DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Under this sub-section, the three methods of data collection used in the study, namely, photography, individual interviews and focus groups, are discussed in some depth:

8.6.1. Photography as a data collection tool

Historically, photography, as a qualitative data collection method, developed out of social science disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology. Recently, this method has also been gaining popularity in other fields, such as psychology (Reavey & Johnson, 2008), allowing participants to represent their lived experiences through visual images. In the current study, the use of photography as a data gathering tool was useful in researching representational aspects of young masculinities in Alex. The decision to use photo-elicitation narratives as an initial research tool to specifically explore social constructions of identity was stimulated by the work of Collier and Collier (1986), Noland, (2006) and Blackbeard and Lindegger (2007). All of the participants in the current study were given disposable cameras to take 27 photos (the total available on the film) under the theme: ‗My life as a boy‘ in South Africa. In taking their photos, boys were encouraged to think about the following questions: What is it like to be a boy? What are the things that make boys feel like ‗real boys‘? How do boys spend their time? What are some of the challenges that boys face? What do other people (e.g. friends, parents, teachers & girlfriends) expect from young boys? What makes some boys more popular than others? Are there alternative ways of being a boy? Do you ever imagine becoming different to other boys? With the central question and the further prompts in mind, boys were then given a period of two weeks to take photographs. The space and time afforded to participants enabled them to think about how they wanted to represent themselves, but also required them to focus

on the task. After two weeks, arrangements were made for the researcher to collect all the disposable cameras. Two sets of the photographs were processed and one set was placed in an album and returned to each participant (in an album entitled ‗my life as a boy‟). The duplicate sets of photographs were retained by the researcher, as agreed to by the participants.

Across this research project, a total of 678 photos were taken. All of the photographs were used to facilitate both semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups. Interviews involved giving voice to ideas beyond simple description of photos. What was the intention of the participant in taking a particular photo? What were the feelings and emotions that accompany the photos taken? How does the participant relate feelings and emotions back to the photo? What does the photo represent in terms of what it means to be a boy? Zillier (1990, in Seedat, Baadtjies, van Niekerk & Mdaka, 2006) argues that photos can set up a discourse between the photographer and the viewer. The photographer is compelled to attend selectively to elements of personal interest, decides what to show the viewer and how it will look to the viewer, and anticipate how viewers might react to it. Riley and Manias (2003, in Seedat et al., 2006, p.304) identified three ways of looking at photos: ―(1) looking at the image to analyze information internal to it; (2), looking at the image to examine the way in which the content is presented; and (3) looking behind the image to examine the context, or the social and cultural relations that shape its production and interpretation‖. In this study, it was the second and third element that were of primary interest with a focus on what this represented about lived masculinity in contemporary Alexandra township for this group of young boys. It was emphasized that the photographs would not be evaluated in terms of artistic merit, but were designed to assist the researcher in understanding how/what the boys viewed and wanted, in order to represent aspects of their lives.

Furthermore, the benefits of using photography to research young masculinities in the current research project were understood as follows (see, Langa, 2008, pp. 10-15):

Participants took the role of an ‘expert guide’ leading the interviewer through the content of the photos

In describing their photos, participants in this study were writers or authors of their own stories/narratives. They shared their personal lived experiences of what it meant to be a boy through their photos. Photo-narrative therefore seemed to offer a gratifying sense of self- expression as participants in this study were able to describe and educate the interviewer about their lives through discussing the photos taken. The use of the photo-narrative also allowed boys to ‗tell‘ their stories about what it meant to be a boy spontaneously without feeling pressurized about what views might be wrong or right. Participants seemed to enjoy explaining the context within which some of the photos were taken. In this sense, they became expert informants about their own life contexts.

Participants took an active role and participatory role in data collection.

Boys were active participants in data collection and in the selection of images that best described and represented their own masculine identities. It was clear that the participants put considerable thought and reflection in deciding which photos they took.

Using photos was non-intrusive and open-ended

In this study, photographic images functioned as the starting point for discussion. Photo- interviewing gave participants maximum freedom to express their own views about what it meant to be a boy without too many inhibiting effects, especially in the individual interviews. Participants also seemed to feel less pressurized in engaging in the interview process because they had the photographs as an initial springboard for self expression. The photos represented boys‘ everyday lived experiences as well as their fantasies about life and their future expectations as young males.

Building rapport and collaboration

Lastly, taking photos helped the researcher to establish rapport with the participants. Before the initial interview, the researcher spent a lot of time with participants teaching them how to use their disposable cameras. The rapport started to develop at this stage. Two weeks later, the

researcher returned to collect the photos to be processed and thereafter set up the interviews. The repeated visits to the schools and contact with the boys enhanced the researcher‘s relationship with the participants.

