5.3 Data Analysis Method and Techniques
5.3.3 Praxeological Intersectional Analysis
Since the central tenet of intersectionality is that individual identity exists within and draws from a web of socially defined statuses, Vasti Toress et al. (2009:587-588) observes that intersectionality is not only a theoretical framework, but also an analytical lens which results in an improved analysis and greater understanding. Anne Denis (2008:685) notes that doing intersectional analysis is complex and not easy and that the process of intersectional analysis is an attempt to address the felt need for more complex analysis.
Hence, with intersectional analysis, the central issue rests with the challenge of complex analyses and how to manage such complexities (McCall 2005:1773).
McCall (2005) and Nash (2008) distinguished a set of three main approaches of addressing intersectional complexities as anti-categorical complexity, intra-categorical complexity and inter-categorical complexity as requiring analysis (McCall 2005:1773- 1774; Nash 2008:4-6 and Denis 2008:685).71 However, Winker and Degele (2011) has delineated praxeological intersectional analyses as a multilevel technique that takes into consideration all the three levels of complex categories described by McCall (2005) and others. Stressing that social practices act as the starting point of multilevel praxeological intersectional analyses, Winker and Degele argue:
Starting out from the social practices of a person, we are able to reconstruct identities they construct, as well as the structures and norms they draw on: which categories do social actors relate to? Which norms, principles and interpretive patterns affect them? (2011:56-57).
71 Anticategorial Complexity is an approach to intersectionality is seen as a process of deconstructing analytical categories such as gender and race, focusing attention on the ways in which concepts, terms and categories are constructed. Interacategorial complexity focuses on particular social groups at neglected points of intersection. It is concerned with reconstructing intersections of single dimensions on a micro level (identity construction) where case studies, ethnographic and narrative research methods are the primary focus. Intercategorial complexity makes a strategic use of categories and analyses multiple relations between socially constructed groups by orientating itself towards the relationship between categories, mainly (though not entirely) in quantitative research (McCall 2005, Nash 2008 and Winker and Degele 2011).
With this observation of beginning intersectional analysis with social practice and not to start with theoretical concepts, the data gathered from participants and observations made indicated how different identity categories (race, class, gender, age, sexuality and nationality) interplay in relation to social factors of religion, culture, economic and political changes in the themes and discourses identified for this study. Therefore, the major question that cuts across intersectional analysis was how various intersections could be identified, how they informed representations of masculinity, and how they influenced constructions of masculine identities in the process of enacting ‘godly manhood.’ As such, praxeological intersectional analyses provided lenses for examining and explaining how factors interwove to influence constructions of masculinities. This seeks to describe how masculinities are practiced and maintained. The analysis begins with examining the everyday life of participants in the study. This established how multiple identities converge to influence constructions of masculinities. As suggested by Winker and Degele (2011:58-63) the following eight steps were adopted and served to facilitate intersectional analysis as illustrated in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: A model of Intersectional Multi-level Analysis (Adopted from Winker and Degele 2011)
Important to note from the diagram above, Step 1, 2, 3 and 4 constituting Part 1 of the praxeological intersectional multilevel analysis focuses on the interaction of identity constructions, symbolic representations and social structures (Winker and Degele 2011).
Part 2 of the intersectional analysis deals with compiling all interviews from which all social practices were identified during the research (Winker and Degele 2011). This facilitated the identification of themes and sub-themes that will be discussed in the subsequent chapters. Also, it was important to examine contradictions and tensions identified at various intersections. For example, it was crucial to explore how socio-
Step 1
Described Identity Constructions constituting a social practice. e.g
poor, rich, ‘male’ heterosexual, white, black employed, married
etc
Part 1: Evaluation of Individual Interviews
Part 2: Analysis of all Interviews of the Research
Step 4 Naming Interrelations
of central categories that are important to the interviewees by identifying important subject
constructions
Step 8: Synopsis
Examine the intersections by looking at how identity categories are interwoven with social factors. The relationship between structural systems of power relations, symbolic representation and identity construction are analysed.
Step 2
Identify Symbolic Representations example make explicit all the
hegemonic representations, norms, values, ideologies, religious doctrines, cultural beliefs etc that operate within the context
of research Step 3
Find References to Social Structures and the four given structural categories that have been
deductively identified: Class, Gender, and Race by examining how these relate to everyday social
practices and power relations
Step 6
Analyse Structural Power Relations Classisms, Racisms, hegemonies, Sexism,
nationalism etc
Step 5
Cluster and Compare Subject Constructions In order to start analysing to what
extent these constructions are gendered, ethicised, racialised, etc (see
table 1 on themes and sub-themes
Step 7 Deepen the Analysis of Named Representations By analysing discourses, with
the purpose to understand ideologies and establish meaning from values and
norms
cultural and economic experiences of being a man intersected with religious notions and perceptions of “godly manhood” in negotiating masculine headship and leadership.
Important in this whole process of intersectional analysis is also the need to explore the place of religion (especially Christianity in this case) by interrogating its intersections with other social factors. Intersectional analysis in this case took both a deductive (theory-led) approach and an inductive (open to surprise) procedural method (Winker and Degele 2011:57). Being “open to the unexpected” enabled the study to remain contextual. Nina Lykke shows that one of the important strength of intersectional analysis:
Is precisely that it urges the analyst to ‘go with the flow’ –and to take up the challenges of this flowing mode, which include letting oneself be led towards unexpected, disturbing, messy, paradoxical and perhaps conflicting perspectives and questions (2011:213).