Results Summary

Phase 1, Part 1 (art pieces)

Below you can find the codebook listing the themes and subthemes and their definitions. This codebook was developed based on the content of the art in combination with their artist statements, but informed heavily by the content discussed in the focus groups (with artists and with non-artists). This referencing lends this codebook to be interpreted in a narrative way, where the art can be coded according to these themes, but the overarching messages are still interpretive to the viewer. Some themes like Gender Expression may not be readily perceived in pieces that were intended to depict something related to gender (being nonbinary). Similarly, other themes like Identity Visibility may be over-perceived by the viewer, such as perceiving there is an artist's intention of identity representation or even intersectionality due to the viewer's own experiences.

Phase 1, Part 2 (focus groups with artists)

Below are the primary themes, the frequency across the five focus groups, and a brief explanation of that theme.

Social Juxtapositioning, f = 132

• Authenticity repression struggles to socially accommodate differently to multiple community environments.

  • Conflict resolution from identifying that one may trust their living efforts and gratitude for what community environments may offer through life.

  • Urgency and expectation to preserve conservative traditional values and social norms over queer/disabled identity.

• Interpretation: One feels pressure to override their true self in order to present in accordance with different peers, coworkers or family. This displays as a mechanism of preserving implicit standards and traditional identity norms.

Fostering Endurance, f = 174

• Endurance and barriers through disabled, cultural and/or queer experiences in order to live is embraced.

• Values, beliefs and cultural traditions (especially in Hawai'i) becoming decentered from the influence of model majority societal norms.

• The inner lived experience that identity is a direct quality and value instead of an identity itself, leading into a characteristic expectation.

• Interpretation: The hardships and dilemmas that are encountered from those who are disabled, focused on cultural preservation and/or queer are aspired to prevent marginalized decentering and preserve identity as holistic, more than a label.

Reality Dismissal f = 81

• The witnessing of denied lived experiences due to queer and disability identity by social, cultural and/or situational standards.

• Disabled experiences are either disregarded at the surface level and stereotyped as a “textbook” occurrence, or are accepted and shared with other people in solace for what struggles are endured then lived with.

• Interpretation: Disabled voices and stories are not taken into account and carries the susceptibility to be reduced into a disapproving stereotype. These experiences, however, allow for finding community solidarity from shared struggles.

Non-Artists:

Intersectional Friction f = 81

• The internal or external conflict arising from the overlap of multiple identities (race, culture, health, or geography).

• Identity conflict becoming rooted in geographical or national differences

• Conflicts are specifically rooted in traditional gender roles.

• Interpretation: Identity struggles becomes apparent through differences in both cultural norms and preconceived expectations on gender roles enforced by other people.

Negotiated Visibility f = 107

• The active management of how much of one's identity is shown or hidden based on safety or social norms.

• Using clothing, hair, or "identity through aesthetics" to signal identity without verbal disclosure.

• Hiding identity specifically for physical or psychological safety ("repression for survival").

• Interpretation: Outward presentations and physical symbols as a gateway to showcase identity without the nuances that come with direct social interactions, which can concurrently come from the need to hide oneself carefully for public safety.

Institutional and Cultural Policing f = 105

• External pressure from large-scale systems (religion, family, or society) to conform to heteronormative standards.

• The heightened awareness of one's own identity as "other," or "out of place" due to surrounding normative assumptions. The feeling under scrutiny for not conforming.

• Policing that is explicitly tied to religious doctrine or spiritual expectations in society.

• Interpretation: The discomfort and divergence from selfhood when there is an internal knowing that one’s disabled and/or queer identity does not fit in with environmental norms, which can often span into forced conformity or spiritual doctrine.

