Embedded Files
(e.g., sexuality, occupation) were taken from the on-line survey data. Of the men interviewed, eleven reported their sexuality as heterosexual and three reported their sexuality as homosexual. Interviewees included three university students, a high school dropout working temporarily at a video store, a government employee, two service industry workers, and seven professionals (business executives, engineers, or lawyers). They all lived in Toronto or the GTA. Five respondents had undergone cosmetic surgery: three had non-invasive cosmetic surgeries and two had invasive cosmetic surgeries. Nine of the respondents had not yet had cosmetic surgery but were seriously contemplating it. They had either booked appointments with cosmetic surgeons, already had consultations, or were saving money to pay for surgeries. Two respondents who had undergone non-invasive cosmetic surgery were also contemplating having more surgery in the future. None of the men in the sample had any visible physical abnormalities or would be described as physically unattractive. None of them were overweight or bald. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between September 2006 and August 2007. A 26-item interview guide was constructed to touch on different topics related to cosmetic surgery, masculinity, and appearance concerns. The interview guide was created from findings in a previous study (Ricciardelli & Clow, 2009) that included an 956 The Qualitative Report July 2011 open-ended question soliciting general comments about cosmetic surgery. The emergent themes developed from this question provided the topics included in the interview guide. Although this guide initiated the interactions, it did not control how the interview progressed; it offered leeway for the interviewer to probe conversational paths as they emerged. Specifically, the interview guide was used to start interviews and to help generate conversation (e.g., if an interviewer was having difficulty engaging the respondent, the interview guide was used until conversation had more flow and became more comfortable). Interview locations varied depending on the participant’s circumstances. Most were conducted at coffee shops, restaurants, or cafeterias. All but three of the interviews were conducted face-to-face. Those unable to meet in person were interviewed through email correspondence. These three interviews, via email, were conducted using the 26- item interview guide. Over multiple emails, as conversational paths emerged, all questions on the interview guide were addressed. To start the discussion, emailed respondents were asked about their thoughts on/experiences of masculinity and how masculinity has changed. Responses to such questions determined which subsequent questions were asked from the interview guide. For example, if a respondent’s answer focused on changes in the work force, the follow-up questions would also discuss occupations. The transcript data indicated that responses from interviews did not stand apart from those conducted over email. The interviews took on average 45 minutes to complete, after which the participants were thanked for their participation, asked optionally to provide follow-up contact information and permission to contact them if further clarification was needed. Only one respondent was contacted for follow-up information for the purpose of clarification. This was done via a telephone call followed by email correspondence. A digital recorder was used to audio-record the face-to-face interviews and field notes were taken after each interview. The interviews and field notes were both treated similarly as data and transcribed. They were then coded into emergent themes as consistent with grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thus ensuring a rigorous process of data analysis that systematically led to the emergence of conceptual themes. While our analysis was grounded in the sense that the researchers endeavored to suspend knowledge and judgment about the research questions, we did take the writings of other authors in account. This aspect to our analysis is consistent with an original premise put forward by Glaser and Strauss who encouraged researchers to “… use any materials bearing on his area that he can discover” (p. 169). Our professional experience based on our prior research gave us a working awareness of the potential bias that is possible in all qualitative research, indeed in all research. The suggestion that it is possible to free oneself of preconceptions in the collection and analysis of data is problematic in our view because all research has some type of formulative agenda (Allan, 2003). In sum, we were conscious throughout data collection and analysis of the probability that we might inadvertently bias the results of the study, but accepted that because having the researcher separate from the subject of research is neither desirable nor possible. Thus, our research is not fully grounded, we would argue, because during the research process the researchers also drew from a prior stock-of-knowledge via their professional training, derived from years of studying masculinities in different contexts (Ricciardelli & Clow, 2009; White & Gillett, 1994; White & Young, 1997). The Rosemary Ricciardelli and Philip White 957 researchers felt that their previous research experiences could
Google Sites
Report abuse