ARCHIVE: Questionnaire Project.
The Radical Feminist Questionnaire Project
1983-1987
A comprehensive record of the efforts of five radical feminists in the early 1980s to ascertain the state of the radical wing of the Women’s Movement in order to determine how to create a more organized, active and visible presence.
In the fall of 1983, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Judy O’Neil, Liora Pakula, Joan Ringelheim, and Joanne Steele began designing a detailed questionnaire to find out how women who considered themselves radical feminists perceived the progress of the movement and to get their opinions on key political issues such as sexuality, activism, religion, and sexism in the workplace. After first distributing the questionnaire to a trial group of acquaintances, the questionnaire was published in the January 1985 issue of the feminist periodical off our backs. Additionally, the group advertised the questionnaire (via small print ads and flyers) and women could request copies by mail. More than 300 women responded, but because of the questionnaire’s format, coding the data proved difficult. A second version was created and distributed, yielding approximately another 200 responses, bringing the total to over 500.
The archive, from the files of Ti-Grace Atkinson, consists of twelve boxes of original and printed material, arranged chronologically. Five of the boxes relate to the process of the project’s coordinators and contain correspondence files, meeting notes, grant proposals, outreach materials, and drafts of the questionnaire itself. Two boxes contain the records of Susan Perricone, the professional computer analyst hired by the group in 1986 to evaluate the data captured in the questionnaire’s 109 questions. For a number of reasons, these results were never published within the feminist community or elsewhere. In the summer of 1987, after the idea of creating a 3rd version of the questionnaire was discussed and dismissed, the group held its final meeting and the project was officially concluded.
The records of radical organizations from this time period are scarce. Much can be learned from the archive’s documentation of how the Radical Feminist Questionnaire Project, designed to identify commonalities among post-Second Wave feminists, was executed and what mistakes ultimately undermined its success. The most compelling content, however, exists in the five boxes that contain the more than 500 completed questionnaires from women in 45 states and several other countries including Canada, Germany, Israel, Egypt, and India. Approximately one-fifth of the women surveyed wrote notes in the margins and/or attached additional pages with comments, letters, manifestos, and even poetry. Their voices, recorded in this archive, offer an incredible snapshot of 1980s feminism at a key turning point in the Women’s Movement.
Archive Contents
(Folder titles in bold; QP = Questionnaire Project)
Box 1
QP Participants
• Typescript bios and resumes of the project’s coordinators (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Liora Pakula, Joanne Steele, Judith O’Neil, and Joan Ringelheim)
Purpose of QP
• One flyer advertising the questionnaire addressed to “All Radical Feminists” that was distributed to women’s bookstores, community centers, etc.
• Typescript (and Xerox) of draft of cover letter sent to women who requested questionnaires (accompanying the questionnaire)
• Typescript of a later version of the cover letter
• Typescript (and Xerox) of letter sent to trial group of participants
Earlier Feminist Questionnaires
Radical Feminist Organizing Committee Material:
• 3 copies of a typescript 1-page letter to members with the RFOC’s founding principles printed on the back
• Typescript (and Xerox) 2-page 10-question questionnaire dated 1982
• 3 Xeroxes of an RFOC membership solicitation letter, together with an organizational report and a directory of radical feminists
Hite Research Questionnaire
• Typescript questionnaire with 127 questions, all write-in (no multiple choice) dated 1983
NOW
• 3 Xeroxes from a book containing a questionnaire distributed by NOW (multiple choice and write-in) from 1974 and an assessment of the respondents and answers (each Xerox is 22 pages)
Feminist Collective
• Xerox of typescript letter and questionnaire (19 write-in questions) dated April 1973
Feminists on Feminism Project
• Xerox of letter and questionnaire (10 write-in questions)
Human Rights for Women Grant Proposal
• Manuscript notes and manuscript and typescript letter drafts for HRW grant request (August 1983)
Initial 50 Questions per Individual
• Approx. 30 typescript and Xerox leaves with the questions that Atkinson, Pakula, O’Neil, and Steele wrote with autograph emendations
• Approx. 10 leaves of manuscript notes and questions
Participant Questionnaire Responses
• Completed questionnaires filled out by Atkinson, Steele? and Ringelheim
Meeting Notes
• Approx. 60 leaves of manuscript notes from weekly meetings that took place October ’83-September ‘84
Outreach 1984
• 3 manuscript leaves with notes on ad rates for publications (Ms., Woman News, Village Voice
• Two flyers (Women’s Bulletin Board, National Council of Negro Women)
Miscellaneous
• Typescript survey of teaching experience
• Newspaper article from Columbus Free Press (Jan. 1984) about “squelching citizen action”
• Issue of New Directions for Women (Sept/Oct 1984)
Trial Drafts
• Approx. 150 leaves (a mixture of manuscript, typescript and Xerox), documenting the evolution of the questionnaire in preparation for the first trial group. Organization of questionnaire is mapped out, with primary sections identified: Demographics, Ideology and Organization, Political Identification, Political Opinion, The State, Religion, Identifying Oppression, Strategies and Tactics, Political/Personal History, and Future Goals.
