DATA ANALYSIS

Discursive analysis was one of the overarching frameworks used to interrogate data in this study. The term ‗discourse‘ is used differently by different writers and there is also considerable variation in how discourse analytic and/or discursive methods are employed in the social sciences. There is no single definition of what constitutes a discourse. In this study, the researcher subscribed to Parker‘s (1992) definition that a discourse is a system of statements which construct an object, such systems of statements are taken up in speeches, conversations and texts, and in this study, it was assumed would be reflected in the transcribed interview material. Furthermore, the term ‗discourse‘ refers to the speech patterns and usage of language within a specific community (Willig, 2001). According to Parker (1992) discourse analysis involves analyzing data in order to disrupt and deconstruct the taken-for-granted meanings in language and interaction. This epistemological underpinning of discourse analysis fits with very well with the overall aim of the current research project, which was aimed at analyzing multiple voices of masculinity and at exploring how hegemonic and counter-hegemonic constructions are contested by boys in their conversations and behaviour.

Discourse analysts argue that discourse is about how language is applied (e.g. Potter & Wetherell, 1987) or how talk is used to justify particular actions (Parker, 1992). So for discourse analysts, language is not just language, but the tool that is used to construct objects, such as, for example, hegemonic or non-hegemonic masculinity. Discourse analysts take a critical stance by looking at the functions performed by a language in order to reveal hidden meanings and the ways in which some versions of reality or ideas gain a particular kind of power and credibility. The question of the ‗truthfulness‘ of accounts in interviews has been debated by discourse analysts (see, for example, Parker, 1992; Wetherell, Taylor &Yates, 2001; Wetherell, 2005). Is what the participants say in interviews a true reflection of their mental processes and inner worlds, and, for example, are normative pressures not influencing participants to give socially acceptable answers? Seeking to know the ‗truth‘ is, however, largely irrelevant for discourse analysts (Taylor 2001). Discourse analysts are not interested in

whether the participants tell the truth or not, but are more interested in discourse itself, how it is constructed and the ideological function it serves (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). There is no single truth to be discovered by the researcher, but rather there are multiple truths. Given that human subjects are viewed as employing or drawing upon language in a fluid and contextually sensitive manner, discourse analysts are not invested in pursuing participants‘ words as a ‗real‘ representation of self, but rather seek to appreciate the kind of discursive work that language does and the ways in which it positions the speakers and listeners. Parker (1992) argues discourse can contain negations as well as assertions, and that these are often part of the implicit, rather than explicit features of discourse.

There are different types of discourse analysis (for example, Foucauldian or Critical Discourse Analysis), however, a discursive approach based on the work of Potter and Wetherell (1987) and Edley and Wetherell (19999) was employed in the current research study to analyze the data. In analyzing adolescent boys‘ narratives, the researcher focused on metaphors, idiomatic expressions, tensions and contradictions (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edley & Wetherell, 1999), in order to shed light on the formation of masculine identities. It is evident that the use of discursive psychology in the study (as elaborated in a subsequent section) allowed the researcher to move beyond simple description of what it means to be a boy to understand more political and interactive processes involved in the subjective construction and living out of masculinity. Since qualitative analysis is strongly theoretically driven or shaped, the discussion of the methodological processes employed in the study includes discussion of critical and theoretical issues and perspectives.

8.7.1. Transcription of the interview material

Before data analysis took place, the researcher needed to translate the spoken material into written form by preparing transcripts. All of the focus groups and individual interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed for detailed data analysis. According to Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Cumming and Paolino (1993) transcripts should contain accurate information as far as possible, including speech errors, pauses, interruptions, changes in volume and emphasis of certain points.

Based on Parker (1992) and Willig (2001) and Potter and Wetherell s‘ (1987) work the following transcription conventions were followed in this study (see Appendix L for an example of a transcript):

1. When material was omitted from the transcript, this is indicated with three or more dots….;

2. When there are noises, words of assent, and so on, a set of slashes//// is introduced 3. / indicates a correction or stumbling speech (e.g. Ja/well/well/not really)

4. A pair of parentheses ( ) encloses any comment the transcriber or researcher chooses to make about some of the slang words used by the research participants. 5. The spelling ‗uh, unh, um‘‘, represent hesitation words

6. :: Colons indicate the prolongation of a sound. The length of the row of colons indicates the length of the prolongation (e.g. Um::::: I‘m not sure)

7. Bolding of quotes indicate some form of stress indicating boys‘ emphasis in the speech. Many of these bolded quotes were chosen for some depth analysis (see chapter 9 to 12 on findings and discussion).

