Queer Connections and Fostering Inclusion: Reflections on Qualitative Focus Group Design

Abstract

Qualitative social science research has an obligation to resist replicating or reinforcing social harms. This paper explores how researchers can adopt strategies to develop inclusive, safe, and reflexive research spaces with queer participants. Reflecting on a research study that explored the impact of queer representation in young adult literature on young readers, the paper explores the concepts of building queer connections and fostering inclusion as methods to support qualitative research design. Through this reflexive process, it has been found that intentionally using strategies to establish queer connections between participants and promoting inclusion through empathetic listening can significantly enhance participant experiences, primarily in terms of safety, support, and openness to vulnerability. These deliberate strategies also play a crucial role in reinforcing participant engagement and retention. Further, these findings indicate that these methods have additional benefits for research that transitions from face-to-face methods to online and digital formats. We argue that qualitative social science researchers who work with the queer community have an obligation to create inclusive and safe spaces for participants – not only to resist replicating stigmatising social structures, but to move beyond a pedagogy of pathologization in queer research.

Introduction

Over the last few decades awareness and interest in the public and private experiences of queer individuals has increased dramatically. As legislation and social reform has challenged the nature of sexual citizenship (Plummer, 2001, 2003; Richardson, 2017, 2018; Weeks, 1998), and as anti-queer rhetoric has risen in response (Keck, 2009), an increasing number of social science researchers have shown interest in questions relating to the queer community (Keenan, 2022). This interest has also included a specific focus on younger adults, as queer youth are often disproportionately targeted by negative political and media rhetoric (Poulos, 2020). However, as researchers increasingly draw their attention to the public and private experiences of the queer community, and queer youth in particular, it requires us to ask the question – as Keenan did in their research with transgender participants (Keenan, 2022) – how can researchers develop research practices that do not reinforce the structures and stigmas that have harmed the wider queer community?

Queer experiences, and subsequently queer research, is often characterized by the burden of ‘explanation and forced resilience,’ whether it is through interactions with services; navigating complicated legal systems; and explaining the queer experience to friends, families, or researchers (Keck, 2009; Keenan, 2022). To avoid replicating this process of forced explanation and exposure to oppressive systems, researchers need to consider how and why they design their methodologies, and whether they are orientated towards inclusive, safe, and emancipatory practices. This is not a new direction for qualitative inquiry. Since the late 20th century critical social researchers have advocated for methodological shifts that allow researchers to work deliberately and meaningfully with participants and research communities (Rice, 2009, 2017). These decisions and choices are not merely academic. The decisions that researchers make about how to design, structure, and approach topics – including the questions they ask, the theories they use, and the presentation of their data – all contribute to knowledge production within the academic community but also importantly among the public, including how research participants may come to approach their own identities and experiences (Bettcher, 2014). Consequently, social science research can contribute to what has been referred to by Subini Annamma (2017) as the pedagogy of pathologization, where research outcomes force a perspective that highlights negative outcomes, experiences, and the ‘othering’ of the queer community. This can result in ignoring or downplaying elements of inclusion, identity celebration, and diversity within queer communities and spaces. Researchers need to consider the impact of this pathologization, and how it can misrepresent the lived experiences of participants and communities.

