CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3 Qualitative Research Design
poststructuralism, as it finds its roots in a collection of various authors’ work and disciplines (see Derrida, 1998; Foucault, 1980). However, Fox (2014:156) argues that the fundamental principle related to poststructuralism is its recognition of individual and, as such, multiple realities or truths (i.e., multiple sexualities). Therefore, a poststructuralist approach is not based on absolute truths but rather diverse perspectives of a phenomenon (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018:2). Proponents of poststructuralism all have diverse and dissimilar understandings of difference but ultimately share the aspiration to critique and challenge the view of something as “normal” and question that which we take for granted (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018). Those claiming to pose “truth” use this as means to achieve a role of authority, standing and a means to exercise control over others (Fox, 2014:157). Fox (2014:157) provides the example of societies directed by religious principles;
these principles inform the ruling members on how to define secular laws regarding what is right and wrong and how to reprimand those who do not abide by these laws. Poststructuralism is accordingly critical about the way in which knowledge is produced through social structures and systems (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018). In this regard, Williams (2005) posits that poststructuralism allows proponents to rebelliously approach, question and engage with common sense, perceptions, concepts of true and false, right and wrong, and good or bad. This allows for the deconstruction of discourse around us for a better understanding of how it structures society and our interactions (Holmes & Gagnon, 2018; Williams, 2005). To disrupt and deconstruct such governing structures, poststructuralism seeks to bring to light differences in and fluidity of meaning and interpretation (Murphy & Rafferty, 2015:479).
Poststructuralism served as the epistemological base for the current study, as it allowed me to analyse how knowledge is produced from various subjective experiences noted by participants in order to form and understand systems of control that rank individuals hierarchically according to gendered and sexualised behaviours that are deemed desirable and accepted, akin to heteronormative and/or homonormative ideals. Such systems of control helped me formulate how some gay and lesbian students may interpret their social interactions as being more stifled and inhibiting, as opposed to liberating on their particular campus.
The following section focusses on conceptualising the qualitative methods that were applied in this study.
understanding of participants’ lived experiences and perceptions as self-identified gay and lesbian students of the NWU. This did not imply that qualitative methods were necessarily better than quantitative methods; qualitative methods were simply applicable to the present study. While these approaches employ different methods, each has its own weaknesses, strengths and goals (Blackstone, 2018:8). Creswell and Poth (2016:19) note that qualitative researchers tend to provide a less-structured, preconceived conceptualisation of particular terms, as they rather foreground the definitions their participants provide for the particular terms, which are vital for the qualitative inquiry. By adopting this inductive approach, qualitative methods were employed due to their more naturalistic and interpretive nature in their endeavour to uncover, explore and explain participants’ behaviours and beliefs in the context that these occur (Draper, 2004:642). This study focussed on exploring the experiences of self-identified lesbian and gay students of the NWU.
Ghaljaie et al. (2017:1) support the use of qualitative methods, arguing that these methods enable the qualitative researcher to seek in-depth understandings of the phenomenon under investigation by exploring and describing the internal feelings and experiences of participants in the study.
The following sub-sections elaborate on the characteristics of qualitative research. Quality assurance and trustworthiness are also discussed.
4.3.1 Principles of qualitative research
According to Creswell and Poth (2016:40), a qualitative design tends to be employed when researchers seek to understand and/or empower participants by emphasising their narratives and voices. To obtain data from participants on concepts, perceptions and their lived experiences, researchers who employ a qualitative design tend to conduct semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions to explore a problem or phenomenon thoroughly for the purpose of better understanding (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018:211).
Creswell and Poth (2016:37) elaborate on the use of the qualitative research process. They state that it starts with general assumptions and the study of a problem through theoretical lenses by questioning and collecting the narratives of those included and implicated in the problem and/or phenomenon under study. Rutberg and Bouikidis (2018) posit that qualitative approaches are used to collect data and inquire about the phenomenon in a natural and comfortable setting for the participants. Creswell and Poth (2016) attest this. Qualitative researchers aim to elucidate meaning and experiences of social problems or phenomena as participants’ experience these in their everyday environment (Malterud, 2001:483; Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). Creswell and Poth (2016:37) claim that qualitative methods emphasise the importance of interpreting and situating the research findings in the specific cultural, social and political context in which the participants,
researcher and readers find themselves. Therefore, it is important for qualitative researchers to collect data from participants in the natural environment that the phenomenon is experienced, and by having face-to-face conversations with these participants in this environment, researchers can observe their behaviours and reactions (Creswell & Poth, 2016:37).
In this study, 27 students participated in the study. Face-to-face and virtual interviews were conducted to collect data from participants. Due to limitations posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, some participants could not meet for interviews and did not have the necessary access to participate in an online interview. Consequently, 17 participants completed the interview schedule electronically and returned it to me. Four of the remaining 10 participants were met face-to-face, and the remaining six participants were interviewed via Zoom. Six participants who did not identify as gay or lesbian7 completed the document electronically. In some cases, I reached out to those participants with follow-up questions to obtain more information. The researcher is the key mechanism to data collection through interviewing participants, observing and critically analysing texts (Creswell & Poth, 2016:38). In this regard, Rutberg and Bouikidis (2018:211) argue that qualitative methods allow the researcher to become ingrained in the inquiry, able to adapt to and be flexible with new information, ultimately providing a holistic outlook of the research and the results – factors that featured in the present study. In order to provide such a perspective, I was concerned with the meanings the participants attached to the specific topics in the interview schedule (cf. Creswell & Poth, 2016; Draper, 2004; Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). As such, Draper (2004:642) argues that qualitative inquiries tend to ask questions starting with “‘what’, ‘how’ and
‘why’”. For example, in the context of this study, one of the questions was as follows: “Why do some gay and/or lesbian individuals decide not to join a visible group on campus?” I sought to investigate and explore the lived experiences of participants through asking such questions (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Draper, 2004; Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018).
