Orientation and Gender Identity
Sex assigned at birth
Self-assigned Sexual and Gender Identity (female/male/unclear)
Age Range (18-24, 25-31 and 32-37)
Location
Diva Transgender woman
Male Female 25 -31 Lusaka central
Maliq Transgender man Female Male 25-31 Lusaka central
Maambo Gay Male Male 25-31 Lusaka central
Foster Lesbian Female Female 25-31 Lusaka central
Terry Transgender man Female Male 32-37 Lusaka central
Roman Gay Male Female 18-24 Lusaka central
Dakah Gay Male Unclear 18-24 Lusaka central
Chris Gay Male Male 25-31 Lusaka central
Paul Gay Male Male 32-37 Lusaka central
Teta Gay Male Male 25-31 Lusaka central
Taonga Gay Male Male 25-31 Lusaka central
Chipobabz Gay Male Female 25-31 Kanyama
Rihana Gay Male Female 25-31 Kanyama
Pamera Gay Male Female 25-31 Kanyama
MamaG Gay Male Female 25-31 Kanyama
Ashley Gay Male Female 18-24 Kanyama
Keri Hilson Gay Male Female 18-24 Kanyama
Dina Gay Male Female 25-31 Kanyama
Table 1. Study participants
This study used non-probability sampling in which purposive and snowballing sampling were applied. I used non-probability sampling because it is not easy to gain access to gay Christians in Zambia owing to the discriminatory laws, current social disdain against the practice of gay identities and sexualities, religious teachings and the secrecy surrounding sexualities in my research site. Thus, the two groups of participants that were availed to me through the gatekeeper were used as my sample. Using purposive sampling allowed me to
―get all possible cases that fit particular criteria, using various methods‖ (Neuman 2011:267).
Purposive sampling ―uses the judgment of an expert in selecting cases, or it selects cases with a specific purpose in mind…purposive sampling is appropriate to select unique cases that are especially informative‖ (Neuman 2011:267-268). Although I did not consider myself an expert, I used purposive sampling for its focus on specific purposes for selection of participants and their knowledge, insights and experiences on the phenomenon under interrogation. The sample provided to me by the gatekeeper fit into the category that my research investigated. Initially, the gatekeeper had introduced me to participants within Lusaka central area and as the study progressed, using snowballing, I gained access to the participants in Kanyama.
This study was made up of eighteen participants aged between eighteen and thirty-five and who self-identified as follows: fourteen gay Christians, two transgender men, one transgender woman and one lesbian. I divided them into two groups based on their locality within Lusaka, namely, Lusaka central and Kanyama. My study set out to interrogate only gay Christians‘
―self-construction‖ of identities and sexualities and the role of religion and culture in the construction processes. However, upon getting to the research site, one transgender woman, two transgender men and one lesbian joined the Lusaka central focus group discussions and since I could not turn them back, they participated in the study. The two transgender men also participated in the individual interviews. However, their insights in this study have only been used insofar as they elucidate more on the views expressed by the intended participants and also for triangulation purposes. Since all the participants already knew each other prior to participating in this study, the presence of the transgender men, transgender woman and lesbian did not affect the data production process. The participants in Lusaka central and Kanyama were selected to be part of this study because they are the ones I was introduced to by the gatekeeper, although I already had some links with a few members of each of these two groups.
The sample was determined through purposive sampling. Bryman notes this takes into account the need ―…to interview people who are relevant to the research questions‖
(2004:334). Bryman‘s views are important for this study as they guided me in ensuring that participants who took part in individual interviews as well as the focus group discussion were persons that had first-hand information about gay identities and sexualities. With the help of the gatekeeper, I deliberately targeted individuals who self-identified as such, belonged to pre-existing focus groups and were capable of helping me answer the question this study set
out to answer: the question being ―how do gay Christians ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities and what is the role of religion and culture in this process?‖ Neuman adds that purposive sampling is ―a non-random sample in which the researcher uses a wide range of methods to locate all possible cases of a highly specific and difficult-to-reach population‖
(2011:267). Gay Christians within Zambia are a hard to reach group since they are usually ‗in the closet‘ about their identities and sexualities. Access to them was only possible through my gatekeeper and internal networks, therefore justifying my use of purposive sampling. To gain access to the participants within Lusaka central, the gatekeeper had to organize our meetings, while the Kanyama participants were accessed through the gatekeeper using snowballing once I was already at the research site. I only selected my sample based on them being gay, Christian, and available for this study. A total of seven focus group discussions and six individual interviews were conducted with the participants in urban Lusaka, Zambia, for a period of five months. The focus group discussions and interviews were held in ―safe spaces‖ upon agreement with the participants.
―Self-selected sampling‖ (Tranter 2010:139) was used in this study since it allowed for participants to volunteer to be part of this study. Participants self-selected by appearing at the agreed location of the focus group discussions as well as individual interviews. Originally, both groups of participants were made up of close to thirty members each, therefore, through self-selection, a manageable number of participants offered to be part of this study.
In order to gain access to participants in the Kanyama group, I relied on the gatekeeper to identify members of the Kanyama group and facilitate their coming together for the focus group discussions. This group was identified using a snowballing method. Babbie (1992:292) points out that snowballing starts with a small number of study participants who are relevant to the study referring the researcher to those within their category. Neuman once more adds that:
snowball sample (also called network, chain referral, reputational, and respondent- driven sampling) is a method for sampling (or selecting) the cases in a network…a non-random sample in which the researcher begins with one case and then, based on information about interrelationships from the case, identifies other cases and repeats the process again and again (2011:269).