Alongside this need for critical reflection within qualitative research, a developing trend in qualitative research is the use of online and digital technologies to facilitate data collection and engagement with participants. While digital platforms have been used successfully for years, the recent disruption to traditional face-to-face data collection due to worldwide COVID-19 restrictions has brought increased attention to the methodological design of digital and online research, including the use of online focus groups (Keemink et al., 2022; Keen et al., 2022). Focus groups are a widely used qualitative research method in social research (Bloor & Core, 2001; Tran et al., 2021), with a distinct advantage over individual interviews due to the inclusion of participant interaction and discussion, often bringing new perspectives and insights (Keemink et al., 2022). Focus groups are a fundamentally social experience, where group chemistry and dynamics result in rich and complex data, and are widely utilized by qualitative researchers (Keen et al., 2022). Recent digital and technological advances have generated a number of viable platforms for online data collection, offering the advantages of increased cost- and time-effectiveness, the involvement of widely spread participant groups, and more flexibility and convenience for participants (Horrell et al., 2015; Keemink et al., 2022). Recent research has reported positive findings for collecting qualitative data via digital methods, and while the evidence for one-on-one interviewing is more comprehensive than for online focus groups (Keemink et al., 2022), the evidence suggests that online methods can be just as successful for focus group research (Kite & Phongsavan, 2017). One advantage is that participants in online focus groups may feel more confident to participate compared to face-to-face focus groups due to the informal atmosphere such a platform provides (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017), which may prove to be beneficial for research with the queer community due to the nature of discussing questions and topics related to sexuality, gender, and the social construction of these concepts in a largely heteronormative and cisnormative society (Keenan, 2022). However, a recent review of digital qualitative methodologies by Tran et al. highlighted the need for further research around virtual focus groups, and in particular for virtual focus groups with younger participant groups, to assess their suitability and effectiveness (Tran et al., 2021).

In this reflexive paper we are using an example of qualitative research conducted with young queer participants, to reflect on elements of our research methodology that promoted inclusion, participation, and safety for the participants. We use a combination of our own reflections and positionality as queer researchers, alongside specific quotes from participants, to critically reflect on our own research process, journey, and challenges within this space. The research we are reflecting on focused on queer representation in young adult literature, and involved focus groups that ran for 8 months. We consider the methodological strategies and research skills we adopted to conduct research with queer youth, the practicalities of using a focus group format, and the transition of this format from face-to-face to online due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. This reflexive paper is aiming to add to the evidence base of using online focus groups with queer youth by noting the specific elements of facilitating this process for queer youth that resisted a pedagogy of pathologization (Annamma, 2017).

Researcher Reflexivity and Positionality

Reflexivity in qualitative research is used to promote transparency – highlighting potential biases and assumptions, interrogating the decision-making process, and acknowledging the collective nature of qualitative inquiry (Cayir et al., 2022). Reflexivity in qualitative research can therefore lend itself to an analysis of findings potentially beyond the scope of traditional data collection metrics – such as factors the promote inclusion and connection in research spaces. Part of the reflexivity process is an acknowledgment and consideration of researcher positionality, and how that informed the design and implementation of the research (Berger, 2015; Gilgun, 2008). Positionality refers to social location, researcher discipline, and personal experience (Cayir et al., 2022), all of which inform how researchers engage with participants and interpret their responses (Mao et al., 2016). Reflexivity also includes an awareness of the collective component of qualitative research, where the researcher’s positionality will interact with the participant’s positionality and influence the research process (Probst, 2015). Research that deliberately fosters collective reflexivity can allow researchers to be open and clear about their own positionality in the research space, and invite others to both share and critique normative ideas about social location and identity (Cain, et al., 2019; Cayir et al., 2022). As a result of these considerations, we have outlined our positionality below, and how our positionality informed our approach to the research topic and research participants.

As an able-bodied, Pākehā, ¹ bisexual, cisgender man, I [David] see the potential of young adult literature to support the well-being of younger readers from diverse and marginalized communities. With experience as a social worker practitioner and educator, I recognize the value of representation, and can see that the active use of these texts in educational and private spaces can have a positive impact of younger queer readers.

I [Annika], am a white, non-Indigenous Australian, able-bodied, bisexual, queer, cisgender woman, with a PhD in young adult literature. I am passionate about the importance of young adult literature for marginalized groups – particularly for the queer community. I believe in creating inclusive research spaces, and see the value of focus groups to challenge negative social assumptions and stigmas, while developing relationships with younger readers and communities.