The process of transcription took a period of five to six months. This process took longer than expected because in many instances the researcher had to listen to one interview repeatedly in order to pick up participants‘ pauses, hesitations, gaps, and silences. The researcher also had to listen to the interviews repeatedly in order to accurately transcribe the participants‘ terminology and use of township slang or what Glaser (2000) calls ‗tsotsi taal‘. The interviews were mainly conducted in English, intermixed with Zulu or Sotho on occasion, but the participants also employed ‗tsotsi taal‘ and vernacular idioms to express some of their own views on the research topic. For example, the word ibhari is a Sotho word for a ‗fool‘; sexjaro is township lingo for a boy who likes having sex with many girls; and isitabane is a Zulu word for ‗gay‘. It must be mentioned that literally some of these terms mean something else, but were used colloquially by the participants to convey a particular view. In the transcription and in the discussion of research findings, the researcher retained all of these slang words and other parts of township lingo (with meanings explained in brackets).

8.7.2. First-stage of analysis: looking for themes

The initial stage of data analysis involved reading each transcript many times with the aim of determining the prevailing themes relating to masculinity and those representing the dominant masculinities to which the adolescent boys appeared to publicly and privately subscribe to. The researcher followed Smith (1995, p. 20-21) and Terre Blanche, Kelly and Durrheim‗s (1999, pp.140-141) suggestions in looking for themes:

The researcher read transcripts initially a number of times to note significant themes in what the respondent was saying. Reading and re-reading the transcripts helped the researcher to start noting important features in the data. The researcher summarized and made connections and associations, which served as preliminary interpretations.

Each transcript had line numbers, which were used in the coding process (see Appendix L).

On a separate sheet, the researcher listed emerging themes and looked for connections between them. The whole process was done manually as the researcher did not use any computerized programme (an example of this is provided in Appendix K).

For any significant theme, the researcher simply wrote the line number in the appropriate cell of the table and indicated the pseudonym allocated to the participant (again see Appendix K).

The process was then repeated for all of the individual and focus group transcriptions. The researcher produced a master list of themes and ordered them coherently. The

researcher identified major themes and sub-themes (again see Appendix K).

All of the data was then categorized and classified into various themes. The researcher examined each theme to define more clearly what the theme captured. Classifying, categorising and re-categorising themes were guided by the research aims. Once the themes were classified, the researcher examined their similarities and differences. The key themes were coded by breaking data into meaningful pieces under the code

heading for further elaboration and analysis.

Interpretation and checking involved reading and re-reading all of the transcribed material to develop sub-themes and to identify contradictions and tensions in the data.

Next to each line number in the transcripts, the researcher wrote his own initial interpretation of the material.

All of the key themes and sections of the texts were highlighted and some of this material was selected for more specific discursive and interpretive analysis (see the section below on the discourse analysis)

8.7.3. Second-stage analysis: Combining discursive psychology and psychoanalytic approaches to deepen data analysis

As discussed earlier, the researcher combined both discursive psychology and psychoanalytic theory to analyze transcribed interviews. Psychoanalytically based analysis draws upon a more realist (as opposed to constructionist) perspective, also, however, moving beyond pure description. In this framework, a more interpretive or hermeuntic understanding is employed- spoken contents being linked to intra-psychic formations, conflicts and processes, rather than being mapped into the social or ideological realm. Thus, the analysis drew upon both realist and constructionist perspectives, employing interpretive and discursive analysis in a complimentary and inter-related manner. The use of the two approaches in combination provided an in-depth framework of analysis from which to identify meanings and contradictions that adolescent boys revealed in spoken texts about hegemonic and non- hegemonic masculinities and the manner in which these were socially constructed in the context of Alexandra Township. Discursive psychology and psychoanalytic theory have been used in combination both theoretically and methodologically in many other studies of gender- related issues (see, for example, Frosh et al., 2003; Frosh & Young, 2008; Frosh & Baraitser, 2008; Hollway, 1989; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000; Long, 2005, 2009). These two approaches were both relevant in achieving the research aims of the study outlined in the introduction to and rationale for the research project, i.e. the intention to study both social and personal aspects of masculine identity. The use of psychoanalytic ideas and concepts in data analysis helped the researcher to move beyond mere re-description of the participants‘ ideas and constructions. Psychoanalytic theory helps to account psychologically for how and why people take up certain positions in discourses, despite some of the concerns raised by Wetherell (2005, 2008) about the over-emphasis of psychoanalysis on a hypothetical interiority rather than the social.

Both discursive psychology and psychoanalytic theory place language at centre stage in data analysis. It is through language that people make meanings about the self. For example, particular words, metaphors, and terms were selected by boys in the study to emphasise certain issues and points of view about their sense of their own and others‘ masculinities. The researcher was aware that the participants tended to use language to present themselves positively, especially in the focus group interviews amongst their peers. In analyzing the use of language, discursive psychology is more concerned with how the talk is mediated by the availability of discourses in the social and political realm, while psychoanalytic theory focuses more clearly on how the talk is mediated by relational dynamics and unconscious processes (Frosh & Young, 2008). Here, the interest is on how the ‗external‘ social influences the ‗internal‘ personal experiences of being and vice versa or how different levels of experience appear to interpenetrate each other.

