 minutes to three hours, and several respondents have been interviewed multiple times, as increased information has enabled me to ask more specific questions with time. A detailed list of respondents and interviews with duration and dates is provided in Appendix 1.

There are certain points that have been important to consider when discussing matters that are stigmatized with respondents. When confronted by a researcher asking questions about menstrual products, decision-making, and stigma, respondents might find themselves in a situation where they are uncomfortable.

It is not often obvious what to say, how to react, or what action to take; once what is done is done, it can be difficult to take it back, which can give rise to a healthy or unhealthy amount of anxiety. This is how we learn what choices make us feel good and what choices make us feel bad. Discussing a stigma will theoretically trigger some sort of social discomfort (or social anxiety), whereas adhering to a stigma could also trigger anxiety because of the unethicality of judging someone negatively according to society’s stereotypes, which are not necessarily true at all.

In a locker room full of jocks or in a boardroom full of decision-makers in 2018, what is it that determines whether a stigma is broken or reinforced? Is it rational to adhere to that which is socially acceptable or to break institutionalized values and stand up for one’s own ideas about what is the right course of action? Clearly, some level of enlightenment and intentional open mindedness and perhaps even

activism is required by the individual to see through the haze of rash judgments that people make on a daily basis to see potential connections between those decisions and a stigma.

In order to get to what is actually my research topic, I am be confronted with narratives with both rational and moral premises. Consistent with Føllesdal (1982), I believe research becomes more interesting when it is a mix of values and technical reasons such as in my case, first and foremost because you get a particular kind of reasoning that is different from other types of reasoning. Whatever role stigma plays is found in the ways that respondents pronounce technical arguments in relationship to the stigma and how they are given importance in different ways.

3.2.2. Action research

Secondly, I have incorporated aspects of action research through my initiation and involvement in the process of standardizing menstrual products at the Swedish Institute for Standardization (SIS). I initiated the standardization in 2016, with the ambition to change the status quo of menstrual product safety regulation, and it continued throughout the writing of this thesis. For various reasons, which will be discussed in the forthcoming chapter on findings, the ongoing process was terminated and replaced by one that aimed at leveraging consumer safety rather than manufacturer interests in starting up a standardization process. I conducted action research mainly in preparatory meetings, organizational meetings, and phone calls. Specifically, I participated in three meetings: a roundtable discussion at a large Swedish networking event called Almedalsveckan hosted by SIS; a stakeholder meeting at SIS, a webinar about standardizing disposable menstrual products, co-hosted by Menstrual Hygiene Day and WASH United; and a number of meetings in which a group of stakeholders developed a proposal for a new standardization area, where I was responsible for the writing.

At the point where the standardization of menstrual products was initiated, my project became oriented, not only toward research and theory production but also toward participating in an initiative toward change. Hence, in some respects, my research project comprises aspects of action research, where a team of multidisciplinary participants join together for a short period of time to work together toward solving specific real-world problems or tasks, namely the

standardization of menstrual products (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005). It can be considered context driven research and thus characterizes mode two knowledge, according to Gibbons et al. (1994). The action research approach is employed as a means, rather than an end, to gain a deeper understanding of the empirical phenomenon of interest and theorize about it, as opposed to doing action research in order to create theory about social interventions (Greenwood & Levin, 2007) where I see my positionality as a researcher as an outsider with regard to the setting I am studying (Herr & Anderson, 2004).

3.2.3. Document analysis

Thirdly, and finally, I have analyzed documents, such as reports in which agencies present their findings regarding investigations conducted on the safety of menstrual products. The two main sources of information consist of the Swedish Chemicals Agency’s report published in 2018 and the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) on the Safety of Feminine Hygiene Products. These serve as both empirical data in and of themselves subjected to analysis as well as a complement to in-depth interviews for triangulation purposes.

To summarize, through a multi-method approach, I aim to build a more multifaceted and robust narrative than would be possible with a single-method approach, enabling for a balance between depth and breadth of knowledge of the empirical field. This narrative tells the story of the factors that contribute to the destigmatization of menstrual products in a field setting.