Our positionality – both as individuals and as a collective research team – informed our desire to utilise focus groups, emphasise community building, and actively work towards resisting pedagogies of pathologization. As researchers who sit in-between the common terminology of “insider-outsider” that exists within the literature surrounding research positionality, we believe that these binary concepts need critical consideration (Chhabra, 2020). As part of the queer community ourselves, we occupy similar social spaces and navigate similar social experiences as those of our participants – giving us the status of ‘insider.’ However, as our participant pool is diverse in identity, particularly sexual and gender identity, we acknowledge the limits that our own experiences provide us as researchers. Additionally, as we were older than the participants, generational changes and developments may impact our assumptions about the ‘queer experience.’ Therefore, our positionality might be better described as what has been defined as an “in-betweener,” a fluid position where as researchers we “can neither retreat as a distant outsider, nor be preoccupied with group solidarity as an intimate insider” (Chhabra, 2020, p. 309). As in-betweeners, we utilised focus groups as they allowed for reflective prompts based on our own identities, while allowing for the emergence of new, and counter-narratives, that challenged assumptions emerging from our positionality (Cain, et al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2018). This status of in-betweener also necessitated the development of strong interpersonal and intergroup connections to maintain group cohesion. Finally, as researchers navigating this fluid status, we were aware of the impact of research that pathologizes the queer community. As a result, we were committed to keeping ourselves accountable from perpetuating that same process towards others with different identities from our own.

However, it is important to note that despite these efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and resist exclusionary research practices, there will always be limits to the degree in which researchers can reduce their negative impact in traditional academic research (Rice et al., 2020). Hierarchies, power structures, and the demands of neo-liberalism within academia contribute to a culture of production, over-saturation of research outputs, and the facilitation of research participants as ‘products’ rather than people (Rice et al., 2020) – all of which can contribute to the exploitation of participants, even within the broader scope of emancipatory research. We present our own positionality not as a check-box exercise to tick and then move past – a static moment of reflexivity that is then no longer applied to our research, participants, or outputs – but rather a reminder that positionality is the starting point to reflexive engagement, one that needs to be applied consistently to research design, impact, and intent. We aim through the course of this reflective analysis to explore how our positionality impacted our desire to create inclusive research methods for younger queer adults, although the extent to which we can answer whether or not we have moved past the process of perpetuating pathological research design is an ongoing discussion for all social science researchers.

Queer Young Adult Focus Groups

In 2021 we began a research project that aimed to explore the impact of queer representation in young adult literature on young adult readers. Conducted in Australia in a regional city, this project required the use of a qualitative design that facilitated long-term participant engagement with the research project and research questions, while also ensuring that participants felt safe, secure, and open to sharing their experiences. As queer identifying researchers, we were mindful of the critiques of qualitative interviews with members of the queer community as a method for capturing broad experiences which risk homogenizing diversity (Annamma, 2017), and were aware of the potential concerns regarding safety and disclosure that forms of qualitative research are designed to elicit (Keenan, 2022). As a result of these factors, we aimed to design a qualitative research project that centred safety, inclusion, and participant engagement within the methods and design. For our project we defined participant safety as not when participants experience no discomfort or conflict, but when trust, vulnerability, and mediated relationships allowed for participants to share openly despite this discomfort. We saw inclusion as a fundamental element of our research process, as we wanted to develop a space that catered for, and included, all members of the broader queer community, without privileging the experiences of certain demographics over others. Participant engagement was an important element of the research design for us, as from the outset we planned an 8-month long research project, and we were mindful of the need to keep participants engaged and returning to the focus groups each month.

