Feminist Knowledge | Student Writings

Current Perceptions and Attitudes towards Homosexuals as Seen by UCT Heterosexual Students

by Angela Martinaglia and Liapeng Matsau.

Abstract

The aim of this research project was to explore attitudes and perceptions towards homosexuality within UCT. We chose to specifically focus on the attitudes held by self-identified heterosexual women and men between the ages of 18 and 22years. We gathered data using two focus groups: one with all women and the other with all men, and one in-depth interview with a self identified homosexual woman. Various themes arose from these group discussions that linked to our literature. A key finding for us was the contradictions that arose within individuals when engaging with discourses of homosexuality. The use of focus groups allowed us to get a fuller yet still contradictory and nuance understanding of people's perceptions towards homosexuality.

Introduction

The objective of our research was to explore, through discussions with various self-identifying UCT heterosexual women and men, their attitudes and perceptions of homosexuality. Through our research we hoped to add to already-existing bodies of knowledge on homosexuality. Our interest in this topic stemmed from our perception that there was a general veil of tolerance surrounding homosexuality in Cape Town and on the UCT campus. We wanted to explore this further to see if this was indeed the case, or if prejudices
were just better disguised in this "liberal" context.

Two people researched this project: both of us with different life experiences. Liapeng grew up in Lesotho and comes from a black racialised experience. She is a middle class heterosexual woman, currently studying Development Studies and Social Transformation at UCT. Angela is middle class, comes from Johannesburg and has a white racialised
experience. She is a homosexual woman who is doing a degree in Psychology, as well as Gender and Women's Studies. Having both a heterosexual and homosexual researcher meant that we were able to approach the research from two different, complimentary angles. Being located differently has influenced our research question; how we approached it and the actual research process itself.

Our research question was exploratory and descriptive: " What are current attitudes and perceptions of homosexuals as seen by UCT heterosexual students".

Given that our broad area of focus was homophobia this research was important, as it gave us some idea of current attitudes towards homosexuals. We were interested in seeing if a level of tolerance had been achieved or if perhaps students were outwardly acting politically correct whilst inwardly harbouring prejudice. Feeding our interest was our awareness that although homosexuality was more visible in many social contexts and in the media, it was still viewed with suspicion. One of the researchers, Liapeng, admitted that as a heterosexual woman, she viewed homosexuality with some apprehension. For Angela on the other hand, being a homosexual woman meant that she experienced this contradiction between homosexuality being visible and thus 'tolerated', while simultaneously being regarded as deviant and subject to disapproval.

We found that previous research regarding attitudes to homosexuals relied heavily on quantitative data collection methods. Through the use of qualitative data we hoped to give voice and to highlight the experiences of the respondents, as this element was lacking in previous studies, resulting in skewed conclusions. The privileging of objective, scientific
knowledge has resulted in the oversimplification in representing people's attitudes and thus a limited understanding of homophobia. Our study therefore was important as it added detail to and raised new insights to already existing knowledge.

A study by Tshabalala, (1990) (which we will later review), divided peoples' attitudes into four rather simplistic categories, this is an unrealistic and limited way of understanding engagement with homosexuality. Due to the intimate nature of our research; trying to
find out attitudes, we used a primarily qualitative approach.

We drew on a feminist approach to research. This means that as researchers we are self-aware and locate ourselves within our research. Throughout our research we addressed questions of "reinscription", which is an awareness of reproducing dominant notions of victimhood and powerlessness, which one can easily fall into when doing studies around marginalised groups like gays and lesbians. Secondly we addressed the "micro politics of research" which means we have acknowledged the power relations that exists between researcher and participants, a relationship, which can often serve as a barrier to
the research process if not managed properly. Lastly we dealt with "partiality and difference", which refers to the way we engaged with 'difference' and what insights we obtained whilst doing this. (Bhavnani, 1994)

As feminist researchers our interest in homophobia within the Southern African context lies in the fact that as we focused on this theme we are implicitly challenging the discourses that draw from fixed and dominant constructions of gender within a patriarchal context. We focus on the discourses that people draw on and not individual prejudice's as past studies have done, which tend to pathologise individual attitudes. Being two African researchers our study is useful because it aims to add to a base of African-produced knowledge about Africa.

