The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery (Anaïs Nin).
Introduction
This chapter outlines the philosophical and methodological approach and methods employed. I aim to give voice to and describe the experiences of LGBT Christians, and to understand the processes involved in negotiation of seemingly disparate identities. Previous research on the experiences of LGBT Christians is fragmented and has approached the issue from diverse angles; it therefore offers a far from complete picture (Rodríguez 2009). A second aim is to identify power relations at work between and within the Christian institutions and the congregants.
In order to do this a qualitative methodological framework is best suited, as qualitative research is able to uncover complexity, ambiguity and often overlooked nuance (Peshkin 1988; Mason 2002). I present a collective story that offers an insightful representation of the experiences of LGBT Christians. Such stories are invaluable in informing the researcher, the academic and the wider public of the ‘Other’; the experiences of an ‘Other’ or group of ‘others’ that may be of divergent ethnicity, class, gender or sexuality (Birch et al. 2002; Ezzy 2002; Creswell 2013).
In addition to giving voice to the participants and describing their experiences, using elements of grounded theory I am able to develop new theory and critique existing theory by listening closely to the participants’ voices (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2012),
offering a more nuanced understanding of the processes, from cognitive, relational and emotional perspectives (Creswell 2013).
All qualitative research has at heart interest in the experience and life-world of others, whether individually or as a group, and the interactions between them, and shares what is found through documentation and analysis (Ezzy 2002). Within the overarching qualitative research tradition there are several distinct but related branches which emphasise differing epistemological, ontological and methodological perspectives of the research process (Ezzy 2002; Creswell 2013). In this chapter I outline the perspectives and the theoretical paradigms that inform my research, specifically focusing on constructivism. Under this overarching paradigm I employ interpretivism and critical inquiry (Crotty 1998). Following this I describe the research strategies and design, the data collection methods, and the process of analysis in this study. I then discuss the implications of the methods and ethical considerations. Finally I present a detailed reflexive discussion of my experiences in the field, positioning myself and viewing my experiences critically. This is in recognition of the researcher’s standpoint as being critical in the production of knowledge (Fontana and Prokos 2007).
Ontological Perspective: Epistemological Foundations
This project is guided by the constructionist ontological assumption that knowledge is found within the meaning actors create out of interactions with others, either individuals or objects (Creswell 2013). There are thus multiple realities or interpretations of reality which are arrived at through relationships between individuals and objects. As patterns of meaning are relationally co-constructed, shared meanings and interpretations coalesce and give rise to rules and norms particular to a group, forming the basis for culture and discourse (Berger and
Luckmann 1967; Lofland and Lofland 1984; Crotty 1998). These shared meanings are constructed contextually, and temporarily, and develop and alter over time (Crotty 1998). While each person’s experience is subjective and relative, the meaning attributed to these interactions is very real in its consequences for those involved (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2006). Religious belief, as an example pertinent to this study, is a co-constructed system of meanings that has a powerful impact upon the self-identity of the LGBT Christians in this study, and its effect is the focus of the research.
I am also guided by the critical ontological standpoint that human interactions and change in shared meanings are driven by power relations that lead to inequality, with some realities privileged over others (Foucault 1990). Privilege and its antithesis, oppression, are based on such social characteristics as race, ethnicity, class, gender or sexuality (Butler 1990; Connell 1995). Identity, for example, is negotiated within normative discourses that create legitimate subjects, and their counterpart, the ‘abject’ subject (Butler 1990: 4), the less than ideal subject. This study is interested in the realities of LGBT Christians, a group that does not fit the heterosexual religious norm, one whose reality is often not recognised as legitimate.
As realities are subjective, relative and temporal, the epistemological assumption upon which this study is based is that the knowledge I gained through this study is ‘partial, situated and relative’ (Wetherall, Taylor and Yates 2001: 12) and is co-constructed. Thus the interactions I had with the participants of the study created a new reality, which may or may not be a shared reality. My interpretation of the experience of the ‘Other’, for example through conversation, participation or through observation, is necessarily partial, situated and subjective. I situate myself by acknowledging overtly my position as researcher, as female, older, middle-class and of alternate sexuality, who has at some point been involved in a quasi-Christian religious group. My interest in this study was sparked by my own experience
of tension, indeed struggle that pervaded my sense of self as moral and as whole. I was able to thus position myself, to a limited degree as an insider, but as I do not identify as a committed Christian, remained an outsider. These tensions are addressed more fully in the reflexive account of the fieldwork in the second part of the chapter.
I also sought to understand the emotional experience of the participants through participation in religious rituals, as I understand emotion to be intricately implicated in the apprehension of knowledge. I am guided by the tradition of thought that holds that there are limitations to cognitive perception as there is an unconscious, emotional and embodied response which cannot always be articulated (Grosz 1994). The ‘paradigm of embodiment’ (Csordas 1990: 5) argues that meaning is constructed not only by what we think, but by what we do and feel. Knowledge is thus incorporated and embodied, challenging the concept that interaction and meaning are consciously guided by cognitive thought processes. For example, I argue that the religious worldview of the participants is not formed through cognitive processes alone, but influenced deeply by religious practices and embodied memory (Bourdieu 1977, 2000; Riis and Woodhead 2010). Thus internal conflicts between a person’s sexuality and religious worldview are often resolved through relationships and practices and, although informed by cognitive knowledge, are primarily relational and emotional processes. This understanding of the nature of knowledge contributed to the methodological decision to observe and participate in religious practices as well as talk to participants about these.
