Power, hierarchy, and researcher reflexivity

As indicated in Chapters 1 to 3, context, power, and identity are crucial in understanding sexuality and religion. Firstly, contexts differ - as Shah (2018) notes, while gay Muslims are problematised in Britain because of their religious identities, they are conversely maligned in Malaysia because of their sexuality. Secondly, the contextual will relate to power differentials and which discourses become dominant - e.g. the “Muslim terrorist” trope in the UK (Mirza, 2013). Thirdly, identities are embedded in these constellations; individuals are trying to live out their religious and sexual lives within these broader power-infused discourses. With increased interest in conducting research among groups negatively impacted by such discourses, there is correspondingly increased analysis as to the social construction of vulnerability and the power relations created between people with variable amounts of power (Pells, 2012; Tisdall and Punch, 2012). In order to address the power relations in research with those who have been marginalised, some researchers endorse participant-led engagements (von Benzon and van Blerk, 2017). Qualitative research often encourages participation (but not always) and attempts to address research power imbalances (Aldridge, 2014; Cahill, 2007).

Undertaking research with marginalised populations assumes that access is possible - indeed, some researchers have reflected that access to queer religious individuals is not as difficult to achieve as one might initially assume (Yip, 2008). However, it is worth reflecting on who still gets excluded. Research ethics committees can be deeply unhappy about sexuality research conducted with those under the age of 18, and these considerations certainly shaped the design of the Religion Youth and Sexuality (RYS) and Religion, Gender, and Sexuality among Youth in Canada (RGSY) projects; the young people in our research were all adults. In Canada, to conduct research among individuals under the legal age of consent requires parental permission, thereby creating barriers of access for young people who have important contributions to make. In a study among high school students in Ontario considering the implications of a cancelled sex education curriculum promoting diversity, Shipley (2019) encountered students who did not want to obtain parental consent because their families did not support their queer identities. This therefore raised questions over the risks of research participation for some groups, and also meant that certain groups were silenced from sharing their views and experiences.

Critical reflection on how power and privilege become part of what is being analysed is also crucial to a queer feminist research endeavour. While much religion and sexuality research has done cogent work on exploring how marginalised groups have fared in challenging religious contexts, equally we need to engage with how normative forms of sexuality and gender are reproduced (Butler, 1993). This involves a critical interrogation of more privileged identities, such as heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is often so normative it is not even named (Moultrie, 2017; Weeks, 2011). Asking heterosexuals about their sexuality in the RYS project could produce a bemused response - that there was nothing to reflect on. This emphasises the deep-seated ways in which heterosexuality has been made normative, but it is only through analysing how it comes to such prominence that we can understand the power dynamics at work (Yip and Page, 2014). Understanding power needs a considered and nuanced approach. Power dynamics are more complicated than zero-sum configurations; at the level of the individual, it is usually not the case that individuals are either wholly privileged or wholly disadvantaged. Intersectional approaches emphasise how identities are configured in complex ways, with individuals potentially aligning both with advantaged and disadvantaged positions, offering a more nuanced understanding of privilege and marginalisation (Page and Yip, forthcoming).

Once access is possible, deep reflections are required regarding the power dynamics between the researcher and participants; obtaining ethical approval through signed consent forms is not enough; ethical issues run through the research process, both before and after any consent form is signed (Shipley, 2019; Taylor and Snowdon, 2014b). The researcher influences the way data is produced. Whether we are “insiders” or “outsiders”, our stance and perceived objectivity (or lack thereof) impacts the design of the project, its implementation, and the response from participants. Researchers are not free from the dominant norms and scripts that permeate our social, legal, and familial contexts, impacting on which research questions are deemed important (indeed this is also impacted upon by the types of research that are seen to be worth funding). The language of normativity impacts how we learn about non-normative experiences. The way in which we learn about diverse sexual experiences becomes centrally important and requires reflexivity.

Researcher privilege is tied to insider and outsider distinctions (Chinwuba, 2014; Siraj, 2012; Taylor and Snowdon, 2013). At the same time, it is often not clear-cut in determining our “insider” or “outsider” status, and as researchers, we occupy both positions concurrently (Gorman-Murray et al., 2016). Indeed, the insider-outsider relationship is unstable; connections with others are formed and reformulated continually through the research process (Nash, 2016). Researchers are often (although not always) accorded authority in the field, which will shape their negotiations, how they are perceived and received, and what access they are given. But this will be shaped by other factors too, such as age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and class dynamics. Without reflexivity and self-awareness, analysis of the results will importantly miss the complex dynamics at play in the spaces (literal and figurative) that are created to conduct the research and gather responses from participants. The following sections will examine specific methods, and how they correspond with these issues.