For this study‘s objectives to be met, I conducted empirical research using focus group discussions, individual in-depth interviews and observation methods.
Research Site and Procedures for Gaining Access
This study was conducted in urban Lusaka in Zambia. This research site was chosen because it is where I have access to the LGBTI community, having conducted other previous studies with them. I also chose Lusaka because I am familiar with it, hence it was manageable if I needed to find alternative meeting places for the discussions. Lusaka was also chosen for its cosmopolitan urban cultures and its relevance to the research question. Further, I had a gatekeeper in Lusaka who was willing to arrange the focus group discussions and allow for initial contact with the participants. Access to the research site and the study participants was through a gatekeeper who was consulted throughout the construction of this study. We met twice before conducting the empirical study and immediately before commencing the data production.
Research Instruments
I employed three research instruments for data production, namely, focus group discussions and interviews, also known as ―verbal data‖ (Flick 2002:73), and observation termed as
―visual data‖ (Flick 2002:133). Below is brief discussion on all three instruments.
Focus Group Discussions
I conducted seven focus group discussions with eighteen study participants located in Lusaka central and Kanyama Township. The participants were selected using non-probability sampling which facilitated purposive and snowballing selection methods. This study initially intended to focus on gay Christians only but upon reaching the research site, two transgender men, one transgender woman and one lesbian volunteered to participate in the study. Their views have been incorporated insofar as they elucidate the views of the intended study participants. Their presence did not seem to affect gay men, mainly because all the group members knew each other before the study began as they meet in many LGBTI spaces and fora, and belong to the same LGBTI organisations in Zambia. The two groups of participants were already in existence before I went to the research site, thus, focus group discussions were appropriate for the production of data from more than one person in one session. I met first with the Lusaka central group and conducted five focus group discussions with these participants. The first discussion focused on the question: how does religion contribute to the way you understand yourself as a man? The second group discussion centred on the question:
how does your religion influence how you view your sexuality? The third discussion focused on the question: in which ways does culture influence your understanding of yourself as a man? The fourth discussion looked at the question: how does culture influence how you view your sexuality? The fifth discussion was a summary and asked: following our four discussions we have had, is there anything you would like to clarify and add? After completing discussions with the first group of study participants, using snowballing, I was referred to Kanyama study participants with whom I had two focus group discussions. I raised two questions with the study participants: what roles do religion and culture play in how you construct your masculinities and sexualities? And how do you understand yourself as a man and why do you understand yourself in the way that you do? Going deeper with the major questions asked during the focus group discussions, I raised probing questions to allow for elucidation and clarity of views of the participants.
Permission to audio-record the discussions and take notes during the discussions was sought.
The study‘s intentions were discussed with the participants before asking them to sign consent forms. Each discussion was intended to last for sixty minutes but the participants expressed interest to carry on after sixty minutes. Bemba, English and Nyanja were used as modes of communication. The fact that data for this study was produced using three languages meant that I had to loosely interpret meanings of Bemba and Nyanja words into English. I tried as much as possible to give accurate English interpretation according to my own understanding and knowledge of the two local Zambian languages, thus, my interpretation could be subject to critique since I am not a professional linguist.
In-depth Individual Interviews
In-depth individual interviews were conducted with six study participants. The interviews allowed me to gather individual biographies of the participants. The participants volunteered by writing down their mobile numbers next to their pseudonyms as indication of willingness to participate. The interviews were scheduled according to the availability of the study participants. The interviews were conducted following prepared questions which were adjustable. The questions asked were: how do you understand yourself as a religious man?
What factors have helped shape how you understand yourself? How has religion shaped how you understand yourself as a religious man? How has culture shaped how you understand yourself as a man? What are some of the practices, adages and terms used in religion and culture that you find useful in how you understand yourself as a man? What are some the practices, adages and terms used in religion and culture which you do not find useful in how you understand yourself as a man? Is there anything you would like to clarify or add?
The languages used during the interviews were Bemba, English and Nyanja. Permission was sought from each participant to audio-record and take notes during the interview. Before each interview, I offered each participant a consent form to sign and they all refused to sign stating how they had consented to being part of the study during the focus group discussions.
Implicitly, in spite of written informed consent being an ethical research requirement, this particular experience shows that in some cases where trust and rapport has been established between the researcher and the researched, it can be forfeited upon the study participant‘s request, especially when multi-methods of research are employed. Additionally, the refusal to sign the consent forms during individual interviews also shows possibilities of how binding the initial signed consent form is, as well as, the validity of verbal consent in research. In this
regard, in as much as written consent from participants is an important academic exercise, practically it does not apply to all situations as the will of the participants supersedes the written research rules.
Observation
I also employed observation methods to produce data. Here I noted the participants‘
mannerisms, dressing and interpersonal relations. This is a useful method within the qualitative paradigm as it shows that ―besides the competencies of speaking and listening which are used in interviews, observing is another everyday skill which is methodologically systematized and applied in qualitative research‖ (Flick 2002:135). The observation method is systematic as it entails specific observable insights on specific occurrences during the study. As a non-participant observer, I took note of how the study participants behaved, expressed themselves through dressing, and relations they maintained during the study.
Reliability and Validity
In order to ensure reliability in social research, when asking people for information, the researcher has to ask participants only about things the participants know about and things relevant to them; further, clarity in the questions must be ensured (Babbie and Mutton 2001:121). In order to ensure that the study produced data relevant to the research question, I identified study participants who had information relevant to the focus of this study and had interest in participating in the discussions. This was adequately achieved; all the focus group discussions and interviews lasted longer than the designated time as participants expressed willingness to go on with discussions.
Sometimes it is appropriate to make the same measurement more than once…it is always good to make more than one measurement of any subtle or complex social concept…use measures that have proven their reliability in previous research (Babbie and Mutton 2001:121-122).
Reliability is also attained when more than one research method is employed for data production. This study used triangulation through the use of focus group discussions, in-depth individual interviews and observation methods. Identity was also regarded as a social and individual construct, thus, offering two levels of identity formulation.
Validity ―refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects the real meanings of the concept under consideration‖ (Babbie and Mutton 2001:122). In order to attain validity in this study, I ensured that questions raised during data production related to the study‘s objectives. I also captured the discussions and interpreted them as closely as possible with the meanings attached to them by the study participants. After the data was transcribed, I identified themes from the transcribed data and organised findings according to the identified themes.