Literature Review

In the book Homosexuality and Social Sex-roles (Ross, 1983), we found similar attitude studies on homosexuality. This particular book was useful to our research in that it provided us with a useful theoretical and conceptual framework in which to base our research. Ross discusses key concepts such as the 'sex-role', which is important for understanding popular attitudes towards homosexuality. The sex role refers to the accepted social roles for women and men by society at large. This is linked to homosexuality in that where there are highly defined and rigid sex roles, it is argued that homophobia is argued to prevail. In our experiences of our own lives we have found that sex-roles regarding men and women are still rigidly defined and adhered to. Of course the degree of stringency will differ according to 'race', cultural and religious backgrounds as well as class.

In her article "Wearing the Pants: Butch/Femme Role-playing in Lesbian Relationships", Julia Beffon (1994) explores the masculine and feminine roles found within lesbian couples and to what extent this is modelled on dominant heterosexual ideas of active and passive roles. This ties to the Ross reading in that it highlights that homophobia is tied up in a broader dominant discourse of gender and heterosexuality.

In the Triangle Project's article on Hate Speech and Homophobia, we find references to the construction of homosexuality as being 'un-African' this is a discourse that has been employed by many African leaders to substantiate homophobia in their countries. "Homosexuality is for whites only and is a anathema to African culture." In this quote one can see clearly how Robert Mugabe (President of Zimbabwe) draws from a discourse that understands homosexuality as being foreign to Africa, something that has been brought in by white people to corrupt Africans. Homosexuality as being un-African is a discourse not only employed by the gatekeepers of African Society, but by the individuals within the societies. Thus it is a useful framework to use when understanding homophobia within an African context and a micro society like UCT.

Another issue raised by Mugabe, which is important when understanding attitudes towards homosexuals, is his understanding of homosexuality as a pathology, a "…mental ill" (Abigale, 1994).

Stephen Murray's (1998) article on African homosexualities, "Boy Wives and Female Husbands", explores the recent allegations of African leaders of homosexuality being un-African and a "white disease". We are introduced to various case studies, which show that homosexuality has been part of African society for many years. What may be causing these contradictions is the fact that meanings of homosexuality differ cross-culturally. For example in certain African communities a man may have sex with another man and not be known as a homosexual if he is the penetrator and not the penetrated. This ties up with the article by Kendall (1990) where she tells of her search for lesbians in Lesotho. What she finds is that there are no women who identify with the socially constructed lesbian identity, however there are women who intimately love one another. She concludes that Western construction of the
'lesbian identity' cannot be used when defining homosexuality in non-Western countries. This was useful for us in our research as it helped us to understand the various constructions of homosexuality in society and thus people's perceptions of homosexuality.

Paul Germond and Steve de Gruchy (1997) write an interesting book, Aliens in the Household of God. This book deals with the antagonistic debate surrounding the Christian faith and the homosexual question. Christian faith regards heterosexuality as being the normative form of human sexuality whilst all other forms are thought of as deviant and perverse. The current stance in certain Christian churches is that homosexual orientation is acceptable while homosexual practice is not. This stance is said to disguise homophobia. This will be useful to us when understanding the influence of religion on people's attitudes towards homosexuality.

A similar study about attitudes toward homosexuality was done by Tshababla and Isaacs (1990). They conducted a study of social attitudes and opinions of homosexuality within African communities in the Western Cape. They used a quantitative approach of data collection with a structured questionnaire and fixed choice of questions. Their questionnaire was divided into four categories:

1. Tolerance-Acceptance

2. Abhorrence and Antagonism

3. Human rights

4. Cross-sexed mannerisms.

The list above was used to categorise people's responses and thus their attitudes towards homosexuality. This type of study is limited in that it doesn't show the complexity of people's responses. However it is useful to us as it is a study, which we can use in conjunction with our own. Their research compliments ours, as it is more quantitative in nature whilst ours uses a more in-depth qualitative approach.

In her thesis Tamara Shefer (2000), theorises a dominant construction of heterosexuality. She draws attention to the fact that this hetero-sexist discourse is rarely challenged and thus leads to the reproduction of dominant relationships of power. This lens of analysis was useful in exploring current perceptions of sexuality in our focus groups, as this frame shaped the discussions. Shefer also raises interesting issues about the limitations of sexuality, as being understood as fixed and existing in a binary. This was useful to us when thinking about the discourses that people are drawing from when conceptualising homosexuality.

Lastly, in the book Lesbian and Gay Studies by Sandfort and Schuyf (2000) the authors speak of the importance of conducting gay and lesbian studies in a way that will not victimise or remove the agency of homosexuals. They stress the importance of using gender when exploring homosexuality, as it enables us to analyse the pervasive stereotypes of homosexuality. This book was useful to us as it brought to our awareness the importance of studies being done with the specific rationale of improving gay and lesbian lives and getting to the core of homophobia in society.

