Author: Sharon A. Bong
School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University, Malaysia

The data

Pre-interview, I needed to secure ethics approval from SCERH before commencing the high-risk impact project. This entailed completing an Application for Ethical Approval of a Research Project Involving Humans (accessed at http://www.monash.edu.au/researchoffice/human/form-1.html). Doing so enabled me to think through more carefully 'Details about the participants of the proposed research project' (section 2 of the form). These include: the recognition that these interviewees are 'potentially vulnerable participants' as they are: 'persons who would not usually be considered vulnerable but would be considered vulnerable in the context of this research project', 'examining potentially sensitive or contentious issues' and 'seeking disclosure of information which may be prejudicial to participants'. A step-by-step participant recruitment process is necessitated. For instance, the exclusion criteria are heterosexual adults, below 21 years of age, non- Asian and/ or not residing in Southeast Asia.

Procedures for explanation and gaining informed consent (section 3 of the form) led to the preparation of two important supporting documents: the Explanatory Statement and Consent Form. In the former, details of the research project were offered, i.e. aim of research, with emphasis on inconvenience/ discomfort (as the research topic is a sensitive one), withdrawal from the research (to ensure that participation is at all times, voluntary, even post-interview), confidentiality (through the use of pseudonyms and this is differentiated from anonymity), storage of data (secured on campus grounds for five years).

In the latter, informed consent included agreeing to: 1) be interviewed by the researcher, 2) allow the interview to be audio-taped and 3) make myself available for a further interview if required. Based on previous experience of generating rich data that well extends beyond the parameters of the project that it was originally intended for, I applied for additional and explicit permission (from interviewees) to use data for other purpose (i.e. other research projects). So interviewees had the option of further consenting to one of the following: 4) the information I provide can be used in further research projects which have ethics approval as long as my name and contact information is removed; or 5) the information that I provide cannot be used by other researchers without asking me first; or 6) the information I provide cannot be used, except for this project. I am pleased to add that most ticked either option 4 or 5.

Interview questions and the call for interviewees were also appended to the application for ethics approval by SCERH. During the semi-structured interview: interviewees were asked how they experience their partnership in relation to their faith and how they experience their faith in relation to their partnership. I began each interview in a similar manner-I asked interviewees to recount what it was like to have discovered his/her sexuality. This usually entailed coming out stories. I then moved on to asking them to share about what they feel are key relationships that they have been involved in and these encompass, in some cases, both heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships. At the conclusion of each interview, I would write-up field-notes detailing my impressions and observations gleaned pre-interview, during the interview, post-interview. Illuminating discussion sometimes preceded and succeeded the 'interview' proper where a handful of interviewees were evidently more relaxed post-interview. These discussions with their consent were recorded.

Post-interview: I began transcribing. Ideally this is done at the conclusion of each interview but this was not consistently managed as most interviews were lined-up back-to-back. I prefer to transcribe ad verbatim and add brief notes on non-verbal communication. The rate of transcription on average (depending on the clarity of expression used by interviewees and my level of fatigue) is approximately 10-minutes of recording time to one-hour of transcribing time (the duration of an interview averaged 1½ hours equivalent to nine hours of transcribing time). It helped that interviews were digitally-recorded as playback was easily managed. Investing in quality headphones also goes a long way to ensuring accurate transcriptions. In order to sustain confidentiality for data that is highly sensitive, I personally transcribed the interviews, i.e. I chose not to have research assistants although this project is funded. This built trustworthiness between interviewees and me.

Back to Project Home Page