Embedded Files
This page provides an overview of the project's methodology. In total, you can read through the four phases of the project. Phase 1 includes two parts (recruitment of artists and follow-up focus groups), Phase 2 includes follow-up focus groups with non-artists, Phase 3 describes the art show hosted and the survey that was run at the event, and Phase 4 includes a survey that gathered responses to each of the pieces for thematic validation.
Phase 1
Phase 1 of the project is split into two parts: Part 1 recruited artists to create art expressing their queer and/or disability identity, and Part 2 involved follow-up focus groups with the artists to discuss their work. There were a total of n = 14 artists who participated across this phase.
Part 1
A total of n = 14 artists (M = 25.86, ranging from 18 to 43 years old) with a queer and/or disability identity were recruited to create up to five art pieces (of any medium) related to their identity.
Queer/disabled artists were primarily recruited with the flyer shown to the right. Artists were additionally recruited through word of mouth within known community spaces. Originally, the inclusion criteria was for all artists to be local to Hawaiʻi, but due to interest, it was expanded to include a few artists who moved here for college. All artists were still at least 18 years of age or older and held either a queer and/or a disability identity. While most had both a queer and disability identity, n = 5 created art focusing on having a queer identity, n = 3 created art focusing on having a disability identity, and n = 6 created art focusing on having both a queer and disability identity.
Upon contacting the lead investigator indicating their interest in the project, an initial interview was scheduled with each prospective artist (via Zoom) to review the scope of the project, confirm eligibility, assess ability to participate within the project timeline, and go over the consent form. Participants were asked to return the signed consent form and complete a brief survey to collect demographic information. The consent form offered multiple levels of consent, with the option to release their name for public recognition of their artwork, a pseudonym for public recognition, or to remain anonymous in their participation.
Artists were asked to create at least one, but up to five art pieces of art in any medium that they feel represent their identity. Artists already had familiarity with creating work expressing their identity, and were allowed to include previously created pieces. They were requested to work within a 3-4 week timeline before participating in Part 2 (follow-up focus groups). Those who joined the project late and near the final group scheduled had less time to complete their work, but this was communicated and clear upon joining the project.
After completing their pieces, participants submitted a photo/file of each piece, its title, and a 150-word artist statement of the piece. All submitted information was consented for use within public dissemination of findings, as well as to be included in the planned art show (i.e., for the artist description to be included as data along with the art).
No content restrictions were put on the artists, but a clarificatory warning was given that the art would be displayed in the art show, on this website, and potentially included in paper publications. Therefore, if they are not anonymous, any content (self-portraits, gore/horror, NSFW) would be widely associated with their name.
Artists were requested to submit their finished piece, title, and artist description before their scheduled focus group, but flexibility was required for many, with allowances for drafts to be shared during the focus groups. All work was completed and finalized about one week prior to the art show in order to have time to print the 2D pieces and all titles and artist statements for the art show.
Study 1a flyer.pdfPart 2
Following Part 1, Part 2 included five focus groups with 2-4 artists per focus group. The purpose was to discuss the intentions behind the pieces the artists submitted. Two trained research assistants were assigned to each focus group to act as co-facilitators and note takers. All participants were requested to sign a secondary consent form before the focus group began. All focus groups were conducted on Zoom, which was essential to not only to promote accessibility, but also to accommodate a participant who lives on a different island (Maui). Secondarily, the recorded Zoom meetings allowed for transcripts to be generated of the 1.5-2-hour meetings.
The focus group started with participating artists presenting each of their pieces and the intention behind it. This was followed by a discussion of the themes throughout the pieces, the artist's identity, and responses/resonation by the other artists (and research team). A semi-structured interview guide was referenced, but the flow of conversation was open and flexible. All groups touched on the planned points related to:
Held values and how their identity is expressed (through art and in their everyday life)
If/when there have been times when it felt unsafe or difficult to express your identity and how they responded to or dealt with that
What their experience been like as a queer and/or disabled person living in Hawaiʻi
Recognizing that many of us hold more than one identity (ethnicity, gender, culture, or other meaningful experiences that shape who we are) and how their different identities interact with each other
Most art pieces and stories shared naturally touched on all of these points, with minimal prompting required. As the study progressed, emerging themes (e.g., feeling the need to fit into a box/label; recognizing identities as male-centered/still centering a male perspective) from earlier focus groups were included as questions or brought back as discussion points by the research team. With the intention of conducting a collaborative thematic analysis with the artist participants, themes (termed either explicitly as "themes," or as main points, key experiences, or using other colloquial phrasing) were recapped throughout each focus group to clarify what each artist perceived as the most prevalent themes throughout the discussion. Each meeting led to a fruitful (lengthy) conversation, so other pieces from other artist participants were rarely able to be incorporated and a broader thematic analysis with the participants was not able to be done. Though, the final fifth focus group consisted of participants who were also part of the research team, leading to a natural reference of other relevant pieces that was helpful for the full thematic analysis process conducted by the research team.
