In the book Social Research, Sarantakos observes that a qualitative research approach is a paradigm which:
sets the researchers close to reality, studies reality from the inside, uses open methods of data collection, employs a flexible research design, captures the world in action, employs naturalistic methods, analyses data during and after collection, chooses methods before/during the study, produces most useful qualitative data (2005:46).
Some of the advantages of qualitative research are that it allows for studying phenomenon at close proximity, capturing reality as it goes on, and using a flexible research design which is adjustable before and during the study. Using a qualitative approach allowed me to immerse myself into the study as I captured the experiences and perspectives of participants in urban Lusaka. Throughout this study, I bore in mind that the insiders‘ views were important sources of data, thus the participants were asked and allowed to express themselves freely about their identities and sexualities within their already established ―safe spaces‖. I ensured that the
participants decided on the local languages to use during focus group discussions and interviews instead of restricting them to the use of English only. Furthermore, I used a flexible research design which enabled me to hold interviews at the convenience of the participants and reschedule meetings where possible. This allowed for probing the participants and clarity seeking. I relied heavily on the language used by the participants and their performance of their identities and sexualities as vital sources of data.
―Much qualitative research treats language as a mechanism for understanding the social world, so that interviewees‘ replies are treated as a means of understanding the topics about which they are asked questions‖ (Bryman 2008:18-19). This particular author is mainly used in this chapter because of his extensive insights on research processes within social science (Bryman 2008, 2012 and 2016). The observation made here is important as I focused on responses of the participants to the questions raised in this study, thus, careful recording of the participants‘ words was necessary. I used and analysed the words of the participants on how they ―self-construct‖ and perform their identities and sexualities, as well as to explore their assimilation, accommodation, negotiation or rejection of religious and cultural constructs about their identities and sexualities. Another vital element of language analysed in this study is what I termed ―the language of silence‖ which I analysed by interrogating the implied meanings behind the silence on gay identities and sexualities at individual, familial and communal levels. Language in this study is generically understood as a means of communication. In her chapter ―Researching and Theorizing Sexualities in Africa‖, Tamale among other things argues that there is a difference in the understanding of language in the Western and African worldviews:
…though in the dominant Western tradition voice is valorised and silence constructed as a total blank, in many African cultures silence can be as powerful and as empowering as speech (2011:13).
The understanding of silence offered by Tamale (2011) resonates with my view that within the silence on sexualities, especially gay sexualities in some Zambian families and communities, lies the unspoken but ―intuitively‖ recognised form of speech which can be deciphered by both participants and their families or communities. The question therefore is:
what does the silence say about gay identities and sexualities? Tamale gives an example of the silence surrounding ―the sexualities of some African women, one that is ambiguous and not able to be engaged‖ (2011:13). While I agree with her on the ambiguity surrounding
silence on African women‘s sexualities and by implication sexualities of the participants in this study, I disagree with the notion that the silence on sexualities cannot be engaged. Since silence can be a form of language, it can be engaged. Its meanings are subject to both subjective and collective interpretation based on commonly held ways of life. For example, when Epprecht (2004:33) points to how youthful homosexual experimentation was allowed in a pre-colonial Shona context as long as it remained discreet, some of the meanings that can be read into such discretion are that the practice was only sanctioned in given contexts, public practice of homosexual experimentation was frowned upon, and that there was nothing wrong with homosexual practice as long as it was not practiced by adults. I read the meanings behind the silence on gay identities and sexualities as: first, a way of ensuring safety of participants in a context that is intolerant of their identities and sexualities; second, families prioritise other discussions over their sons‘ identities and sexualities; and third, discussions on gay identities and sexualities, like discussions on heterosexual practices, are not a daily topic of discussion for families and communities. Therefore, I regarded silence as a powerful source of unspoken language worth interrogating. For instance, what was silently spoken to a participant who during his childhood was given dolls to play with by his parents but nothing was verbalized about his sexuality or identity?
I also approached this study from a critical research paradigm, a paradigm mainly used by feminists. In their book A Critical Introduction to Social Research, Henn, Weinstein and Foard point out that:
critical research is both anti-positivist and anti-interpretivist, it instead regards research as a tool for social change as well as pursuit of justice, with the emancipation targeted at oppressed groups in society (2009:28-29).