Some of the photographic images will be used in some chapters in the findings section to supplement discussion and to illustrate the images that the adolescent boys choose to present to assert their masculine identities. The boys also appeared to be gratified to receive the albums with their photographs from the researcher feeling that had retained something for themselves from the research process.

8.6.1. Individual interviews as a data collection method

Schurink (1998) identified individual interviewing as the most common method of data collection in qualitative research. It is argued that individual interviewing allows an exploration of issues that may be too difficult or complex to explore through quantitative methods. Interviewing helped to develop a better understanding of the meanings that the participants make about their lived experiences (Parker, 1995; Schurink, 1998). There are different types of individual interview schedules, namely, structured, unstructured and semi-structured interviews. Each of these methods have advantages and disadvantages (see, Fontana & Frey, 1994; Schurink, 1998, for more discussion of this point). Despite some of these strengths and limitations, individual interviews are generally used in qualitative research to understand deep levels of feelings, attitudes, behaviours and experiences of the participants (Schurink, 1998), which is the main aim of the current research project.

In this study, the researcher arranged and conducted individual interviews with all of the 32 boys who selected/volunteered to take part in the study. In the individual interviews, boys were asked to provide a description of each photograph they had taken and why and how they had decided to take that particular image. What was the intention in taking a particular photo and what were the thoughts, fantasies, feelings and emotions that accompanied it both at the time and in the interview? This kind of interview process is referred to as photo-elicitation, where photos are used to prompt interview responses (Blackbeard & Lindegger, 2007; Noland, 2006).

The use of photographic images as a route into discussing masculinity seemed to produce a heightened level of engagement on the part of the boys. Both the content of the images as well as their elaborations about the images provided useful data. The interviews were tape-recorded. All photos were numbered so that corresponding sections of an interview could be linked to a particular photo. However, where the researcher did organize the photos into general categories that emerged later from speaking with boys. Many individual interviews were quite extensive because each photo and the narrative associated it were covered during the interview. The interviews were conducted after school hours or over the weekend and took more than a full hour in every instance, in some instances taking as long as two to three hours.

Individual interviews proved to be very useful in this study. In the individual interviews (as opposed to the focus groups), boys seemed more relaxed, open and fluent, because these interviews were interviewee-centered. As mentioned earlier, the interviewees took the active role of being ‗experts‘ in leading, guiding and sharing their own lived experiences of what it meant for them to be a boy in part through talking about their photos. Participants seemed to enjoy explaining the context of certain photographic images (for example, taverns, spaza shops and so forth) to the researcher. In a sense, the participants became aware of having considerable ‗cultural capital‘ from being experts of their own life contexts in Alex. This allowed for some inversion of roles in that the researcher was constructed as a recipient rather than provider of knowledge. Individual interviews also allowed the researcher to identify difficulties that the young boys appeared to face in negotiating multiple voices of masculinity. There were so many contradictions in the boys‘ narratives, which appeared to reflect the complexity of being a young man engaging with multiple aspects of gender identity establishment.

The individual interviews were semi-structured (see the interview schedule, appendix J). An interview schedule was developed based on Frosh et al. (2002), Fouten (2006) and Blackbeard and Lindegger‗s (2007) work and the research aims of this study. The interview schedule included a list of possible questions to be asked in the interview, but the researcher adapted these questions depending on the participant‘s narratives, allowing him to follow issues or themes raised by the participants. In keeping with Berg‘s (1995) recommendation, the

researcher used probing questions to elicit more information and elaborate on ideas that were introduced by the interviewees. The researcher was both flexible and reflexive. For example, where relevant the researcher commented on the participants‘ non-verbal cues to elicit more information (e.g. it seems you were quite uncomfortable when I was asking you about your religious beliefs, can you tell me what that is about?). Commenting on participants‘ non-verbal cues proved to be quite enriching. Participants were able to express their fantasies and emotions connected to particular issues, a register of experience that was of particular interest in the current research project.

Generally, participants occupied an important space in the research. The interviewer took a facilitative role, picking up on issues that the interviewees raised and encouraging them to develop and reflect upon them further. The boys were encouraged to critically explore the forces of dominant or hegemonic masculinity (although this term was not used with participants) in interviews and to reflect upon contradictions as key features characterizing contemporary masculinities. In the individual interviews, the researcher ensured that a wide range of issues were covered, for example, boys‘ self-definition as male/masculine; role models; relationship with other boys and girls; intimacy and friendships; sexual practices; violence; career aspirations; and substance abuse, in keeping with the approach of Frosh et al. (2002). The researcher explored the difficulties that the boys seemed to encounter in being masculine. The relationship between personal life and external structures was also explored. Boys were encouraged to comment on their perceptions of aspects of the social context that might give rise to different forms of masculinity. Although the style of the interview was non- directive, the researcher challenged the participants to be reflective about the inconsistencies and contradictions in their narratives. The researcher aimed to create an informal and collaborative atmosphere so that participants felt free to talk about their uncertainties over friendships, disappointment with parents, anger with absent or unavailable fathers, feelings of rejection by girls, fears of being seen as gay, feelings about suicide, and aspirations about the future, amongst other issues (Frosh et al., 2002). Various aspects of these interviews will be discussed later.