Phase 2 (focus groups with non-artists)

Phase 3: Community Responses to Art

Participatory Responses At The Art Show

A survey to collect responses from the art show attendees was run throughout the evening. The brief survey included a consent form (Appendix X), then asked participants to include their first name/initial to identify multiple responses by the same person, identity demographic information, what piece they were responding to, and to rate how much the piece conveyed each of the seven preliminary themes identified across Phase 1 and Phase 2. All attendees were encouraged to respond to as many pieces as possible, with the incentive that every hour a name was randomly selected to receive a free drink ticket (provided by Proof Social Club, valid for any alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink of any price; three total tickets were provided). More responses led to a higher probability that their name would be randomly selected. Though, multiple attendees verbally reported that they only responded to their favorite piece, or those they resonated with the most. Due to the bar environment, variation in response rate, sample size, and some observed technical difficulties with Google Forms, these findings are limited to a descriptive report assessment of the method. In total, there were n = 55 responses across n = 19 participants. The highest number of pieces responded to by one participant was n = 8, though multiple attendees verbally said they had responded to “almost all” of the 25 pieces. Specifically, the person who had the highest response rate said they were determined to respond to every piece, which makes the resulting eight recorded responses seem like a cause for data loss concerns. Wifi/cell connectivity in the event location seemed to play a significant role in (lack of) response recordings. 

Descriptive Findings

The table below reports the average rating per piece across resonance and the seven listed preliminary themes. As noted in the table, there weren’t any responses to piece #01, #04, #08, #09, or #16. Some pieces received only n = 1 response, and others received as many as n = 7, with most receiving n = 2 or 3 responses. With the low sample size per piece, the averages provide a general sense of ratings, but do quickly mask any between-subjects variations. The greatest range observed was across the anchors, with different participants rating their resonance as the minimum 1 or maximum 7. This was not as present when responding to the themes, with most responses clustering withing 1 to 3 points (e.g., three different participants responding with 5, 6, and 7). Again, given the small sample size, discrepancies in response rate by participant, and potential data loss, the findings are best left at a broad descriptive report. 

The main finding that can be highlighted is the notable difference between the resonance rating compared to the other thematic ratings. For example, Piece #02 had a very low resonance rating, but consistently high rating across the thematic perceptions. This was similarly present, though not as distinct, for other pieces. This demonstrates that participants do not need to resonate with a piece or share that identity/lived experience to perceive the identity-related values being conveyed. Though, given that there was only one respondent to Piece #2 and a broad small sample response rate per piece, that further complicates the validity of abstracting this conclusion. 

Main Takeaways

The primary purpose of including a survey response at the art show was to test the possibility of having an interactive component for simple community engagement. Overall, it was effective as a supplemental activity to provide some directive participation for attendees, but methodologically and empirically impractical for primary data collection and meaningful analysis. First, future events need to ensure wifi/cell service connectivity for smooth and accurate data recording. Secondly, the response bias of only responding to one’s favorite piece must be accommodated for. In a different setting (i.e., not a popular bar) with a more directive and individualized survey purpose (e.g., to gather data about the attendee’s overall reactions, resonance, thoughts, and feelings), the participatory survey component of a similar event could elicit more useable data. This would allow attendees to peruse all the pieces to the extent they wish, but only require a singular response per attendee. 

Survey Responses to All Pieces

A total of n = 106 responses were collected (Mage = 20.3, SD = 3.34). To achieve a high enough sample size, eligibility was open to anyone who was 18 years of age or older. All participants were recruited through the Psychology SONA Systems (word of mouth was also used, without any follow-through). The listed title of the survey in the Psychology SONA Systems included the words “queer” and “disability” to presumably boost participation from those with a queer and/or disability identity more than surveys on other topics, though the sample size per different identity groups was still too small for pairwise comparisons. There were n = 30 participants who held a queer identity (combined across sexuality and gender), n = 13 with a disability identity (combined across physical and neurodevelopmental), n = 6 with both a queer and disability identity, and n = 57 with neither. However, there were n = 68 with some type of minoritized identity, combining those who had a queer, disability, or noted non-white ethnic or cultural identity (n = 19 who did not have a queer/disablity identity selected they had a “non-white/Caucasian ethnic or cultural identity”). 

Since the sample sizes of queer and disability identities were not equal or large enough, the planned t-test comparisons of resonance with the pieces and theme responses were not able to be conducted. Comparisons between those who identified as local to Hawaii (n = 47) and not local to Hawaii (n = 59) were still conducted as planned. Interestingly, a couple of participants (n = 2) who were born and raised in Hawaii selected “No,” they are not local to Hawaii, which prompted further coding between those who have lived here since birth or less than 18 years old (n = 55) and those who moved/are visiting here as an adult (n = 51). That captured an additional n = 9  who had reported that, “My family moved here when I was young (before/during elementary school)” and selected “No,” they were not local to Hawaii. Further, this coding reflected the n = 2 who moved here as an adult and lived here for less than 10 years, and the n = 1 who moved here as an adult and lived here for longer than 10 years who did select “Yes,” they were local to Hawaii. This secondary coding was done to see if any reports of art piece resonance would be impacted based on cultural exposure during childhood/formative years. 

