5.2 The Research Process
5.2.2 Data Production, Research Methods and Procedure
5.2.2.2 In-depth Interviews with the Three Pastors
The three pastors interviewed were carefully selected from three Evangelical strands of Conservative, Pentecostal and Charismatic theological tradition. The selection was randomly done, based on the awareness that they had attended the MMC with some men from their congregations. The interviews were semi-structured with open-ended topics/questions fluidly framed (see Appendix 2 attached). This means that the relationship between ideas and data was very likely to change during the interview process (Curtis and Curtis 2011:29). The fluidity of these interview sessions was therefore based on the interactive nature that existed between myself and the three pastors during our interview sessions. The interview topics and questions were structured to inquire from the pastors as church leaders their understanding on specific aspects of the MMC.
These included representations and construction of masculinities. It was evident from my sessions that the pastors were theologically informed as church leaders in a post- apartheid South African context. As a way of preventing biasness in the nature of data obtained from them, I remained flexible by adopting questions depending on direction their narrations took by further exploring what they meant in unclear statements or phrases. This allowed me to follow up on specific notions that emerged during the interview process, seeking to illuminate interesting issues as relates to the aims of this study. There were various contradictions in the three pastor’s narratives in relation to their reflections on masculinities, and specifically, faith discourses on ‘godly manhood’
among the MMC. This portrayed the complexities and conflicting nature under which masculinities are understood and discussed within the Charismatic, Evangelical Christian tradition. Part of my findings is discussed in chapter six, seven and eight.
5.2.2.3 In-depth Interviews with the ‘Mighty Men’
Having been in South Africa for ten years, I was fully aware of racial and class dynamics which could have been a challenge during my fieldwork. In particular, concerns emerged on how possible it was to collect data, for instance, from very conservative Afrikaner men. To overcome such a challenge I conducted pilot surveys by personally approaching some of my target groups during the MMC gatherings in 2011 and also during their
men’s group gatherings. Most of the men that I approached indicated positive responses by showing interest to be part in this study.
In general, the structure of interview questionnaires for the ‘Mighty Men’68 was intended to explore their experiences of the MMC. Reflections on the interview questions were intended to illuminate descriptions on how and what influenced perceptions and constructions of emerging forms of masculinities. The interview schedule was semi- structured with open-ended questions which allowed interaction between me and the participants (see Appendix 3 attached). The structure of the questions that formed the focus of discussions was guided and informed by the aims of the study. This dictated what was included in the interview schedule. In most cases, exploration rather than probing was used to illuminate the participants’ understanding of masculinity based on their personal experiences as South Africans in relation to how the teachings of the MMC and Buchan had impacted their lives.
Overall, each interview session lasted one hour to one and half hours. The sessions were flexible with no restricted order in the presentation of the questions. In order to maintain the flow of the interview sessions, a thematic approach was adopted to follow up on particular themes. This involved following up the participants’ thoughts patterns that emerged on particular issues during the interview sessions before I could return to the order of the semi structured interview questionnaire. To enable meaningful conversations during the interview sessions, both the interviewer’s and the participants’ non-verbal prompts were vital. Because non-verbal cues and body language is a useful tool of research (see Curtis and Curtis 2011:34-39), my main role was to ask for clarification or elaboration when required (for example, “You seemed agitated when I asked you about you experience at the MMC. Can you tell me more about your experience at the MMC?”). This as Kelly (2008:299) shows, enabled me to engage the participants in an interactive conversation by encouraging them to speak rather than to be taken as a
“research object” where sessions remain on a level of question and answer mode.
The individual interviews covered a wide range of concerns as relates to representation and understanding of masculinity ranging from participants’ self-definition and perceptions of being an ideal man, a “mighty man,” and a “godly man”; questions on
68 ‘Mighty Men’ in this case refers to the specific men who were interviewed during my fieldwork research.
power in relation to their Church’s teaching and Buchan’s teachings; social, political and economic themes in relation to masculinity and the MMC in South African. I also explored notions of Christ as man in relation to faith discourses on “godly manhood”
which is a key issue within the MMC as a Charismatic, Evangelical movement. Some of the themes that emerged from the 34 interviews were numbered and recorded (see Table 2 on page 117) and are discussed in my analysis and interpretation of data in the subsequent chapters.
In-depth interviews proved useful for this study in that participants were able to demonstrate their experiences of the MMC. In comparison to questionnaires, it is possible to gather rich information and as Curtis and Curtis (2011:32) point out, it is feasible to follow-up on interesting points; include materials that the participants bring up which were not anticipated, while questions and themes or topics can be adopted as part of the process of subsequent interviews. However, my interview sessions revealed some very sensitive information. This, as cited by Curtis and Curtis (2011:33), has been given as one of the disadvantages of using interviews. As much as sensitive information is desirable in a research of this kind, it may create an extra burden in ensuring that participants remain comfortable during and after the interview, and have appropriate follow-up. Also, Curtis and Curtis (2011:47) have acknowledged that interview data may vary because both the interviewer and participants will react to each other, as well as external factors, differently on different days.