This research paradigm implies that research is a transformative process and in this regard, the views of the participants about their identities and sexualities needed to be documented as one of the starting points for transformation. They undertake this task by discussing two major contributions of critical research, namely, feminist methodology and emancipatory disability research, and by showing debates that have emerged and methodological implications thereof (Henn, Weinstein and Foard 2009:27). Feminist methodology has contributed towards making qualitative research a democratic, collaborative and participative process for women in which the process-product relationship remains pivotal (Henn, Weinstein and Foard 2009:32-33). In a similar manner as feminist research, emancipatory
research does not only demand the participation of disabled people but their full integration in the research process (Henn, Weinstein and Foard 2009:43), hence facilitating the empowerment and franchising of disabled people (Henn, Weinstein and Foard 2009:45).
What is evident from both research approaches is that the study participant ought to take the centre stage in the formulation of the research and has to volunteer to be part of the study.
Further, the researcher-researched relationship has to be cultivated and research ought to be liberative. Critical research ―sees the world as being divided and in constant tension, dominated by the powerful, who oppress the people and use that state and its institutions as tools to achieve their purpose‖ (Saratankos 2005:51). Although I acknowledged the importance of discussing power dynamics that critical research highlights, I recognise that daily life is not a constant site of oppression, neither are there persistent power contestations between the powerful and the oppressed. I instead approached this study noting that in the midst of oppression arising from issues of identities and sexualities, sometimes some gay Christians are not perpetually ‗powerless‘ as they exhibit elements of power even in the midst of ‗disempowering‘ circumstances.
By reflecting on and discussing how they ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities, the participants exhibited agency amidst religious and cultural powers regarding identities and sexualities. My point of view resonates with Mahmood‘s (2005) in her book Politics of Piety:
the Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, who, writing from a Muslim feminist perspective within the mosque movement context, attends to issues of agency. She begins by critiquing feminist scholarship for its emphasis on ―politically subversive form of agency‖ (Mahmood 2005:153), ignoring ―other modalities of agency whose meaning and effect are not captured within the logic of subversion and resignification of hegemonic terms of discourse‖ (Mahmood 2005:153). Agency in this regard is not confined to political subversion but entails empowering activities, operating and finding spaces within seemingly oppressive contexts. Using discourses on the wearing of the hijab (veil) among some Muslim women, she instead suggests that:
if we think of ―agency‖ not simply as a synonym of resistance to social norms but as a modality of action, then this conversation raises some interesting questions about the kind of relationship established between the subject and the norm, between performative behaviour and inward disposition (Mahmood 2005:157).
She ties agency to action within the social norm, rendering agency performative. The idea of the relationship between the subject and the norm is imperative as it highlights how the norm is approached differently by different subjects. This informs my study as the agency of the participants was found not only in resistance against the norm but in interaction between individual participants and issues of construction of identities and sexualities. In yet another one of her works, ―Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival‖, Mahmood uses similar notions of agency ―as a capacity for action that historically specific relations of subordination enable and create‖ (2001:203).
Among some Muslim women that the author writes of, contexts that seemingly promote domination of women by men do create spaces that enable given actions by those regarded as subordinate. Relating this understanding to my study, it can be argued that the very spaces that would ordinarily be regarded as promoting the power/powerless dynamics of gay Christians have been used by study participants as sites of empowerment. Within religious and cultural contexts, the participants did still locate spaces in which they could construct their identities and sexualities; for example, the use of the Bible – a powerful Christian tool on identities and sexualities – and initiation rites of passage – powerful sources of identities and sexualities. It is for this reason that Mahmood concludes that:
in order for us to be able to judge, in a morally and politically informed way, even those practices we consider objectionable, it is important to take into consideration the desires, motivations, commitments, and aspirations of the people to whom these practices are important. Thus, in order to explore the kinds of injury specific to women located in particular historical and cultural situations, it is not enough simply to point, for example, that a tradition of female piety or modesty serves to give legitimacy to women's subordination. Rather it is only by exploring these traditions in relation to the practical engagements and forms of life in which they are embedded that we can come to understand the significance of that subordination to the women who embody it (Mahmood 2001:225).
Understanding the notion of agency entails an interrogation of subject-norm relations and the impacts thereof. I also approached this study from a view point that the participants are not in constant tension with the state, religious and cultural powers based on how they still utilize spaces in religion and culture in their ―self-construction‖ of identities and sexualities. This shows that although religion and culture are important construction sites of identities and
sexualities, such do not happen without counter-narratives from participants who are agents within the religio-cultural setup. This study contributes to the growing field of studies on African masculinities, African cultures, gay sexualities, identities, the concept of borderland gender and sexualities and as well as religion studies.
This chapter discusses the following: research design, sampling, methods of data production, reflexivity, methods of data analysis, reliability and validity, and ethical considerations.