The last planned exploratory analyses was with participant age. Following theories of identity development, an older sample was desired but not able to be obtained due to the college sampling. With the average age being about 20 years old (but ranging between 18 and 42 years old), older participants may still have held a more solidified identity, be part of their community longer, and resonated stronger with the pieces (or, conversely, younger participants may have resonated stronger with the pieces as they some were created by younger artists still negotiating their socio-cultural roles and identity expressions). 

Results

Due to the sample characteristics, the findings of this survey were approached first descriptively, then with feasible inferential statistical tests conducted as originally planned. The data are best presented and discussed through spider map representations of the Likert ratings of resonance and thematic perception. Follow-up correlation analyses were conducted accordingly to clarify the visual patterns. Secondarily, t-tests between those local and from Hawaii and those who aren’t local or originally from Hawaii were conducted. Lastly, exploratory correlation analyses were conducted with participant age and between each piece’s resonance rating.

There were some strong positive relationships between theme ratings, showing patterns of overlap (see Table X). Connection Over Similar Marginalized Experiences positively correlated with all but Resisting Oppression (r = .35, p = .06), with understandably stronger moderate relationships with Deviating from Expectations and Imposition of Social Norms. Navigating Identity Labels had the strongest positive relationship with Navigating the Performance of Identity (r = .97, p < .001), then with Imposition of Social Norms (r = .86, p < .001), Deviating from Expectations (r = .85, p < .001), and Resisting Oppression (r = .58, p < .001). There was no relationship with Fight to Exist (r = -.004, p = .99), which may indicate underlying differences in how one perceives navigating one’s expression in society (e.g., like compliance) as opposed to fighting against societally imposed norms. The other themes followed a similar pattern, also having no relationship with Fight to Exist. Since the average ratings were all within a 0.466 difference (between the lowest Navigating Identity Labels with M = 3.89, SD = 0.56 and the highest Fight to Exist with M = 4.356, SD = .367), this finding likely does reflect the conceptual complexity and variations in perception between Fight to Exist being present with the other six themes in the survey. 

Impact of Hawaii

Two conceptualizations of being “from” Hawaii were conducted. First, comparisons were made between those who self-reported they identified as local to Hawaii (n = 47) or would not consider themselves local to Hawaii (n = 59). Next, comparisons were made between those who reported they were either born a raised in Hawaii or moved to Hawaii when they were less than 18 years of age (n = 55) and those who moved to Hawaii as an adult or were visiting (n = 51). Both versions had Resonance set as the dependent variable. Separate t-tests were conducted for each of the individual 29 pieces displayed to the participants in the survey. 

Local vs. Not

Only one independent samples t-test reached conventional significance when testing those who would consider themselves local to Hawaii or not. Piece #4: Blessed Stones of the Land, demonstrated a significant difference between those local to Hawaii (M = 3.68, SD = ) and those who aren’t (M = 2.76, SD = ) on how much they resonated with the piece, t(104), = -2.69, p = .008. Those who were local to Hawaii resonated with the piece more than those who weren’t. 

The only other two pieces that could be classified as approaching significance was Piece #10: Elegance in Exile and Piece #22: The Unseen War. Interestingly, both demonstrated slightly higher ratings by participants identifying as non-locals. For Piece #10, locals rated their resonance as M = 3.66 (SD = ), and non-locals rated their resonance as M = 4.32 (SD = ), t(104) = 1.87, p = .065. For Piece #22, locals rated their resonance M = 3.04 (SD = ), and non-locals rated their resonance M = 3.71 (SD = ), t(104) = 1.77, p = .079. Taking into consideration the small sample size, it seems likely that being from Hawaii can impact one’s perception of identity-related art, particularly when it touches on a value/expression/topic that is present in local culture. This rationale further motivated the comparison between those from Hawaii (as opposed to identifying as local) and those who moved to Hawaii at an adult/are visiting. Though, resonance differences for the other 26 individualized pieces all resulted in p-values greater than p = ., the scope of theorizing cultural differences is still limited. 

