ANEXOS

Morgado et al. (2018) mention the use of both deductive (extensive literature reviews and pre-existing measures) and inductive (information collected through qualitative research

processes) methods of data collection to generate items as the first step in scale development. In the present study, one of the main challenges with the deductive approach in developing an item pool for the construction of the measure was the absence of appropriate measuring instruments and the lack of African and South African empirical research on the topic. As a result, sources relied on to add to the item pool included conceptual and theoretical papers dealing with African and South African feminism, measures developed in the United States, and international

empirical research. Although they are more than twenty years old, measures such as Morgan’s (1996) LFAIS and Henley et al. (1998) FPS, contained issues and topics that could be described as contemporary in the South African context. The only relevant empirical data that was

available was that of an unpublished study (Patel & Reddy, 2017) of student definitions of feminism from three cohorts, specifically from the years 1998/1999, 2005/2006 and 2010. This provided some idea of South African students’ thoughts on the issue.

84 Miller et al. (2009) highlight the importance of a sound conceptual definition in

developing sound measures which “…are considered proxies …” for the phenomena of interest (p. 21). As detailed in the review of literature, variations in the ways in which feminism is

defined, and differences in emphasis depending on the context in which it is written, added to the difficulty of the task at hand.

During item construction, the researcher experienced similar challenges to that of Henley et al. (1998) about which theoretical perspectives to include in the item pool. Henley et al. (1998) chose to focus on the theoretical perspectives prevalent in the United States. Since the current scale was meant to introduce African perspectives and potentially be of use in the South African context, it needed to be authentic in its representation of South African perspectives of feminism. To this end, greater significance was attached to the focus group issues, students’ definitions of feminism and the theoretical and conceptual papers on African feminism.

Morgado et al. (2018) also mention other considerations in setting up the scale, namely, the scale format and display, instructions to participants, and general principles of item wording. For example, items need to be simple, short, and as unambiguous as possible, addressing only a single issue, without the use of compound statements (DeVellis, 2012; Hinkin, Tracey, & Enz, 1997). This made it difficult to capture the more complex aspects of feminist theory. During item pool construction, these recommendations were somewhat overlooked, though not to the extent of Henley et al. (1998) in the FPS, in which all the items were double-barreled. As seen by the items from the current draft of the scale, items containing compound statements were mostly from the African feminism(s) sub-scale and in retrospect, some of these could very easily have been separated into single-issue items.

The rule that items containing jargon should be avoided (Oppenheim, 2000) made it difficult to incorporate the social media-driven perspectives discussed in the focus groups. Terms such as ‘keyboard warrior’, ‘slacktivism’ and ‘male tears’ all had underlying meanings and could effectively have been used as items. Instead of using the jargon encountered in literature and the focus groups, the researcher considered it more appropriate to tap into the issues by rephrasing them in simpler terms.

85 Using focus group methodology, the researcher was able to fulfil the recommended inductive method to generate items. Feminist researchers have previously used focus groups to explore feminist self-identification and labelling (Cooperstock, 2010; Trier-Bieniek, 2007). Recruiting focus group participants was one of the more challenging endeavors experienced during the research process. In her study of feminist identification, Trier-Bieniek (2007)

experienced challenges with the recruitment of her two focus groups. She originally intended to include more lesbians and women of colour and contacted the relevant student organisations. Eventually, she had to change her recruitment strategy, as the obtained responses were not enough to complete two focus groups. In the current study, the researcher had to change the sampling style. Initially, the intention was to use purposive sampling choosing those

knowledgeable about feminism. In the first focus group, many individuals showed an interest and made verbal commitments, yet later changed their minds, resulting in the researcher using a combination of purposive and convenience sampling in order to meet the generally accepted requirement of six to eight participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

The composition of both groups had an undeniable effect on the issues that emerged and on the quality of the data. As seen in the Results chapter, the first group was more diverse in terms of race, faculty and year of study, while the second post-graduate group, a Health

Promotions Master’s Class, were on average older than the first group. In addition, both groups contained participants from other African countries, therefore including more than just South African perspectives. The development of the scale was partially influenced by the perspectives and experiences of those who were, perhaps, more knowledgeable about feminism and had a more advanced and critical understanding of the concept. Swank and Fahs (2017) described college as an “incubator of feminist commitments” because higher education provides women with greater job opportunities and access to classes that debunk gender myths (p.2). By this logic, as post-graduate students proceed through the academic year and increase their academic knowledge, one expects them to have a relatively advanced understanding of, and ability to think critically about, feminism. This appeared to be the case, as the issues that emerged from the focus group were far more varied as compared to those from the survey where the more popular definitions (equality, women’s rights etc.) were used. On the other hand, this could have been a function of the difference in method as focus groups stimulate ideas leading to more in-depth

86 responses (Krueger & Casey, 2015), compared to individual responses to an open-ended request asking for a definition of feminism. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the responses of almost 1000 students comprising the cohort data, compared to those of under twenty focus group participants, played a greater role in the type of items generated in this phase of the process.