Qualitative researchers believe that participants continuously and actively shape and re-shape their social realities through interactions with other social actors and objects (Bryman, 2016:547).
The meanings participants attach to these experiences and interactions are accordingly context- specific and socially constructed (Draper, 2004:643). What participants say can thus not be detached from the context they are speaking from (Creswell & Poth, 2016:40). This raises questions regarding the quality of qualitative research. Draper (2004:645) sees the quality of research as vital and highlights the general impression among some positivist scientists that qualitative inquiry tends to be too “soft” due to its subjective nature (Cope, 2014). Here, Creswell
7 Additional individuals who did not identify as gay or lesbian (bi-curious, bisexual, and pansexual) were allowed to participate, as they could also provide data that could speak to the interactions and power relations in communities other than the heterosexual community.
and Poth (2016:45) explore the idea of “good” qualitative methods. First, they emphasise that studies should always be contextualised within a qualitative structure and that the research has an evolving and flexible design while representing multiple realities based on the perceptions of the participants. Second, using a qualitative approach allowed me to improve the rigour of the research design. Additionally, while most qualitative studies have complex and multiple foci, they suggest starting a project with a singular focus – for instance, focussing on understanding one concept, such as homonormativity (Creswell & Poth, 2016:45). In order to represent participants’
multiple realities effectively, Creswell and Poth (2016:45) suggest that the data be analysed through multiple levels of abstraction – for example, layering analysis from particular to general (e.g., layering the discussion of gay and lesbian typologies from those typologies consisting of thick codes [twink, bear, butch, lipstick lesbian] to those responses that did not ground or fit any code [secret gays, daddies, tomboy, non-binary]). Lastly, a good qualitative study is ethical insofar as the researcher considers the study as a whole and its impact on participants, the researcher and readers, and not just obtaining ethical clearance from a committee (Creswell & Poth, 2016:45).
A subsequent challenge to qualitative researchers is ensuring a process and report of the highest quality. Cope (2014:89) argues that different criteria apply to qualitative and quantitative studies, as both differ in the methodologies they apply. According to Cope (2014:89), qualitative researchers aim to achieve trustworthiness and credibility, whereas quantitative researchers aim for validity and rigour. Five criteria are identified through which qualitative research can be evaluated: credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability and authenticity (Cope, 2014:89; Creswell & Poth, 2016).
According to Creswell and Poth (2014:204), credibility refers to the various narratives of participants that form a whole based on the recurring patterns of behaviour or perceptions that deny or confirm the findings. Cope (2014:89) supports this by arguing that a study is considered credible if the perceptions forming the findings are recognised by those sharing in that experience.
In the current study, credibility was ensured by recording and transcribing the interviews, with participants' consent, to keep as much rich details from participant constructions as possible.
These were also provided to them for member-checking. This allowed the participants to check the correctness and appropriateness of the actual interview transcripts.
Dependability, according to Cope (2014:89), is when a study’s findings are replicable by similar participants in similar contexts. Creswell and Poth (2016:204) argue that qualitative inquiry seeks dependability in the findings rather than reliability. To increase the dependability of the research, Amankwaa (2016:122) suggests that both the research process and findings be vetted by researchers who are independent of the study to evaluate whether the conclusions are supported
by the research findings. The dependability of the research was ensured by having the research supervisor read through the research process and data collection strategies critically to ensure that the findings were supported by the data.
Cope (2014:89) describes confirmability as the demonstration that the findings and conclusions are based on the data gathered from participants and not the viewpoints or bias of the researcher.
To show confirmability, the findings and conclusions are supported through the use of information- rich quotes supplied by participants pertaining to the specific themes (Amankwaa, 2016; Cope, 2014). Confirmability in this study was ensured, as is evident in chapters 5 and 6, by exploring the data and constructions derived from participants in relation to the discussed theory and only drawing conclusions from the empirical data.
Transferability in qualitative research refers to research findings that could apply to different groups and contexts than those in the original research (Cope, 2014:89). For research findings to be transferable, Creswell and Poth (2016:204) argue in favour of the necessity of providing thick descriptions provided by participants. By using thick descriptions, readers and researchers can assert the transferability of the findings to various contexts, over time, and among individuals and situations (Amankwaa, 2016; Creswell & Poth, 2016). However, Cope (2014:89) notes that transferability in qualitative research is dependent on the goals of the research and, as such, may only be applicable if the research seeks to make generalisations from the findings. I sought to provide for transferability to, for example, other South African universities, by supplying detailed and rich quotes and descriptions of the lived experiences of the present study’s participants from the empirical data in chapter 5.
Lastly, Cope (2014:89) defines authenticity as the extent to which the participants’ emotions and feelings are portrayed through exploring their experiences of the phenomenon. Johnson and Rasulova (2017:269) describes the principle of authenticity as an addition to the idea of confirmability, as it allows the interrogation of the research process and the interpretations drawn from the findings. Concomitant of the social constructionist approach discussed above, the authenticity principle recognises that different individuals and groups have different worldviews and values influencing how they interpret the world and construct their perceptions thereof and requires that researchers consider the diversity of constructions from the participants and the researchers themselves (Adler-Nissen, 2016; Cope, 2014; Johnson & Rasulova, 2017).
Authenticity was ensured by supplying the perspectives of all the participants in the study and not only those that benefited the research goals, researcher, or the institution at which the research was conducted.
The next section discusses the methodological approaches used in exploring the experiences of lesbian and gay students on the NWU Potchefstroom campus.