From Hawaii vs. Not

The following independent samples t-tests comparing those from Hawaii and those who aren’t were similarly non-significant with two exceptions. Piece #4: Blessed Stones of the Land showed larger differences, with those from Hawaii still resonating stronger with the piece (M = 3.76, SD = ) than those who aren’t from Hawaii (M = 2.53, SD = ), t(104) = 3.75, p < .001. Piece #24: Got Wood? also showed significant differences with those from Hawaii resonating higher (M = 3.69, SD = ) than those who aren’t from Hawaii (M = 2.94, SD = ), t(104) = 2.14, p < .05. All other pieces’ resonance ratings showed no differences, with p-values exceeding p = .30.

Exploratory Correlation Analyses

As partially expected due to the competing theoretical predictions about age and psycho-social stage of identity development, there was no relationship between age and reported resonance to any of the 29 individual pieces, r =  p = . 

All pieces were run in a correlation matrix to explore variability and potential patterns in Resonance. There were no uniform correlations of Resonance across all pieces, demonstrating variability in content perceived and applied to the self. Most of the pieces’ resonance rating did positively correlate with the others’ (with ps < .05, .01, and < .001), with the remaining still showing a positive r coefficient without reaching statistical significance. None trended in a negative direction. This suggests that even though many of the pieces did parallel with similar increases in Resonance, the content was perceived as distinct and ratings varied appropriately. 

Implications and Main Takeaways

As stated above, the perceptual content of the pieces did demonstrate variation, but the useability of the data for thematic validation fell short. This also was recognizable related to the evolving codebook. The seven themes included for each piece captured the initial thematic content across Phase 1 and Phase 2, but each codebook for their respective studies evolved well beyond those initial themes. For the purposes of exploring if non-artist community members would be able to evaluate art works of their varied thematic content, that did demonstrate moderate success to replicate in future studies. Further the endorsement variation per theme did support the narrative approach taken in discussing the Phase 1 codebook. 

Identity, perception of identity-related lived experiences displayed by others, and self-reported resonance are interconnected but not uniformly on the same continuum. More in-depth qualitative and theoretical work is needed to accurately unpack how dynamically interwoven they are. For example, positive lived experiences and associations with perceptual creative content may complexly interact with internalized shame of one’s identity. Or, a negative association could interact with a prideful sense of identity. Both scenarios leading to an increase/decrease in a Likert-scale response to resonance and other listed themes. Though, it is important to point out the more uniform higher rating of the theme Fight to Exist. This heightened perception may be a reflection of participant’s own sense of self in society (or assumption made based on the queer/disabled-related content of the work). Alternatively, taking the view that art is a form of protest and resistance to dominant ideologies that suppress the expression of the self may then lead to the perception that all art has an element of fighting to exist. 

Overall, future work shouldn’t shy away from running a similar survey, but methodologically should identify highly specific desired outcomes. Exploring this survey’s potential for thematic validation alongside testing the ability of participants to identity thematic content was too broad to report concrete findings. Operating under the assumption that participants can identify thematic content may be most useful to implement a survey stage as part of the codebook development process. This would allow for participants to generate their own phrasing and form resonance (e.g., shared identity vs. shared lived experience vs. enjoying the aestetics). 

Another factor to consider in future work is the finding here that there was a significant difference in reported resonance between those who identified as local or from Hawaii and those who werent. While restricted to only a select number of pieces, it was interesting to observe the significant between-subjects differences and theorize underlying reasons why. More obviously, Piece #4: Blessed Stones of the Land explicitly related to Hawaiian culture and that is why locals/those from Hawaii resonated more with that piece. Possibly in a similar category, Piece #24: Got Wood? could also touch on Hawaiian cultural values related to nature, as the piece was a series of realistic tree bark mugs. Piece #10: Elegance in Exile and Piece #22: The Unseen War both did not readily relate to Hawaiian culture in content or description – possibly offering a rationalization to why there was a slight resonance rating dip for locals/those from Hawaii. Outside of the queer and/or disabled identity-related content, other intersecting cultural values play a role in perception and resonance of creative works. If this study were to be replicated, identifying which identity source is leading the self-percived relatability is essential.