Methodology

We focused primarily on qualitative methods of data collection: focus groups and an in-depth interview with a key informant. We chose to use focus groups for a number of different reasons. Given that we were trying to find out attitudes, focus groups allowed us to elicit rich and experiential perspectives. Focus groups enabled group interaction and discussions, which gave rise to a wide range of responses, resulting in multiple voices. They are also preferable when engaging in feminist research as it places the researcher in conversation with the respondents, thus minimising the hierarchy that often exists between the researcher and the respondents.

Our sample consisted of 7 UCT heterosexual women and 7 heterosexual men, as well as one homosexual UCT woman. They were from various faculties as well as from different racialised experiences. The respondents were sampled using the "snowball" method, where we approached various individuals and asked them to bring some known heterosexual friends, whom we then followed up telephonically. Our in-depth interview was with a homosexual woman whom we were introduced to by a member of the women's focus group.

We used two focus groups with UCT students aged between 18 and 22 years old. Both groups were self-identified heterosexuals. We chose to have separate groups for women and for men, our rationale for this segregation was to minimise the possible gendered power relations. Coupled with this we also thought that people would be more comfortable discussing issues of sex and sexuality with members of their own sex. In our discussions it was evident that the women were more at ease discussing issues of sexuality with the same sex as a feeling of camaraderie was present. With regards to the men's group this feeling was lacking.

For both groups we used a tape recorder, with permission from the respondents. To start the focus groups off we used a method called 'facilitated visual gathering'. This means we asked the respondents to anonymously put their responses on paper, which we placed on the board and used to facilitate the discussion. This method was useful in getting the respondents to share their opinions without them having to 'own' them or take responsibility for them. Thus they were less likely to feel judged by others. However, once the discussion began to flow people felt no need to write their responses anymore, not feeling the need to distance themselves from their opinions.

Our second method of data collection was an in-depth interview with a key informant. We decided to interview a first-year female student at UCT who was currently in the process of "coming out" as a lesbian. We will be referring to her as Jade. We chose an open ended, in-depth interview with this self-identified homosexual as we felt that an in-depth interview would give us rich data and would allow us to get a fuller picture of her position and experiences as a white, middle-class lesbian. Her experience would add value to our research as it represented a personal account of homosexual experience.

Another method of data collection we used was from literary sources we obtained from the UCT library and our lecture material. These included past studies related to our topic as well literature on feminist approaches to research. We used literature in conjunction with the data obtained from our focus groups and interview to draw themes and insights regarding our research.

Preliminary Findings

Having done our pilot focus groups, we were forced to readdress our conceptual framework. We had equated tolerance with acceptance assuming that tolerance towards homosexuality meant acceptance of homosexuals, but as the research process went ahead we decided that tolerance and acceptance had to be separated. This insight caused us to dig deeper and to probe the respondents in order to draw a distinction between a surface tolerance and an actual acceptance of homosexuality.

Our data links to our research question in that we were able to get rich data on people's attitudes and perceptions whilst simultaneously highlighting the nuances and contradictions embedded in these perceptions. Unlike attitude surveys, we were able to contextualise people's varying attitudes to homosexuality in this study.

Our process of data collection started at the beginning of our research proposal, where we worked with our assumptions and what we were finding in the literature. Our method of data analysis has included partially transcribing the focus groups and interview. We then drew up newspaper prints and highlighted recurring points, highlighting different ones in different colours. Once this was done we drew out themes existing within the focus group which linked to our literature. The next step was to draw out dominant discourses coming out of the data; this would allow us scope to understand positions and contradictions. Having outlined and discussed the themes, we will use these to draw preliminary conclusions.

When evaluating research techniques and the researchers' role we found that the facilitated visual gathering method worked well for the women's group. Writing down their responses on paper served as an icebreaker and the group members soon felt comfortable to speak without having to write first. The women's focus group elicited richer, more personal data that that of the men's group. The men's group did not elicit the kind of data we would have liked, in as great depth as we needed. We think that we underestimated the influence of our being female researchers trying to find out about attitudes towards homosexuality in an all men's group. We got the feeling that the men were a little reluctant to delve into the subject, which could've been influenced by our gender. A solution to be considered in future is to get a male researcher to take the men's focus groups while the woman researchers take the female ones.