8.6.3. Focus groups as a data collection method

The use of focus groups in qualitative research has been growing in popularity in social science research studies (Morgan, 1997). Essentially, a focus group provides group members with an opportunity to express their views collectively on a specific topic. Like individual interviews, focus groups also have a number of strengths and weaknesses. One of the major strengths of focus groups is that they allow the participants to share their own insights and to build upon responses of other group members, thus enriching the process of data collection (Fontana & Frey, 1994).The facilitator/moderator plays a critical role in directing the group discussion in a fairly structured manner. One of the major challenges of focus group interviewing is to manage group dynamics to ensure that the group is not dominated by one person (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Morgan, 1997). In addition, it is important for the researcher to possess specific research and listening skills to be able to facilitate a focus group.

In the current research project, focus groups were used in combination with individual interviews, in line with the research aims of assessing whether constructions and enactments of masculinity might change depending upon context or situation. For example, it was of interest whether the photo-narratives that boys shared in individual interviews remained consistent when articulated in a focus group with other boys or whether they changed, possibly because of feeling pressurized to comply with dominant norms of hegemonic masculinity and present a more normative version of themselves.

Boys were invited to come to a group interview following their individual interviews and the group interviews took place two weeks after the individual interviews. Participation in focus groups was voluntary. Three focus groups were facilitated. The first focus group consisted of five boys and the second and third focus groups were attended by six boys. The group sizes were manageable in terms of allowing everyone to participate. All the focus groups were conducted at school after school hours. Given the context, participants knew one another because they all attended the same school. Before starting the group meeting, ethical concerns were discussed, including the desirability of confidentiality and possible limitations to this in such groups. Permission to tape record the group sessions was obtained prior to the process.

The focus groups lasted between one to two hours. Again, the researcher used photos as a springboard for discussions in the focus groups. In the focus group interviews, boys were asked to choose five images (out of their 27 photos) that best described them as boys and to share them with other boys in the group.

Choosing five photos that best represented their ‗life as boys‘ helped to set the mood for the group discussions. The exercise served the function of what Morgan (1997) terms an ―icebreaker‖, but also added value in terms of contextualising discussion in the groups. While some boys were initially embarrassed to show their photos in the group, for others the group interview process became something of a game with participants competing against each other to give the most comprehensive information about their photos. Consequently, the combination of individual interviews and focus group interviews provided rich information, insight and ideas about what it means to be a boy in Alex. The researcher was able to observe how the boys ‗policed‘ and ‗regulated‘ one another in the group context.

The researcher also played a significant role in facilitating group discussions (see also the section on reflexivity). The researcher‘s facilitation style was generally non-directive, to allow for the free flow of ideas in the groups. The researcher relied on his group facilitation skills to ensure that participants did not deviate too far from the topic, but this was not always easy because some boys were very sarcastic and laughed at those who questioned or rejected hegemonic norms of masculinity. The researcher ‗moderated‘ and ‗prompted‘ group members to respond to issues raised by others, or to identify agreements and disagreements among themselves. In all the focus groups, the level of engagement was balanced, except in one focus group where one group member was very dominating. Generally, participants gently challenged one another‗s views. The dialogue in the groups was largely unstructured, the accounts of various group members stimulating other participants to also express their views on a range of topics and the discussion was quite free-flowing.

Another advantage in the focus groups was the fact that the researcher was not a stranger to the participants because he had already met them in the individual interviews. Given what he knew about what they had already said in the individual interviews, the researcher was able challenge

the participants in the group to think more critically (while being mindful throughout to protect their confidentiality). The researcher attempted to link themes that had emerged in the individual interviews and themes that were emerging in the focus groups. Participants engaged in a process of jointly contesting and creating meanings of what it meant to be a boy in their life context. Overall, the focus groups proved to be an appropriate research method for data collection in this research project and provided complementary data to that obtained in the individual interviews.

8.6.4. Follow-up individual interviews

After all of the individual interviews had been transcribed, the researcher read all the transcripts and decided to conduct follow-up individual interviews with eight boys whose material was particularly interesting. All of the boys approached were comfortable or even eager to be interviewed further. Follow-up individual interviews were conducted with three boys showing a strong conformity to hegemonic ideals and five boys who seemed to subscribe to apparently alternative versions of masculinity in order to better explore hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions and masculinities. Follow-up individual interviews were conducted within two to three months of previous interviews. The researcher arranged to meet each boy individually. Each of the eight boys was given the transcript of his interview for about a week to read and think prior to their follow-up individual interview. In the follow-up