3.3 Methodology
3.3.5 Data Collection Method
It was originally planned that data would be collected through once-off in-person ninety-minute FGDs followed by a daily reflection by each participant one-week period after the FGD.
According to Goldstein (2022) FGDs are a method adept at capturing experiences of historically silenced or marginalised populations and exploring sensitive and/or personal topics. Furthermore the ‘focus group method [provides possibilities] to explore novel or taboo sex-related topics and/or experiences of diverse or marginali[s]ed populations (Goldstein, 2022: 3)’. The fifteen enrolled participants make up three groups of five people each. The FGDs were held online using the Zoom Application.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, being physically present in a confined space with participants for engagement was deemed to be irresponsible as it would increase the risk of exposure to COVID-19, hence the use of an online platform to engage with participants was preferred.
Research suggests that queer youth already use the internet for social support, have more online friends who are supportive and view online spaces as a safer place to socialise than offline, therefore the use of an online FGD was a suitable alternative (Hillier, Mitchel, and Ybarra, 2012; Mitchell, Ybarra, Korchmaros and Kosciw; 2014; Ybarra, DuBois, Parsons, Prescott and Mustanski, 2014). Acknowledging that the process requires sensitivity and may risk uprooting past trauma by discussing experiences of exclusion, the space also creates room for deep engagement, which may be therapeutic and help find healing through collective sharing (Goldstein, 2022). Ybarra et al. (2014) suggest that there is evidence supporting the notion that online support groups reduce isolation and stress by increasing access to people going through similar challenges and that an online discussion style format may have a positive impact on queer youth who may feel marginalised and isolated in their communities.
After conducting introductory calls to go through the introductory letter, share the background of the research, answer questions and ask people to share their email address, their preferred time for the focus group discussion (FGD), their preferred pseudonym, what network service provider they use for their data reimbursement and their preferred pronoun, I grouped the participants according to their availability and sent calendar invites with a link to the Zoom meeting room. I enabled a safety setting that allowed only authenticated users to enter the meeting room, therefore only those using the email address that was invited to the meeting were allowed to enter the meeting room and join the FGD. Three days before the FGD I shared the consent form (annexure III) for participants to complete and send back to me, the referral pathway (annexure IV) and focus group discussion protocol with participants via WhatsApp and email; as well as the proposed time and date for the FGD they had been allocated to and asked them to confirm that they were still available.
I initially grouped five people into three groups, however there were some instances where participants were no longer available at the scheduled times but still wanted to participate in the study, so a fourth group was created from anyone that was unable to make their originally scheduled FGD slot. At the beginning of each FGD I explained that participation was completely voluntary and shared information about the psychosocial support available through the referral pathway. I explained that participants could withdraw from the study at any point and that if they had connectivity challenges, they should inform me. I encouraged participants to keep their videos off, rename the displayed name with a preferred pseudonym, put their preferred pronouns in brackets next to the displayed name and to feel free to unmute and speak when they wanted to contribute to the discussion. To disrupt the power relationship within research I re-introduced myself to the participants at the beginning of each FGD, as a mixed race cisgendered lesbian living in Cape Town. I explained that my interest in conducting this
research was inspired by my own lived experiences grappling with my racial and queer identity in the complexity of a socio-religious South Africa that expected me to perform a certain race, gender, and sexuality because of the way that I present and that I wanted to understand if these experiences were shared, and how the Sociology of Religion within our different contexts influenced these patterns. I explained to the participants that as a student of gender and religion, my aim was for us to collectively conceptualise alternatives that could be proposed to those in positions of influence and power to use to affirm queer lives of colour in religions institutions.
I explained that I would facilitate the FGD by asking the FGD questions, but I too would offer my own lived and embodied experiences into the discussion as a conversation partner. This being based on the findings of Ybarra et al. (2014) that suggest that a group moderator is essential in invigorating a thoughtful discussion about sexuality and to guide a discussion that includes topics that are likely to lead to self-reflection and a deeper sharing of experiences. I then asked participants to introduce themselves and before commencing with the first question I requested consent for the discussion to be recorded.
To ensure and protect confidentiality, all participants were given a pseudonym in the write up of this dissertation, however it is noteworthy that only three participants used a pseudonym in an effort to remain anonymous during the discussion. All other participants were comfortable using their real names and engaging in the FGD with their videos on. The FGD took place over a period of four consecutive days. At the end of the FGD it was planned that the group would be asked to reflect on the discussion and collectively agree on one key theme that dominated their group discussions and keep a written diary over a period of one week where they would write a daily reflection of their experiences in relation to the agreed theme. At the end of the FGD each participant shared what they felt the key theme was for them. I then summarised what I had heard from each participant and asked the participants if that was an accurate
summary of the theme of their discussion. All groups, except group one had sufficient time to stay on the call longer than the planned ninety minutes to agree on the final theme that they would reflect on daily for the week.
The themes that emerged are:
FGD Group 2: Conflict with a conservative populous and progressive constitution and how this requires an evolution of culture and religion
FGD Group 3: Constantly having to leave to stay alive – sacrificing something for the sake of safety and comfort to be our authentic selves
FGD Group 4: Individual paths and intersections curated by our own experiences and privileges determine our levels of expression and visibility which potentially breed tensions within and outside our queer community
I created a WhatsApp group for FGD Group 1 participants, and we engaged via text to finalise the theme. Despite being a group of only gay men of colour, the participants of FGD Group 1 had very diverse opinions on what the core theme of their discussion was but after non- confrontational but deliberate questioning of each other in the WhatsApp Group, they reach consensus that what I had summarised adequately represented their theme.
FGD Group 1: Different levels of privilege and power are afforded to different bodies (based on a hierarchy of cisgendered heterosexual hegemonic masculinity) and this awareness makes us realise our lack of privilege is certain spaces (depending on where we present on the hierarchy).
The day following their FGD, I sent a WhatsApp message reminding each participant of the theme and requesting them to send me a WhatsApp text or voice recorded note of their thoughts or reflections each day before 21h00. I then sent a follow-up reminder every morning but emphasised that there was no pressure to do so if they chose not to and reminded the participants of the psychosocial support available to them until the end of the data collection period. This feminist approach aimed at breaking the subject’s silence in order to include marginalised voices in the creation of research (Blackeslee, Cole and Conefrey, 1996). By allowing participants to interpret the collective voices that represent their lived experiences I hoped to reduce the possibility of misrepresenting, burying or confusing participants voices and perspectives, allowing me to view participants as partners in research, with power and agency to craft their stories, appropriately shrinking the authoritative voice as the researcher in the process.