Another problem that we encountered was that unlike the women's group the use of the facilitated visual gathering method did not work as a sufficient icebreaker in the men's group. They were still reluctant to talk and own what they were saying, instead they ended up talking abstractly and in circles despite our constant probing. A solution to this might be to use more articles and pictures to show to the men's group to have them comment on in order to encourage more discussion.

The problems we encountered when doing the men's focus group will have to be addressed in future if one is to get rich data on their perceptions and attitudes.

Key findings/Themes

Having transcribed and done some preliminary analysis of the data we were able to identify six key themes.

1, Influence of 'sex-roles' within family and society on homophobia

2. The struggles within religion regarding homosexuality

3. Western versus African constructions of homosexuality

4. Homosexuality: Choice versus biology

5. Acceptance versus tolerance

6. Contradictions within individuals.

"Sex-roles"

Linking to the literature we found that sex roles as defined by society had an influence on the ways in which our respondents perceived homosexuality. Stringent sex roles within society are argued by Ross (1983) to lead to higher instances of homophobia in such societies. Homosexuals are seen as deviating from the 'norm'. In various respondents from Zimbabwe and Swaziland, societies that they define as having fixed gender identities and roles, we saw a general reluctance to accept homosexuality. This notion of sex-roles and some of the responses that came out of both the focus groups and the interview showed a dominant way that people related to the world: the world was conceptualised as consisting of polar-opposites. This way of understanding the world views gender as being composed or two opposite categories; masculine versus feminine. These correlate with the sex binary of male and female. When an individual deviates from these fixed notions of sex and gender they are met with disapproval and homophobia. In one of our focus groups a male respondent said, "It's funny seeing a guy act like a girl." In the women's focus group, although respondents seemed more 'tolerant' on the whole, they were still uncomfortable with the idea of a man being more 'feminine' than them: "Its not nice to be beaten at femininity by a dude." One can see here how the use of binaries can become problematic when trying to understand gender and sexuality as it reproduces permanent and fixed notions of identity that occur within a dominant discourse of heterosexuality that itself exists within a patriarchal frame. This use of binaries is so prevalent that it is even evident within some homosexual relationships that replicate the dominant roles seen within heterosexual relationships. This is revealed in the construction of the butch/femme roles within certain homosexual relationships (Julia Beffon, 1994).

Influence of Religion

Religion was also a key factor to how people perceived with and dealt with homosexuality. In those who were religiously affiliated we could see their inner struggles in the way in which the tried to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with their everyday engagement with homosexuals/homosexuality. As religion is itself produced within a patriarchal frame it thus adheres to clearly defined sex roles. Also, religion perpetuates the idea of a normative heterosexual nuclear family. This thus sets up homosexuality as being deviant from the norm and promotes homophobia in most of the world's leading religions e.g. Christianity,
Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.

"Marriage comes under the church and Christianity and that's not how a marriage is meant to be, it is meant to be between a man and a woman under God". This respondent is referring to why she doesn't agree with homosexual marriages. Yet in the same session she states that she herself does not harbour any ill feelings towards homosexuals. Other religious grounds were cited when another respondent said that within his religious context (Christianity) he was
taught, "to love the sinner but not the sin ". The 'sin' here refers to homosexual practice. This links to our literature by Germond and de Gruchy (1997) where they note that within certain religions homosexual 'orientation' is accepted whilst homosexual 'practice' is not.

The two themes above show instances in which people draw from a discourse that 'normalises' heterosexuality. Here the institution and the practice of heterosexuality is seen as a norm and goes largely unchallenged. (Tamara Shefer, 2000). Parallels can be drawn with the notion of 'whiteness', where 'whiteness' is a norm, rarely named or deconstructed.

Western vs. African Constructions of Homosexuality

Despite many informants seeming to believe that homosexuality was not prevalent in Africa, they all seemed to allude to the fact that man-to-man and woman-to-woman relationships existed within African societies and have done so for years. One respondent referred to the fact that there are probably as many homosexuals within African communities, but that the representation of these numbers are not as visible as they are in Western communities. " Ja, I
think that there are as many gay people in African communities as in the West…but you don't see them as much".

This links to the reading by Murray (1998) as he explores various cases of homosexuality within African societies and reveals that homosexuality has indeed always existed within these societies. Yet these identities are not understood in the same way as those from dominant Western constructions of homosexuality. This links to our literature by Kendall (1990), she speaks of how in Lesotho she was unable to find lesbians. However, when she explored this further, she began to see that there were women loving each other intimately, but who did not refer to themselves as lesbians. The Western construct of the lesbian identity was one which was alien to them, as they were making use of an African construct of homosexuality which does that not create a new identity that foregrounds their sexual orientation. It is thus argued that homosexuality has always existed within African societies yet not as the Western construct of homosexuality.

