There are various research methods which can be categorized in several ways. However, the main scientific research methods (design) in social science include quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research to mention the most commonly used (see Blaxter et al. 2006:60-62; Creswell 2009:20-21; Curtis and Curtis 2011:4-9). Blaxter et al.
(2006) indicate that the term method is to be understood to relate principally to the tools of data collection or analysis. The methods applied to this study therefore consisted of a set of activities that guided towards the desired outcomes. As suggested by Creswell (2003), Blaxter et al. (2006) and Denzin (2009), what directs the choice of research method is the research questions, the phenomenon being investigated and the research context. Placing these three aspects into consideration, this study has applied a qualitative multimethods research design. The following section outlines the qualitative multimethods research approach and provides justification for adopting the mixing of methods for this research.
5.1.1 Qualitative “Multimethods” Research Approach
While quantitative research data is in the form of numbers and uses statistical types of data analysis (Durrheim 2008:47), qualitative methods are empirical research that describe and interpret people’s lives, feelings and experiences, cultural phenomena or interactions in human terms rather than through quantification and measurements (Terre Blanche et al. 2008b:272). Michael Myers (1997:241) notes that the purpose of qualitative research methods is to assist researchers understand people, what they say and do, in order to explain the social and cultural phenomena within the contexts in which people live (see also Myers 2009:5).
In social science, examples of strategies associated with qualitative research methods include action research, case study research, ethnography, narratives, and grounded theory with data sources ranging from observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher’s impressions and reactions (see Creswell 2003:14-17; Myers 2009:7). In this way, the data collected places emphasis on people’s words and the descriptions of the researcher, based on observation and experience (Durrheim 2008:47).
There are many approaches to qualitative research methods. The choice of a specific qualitative research method is dependent on the underlying philosophical position adopted (Myers and Avison 2002:5). The three main philosophical perspectives underlying qualitative research methods as observed by Myers and Avison (2002:5) are:
positivist research which generally attempts to test theory, with an aim to increase the predictive understanding of phenomena; interpretive research which attempts to understand phenomena through the meanings that people assign to them and critical research which assumes that social reality is historically constituted and that it is produced and reproduced by people. The main task of critical research is thus seen as being one of social critique.
This study has applied a multimethods approach of qualitative research. Sharlene Hesse- Biber (2010:3) asserts that multimethods refers to the mixing of methods by combining two or more qualitative methods in a single study or using two or more quantitative methods in a single study. This study has utilised more than one qualitative method of
data sources to achieve its purpose –hence, a qualitative multimethods approach. This was made possible from an interpretive and critical research perspective within a qualitative social constructionist paradigm. Terre Blanche et al. (2008b:277-281) notes that the social constructionist approach (sometimes referred to as ‘critical hermeneutics’) is a qualitative method within the interpretive tradition. Such a study focuses on the understandings and experiences of individuals or groups, how such understandings and experiences are derived (and feed into) larger discourse (Terre Blanche et al. 2008b).
Language therefore remains an important aspect in qualitative research and requires attention to a social constructionist researcher. This is because constructionism holds that the human life-world is fundamentally constituted in language (Terre Blanche et al.
2008b:278). It is through language that ideologies, values, beliefs and ideas are structured and implemented.
It was through language that I was able to access the experiences, emotional feelings, thinking and understanding of participants to this study and their responses about their perceptions on masculinity. This entailed paying attention to how masculinity was discursively constructed through faith discourse that portrays notions of “godly manhood” as an archetype of Christian masculinities. It is from this background that the qualitative research method becomes appropriate and applicable in investigating representation and construction of emerging masculinities. With the awareness that masculinities are socially constructed, qualitative methods enabled me to explore notions of masculinity in order to describe actions that arise from the experiences of men in the process of social change while seeking to understand how these have informed constructions of masculinities.
There are several reasons why qualitative multimethods research was considered as most appropriate for this study. First, qualitative methods allowed me to explore how these Christian men establish meaning (what it means to be a ‘godly man’) while negotiating to construct alternative masculine self/and identity within intersections of changing realities.
This aimed at what Blaxter et al. (2006:64) suggests that qualitative approaches should focus on in exploring in much detail as possible smaller numbers of instances or examples which are seen as being interesting or illuminating, aiming to achieve ‘depth’
rather than ‘breadth.’
Second, because this study sought to explore and describe what Evangelical men mean by “godly manhood” in their seeking to recreate Christian masculinities, I became concerned with understanding these men’s understandings from their own frames of reference, a fact suggested by Blaxter et al. (2006). This study therefore endeavoured to examine whether there are representations of emerging forms of masculinities in the process of these Christian men renegotiating masculine ideals in order to assert their masculine identity based on their experiences. Important, was also to take into account how various societal changes influenced various representations and constructions of masculinity within the MMC in the South African context. This alludes to what Myers (2009) has argued that the key benefits of qualitative research is that it allows a research scholar to see and understand the context within which decisions and actions take place, because the context helps to explain actions. Myers further contends:
One of the primary motivations for doing qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, comes from the observation that, if there is one thing which distinguishes human beings from the natural world, it is their ability to talk. It is only by talking to people, or reading what they have written, that we can find out what they are thinking, and understand their thoughts, goes a long way towards explaining their actions (2009:6).
The context in which data was collected was therefore very important to this study. I would argue that meaning is established when one pieces together what emerges from the context in which discourses are used. As such, it’s been vital through this study to identify and interrogate Charismatic, Evangelical and Pentecostal faith discourses in order to understand how men used symbols, objects and language as strategies towards representation and to construct ‘ideal’ Christian manhood within the MMC as a religious context. In this case, it was important to examine how Christian men made sense of what it means to be a “godly man” while recognising their experiences as influenced by their socio-economic, religious, cultural and political contexts.
5.1.2 The Mighty Men’s Conference (MMC): Why this Movement as a Case Study?
The MMC, was adopted as a case study for the purpose of examining the phenomena of emerging forms of masculinities among Charismatic Evangelical and Pentecostal men.
This was aimed at exploring how men in this movement interpreted their experiences towards understanding and making sense of their masculine identities. Because my choice of method was dictated by what I intended to explore, a “case-centric” research proved ideal. Curtis and Curtis (2011:5-7) maintains that a case-centric approach to qualitative research intends to explore and describe the beliefs of the research participants. As the name indicates, Blaxter et al. (2006:71) establish that case studies concentrate on special cases with the purpose of probing deeply in order to analyse intensively the multifarious phenomena. A case-centric approach therefore starts with a case (Curtis and Curtis 2011); to illustrate either a problem or a good practice (Blaxter et al. 2006). This research identified that the MMC had called for a return to “godly manhood” as a quest towards the process of “recreating” and “restoring masculinity” in the South African context.
Beginning with this case necessitated the need to interrogate faith discourses to inquire the purpose and the motives of such calls for a “return” and what kinds of masculinities were emerging in the process of this quest.