The project was titled “Seeing the Self: Examining reader experience of queer representation in Young Adult Literature.” To answer our research questions, we utilized a focus group methodology for this project, due to our desire to elicit conversation and debate about the impact of queer representation in young adult literature (Liamputtong, 2011). Participants who took part in the project were provided with eight pre-selected queer young adult texts and were invited to participate in monthly focus groups that ran for 8 months. Twenty-three participants were involved in this project, and were divided into three smaller groups that met to discuss the texts. Each group met eight times, resulting in a total of 24 separate focus groups at the conclusion of the project. During the focus groups we facilitated discussions around the different texts to identify and articulate the impact of queer representation in young adult literature on young readers. The participants read the selected books prior to each session, and within the focus groups engaged in reciprocal discussions on the themes and representation within the texts, with a strong focus on personal reflection and the impact of the text on their emotional wellbeing. This project was approved by The University of xx Human Research Ethics Committee, prior to the focus groups commencing.

The participants in this research project all identified as queer, with diverse intersections between sex, sexual identity, gender, and gender expression. It was important for us to acknowledge this diversity in the focus groups, and to develop a method of supporting participants to reflect on and discuss their personal identities. A critique of some qualitative methodologies is that they often “treat gender as a simple matter of observation by a researcher rather than as a multifaceted sociocultural construct” (Keenan, 2022, p. 308). For our methodology we aimed to provide space to interrogate and reflect on identity as a shifting concept. As a result, the participants used a diverse range of terms to identify themselves in the sessions, with participants using gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, homoromantic, and questioning when the topic of sexuality arose. Additionally, as many of the texts engaged with the subject of gender identity, the participants self-identified as cisgender men, cisgender women, non-binary, transgender, questioning, and queer when discussing their gender identity in the focus groups. The diversity of participant identities was acknowledged by the participants themselves, with many commenting on their own fluidity over the course of the 8-month project, meaning that the demographic data from this project (both qualitative and quantitative in nature) should be seen as representing a snapshot in time, rather than a static description of identity (Keenan, 2022).

Two months into the project a new wave of COVID-19 swept Australia, resulting in varying degrees of lockdowns and restrictions. As a result of these restrictions most face-to-face research at our institution was either suspended or required to adapt to online data collection methods. Due to the nature of our study we decided to adapt to using online focus groups, held via the video conferencing software Zoom. All participants were notified of this change and were made aware that continued participation was not compulsory if they did not feel comfortable continuing via an online format. Fortunately, all participants opted to continue with the project for the next 6 months.

The focus groups, both in person and online, were recorded and transcribed for data analysis. We engaged in a process of reflexive thematic analysis when approaching the data, using our subjective experiences, insights, reflections, and theoretical framework to inform our coding process (Braun & Clarke, 2021). As part of this process, we took a deliberate effort to note down examples, quotes, and our own reflections on how the focus groups and facilitator decisions actively supported participant engagement, safety, inclusion, and support. This material – the data from the transcribed focus groups and our own personal reflections – form the basis of our reflection for this paper, and our findings on how to develop inclusive queer research methods in qualitative research in face-to-face and online focus groups. We use a combination of direct participant quotes from the focus groups – when they comment on, or discuss, the dynamics and relationships in the focus group – alongside our reflections as researchers and facilitators as we believe it is important to show both perspectives.

Findings

The findings from our reflective analysis are divided into two separate themes, each focusing on elements that can be used to develop supportive, inclusive, and queer-friendly methods for qualitative research. These themes are the importance of developing queer connections, and the use of empathetic listening to foster inclusion.

Queer Connections

A central element of our approach to designing and facilitating the focus groups was to focus on, and build, connections between the research participants. When reflecting on the focus groups, and the relationships that developed between the participants, we used the term ‘queer connections’ to refer to these emerging networks. In using the term queer connections we were interested in relationships and connections that developed from shared experiences, often based on the shared collective experience of identifying as queer, while allowing room for diversity, difference, and frustration to be acknowledged and discussed in the focus groups. Our use of the term queer connections is deliberate, as we wanted to explore how participants formed connections through shared experiences of community, identity, and belonging, while allowing space for the participants to interrogate, challenge, and commiserate over heteronormative knowledge and institutions (Sullivan, 2003).