Theoretical Paradigms and Ideological Influences
My research questions have two major foci: the micro interactions that enable negotiation and change in individuals and the macro processes of institutional power. I thus engage in a dialogic relationship between the more traditional interpretivist and interactionist approaches,
and the influence of contemporary feminist and queer post-modern thought (Ezzy 2002; Creswell 2013). The first two research questions centre on the nature of the processes involved in the negotiation of sexual and religious identities among LGBT Christians. They focus on micro processes: relational exchanges and the subjective meanings the participants attributed to their interactions with significant others, and the negotiation of their religious worldviews. I am interested in gaining an understanding of the process of individual transformation and how agency was expressed within the limits of historically and contextually constructed norms.
The second two research questions incorporate a critical element with the aim of exposing the macro power relations within the institutions under study, in particular those based upon gender and sexuality, interrogating the patriarchal and hetero-normative tenets of the institution of Christianity, more specifically within the inclusive and LGBT affirming6
Metropolitan Community churches (MCC) I visited. The study was thus influenced by my feminist standpoint and aspects of queer theory. Creswell (2013: 269) describes these influences as ‘ideological stances’ where the research aims to identify and expose particular contexts and historical frameworks with the aim of empowering participants.
Taking a feminist stance, I focus upon the institution of Christianity as patriarchal, trying to tease out the position of women and their interactions with and within the progressive churches under study. My interest is in how gender was understood and ‘done’ and what personal, social and political consequences were produced through the interactions between members of the congregations, whether male, female or transgender (Butler 1990; Connell 1995). Feminism and queer theory also led me to consider my responsibility as a researcher in giving voice to and empowering the participants, who are often marginalised (Kong,
6 LGBT affirming denomination which has the express purpose of serving the LGBT Christian population
85
Mahoney and Plummer 2002; Fontana and Prokos 2007). Finally, feminism influenced my understanding of how knowledge is produced, with greater emphasis on the researcher as central in the production of knowledge. This drew me to acknowledge positionality through the auto-ethnographical section of this chapter (Wolf 1996; Goodwin, Pope, Mort and Smith 2003).
A second influence is queer theory with its emphasis first on how participants subvert and denaturalise dominant social classifications as individuals or marginal players through queer practices. Second, queer theory questions to what extent the centre, in this case institutional Christianity, is destabilised. According to Green (2007), interrogation of the centre is a central mandate of queer theory. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3, queer theory proposes that all stable structures, in particular gender and sexuality, are in flux, and never ‘are’, but are always ‘in the process of being’ (Plummer 2005). My aim is to understand to what extent this theoretical approach is incorporated into the participants’ realities.
Research Strategy and Methodological Framework
The research uses grounded theory as the central methodological framework. Classical grounded theory (CGT) was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to offer a systematic, comparative and inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data with the intent of producing theoretical understandings of social patterns that occur in social interactions (Bryant and Charmaz 2010). Initially CGT took a post-positivist approach to knowledge (Charmaz 2006). Their epistemological approach was that the inductively emerging data were evidence of the truth about an issue which was waiting to be discovered – albeit imperfectly apprehended (Bryant and Charmaz 2010; Lincoln, Lynham and Guba 2011).
In line with the constructionist ontological and epistemological stance, however, the work of Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist grounded theory is useful. This acknowledges that the data that emerge are a co-production, with the researcher playing an active part in the production of knowledge. Knowledge and ensuing theory is necessarily an interpretation of the world of the other, rather than an exact representation. This signifies a move away from the ‘naïve’ inductivist assumption (Ezzy 2002: 10) and recognises analysis as an iterative process between empirical data and theory, with the researcher as central to the process of production of knowledge. Charmaz (2012: 10) names this iterative process ‘abductive’. As the researcher, for example, my past experiences and interactions have influenced not only my choice of research topic but also the approach taken, the research questions and the relationships with the participants (Huff 2009).
The analysis is also guided and shaped by not only my present knowledge, but also the relationships formed with participants, the observations and emotions experienced, and what insights the participants shared. In addition, throughout the collection and analysis of data, I have combined new theoretical input, whether this was gained by means of discussion with supervisors or reading new literature. I have also reflected upon the data collection as it progressed, considering and reconsidering its interpretation over time. The research process is therefore inductive and deductive; rational as well as imaginative (Bryant and Charmaz 2010).
Research Design and Procedure
To gain greater insights into participants’ lives and experiences, the research employs multiple methods of data collection, or triangulation. With the aim of representing the complexity and nuance of experience in as much detail as possible (Kellehear 1993; Dingwall
1997; Liamputtong and Ezzy 2006; Creswell 2013), I undertook engagement in multiple interactions with both individuals and with groups, in an attempt to immerse myself in the religious and social experiences. The four main data collection methods employed are participant observation, an associated field diary, semi-structured interviews, and memos.