When all planned and relevant content was covered, the meeting was concluded by asking if the artists had anything further to share. After any additional sharing, they were thanked for their participation, reminded of the art show (date, that they would soon receive an email to aid in planning, etc.), and the recording was stopped. The research team stayed on the Zoom call to briefly recap the meeting.
Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project consisted of five 60-minute-long focus groups conducted with the goal of going more in-depth on the themes of queer and disabled lived experience, as well as nonverbal expression of identity. Nearly all of the n = 14 non-artist participants recruited for this phase had a queer and/or disabled identity (1 did not, but had already begun participating in the focus group before sharing that). The goal of this phase was to explore how themes of identity-based values emerge when individuals interpret and resonate with (or dissociate from) the artist's artwork and intentions behind the piece. It also addressed how individuals recognize, articulate, endorse, or contradict alternative and counter-cultural values in response to others' stories. Phase 2 was ultimately meant to study whether identity-based values shared through telling stories and responding to others' art were similar or different from those discussed only in relation to artist expression.
Focus groups were composed of 2-5 participants per group, recruited through word of mouth and through the University of Hawaii at Manoa psychology SONA systems. All participants signed a consent form and returned it via email before the focus group began. Each meeting did not begin recording until all consent forms were returned. Similar to the Phase 1 focus groups, two trained research assistants were assigned to each focus group as co-facilitators and note takers.
Originally, focus group slots were going to be assigned based on identity to enable at least one focus group with participants only holding a queer identity, at least one with participants only holding a disability identity, and at least one with those who held both a queer and disability identity. Due to the nature of using online SONA system sign-ups, restricted scheduling based on research team availability, and the inability for pre-screening, all focus groups were open to sign-ups from anyone who perceived meeting the inclusion criteria (being 18 years of age or older and holding a queer and/or disability identity).
The same semi-structured interview guide was used in both Phase 1 focus groups and Phase 2 focus groups. Each focus group started with introductions, then the lead researcher presented two selected art pieces and read through their corresponding artist statement (and/or highlighted points from the artists' focus group discussions). Participants were then asked for their initial reactions, responses, thoughts, and whether their personal experiences were similar or different. The flow of conversation was open and flexible, though it did need much more prompting than in Phase 1. Again, following the pre-planned discussion points, all groups were prompted to discuss points related to:
Held values and how their identity is expressed (through art and in their everyday life)
If/when there have been times when it felt unsafe or difficult to express your identity and how they responded to or dealt with that
What their experience been like as a queer and/or disabled person living in Hawaiʻi
Recognizing that many of us hold more than one identity (ethnicity, gender, culture, or other meaningful experiences that shape who we are) and how their different identities interact with each other
As participants shared their perspectives and stories, the research team asked follow-up questions as needed. Conversational responses between participants often required specific direction (e.g., "[Name], do you have similar experiences?"). When all questions were asked, the meeting was concluded by asking if participants had anything further to share. After any further sharing, they were thanked for their participation and the recording was stopped. The research team stayed on the Zoom call to briefly recap the meeting. During that debriefing time, any new/emerging themes were discussed along with whether any new questions should be asked in the next focus group.
Phase 3
Phase 3 was the art show event to showcase all the pieces created by the artists in Phase 1. Additionally, a survey was conducted to collect responses to each piece.
Planning for the December 5th art show commenced in early October. The location of Proof Social Club in downtown (Chinatown) Honolulu was selected for a few key reasons that contributed to the aims of the project:
It was not associated with the university, ensuring it remained a community event.
Proof Social Club is a queer bar, offering a safe and inclusive environment for both the content of the art and the prospective attendees.
Proof Social Club had previously hosted art events.
Proof Social Club takes a collaborative approach to event scheduling and was flexible on attendee age requirements, allowing for the event to be scheduled by the researcher without charge, no cover charge was required for attendees, and those under 21 (U.S. drinking age) were allowed in the venue with a given bracelet to identify them as underage.