Part of our initial strategy to build these queer connections was to role-model our own approach to sharing our identities – which was facilitated through sharing our own pronouns, sexual and gender identities, alongside a brief personal background at the start of the initial session. Similar strategies have been reported as useful in previous qualitative research that utilised focus groups with queer participants, which resulted in the participants feeling they could share authentically and freely. Participants were encouraged to share their own personal information if they felt comfortable doing so in a group session. While this was intended as a one-off introduction, we found that re-visiting this process at each focus group continued a narrative of self-disclosure, building rapport, and allowed the group discussion to interrogate the notion of identity over the 8-month process – which resulted in both a strengthened sense of queer connection, but also supported the critique that identity and demographic data can be easily captured by researcher observation (Keenan, 2022). When the project pivoted to online focus groups, we found that the participants continued this process by including their pronouns in their profile name. Aside from the benefits to our data collection, providing a nuanced and reflective account of identity, we also found this process was reflected in positive participant experiences. One participant gave an example of these positive experiences, by discussing their enjoyment of the diversity present in the focus group, and how the queer connections present within the sessions made them feel less isolated:

I loved that first day of group. I love this experience because it’s a really interesting group of people because I ... I have three queer friends, but they’re not friends of each other. You’re not all bound by a shared experience, so you don’t really talk about it as much. But this, this group, has been really great. It’s nice. It’s super cool. Thank you all. It’s made me meet people. It’s made me feel less alone. So, thank you for that.

Participant reflections like these were not uncommon in the focus groups, and we found that the sense of connection and relationships that developed out of sharing personal stories, identities, and vulnerabilities proved to help maintain and strengthen participant engagement with the project as we pivoted to an online format. However, an interesting narrative that participants disclosed alongside these reflections was that many of the participants previously struggled to engage with queer spaces and events, with one participant noting:

I tried a few times to join The Queer Collective, at both campuses, and I found it a struggle just to make it to meetings and stuff like that. So, having this where there was a specific motivation to get together and talk about stuff, to talk about not just books but each other, that was really helpful for me.

In response, another participant added:

It’s really funny because we are both a bit jaded about the queer community. We met at a Queer Collective event. So we’re like, argh! You’re so right, though. It’s such a good point because I’m always like, I want more queer friends! But just because someone’s queer doesn’t mean you’re going to be friends. So having that, having this thing here, that thing is really great. It’s such a good thing.

Comments such as these required us to consider how and why these connections emerged in the focus groups. We were aware of the strong interpersonal connections that developed between the participants as a result of the discussions facilitated within the focus groups, but we wanted to identify what specific elements of the research methods supported this. Reflecting on the focus group sessions, and noting comments made by the participants, we believed that it was both the purposeful nature of the focus groups – an element that is important for long-term participant engagement with research projects (Liamputtong, 2011) – but also the specific queer connections that were fostered in these group. These connections were not always accessible to the younger participants outside of this research space and were seen as a reason to continue to engage with the project, both in person and then online. The impact of this can be seen in comments made by the participants, such as where one participant reflected on how this was their first engagement with an exclusively queer space:

This is my first kind of queer community thing that I’ve been able to connect with. Especially, coming out as an older adult. I don’t know, old, I’m not old, I’m 25, but in my late twenties, after uni and stuff, I haven’t really had, or been able to kind of connect in this kind of way. To nerd out over books and just talk and get to know people, has just been amazing.

A similar experience was expressed in another focus group, with this participant specifically commenting on how their asexual identity had previously created barriers in broader queer spaces, and that a setting that actively encouraged the sharing of diverse identities and personal vulnerabilities resulted in a greater sense of community:

I’d have to say that this is probably the first actually feeling of community that I’ve had. Other than that, it’s just been particularly isolating because at my school there was about three queer people, and they were all treated like shit. And no one was coming forward as saying anything like everyone, it’s just. Yeah, you don’t feel like you fit in with the allos and you don’t feel like you fit in with the queer community either because you don’t feel like you’re queer enough. And there’s, so there’s that resistance of, “Oh, I can’t really fit in there because do they even consider me like part of their community?” So you kind of just become ostracized from, well, you ostracized yourself from these two points of being. And so you find yourself in this middle gray area, and it feels very alone. So that’s why I’m very grateful for this because it’s the first time I’ve actually felt like there’s been a community surrounding me.