Trial Group: Notes, Cover letter, and Responses (3 folders)
• Notes: 16 manuscript leaves with names (and some addresses) of women to be solicited to be in the trial group, including with some recognizable names from the feminist community (Andrea Dworkin, Audre Lord).
• Cover letter: 9 leaves (mix of typescript and manuscript) of marked-up drafts of the letter sent to the trial group asking them to both complete the questionnaire and offer feedback on the content/language, but not copy or distribute it.
• Responses: One completed questionnaire with notes/suggestions and 4 leaves of manuscript notes from one participant. NOTE: 30 questionnaires were sent out for the trial, and 15 were returned, but the whereabouts of the other 14 completed trial group questionnaires are unknown.
Questionnaire Drafts August/September 1984
• Approx. 150 leaves (mix of manuscript, typescript, and Xerox) of questionnaire drafts from August-September 1984 (after the trial group feedback had been integrated and some questions had been cut, reworded, or turned into multiple choice from essay and vice versa). Some leaves with new question ideas (i.e. What is your feminist perspective on men?)
Box 2
Similar to Box 1 in terms of the amount and scope of material. Folder titles:
QP Meeting Notes Oct-Dec ‘84
Questionnaire Drafts Oct-Dec ‘84
Draft Cover Letter for oob
Draft Cover Letter for second Version
oob January ‘85
RFOC Correspondence
• Includes two autograph notes from Radical Feminist Organizing Committee members and one typescript letter (and several Xerox copies) of an angry letter from the RFOC itself, dated April 26, 1985. The letter reads in part:
“We were disturbed to read your statement in the January off our backs implying that there were no visible or organized’ radical feminist groups. We wonder if you truly want to re-establish a radical feminist presence in this country since you chose to overlook the existence of the only national (and Canadian) radical feminist organization … If you do have political differences with us, that’s fine. State them … If radical feminism is ever to be the force of women’s liberation, it must be reborn with a non-possessive attitude. In the interest of radical feminist solidarity, we request that you correct your oversight in the next issue of off our backs.”
Drafts and copies of the final version of the QP response, which is dated August 6, 1985, are also present. QP clarifies that while they did not write the opening remarks which appeared with the questionnaire in oob, the statement about the “lack” of organized radical feminist groups is not untrue, since according to the dictionary, lack “can imply either an absence or a shortage in supply.” The letter goes on to say that “horizontal harassment” among feminist groups is to blame for “important issues get[ting] lost.”
Cindy Cisler (Printing)
Correspondence- Questionnaire Respondents
Correspondence- Flyers, Ads, Solicitations
Correspondence- Misc.
QP Budget
RESIST Grant Application
Money for Women Fund Grant Application
Outreach
Press Release Mar. 1985
“Our short range goal was to find out what had happened to the thousands of women who identified themselves as radical feminists in the 1960’s and 1970’s. For this purpose, we devised a questionnaire of over 100 questions, focussing on past experience internal to the women’s movement as well as delineating current political perspectives. Our long-range goal is to re-organize the radical feminist wing of the women’s movement … The Questionnaire was first offered publicly in January 1985. The response has been enthusiastic. Women from forty states have answered, as well as from Canada, Japan, and France … We intend to analyze and publish results within the year.”
QP Meeting Notes Jan-May ‘85
Miscellaneous
Box 3
• Approx. 500 copies of the purple and red flyer instructing women who consider themselves radical feminists to write to the RFQP and request questionnaires.
• 16 blank typescript questionnaires (second version)
• Bank ledger containing hundreds of blank checks and deposit slips for an account labeled “Human Rights for Women”
Box 4
• 61 questionnaires from the off our backs pullout from January 1985. The pullouts measure 11½ x 14¼” and are in very good condition, with mild age-toning, occasional chips and tears along the edges, and creases from mailing. This sampling includes questionnaires filled out by women living in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Washington D.C., and Wisconsin, as well as the U.K., Israel, Canada, Ireland, and France.
