Having discussed the sampling employed in this study, I proceed to discuss the data production methods.
As time drew close for me to go to the research site, I contacted the gatekeeper who indicated that the Lusaka central group was ready for our meetings but that they no longer met from their usual venue and had no venue to meet from due to limited funding. In trying to maintain the ―safe space‖ dynamic, the gatekeeper and I tried to arrange for booking of their usual venue but failed due to exorbitant charges, mainly because this study had not been funded by the time I was conducting fieldwork research. As I arranged the venue for the focus group discussions, I got the feeling that there is a general misconception about all researchers being excessively funded, thus, can spend without much care about cost. Having organised the venue, I then consulted the gatekeeper and we agreed that I find an alternative venue within Lusaka city. I consulted some friends within the education sector who offered me a room within their premises to use as the venue for the focus group discussions, although I did not mention to them the nature of the study for security reasons. I then went back to my gatekeeper to discuss the new venue with him so that he could inform the participants and get their consent for us to use the venue provided to us. Once they were in agreement, we discussed when we would meet and the time. We then started our focus group discussions and four focus group discussions were conducted. After the focus group discussions with the Lusaka central participants, I started holding in-depth interviews with individual participants who had indicated willingness to participate in interviews through writing down their phone numbers. On the agreed upon dates, three of the participants indicated that they were out of town and could not participate in individual interviews. Interviews with the Lusaka central participants were scheduled according to the availability of individual participants.
The second group I was referred to by my gatekeeper was based in Kanyama Township, a high density area within urban Lusaka. My initial meeting with this group was unsuccessful as my initial gatekeeper referred me to another gatekeeper who knew the Kanyama participants better than he did. Thus there was some communication breakdown. I arrived at the venue I had organised for the Kanyama group, which too did not have a meeting place, and waited for the group members for an hour but no one came. I then contacted my initial gatekeeper who later gave me the cell phone number for the Kanyama gatekeeper and we rescheduled our meeting to another date. On the new date set, the participants and I met as arranged. In the focus group discussions, I indicated that those who were willing to take part in in-depth interviews could write down their cell phone numbers so that I could call them for interviews. After the two focus group discussions, I started calling all those who had indicated their cell phone numbers but only one participant from Kanyama was willing to
participate in interviews. One indicated that he was busy and could not manage meeting me, while the other one asked me if he could be given time to ask his colleagues and get their views on participating in the interview. This was strange as I realized that they had discussed the focus group discussions after the sessions and may have felt uncomfortable about discussing their identities and sexualities, or individual interviews were regarded as spotlighting and intimidating for this participant, or he merely wanted consent from other participants before speaking to me again.
During the focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and observation, I used both audio recording and took notes of proceedings. Transcription of focus group discussions and in- depth interviews was done based on what Marumo in the dissertation ―Empowerment:
Making Sense of the Voices of Women About Their Journey Towards Their Leadership Identity in Higher Education‖ terms as ―content and eliciting meaning rather than a sociolinguistic approach, where the discourse analysis itself becomes significant‖ (2012:140).
I therefore, edited pauses, non-content materials and sub-vocals. My interest in this study was to capture the language and words used by participants, as well as their performances of their identities and sexualities. Taking up the position of ―non-participant observer‖ (Bryman 2004:167), I employed structured observation which is ―a method for systematically observing the behaviour of individuals in terms of a schedule of categories‖ (Bryman 2004:165). In the study, I chose to observe the dressing, mannerisms and interpersonal relations of the participants. I observed that gay Christians who identified as males were dressed in generally dull colours and clothes that would not ordinarily attract public attention, while those who identified as females wore bright clothes; most of them wore tight-fitting shorts, some tweezed their eyebrows, painted their fingernails and had fancy or dyed hairstyles to match. I took notes on the main observation categories I had classified - dressing, mannerisms of and interpersonal relations. Nevertheless, I did notice what I would term ‗exaggerations‘ in how some participants carried themselves within the group, especially within the Kanyama group – for instance, talking excessively as a way of being noticed or being heard. This brought to life Scott‘s (1990:45) notion of the ―public transcript as a respectable performance‖ as I felt that some of the ‗exaggerations‘ were probably ways of maintaining a public façade within focus group discussions or ―acting out to me‖.
Secondary data also informed this study. Flick cautions that care must be taken ―about which documents fit the research question and design, which one to select out of a wider range of
available documents, and what the quality is of these documents‖ (2014:44). Guidance on the need to carefully select secondary data in relation to the research question, design and quality of the documents was useful in the selection of secondary data for this study. Secondary data production entailed careful reading of books, journal articles, theses, online materials on gay, identities and sexualities, religions and their construction of gay identities and sexualities, and cultures and their construction of gay identities and sexualities. In order to get secondary data I visited the National Archives of Zambia, the University of KwaZulu-Natal, University of Leeds and the University of Zambia.