These findings, and our own reflections, during the 8-month project, informed how we understood and conceptualised the ‘research space.’ It moved from a distinct research environment, one where roles, identities, and responsibilities were pre-defined and adhered to, to one where connection, community, and encouragement were the foundation of the group. The challenge for us as researchers was to identify what elements we were active in to promote this, and what factors were beyond our control and simply developed as a result of likeminded individuals engaging in a reciprocal process of sharing and connecting. Further, on reflection and debriefing we found we were equally impacted by the sharing of queer stories and experiences, with narratives both similar to our own and those that were distinctly unique, evoking an emotional response. We found that focusing on queer connections was not just about ‘conducting research,’ but rather engaging with the research space in a manner that allowed us to connect to participants in “emotional and personal-political ways” (Rice et al., 2020, p. 224). This connection, queer in nature as it aims to disrupt – however successfully – traditional research dynamics (Sullivan, 2003), proved to be an important part of our research project as it facilitated participant connection, cohesion, and our own growth as qualitative researchers.

While the concept of queer connections was important for us as researchers and facilitators to develop a safe and secure environment for the participants, the existence of queer connections or queer discourses alone were not enough to develop the inclusive research methods we desired. Rather the process of fostering inclusion as a deliberate research method proved to be necessary for addressing intersectional and diverse identities in this research space.

Fostering Inclusion Through Empathetic Listening

Alongside the queer connections that developed within these focus groups, we were mindful that we actively needed to foster inclusion for all participants. This inclusion was important for our research design as we had a diverse range of participants, and when the project pivoted to online focus groups, we were additionally concerned about the possibility of participants feeling excluded from participating due to this shift. Common obstacles for participant inclusion in online research can include issues with equity regarding internet access, inconsistent bandwidth to allow for camera feeds and interactions, and participants lacking safe or appropriate spaces to join the sessions from (Flayelle et al., 2022). However, research into the impact of online data collection methods has indicated that the quality of online focus group discussion is largely dependent on how the researchers facilitate the conversations and interactions between participants (Kite & Phongsavan, 2017). As a result of these potential obstacles, we adopted a framework while facilitating the discussion groups to encourage empathetic listening between the participants and between ourselves. Empathetic listening, as described by Andolina and Conklin, is where individuals are both attentive and responsive to each other’s input during conversations, while additionally establishing an emotional connection (2021). To develop a standard of empathetic listening in the focus groups we fostered the following conditions: community building and the establishment of common experiences; facilitating all participants to speak and be heard; role-modelling active listening; and creating an environment that supported participants to be vulnerable in a safe, inclusive manner (Andolina & Conklin, 2021).

For the first condition, ‘community building and establishment of common experiences,’ We prioritised the creation of a warm and welcoming atmosphere within the focus group setting. By encouraging social interactions and shared experiences, we aimed to build a sense of community among the participants. This common ground helped them feel more comfortable expressing their thoughts and emotions, ultimately enhancing the empathetic exchange between individuals. For instance, at the beginning of each session, participants were encouraged to share personal anecdotes or stories related to the topic, creating a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. For the second condition, ‘facilitating equal participation and active listening,’ we employed strategies to facilitate equal participation among all participants. Emphasising the importance of active listening, we discouraged interruptions and encouraged everyone to wait their turn to speak. This approach allowed each person to express their thoughts without fear of being overshadowed, fostering a deeper sense of empathy among the group members. For the third condition, ‘role-modelling active listening,’ we actively modelled empathetic listening by displaying genuine interest in each participant’s contributions, maintaining eye contact (or looking at the camera if we were on Zoom), nodding in acknowledgment, and providing affirming responses. By embodying these qualities, we hoped to inspire the participants to adopt similar empathetic listening behaviours. For example, we demonstrated paraphrasing and reflecting back the emotions expressed by a participant to ensure they felt understood and validated. Finally, for the fourth condition, ‘creating a safe and inclusive environment for vulnerability,’ we strived to create a safe and inclusive space where participants felt comfortable sharing their thoughts, feelings, and personal experiences. Confidentiality was emphasised, and a non-judgmental attitude was maintained throughout the sessions. This supportive environment encouraged individuals to express themselves authentically, leading to a deeper level of empathy and connection. For instance, we established ground rules about confidentiality and respectful communication, reminding participants of their shared responsibility in maintaining a safe space.