For each oob questionnaire, there is an 8½ x 11” typescript of the second version attached, with the responses transferred by a group member (in this case, Ti-Grace Atkinson). The second version differs from the oob pullout in a few ways. The second version had 107 questions, compared to 109 in the oob. Many questions were reformatted to simplify data analysis (for example, question #3 about race/ethnicity changed from a write-in response to multiple choice). Finally, the personal information questions (name, address, etc), which the women could choose to leave blank, were grouped together on the last page so that it could be easily detached to ensure anonymity.
The following excerpts are included to provide a sense of the diversity of responses received.
Question #8: What was your most positive experience as a feminist?
“Relationships with wimmen. Wimmen’s gatherings. Being able to respond to men in an empowered manner!”
“Getting arrested with other lesbians at the Rock Island arsenal.”
“Being free to be myself. Hard work every day.”
”Realizing I was not alone.”
”Protesting a male-run porn conference in Toronto with Andrea Dworkin.”
Question #17: Are you disappointed with what the Women’s Liberation Movement has achieved so far?
“I’m fearful we’ll lose what’s been gained—so many are overwhelmed by the current political/social climate.”
“I feel careerism has been substituted for radical change.”
“I’m disappointed in current burnout and anti-feminist backlash!”
“There is good thinking by a few womyn, but not many understand it.”
“We have surrendered or permitted co-option of our pride, identity and right to be womyn.”
“I just turned 25 and grew up in Iowa. I’m amazed to discover the Movement as is.”
Question #20: If sexism had not existed at the time, what career would you have chosen?
“Have trouble imagining having a choice.”
“Politics.”
“Carpenter, motorcycle mechanic. I like to work with my hands.”
“Actress/writer/radio broadcaster/T.V. host etc.”
Question #56: What is your opinion of lesbianism?
“The ideal solution but I can’t do it.”
“Good option but probably still polluted by patriarchy.”
“I love being a lesbian and it is my politics.”
Box 5
Similar to Box 4:
• 60 questionnaires (oob version, with answers transferred by Joan Ringelheim to second version, attached). This sampling includes questionnaires filled out by women living in California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C.
Box 6
Similar to Boxes 4 and 5:
• 76 questionnaires (oob version, with answers transferred by Judy O’Neil to second version, attached except in a few cases where the second version is missing). Some of the oob questionnaires in this box are water-damaged and/or have corners that were eaten away by mice. This sampling includes questionnaires filled out by women living in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C.
Box 7
• 90 questionnaires (second version) filled out by women living in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Box 8
Similar to Box 7:
• 70 questionnaires (second version) filled out mostly by women living in California and New York, as well as a few from Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Canada.
Box 9
• Two rolodexes with names and addresses of women who indicated on their questionnaire that they would like to attend a meeting organized by the RFQP, plus a separate category of cards with contact information of women who sent contributions.
• One box of index cards listing names/addresses of women who requested and were sent the second version questionnaire.
Box 10
• Xerox of the signed contract and contract amendment between the RFQP and Susan Perricone from The Systems Advantage (TSA) for “general consulting and advisory services, questionnaire tabulation and statistical analysis, formatting and printing of the questionnaire results, producing graphs from the questionnaire results, and data entry and verification.” Contract dated 1/3/86; original envelope addressed to Ti-Grace Atkinson present.
• Large folder with various “keys” to the oob questionnaire, used by group members to transfer answers from the oob pullout to the second version.
Box 11
Perricone Correspondence
Perricone Coding- “Interim” Results
• Includes a typescript letter from Perricone to Atkinson dated March 29, 1986 regarding some of the challenges of organizing the data. The letter reads in part:
“Here are some of the interim results from doing about the first 50 questionnaires. It’s taking much longer to set up than I thought … My main concern at this point is exactly how much detail we’re going to get into concerning the essay responses and the “other” categories. I looked at some tabulations that had been done by one of you, and I saw that the “other religion” category was analyzed down to every detail, e.g. 1 Quaker and 1 Taoist. If this is done for every question, then we will never finish the questionnaire. It’s much, much more important that 25% were Catholics growing up and that over 50% say they have no religion. You can do something with that information. You can’t do anything with 1 Quaker.”
Perricone Final Results
• 140 typescript leaves. For each question, there is a percentage breakdown of the responses received.
