Wow, wasn’t expecting a methodology discussion, but happy to have that conversation with smart posters! Thanks to Behemoth, mizguy, and Illivan for comments and questions. I’ve tried to address everything below.
Will my sample be self-selected? Absolutely. Will my research be representative of the entire PE community? Certainly not. But that’s not the priority for qualitative social science research. You won’t find me making sweeping claims about all men who do PE or all PE communities. Hopefully other researchers will follow and continue to paint a fuller picture of this phenomenon.
(I’d note, though, that even a really well-designed survey with a big sample is unlikely to be representative of the PE community. There are a lot of lurkers, among many other data collection concerns. The nature of the group makes it very difficult to study.)
Instead of quantity, my method focuses on quality. I obtain in-depth data on men’s lives. This is a feature of qualitative research, not a bug.
A survey provides minimal information on a large sample of people. Rich, in-depth interviews provide a lot of information on a smaller group of people. There are pros and cons to both methods. I have and do use both quantitative and qualitative methods depending on my what I’m studying.
Despite the sampling limitations that come with interview-based research, I hope to speak with as diverse a group as possible — different kinds of men (older, younger, gay, straight, all body types, etc) who joined Thunder’s and do PE for different reasons (for self, for sexual partners, for health reasons, etc), and who get different things from the experience. Any and all (American) men are invited to participate!
One other key reason why I am doing interviews instead of surveys is because there isn’t a sociological literature on this topic. Exploring new research areas requires this kind of bottom-up approach (it’s called grounded theory method if anyone is interested), whereby you collect data on the group and then (using social theory and research on similar topics) you use the data to make sense of the group and/or individual men’s experiences.
Oh, and what distinguishes qualitative social science research from journalism is how and how much data are collected, the systematic coding processes used to identify key themes and patterns in the data, and the interpretation of data using social theory.
There are a handful of reporters whose work looks a lot like sociology, but even they would admit (or brag) that that’s not what they do. (They write really well, which they would rightly point out is quite rare in academic writing.)
Keep the questions, comments, and (especially) email and forum message inquiries about participating in my research coming!
Thanks.
Scott
Scott Melzer
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology & Sociology
Albion College
Smelzer@albion.edu