The event was scheduled to correspond with First Friday, where there is a surge in individuals around the Chinatown area attending other events or bar specials on the first Friday of each month. December 5th also aligned near the end of the Fall 2025 semester without falling during the final weeks of the semester or exam period. This offered ample time for artists to complete their work along with sufficient time for the research team to prepare for the art show. The event was scheduled from 4pm to 8:30pm, as late-night events began at 9pm and the venue would become too crowded for pieces to be safe.
All artists were encouraged to attend, though due to scheduling conflicts, some were unable to be there (or had to leave/come partly through).
While not part of the research methodology itself, the event planning (as it was the research team's first art show) was a significant component of the project. Preparation included many tasks, such as:
Confirming artist availiability, attendance, arriaval/departure time (and if they are bringing their own pieces)
Picking up art pieces from those artists who would not attend/arrive on time
Printing all written work
Creating a glued booklet for multi-page written work
Cutting and folding the zine
Printing all digital art
Promoting the event on social media and around the community
Creating a brochure (then printing it, troubleshooting formatting, then folding them all)
Obtaining battery-powered lights and easels for art setup and staging
Creating and printing all artist statements (including cutting, gluing, and folding them for display; see image below)
Crocheting lei for each artist (a choice, for fun and to provide a thank you for their contribution)
Venue set up (hanging/displaying all pieces)
Survey
A survey was conducted during the art show to gather community responses. The study was conducted with the purpose of validating themes discovered throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2, with the additional inquiry if a survey study like this (during a community event hosted at a bar throughout the evening) could lead to viable data collection.
During the art show, attendees could scan a QR code next to each artist statement that linked to a Google Forms survey (see example to the right). The survey included a consent form on the first page before the survey began. The survey collected basic information, including initials to identify repeat responses, broad identity group membership (queer, disability, ethic minority, or other), and the art piece number they were currently responding to. Then, the seven primary observed themes across Phase 1 was presented. They were asked on a one-to-seven Likert scale how much they agreed or disagreed with the applicability of each of the seven themes listed to their own experiences. The survey was designed to be brief (1-2 minutes) so that respondents were more inclined to fill out the survey for as many pieces as possible. The researcher made an announcement to encourage survey completion once per hour. To incentivise responses, a raffle for a free drink voucher (non-alcoholic drinks included) was held to randomly select a responder per hour, so each response functioned to increase the likelihood of being selected.
Broadly, the n = 55 responses did provide some evidence that this type of method could be successful, but there were only n = 19 individual responses. Some were clear on the instructions to respond to as many pieces as possible (though an understandable burden with 25 total pieces), but others only responded to their favorite piece. A smaller selection of artwork to respond to, or clearer posted instructions, should be considered to use this as a form of reliable data collection. Nearly all responses were submitted by about 7pm, indicating that as the venue became more crowded (through 7-8:30pm), the response rate tapered off. Based on questions asked to the research team, there were also misunderstandings of whether the respondent was rating the themes' applicability to the piece or to themselves/their own identity.
Phase 4
The same survey used at the art show was modified to include a response to each of the 25 individual art pieces. The survey was posted to the University of Hawai'i at Manoa Psychology SONA systems and was open to anyone (18 years of age or older) to complete. This open recruitment was done to conduct between-subjects statistical analyses between local and non-local respondents and between different identity groups.
The purpose was to collect a response to each piece, rather than any preferential response bias or misunderstanding of the instructions. It began with the same demographic questions asked previously, then each piece (including title and artist statement) was followed by the seven primary themes with the same one to seven Likert scale rating. The instructions remained the same, but due to the context, it is assumed that the participants understood more clearly that they were rating how each theme was perceived to be applicable to each piece. The few short answer responses participants included and their varied ratings across the pieces contributed to this assessment of accurate responding. The survey took about 40 minutes to complete.
The sample size was n = 106, which hit the necessary size for sufficient statistical power to run some comparison analyses. A G*Power analysis showed that at least N = 102 would be sufficient to detect an effective size of d = .5 at 80% power for t-test comparisons, but upward of N = 159 would have been necessary for a one-way ANOVA between three groups (e.g., queer, disability, and other) to detect an effective size of f = .25 at 80% power (Faul et al., 2009).
If future work uses a similar method, it should consider sample size and response time length. The original proposed plan assumed the sample size of artists would not lead to 25 distinct pieces, nor the volume of written work to respond to. This reading burden (of the written pieces and artist statements per each piece) was greater than anticipated and contributed to a lengthy time of completion. Similarly, randomizing the order of the pieces would be helpful in case of fatigue.
See the Results Summary page for the key findings for each phase! This page was written in a narrative style, but still resembles a Method section of a research paper where no results are typically included.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse