Embedded Files
not be discounted because research is never conducted in isolation. After the major themes were identified, less relevant data was omitted from the analysis (i.e., selective coding). Less relevant data was identified as subjects that were outside of the study’s focus (e.g., discussing work, or the drive to the interview location). Although one researcher coded the data, in order to guarantee that the coding was conducted in a trustworthy fashion, the researchers met as frequently as necessary to check for ambiguities, disagreements or problems which could arise when interpreting the content. Disagreement was rare, occurring only a few times, and often a result of diverse interpretations of an interviewee’s statements. In these situations, the researchers returned to the transcribed data for clarification and to re-examine the context in which the statements were made. If the researchers could not agree on how to interpret the interview context the participant would be contacted for further clarification. An emergent theme consisted of multiple respondents stating a similar experience or perspective regarding a specific topic. For example, each respondent who discussed their hair would be coded in the emergent theme of hair, if a respondent discussed hair transplants he would be placed under the subcategory of hair transplant while if a respondent discussed hair preparation routines before leaving the house he would be placed under the subcategory of hair preparation. If a respondent discussed both hair transplants and hair preparation then he would be included in both subcategories. Figure 1 below is an illustrative example of how field notes and interview data together demonstrate a participants’ concern with the appearance of their hair: Figure 1. Field notes and interview data Ethics approval was granted by the McMaster Research Ethics Board (MREB). Although always necessary, given the small sample size and potentially sensitive nature of the topic, participant anonymity and confidentiality needed to be protected. Participants were aware that they had the right to terminate their involvement in the study at any time and could refuse to answer questions if they so desired. Although one participant stated he did not feel comfortable talking about one aspect of his experience, no participants withdrew from the study. Informed consent was explained to each 958 The Qualitative Report July 2011 participant prior to and after each interview. Participants were also given a copy of the consent form that included the contact information of the primary researcher and the MREB. In the transcribed data, file labels, and findings, pseudonyms were used to protect the anonymity of the participants. Also, any personal information that could possibly identify a respondent (given the small sample) was also removed (e.g., stating one’s sexuality, ethnicity and occupation). The primary researcher conducting the study was a female who was conducting a broad-based investigation of body modification at the time when this study was underway (her study was not formally connected this one). The male co-author was a researcher with prior experience in the area of masculinity and bodywork. The female, who conducted the interviews, did not have any conscious biases due to personal experiences of masculinity, yet was aware of how gender dynamics might influence the interviewee’s openness and comfort. In each of the face-to-face situations none of the interviewees appeared uncomfortable or timid in talking to a female researcher, although it was noted that some respondents took longer to open up about their concerns and experiences than others. This could be due to a variety of factors (e.g., being in a study, gender of the researcher, sensitive nature of the topic), and was accommodated for by beginning the interviews with general discussions of changing masculinities in society and only moving to discussions about more potentially sensitive topics once trust was established. Findings Masculinities and Physical Appearance A central feature of the interview data was how respondents conceptualized and shared a common positioning in discourses of body appearance norms and regulations. Idealized masculinity was strikingly associated with a distinct body type, clothing choices, and an overall physical presentation – albeit articulated in slightly different ways by different groups. Regarding body type, nuanced differences were evident albeit within a limited range of acceptable appearance norms. For example, Tom articulated that “I have always felt pressured to be leaner but more muscular… thin enough to fit into nice clothes but not scrawny,” while Greg explained that “people are shallow, that’s just the way the world is … Let say I have a really athletic guy or a really non athletic guy. I am going to pick the athletic guy to be on my team, so it [appearance] affects my decisionmaking in the real world.” In terms of clothing, Jack explained that “there was a time where all men could wear was brown, gray, blue and black … now color has been introduced to men’s fashion,” while John stated that “it [looking masculine] means you can’t wear certain colors and certain styles. Like tight pants and see-through shirts.” These slightly varied idealized appearance characteristics were all consistent with what Wellard (2006) referred to as
Google Sites
Report abuse