Perricone Coding- Correlations
Box 12
Half of the box is similar to Boxes 1 and 2. Folder titles:
Meeting Notes 6/85-12/85
1986 Meeting Notes
1987 Meeting Notes
Correspondence 1985-1987
Second HRW Grant Oct-Nov 1985
HRW Thank You Letter
The Wise Woman June 1985
Ladies’ Home Journal Feb. 1986
Version 3 Draft
Other June 1985-1987
The rest of box is made up of 31 files that reflect the group’s attempts to correlate the data in a meaningful way. There is a folder devoted to each short answer question (questions #6-12, #17-29, #35, #51, #53, #61-64), with respondents’ write-in answers included.
***
TGA’s notes on the above
The most important point about the Radical Feminist Questionnaire Project is that it is not primarily a literary project, although some of the individual responses are moving to read. The value ($) and uniqueness of this Project lies in its sheer data about a subject for which there are very few records: the radical political wing and groups, regardless of focus—blacks, women, etc. So within a major research institution, many different disciplines could mine this material profitably. There are some customary demographic profiles for these women who identified themselves as ‘radical feminists’ in 1985. But more importantly, this material tells the researcher what these women’s political/theoretical commitments were in detail (what did it mean to THEM to call themselves ‘radical feminists’. Political science, American history, political theory programs—all could use this material to advantage. Then the other major part of this Questionnaire tells you how these radical groups functioned and some of the reasons they failed (of interest to group psychology, sociology, etc.). Women’s Studies is not very scientifically inclined, so these aspects may interest them less. But the volume of responses about an aspect of the Women’s Movement they have so little material on should be of interest.
Okay. Page 1, paragraph 2. At any one time, there were never more than 4 members of the QP. Liora Pakula moved to Texas at the end of the Spring semester of 1984; Joan Ringelheim joined the group in the Summer of 1984. The way this reads now is misleading.
Page 1, paragraph 2. The first version of the Q had to be gotten to off our backs in the Fall of 1984, in order to be published in the January 1985 issue. The QP received 327 responses to this pull-out version. The QP continued to work on the Q for several more months, incorporating improvements suggested by our Trial Group from the summer of 1984, and this was ready for distribution in January 1985. We put up the flyers and the print ads about this time, but this was considerably after the text was needed by oob. This latter version is referred to as the “2nd Version” of the Q. The remaining responses we have (up to 501-503) came from this 2nd Version. The Final Results, however, we coded over a total of 500 responses.
Page 1, paragraph 3. Susan Perricone was a professional computer analyst, not a coder. She analyzed the data which proper coding yielded. The last meeting of the QP was in late October of 1987, not in the summer.
Page 1, paragraph 4. See first paragraph in this small essay for my objection to “The most compelling content of the archive.”
Page 1, paragraph 4. Re “snapshot of 1980s feminism at a key turning point” etc. The QP tells you much more about 1970s feminism in the U. S., as these women were active then and are reflecting upon this period in their responses.
Page 2, reference to NOW. This is misleading. This was a questionnaire put together by Shere Hite, who was a member of NOW at the time. Shere arranged with NOW that if the New York chapter were to distribute (allow Shere to use their mailing lists?) her Hite Report Questionnaire that she would then donate a certain percentage of the profits (I seem to recall it was something like 10%) to the NYC chapter. Shere told me this story and I may not be recollecting it quite right. But the footnote at the bottom says it all: “This project is connected with the National Organization for Women’s New York chapter only in that, as a member, I was granted permission to use the name and address as a heading for the questions, to give the reader some idea of their orientation.” So these are definitely not NOW documents. The QP was looking at Shere’s Q as well as others for ideas of how best to construct our own Q. In the end, the Radical Feminist Questionnaire Project’s questionnaire was quite unlike any of the others, mostly because of our extensive multiple-choice answers, which were constructed in this way for ease of coding.
Page 5, Box 4. Only 60 Q’s, not 61 in this box. Kate and I counted each box carefully last week.
Page 7, Box 5. 61 Q’s, not 60.
Page 7, Box 8. 67 (not 70) 2nd Version Q’s.
Page 7, Box 9. One, not two, rolodex. Cross out “on their questionnaire.”
Page 8, paragraph 1. “Two” boxes, not one. “. . . who requested and/or were sent . . .”
The index boxes in Box 9 are important because it’s partly through these that we are able to determine the names and addresses of those women who responded to the Q but whose actual responses we have not been able to recover. I’ve drafted up an account which indicates 682 individual women who either responded to the Q or sent for it, indicating that they thought of themselves as in the category of radical feminists.
Print Inquire