Observational methods include my participation in services, group meals, gatherings at pubs and other social occasions such as those in participants’ homes. Following each interaction, a field diary was used to note observations and my own emotional responses. Semi-structured interviews (n=28) were followed by the completion of memos that record details such as demeanour of the participant, body language and, once again, my own emotional responses. The justification and procedure of the two major methods, participant observation and semi- structured interviews, are outlined below. Before describing in detail each of these two methods I outline the overall process of determining the location of participant observation and the field within which the semi-structured interviews were sourced, and the sampling logic in the choice of congregation.
Overall sampling logic: Choice of congregation
The choice of congregation was purposive, being informed by practical and theoretical reasons (Oliver 2006). From a practical perspective the MCC, being inclusive and affirming for same-sex attraction individuals, enabled access to an otherwise ‘invisible’ social group. As there were no MCC congregations in Tasmania at the time of this research, congregations in the largest and closest Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne were used. Theoretically, my choice of congregation was also guided by literature that suggests MCC congregations vary according to the gender of the pastor and/or the Christian background of both the pastor and congregants (Wilcox 2009). As a result, the MCC churches contributed
to ease of recruitment and allowed an investigation into and comparison of the religious experience between individuals and congregations in terms of patriarchal and gendered practices. The MCC1 in particular holds two services each Sunday, each being aimed at a different demographic and therefore provides an opportunity to compare the different experience of congregants within one church. A total of four congregations in three MCC churches participated in the project.
In order to recruit interview participants and to conduct the participant observation, initial contact was by way of direct email to the ministers. An introductory email with information sheet attached (see Appendix 1) requested meetings to introduce the project and its aims, as well as an interview. In consultation with the pastor/ministers I intended to introduce the project to the congregation personally; however, of the four congregations in the three MCC churches, in all but one the minister introduced the study for me. While this was beneficial for me due to the trust many congregants have in the minister, this caused methodological and ethical issues. The ministers are in a position of power and I had hoped to circumscribe this ethical issue by introducing the study myself. The ministers also had a slightly different interpretation of the study, which in one case meant the congregants did not fully understand the nature of the interviews. In the second case (described in detail in the following reflexive account) the interested congregants understood the purpose in a slightly different way. These issues were resolved through further conversation; they did, however, present a challenge to my integrity as a researcher.
Over a period of seven months I visited four MCC congregations: MCC1 five times (two congregations in one MCC church); MCC2 and MCC3 five to six times each. The visits are outlined in the following paragraphs with a brief introduction to the nature of each congregation and the extent of my interaction with them:
• MCC1: As the largest of the MCC churches in Australia this church has a membership of over 300, with an average attendance at each Sunday service of approximately 50. It is the only MCC in Australia to own its premises, and is led by a part-time male pastor. The board of governors until recently7 was comprised of the
pastor or moderator, and four male elders. The congregation is predominantly male, mostly from Protestant backgrounds. The MCC1 holds two services daily, one at 10.00am, and the second at 6.30pm. The morning service is traditional, with the aim of serving the needs of, in general, older, more mainstream Christians. The evening service concentrates on younger congregants and those who have been brought up with a more charismatic style of worship. I attended each service five times, as well as fellowship afterwards where I mingled with congregants over tea, coffee and snacks. I also attended lunch at a nearby cafe with congregants.
• MCC2: This is a small congregation which broke away from the MCC1 five years ago and which holds weekly Sunday afternoon services in a hired space in an old sandstone Uniting Church in inner Sydney. At the time of the study it was led by a male pastor, and more recently has appointed an additional female pastor. With the express purpose of reducing hierarchical structures they do not have elders or a board of governors, but ‘team members’ (Crave Metropolitan Community Church Website 2014) made up of equal numbers of females and males. The congregation is comprised of a slightly greater proportion of males, many from Protestant charismatic backgrounds with an approximate average age in the 30s. I attended four services on consecutive weeks and two on subsequent visits, a total of six visits, as well as
7 The board of governors now consists of the male moderator, three men and one woman.
90
fellowship over tea, coffee and snacks; three times I attended an informal gathering at a nearby pub after the service.
• MCC3: This small congregation holds services weekly at 7.00pm in a small rented church hall in an inner Melbourne suburb. The congregation is led by an interim part- time female pastor, and the board of governors is comprised of three males and three females. The congregation at the time of my participation was predominantly male and Protestant with an approximate average age in the mid-50s to 60s. I attended the Sunday service five times, spent time after services with congregants, and we ate meals together on many occasions.
While initially the participant observational element of the study precluded the interview component, as the study progressed over the seven-month period of visits and re-visits to the MCCs, interviews were dispersed regularly throughout the period of observation. This allowed me to respond reflexively to field experiences in interviews, and vice versa. For the purposes of clarity I will first describe the justification and procedure of the participant observation component (and the field diary) and follow this by a closer look at the semi-