However, despite our best efforts, some challenges in implementing these empathetic listening conditions emerged, primarily two particular issues. The first was time constraints and group dynamics. In some of the larger focus groups or time-limited sessions, ensuring equal participation and allowing sufficient time for each individual to share their perspectives was challenging. Some participants tended to dominate the conversation, while others might be more reserved, leading to potential imbalances in the empathetic exchange. The second was managing emotional intensity. Creating a safe space for vulnerability does have the potential to lead to emotionally charged discussions. As facilitators, it was essential to navigate these sensitive moments delicately and ensure that participants feel supported throughout the process, however at times managing the emotional intensity was challenging for both ourselves as facilitators, and to some of the other group members.

Our reflections on the impact of empathetic listening were that it proved to be beneficial overall in fostering inclusion, and this was shown in several participant comments and narratives. One participant – who had been staying temporarily in Australia during the research project timeframe – noted how the group dynamics and culture contributed to a sense of inclusion and belonging, and specifically how that assisted in engaging with others in digital spaces and environments:

I’m just under a month away from going back to the U.S., and it’s a little bit bittersweet, because there’s so many things I love about Australia. I hope that I can continue to find spaces like this. It’s meant so much to me to finally be in a space where I don’t have to explain myself and I don’t have to edit what it is that I say, or I don’t say. As much as I’m not great at keeping up with cyberspace. I’d be so happy to know that this is something that’s going to keep ongoing.

Many of the participants in the focus groups discussed their sense of inclusion, and resulting feelings of safety and support, in a positive manner. These examples were associated with strong interpersonal relationships, communication skills that facilitated all voices, and empathetic connections. One key example of this process in action occurred during one of the latter focus groups. In this example the participants were discussing a text that included a character who identified as asexual, and two of the participants used this text as an opportunity to talk about their own experiences with asexuality. The process of reflection and self-disclosure required a significant amount of emotional vulnerability, with one participant beginning to cry during the process. However, as the participants were talking there was a noticeable internet disruption, resulting in reduced clarity and lag in the online focus groups. Each group member subsequently turned their cameras off to reduce internet bandwidth, and kindly encouraged the participant to continue sharing their experiences. This process of supportive facilitation and connection, which occurred organically from the foundation of empathetic listening established in this research, allowed the participant to share their experiences in a manner that was safe, inclusive, and allowed for emotional vulnerability, despite the technological challenges. Following this incident, the participants commented:

Participant A ² :

Thank you, guys, for not judging me crying, and for letting me have a safer space. I really appreciate it.

Participant B:

I’ve really appreciated being able to talk to other ace and aro people, I have before, but a lot of the time it’s friends who are just kind of considering it and it feels very different talking to someone where it’s very strongly a part of their identity and the life that they’ve led. I don’t know if we could somehow organize to chat again, but it’s just really, really nice to actually see that you exist. So, I don’t know. It would be nice to meet up over Instagram or something like that, but it was just, it was just lovely to see your experiences and stuff like that.

Participant A:

Why was I crying? I don’t like doing that.

Participant B: Don’t worry, bud. I turned my camera off for a reason. It’s fine. I think this is a good space for it.