Neuman‘s assertions are helpful as they reflect how networks among research participants are a resource for identifying other potential participants. I relied on my gatekeeper‘s networks and influence to organise the Kanyama focus group discussions. During the focus group discussions, I asked participants who were interested in being interviewed to write down their cell phone numbers – self-selection process – as an indication of willingness to participate in in-depth interviews.
The focus group discussions were spread out as follows: five among participants in the Lusaka central group and two in the Kanyama focus group. The Lusaka central and Kanyama groups were made up of eleven and seven group members respectively, and focused on discussing how they ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities and the role religions and cultures play in this process. Focus group discussions created an environment which enabled expression of many different perspectives and explanations about the topic of discussion in one session. The two groups that formed the focus group discussions were already in existence before this study, and this allowed for lively discussions on this sensitive topic. The pre-existing focus groups helped the participants feel comfortable discussing their identities and sexualities as they knew each other since they all belonged to groups of sexual minorities in Zambia. The focus group discussions enlisted two levels of interaction: ―interviewer- participants and participant to participant‖ (Smithson 2008:359). Since the groups were pre- existing, focus groups enabled the gay Christians to interact among themselves as well as generate fruitful discussions on usually veiled subjects of identities and sexualities. Since the participants already knew each other, they discussed inner coded terms and language used within their circles, sought clarity from each other, and introduced me to their inner coded terms and language. Kitzinger observes that ―the fact that group participants provide an audience for each other encourages a greater variety of communication that is often evident within more traditional methods of data collection‖ (2004:270). These insights are helpful as they bring to the fore how focus group discussions encourage different types of group communication. There were some participants who seemed more knowledgeable about their identities and sexualities than others. I found it interesting that those who had limited knowledge about their own identities and sexualities were able to ask and learn more through interaction with others during focus group discussions. In this regard, the focus group discussions did turn out to be educational for both the participants and I. The focus group discussions were audio recorded and notes were taken.
In-depth individual interviews were undertaken with participants to facilitate a collection of biographies and in-depth information about the phenomenon under investigation. In-depth interviews, also known as unstructured interviews, are used ―in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience. It is focused, and discursive and allows the researcher and participant to explore an issue‖ (Greeff 2005:293). In-depth interviews seek to capture individual participants‘ experiences and are dialogical in nature.
In-depth interviews have been popularized by feminists who, according to Kvale, argue that such modes of data production place emphasis on ―experiences and subjectivity, on close personal interaction, and on reciprocity of researcher and the researched‖ (2006:481). The success of in-depth interviews is based on their emancipatory potential for both the researcher and researched. It for this reason that Kvale concludes that:
Interviews are a sensitive and powerful method; they are, in themselves, neither ethical nor unethical, neither emancipating nor oppressing. In a critical social science, interviews may contribute to the empowerment of the oppressed. In management and consumer research, interviews can contribute to the disempowerment of workers and consumers. A key issue concerns who obtains access and who has the power and resources to act on and consume what the multiple interview voices tell the interviewing stranger.
Interviews were useful in capturing the personal and subjective experiences of individual participants on ―self-construction‖ of their identities and sexualities as they allowed for personal rapport between the participants and I. Through the use of in-depth interviews, I aimed to capture the views and experiences of participants at a personal level and in a context that allowed for free expression of individual perspectives. I conducted six in-depth interviews. Bearing in mind that some participants might not have opened up fully during focus group discussions, I hoped they would offer more insights into their personal experiences during one on one interviews. The interviews were guided by a set of questions I had prepared and were flexible in nature. Dingwall, writing from a social sciences perspective, argues that ―interviews tell us about the construction of mundane reality in the interview. They are documents of the researcher-researched relationship‖ (1997:61). This insight is useful as it points out how interviews are documented researcher-researched association and interaction. Rapport between individual participants and I had already been created during focus group discussions, thus, interviews were useful methods for capturing
more information on how individual participants ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities and the role religions and cultures play in this process. People construct meaning and significance of reality by:
bringing to bear upon events a complex personal framework of beliefs and values, which they have developed over their lives to categorise, characterise, explain and predict the events in their worlds… for to understand other persons‘ constructions of reality we would do well to ask them (rather than assume we can know merely by observing their overt behaviour) and to ask them in such a way that they can tell us in their terms (rather than those imposed rigidly and a priori by ourselves) and in a depth which addresses a rich context that is the substance of their meanings (rather than through isolated fragments squeezed onto few lines of paper) (Jones 2004:257-258).
In order to capture a person‘s perceptions, it is imperative to ask them to give their views using the language they are comfortable with and in their own terms. This observation was important for this study as it ensured that the participants who took part in interviews assumed the centre stage and spoke of their experiences in terms familiar to them. I did not wish to assume I knew how participants ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities nor did I want to deductively conclude that religious and cultural constructs of gay identities and sexualities are impervious. Therefore, during the in-depth individual interviews, I allowed and encouraged participants to use languages they were comfortable with and terminologies they related to as they spoke from their insider perspectives about their identities and sexualities. All proceedings were audio recorded and notes were also taken.
Furthermore, I observed how the study participants behaved, dressed and the inner relations within the groups. The observation method was useful as it allowed for the production of data which was not verbalized in the focus group discussions and individual interviews (Flick 2002:135). I took notes of my daily observations during the focus group discussions and interviews and sometimes solicited for verbalization of the observations I had made. For instance, among the Kanyama participants who were very neatly groomed with tweezed eyebrows, I jokingly asked them to teach me how to keep my eyebrows. Responses on how they were female and needed to look well-groomed arose and I was invited for an eyebrow tweezing session.
Having discussed the sampling employed in this study, I proceed to discuss the data production methods.