Choice vs Biology

Another theme that came up in the focus groups was that of choice versus biology, debating whether homosexuals were born or if it was a choice they had made later in life. Whichever of the two stances the respondents chose influenced their attitudes towards homosexuality in that respondents seemed to show more tolerance of homosexuals if they believed that they were born gay or lesbian. "You speak like someone is born gay, but you are not. You become gay." This is an instance in which a respondent argued that a person's sexuality was based completely on choice. Yet another respondent said, "I do not sympathise with the position of gays as it is their choice and they choose to bring the discrimination upon themselves." When homosexuality was understood as being solely about choice the notion of blame was assigned to the individual. On the other hand when homosexuality was understood as biological the respondents were more sympathetic to the homosexual individual as they thought that it was not their fault. This notion of blame, similarly to that of the AIDS discourse, has implications for the ways in which people perceive homosexuality. This theme also came out of our interview with our self-identified lesbian respondent, Jade. She raised the issues and confessed that she herself was not in a position to choose a particular stance. She referred to herself as being "somewhere in the middle" .

Interestingly, in general the men's group felt that one chooses to be homosexual whilst the women's group tended more towards biology as being the salient factor. If we are to look deeper into these attitudes one might see that the men's group are more homophobic as they are more fearful of 'choosing' to be homosexual themselves. The women's group was less homophobic as they were less afraid of "becoming" homosexual given the fact that they assumed one was born gay.

The two main discourses that were drawn on in the focus groups are, biological determinism and the medicalisation of homosexuality. Biological determinism is the respondents privileging of fixed biological factors as a way of understanding sexuality. The medicalisation of homosexuality is seen in the referral to the 'gay-gene'. During previous centuries the medicalisation of sexuality had pathologised homosexuality as a mental illness. Contemporary conceptions are shifting to viewing homosexuality as being located in the gene. Although in our focus groups the idea of a 'gay gene' lead to more compassion and positive attitudes there are some dangers in this understanding. This understanding can lead to potential problems in that it can give people the idea of being able to eliminate the 'gene' (Sandfort and Schuyf, 2000)

Tolerance versus Acceptance

In our focus groups we discovered that there was a distinction between acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, this shifted our assumptions, as we previously assumed that tolerance of homosexuals could be equated with the acceptance of homosexuals. Generally more women respondents were tolerant though not fully accepting of homosexuality. The men's group however was generally less tolerant and less accepting of homosexuality. There was a more evident veil of acceptance within the women's focus groups than that in the male group. This has been consistent with other studies that have generally found less favourable attitudes of homosexuals amongst heterosexual men. (Sandfort & Schuyf, 2000). This raises interesting questions about the current constructions of masculinities and should be explored and taken into consideration if one is to get a comprehensive understanding about the roots of homophobia.

Contradictions

Contradictions in individuals were evident throughout the focus groups, seen in their battling to find a specific stance towards homosexuality. This is largely due to the fact that they are drawing from multiple and often conflicting discourses of understanding sexuality. The respondents' speech was riddled with contradictions and conflicts with regards to their feelings over the topic. In the men's group respondents felt that the prospect of two lesbians kissing was far more appealing than two gay males kissing, which they said "repulsed them".
In our women's group one respondent stated "I don't mind interacting with them (homosexuals) but I don't want it in my face". This is an example of a respondent expressing the fact that though she is in some parts "ok" with homosexuals, she is still not truly comfortable with it. This takes us back to the contradiction between tolerating homosexual orientation whilst not tolerating homosexual practice. Our key informant, Jade mentioned that in her daily livings she was exposed to these contradictory attitudes held by her friends as they constantly said things such as " I'm perfectly fine with you being lesbian, but you do know it isn't normal, right?" or things such as " I'm cool with you being gay but don't tell me that you will never want a man, as it's nature, it's procreation." These are just two examples in the contradiction expressed within individuals when dealing with a homosexual. Current discourses around sexuality seem to conceptualise it as occurring within two polar opposites. Contradictions within individuals stem from having to work within this binary when in fact sexuality, like everything else, is far more complex and likely to fall into a "grey area".