8.7.3.1. Interpretative repertoires

Discursive psychology also explores how people use various ‗interpretative repertoires‘ which have been provided for them by history and cultural resources. Potter and Wetherell (1987, p. 138) define interpretive repertoires as ―basically a lexicon or register of terms and metaphors drawn upon to characterise and evaluate action or events‖. In the second phase of the analysis, the researcher also looked for and sought to identify different repertoires that township boys employed in the pursuit of putting forward what they perceived as constituting a ‗real boy‘ in the new South Africa. Some repertoires were clearly more popular than others and therefore emphasised in the discussion. According to Potter and Wetherell (1987) repertoires are usually taken as facts or taken for granted as ‗common sense‘ (Willig, 2001, p.107). In this study, the researcher analyzed boys‘ taken-for-granted views on what it means to be a boy. It is clear that interpretative repertoires are part and parcel of any community, providing a basis for shared social understanding (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) and that they were operative in this particular ‗community‘ of boys. In the study, the researcher attempted to analyze these views to identify and explore how the discursive object of masculinity was constructed, including what interpretative repertoires seemed to be at play and functions they appeared to serve.

It was clear that there were also internal tensions and contradictions in the participants‘ narratives that appeared to be both interpersonally and intra-psychically generated. The use of psychoanalytic ideas enriched the analysis by offering theoretical ways of understanding some of the psychological mechanisms (conscious or unconscious) operating in subverting and challenging the dominant norms of hegemonic masculinity. Contradictions and complexities were noted in both the individual and group interviews and were also of particular interest in analysis and discussion. Some of the boys seemed to resist the idea that masculinity could be contested and contestable, so data analysis involved a close examination of how the boys engaged in contesting hegemonic versions of masculinity.

Particular attention was also paid to the points in the interviews when emotions, such as, anxiety, fear, aggression, anger, guilt, loss, frustration or disappointment emerged, either explicitly or implicitly. This allowed the researcher to make more psychoanalytic or ‗clinical‘ interpretations of the emotional processes involved in taking up particular subjective masculine positions.

8.7.3.3 Subjective positioning, conflicts and defences

Discursive psychology is also interested to explore subject positions available to people in particular contexts (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edley & Wetherell, 1999), while psychoanalytic theory accounts for why people emotionally invest in certain subject positions (Frosh & Young, 2008). In the study, the researcher read and re-read the transcripts to analyse and identify positions that participants occupied in the interviews. Questions the analysis sought to engage included the boys choice (either consciously or unconsciously) of certain subject positions over others and what the emotional costs or benefits of positioning oneself as a particular kind of boy appeared to be. Some of the boys positioned themselves as more conventionally masculine, while others resisted stereotypes and stereotyping of boys. In taking up subject positions, boys in the study drew upon various medical, cultural, religious, sociological and psychological discourses, as will be elaborated in the discussion chapters.

Boys oscillated between different subject positions, while some subject positions proved to be more popular than others.

Attention was paid to the ways boys invested themselves emotionally in particular subject positions, as well as the anxieties and defenses evoked in taking up such positions. According to Frosh et al. (2002), internal conflicts and personal contradictions are indicative of the struggles involved in dealing with the fluidity of masculinity amongst adolescent boys. Further attention was paid to identifying gaps, silences, pauses, subtle messages and emotional investments implicated in particular masculine subject positions. Discursive practices of silencing, discriminating and isolating non-compliant boys were also observed and noted.

The researcher also further examined how boys logically took turns in the focus groups. The researcher analyzed the ‗holes‘ and ‗intersections‘ between speakers and the various subject positions that the boys occupied in the focus groups. The researcher also paid close attention to the way boys rhetorically positioned their accounts, descriptions, and evaluations of peers in group situations and how contributions of different speakers were meshed together in group conversations, as well as the way different types of actions were produced and managed. In analysing focus group interviews, the researcher aimed ―to critique and analyze complex dynamics in the talk which are far from the obvious‖ (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 83). The researcher also analyzed how positive self-representation was used in the group context in order to save face or make a good impression in the group.

The researcher was also interested in discursive strategies that boys used in distancing themselves from particular discourses. In terms of Potter and Wetherell‗s (1987) work, adolescent boys used disclaimers, excuses and justification to distance themselves from certain subject positions. For example, in talking about gay masculinity, boys often used disclaimers such as ―I‘m not homophobic, but……I think there is something wrong with gay boys‖. In terms of psychoanalytic theory, disclaimers were perceived as often used defensively.

In addition, the researcher also observed how boys also tended to excuse in order to deny any form of agency in respect of some attributes, especially when talking about their risk-taking

behaviours. According to Potter and Wetherell (1987, p. 75) ―excuses are accounts which admit the relevant act was bad in some way, but claim performance was influenced or caused by some external agency‖. Studying excuses was important in revealing defensive mechanisms, such as denial, rationalization, intellectualization and projection. Analysing excuses allowed the researcher to identify some of the factors (external or internal) that pushed boys to behave in particular ways. It is hoped that the complementary employment of discursive and psychoanalytic understandings and interpretations will be evident in the elaborated discussion of the key themes that emerged.

In conclusion, both discursive psychology and psychoanalytic theory proved relevant, appropriate and useful approaches of data analysis in the research project, despite the philosophical differences between these two approaches.