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Study

In conclusion, we have found that in general the respondents held underlying negative attitudes towards homosexuality and homosexuals, but still display a level of tolerance. Under this veneer of tolerance, however, 'true' acceptance of homosexuality was lacking. These perceptions were largely due to the fact that homosexuality was still not seen as the norm, but rather deviating from it.

Linking this to our initial goal of exploring the current perceptions and attitudes of heterosexual students, we found the contradictions we expected. These contradictions lay in the fact that though a general veil of 'liberalism' was evident in UCT, we suspected that this was not the case and indeed found this, as the majority of our respondents revealed hidden negative perceptions of homosexuality.

As it is evident in this research it is clear that current discourses on sexuality are limited in their understandings of the complexities of sexual identity. The binary through which sexuality is conceptualised does not adequately address the fluidity and flexibility of one's sexuality. Thus, an alternative discourse needs to be explored in which people are able to position themselves within contradictions and are able to move away from extreme binaries. If this research is to be expanded, this is an area that needs to be explored in order to create a new space in which sexuality can be understood.

Part of this alternative discourse must deal with moving away from current heterocentric ways of understanding sexuality.

Further studies into current constructions of masculinities are also important if we are to understand men's general malevolence towards homosexuality. The patriarchal frame in which heterosexual masculinities are constructed, centralises and normalises heterosexuality and condemns homosexual activity, thereby promoting homophobia. It is for these reasons that dominant patriarchal constructions of masculinities need to be explored further, as well as to be challenged.

For wider studies we would also recommend more focus groups with heterosexuals, as well as more in-depth interviews with a wider range of homosexuals in order to get contrasting voices and experiences. We also recommend getting a male facilitator to run the men's focus groups, as we feel that the men's group would be more comfortable discussing issues of sexuality with a member of the same sex.

Because we'd like to expand research within an African based context, we would need to draw from a wider base of African literature and knowledge in order to ground and contextualise our work. Given that our research is focusing specifically on perceptions of homosexuals as held by UCT students, we would need to treat it as a microcosm of African society. We also need to consider getting a wider variety within our sample, for example people of different class backgrounds.

Ethics

When thinking of this research we did come up against various ethical considerations. Firstly, there was the question of privacy as some people may not have been comfortable exposing their sexual orientation or defining it as we asked them to do for the purpose of our research. We resolved this issue by negotiating confidentiality and complete anonymity. There was also the problem of people who define themselves as heterosexual; this could be a problem as it
is arguable that very few people are 100% heterosexual. Thus there is no way of completely being sure of the respondent's true sexual orientation. We hoped, however, that people whom thought of themselves as dominantly heterosexual would take part in the discussions. We also had to negotiate informed consent from each respondent as we had made use of tape recorders.

Bibliography

Bhavnani, Kum-Kum. 1994. "Tracing the Contours: Feminist Research and Feminist Objectivity," The Dynamics of Race and Gender: Some Feminist Interventions. London.

Germond, Paul and De Gruchy, Steve. 1997. Aliens in the Households of God: Homosexuality and the Christian Faith in South Africa. Claremont: David Philip.

Gevisser, M and Cameron, Edwin, 1994. Defiant Desire: Gay and Lesbian life in South Africa. Braamfontein: Raven Press.

Kendall, Limakatso, 1990. "Looking for Lesbians in Lesotho". Unpublished Conference Paper.

Macun, Ian and Pose, Deborah. "Focus groups: A South African experience and a methodological reflection," African Sociological Review/ Revue Africaine De Sociologie, 2,1.

Mama, Amina. 2001. "Challenging Subjects: Gender and Power in African Contexts," in Identity and Beyond: Rethinking Africanity, Discussion Paper 12, Uppsala: Nordic Institute of African Research.

Mbilinyi, Marjorie. 1992. "Research Methodologies in Gender Issues, " in Meena, Ruth. Ed. Gender in South Africa, Harare: SAPES Books.

Murray, Steve and Roscoe. 1998. Boy Wives and Female Husbands: Studies in African Homosexuality. New York: St. Martins Press.

Sandfort, Theo and Shuyf, Judith. 2000. Lesbian and Gay Studies: An Introductory, Interdisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications.

Shefer, Tamara.1999. Discourses of Heterosexual Subjectivity and Negotiation. Bellville: University of the Western Cape.

Strebel, Anna. 1997. "Putting Discourse Analysis to Work in AIDS Prevention," in Culture, Power and Difference: Discourse Analysis in South Africa. Zed books Ltd/ University Of Cape Town Press