This experience highlighted for us that fostering inclusion in online focus groups is a fundamental requirement for developing safe and responsive research environments for queer participants. It is important to note here, that for both our research, and for social science research generally, participant safety is not the avoidance or absence of discomfort, conflict, or emotional distress. It is impossible to talk about the diverse experience that queer younger adults having without exposure to these experiences. However safety in this context refers to development of building trust in vulnerability, affirming difference, and mediating tension in group dynamics. As we reflected on the progression of the focus groups over the eight-months we found that ‘safety,’ as we broadly defined before, only became possible through the actions and promotion of empathetic listening. Not only does this allow for diverse identities and experiences to be equally included, but it also allows for participant connections to develop to support each other. Part of this development came from the foundation of empathetic listening established from the beginning of the focus group process (Andolina & Conklin, 2021), which proved to be additionally valuable in the online format, but also from the queer connections and shared community that emerged between the participants. This combination can be seen where two other participants discussed the importance of the group space facilitating open and vulnerable communication:

Participant C:

I’m so glad that we very much kept this as a queer space specifically, because I do think it might have just become maybe more complicated, or I think we wouldn’t have been able to talk to each other the way we can if potentially we’d opened that up to an ally space as well.

Participant D:

I think keeping it a queer space has made it more possible to be vulnerable like this, and to actually appreciate and value each other’s vulnerability. But [Participant A], I really appreciate you sharing because it was really valuable.

On reflection we have found that the components of empathetic listening we utilised in facilitating these focus groups, primarily: community building and the establishment of common experiences; facilitating all participants to speak and be heard; role-modelling active listening; and creating an environment that supported participants to be vulnerable in a safe, inclusive manner (Andolina & Conklin, 2021), all positively impacted the group dynamics. These dynamics developed over the course of the eight-month project and resulted in a research space and cohort that were able to reflect vulnerability, support one another in discussion difficult content, while also allowing for a space to challenge and critique normative ideas about sex, gender, and identity (Green, 2007; Sullivan, 2003).

Discussion and Conclusion

Building queer connections and fostering inclusion should be seen as a foundational element of developing qualitative research methods with queer participant groups. These factors were vital for the research project of “Seeing the Self” as it allowed us to move beyond pathologizing the queer experience in social science research (Annamma, 2017), to a research model that offered opportunity to celebrate diversity, create inclusive spaces, and successfully utilise online data collection methods. Our reflections have implications for researchers engaging with queer youth in diverse spaces, particularly researchers who occupy an in-betweener status.

Building Connections

One of the values of building queer connections is in how it facilitates long term participant engagement with research that requires a substantial element of self-disclosure. We had anticipated that a desire to participate in the research project would have come from a shared interest in young adult literature and queer representation. While these interests were still the predominant reason why the participants signed up for the project, and a reason that supported their continued engagement over eight months, it was the impact of fostering a deliberate queer space that had the most impact on participant engagement. A queer space in the context of this research is one where binaries, identities, and normative ideals about sex, sexuality, gender, and gender expression can be challenged, critiqued, and counteracted in a safe and inclusive way (Green, 2007; Sullivan, 2003). Issues with participant recruitment and attrition have been noted in previous research with the queer community (Fraser et al., 2022), and our reflection on ‘Seeing the Self,’ and the comments made by the participants, indicate that it was these queer connections that facilitated long-term engagement. While community building is a long-standing methodological strategy with marginalised communities (Wagaman et al., 2018), researchers working in queer spaces should actively consider how to build connections and community around queer experiences and queer relationships to facilitate ongoing participant engagement.

Resisting Pathologization

It is crucial to note that the process of participating in queer discourses and establishing queer connections must be executed in a way that guarantees safety, security, and connection for all involved parties. Failure to do so may result in perpetuating and reinforcing the negative effects of heteronormative and cisnormative social structures on the participants (Keenan, 2022). We have found that a method of developing and supporting safety and security in qualitative focus group research methods with queer participants is to actively work towards creating relationships that allow for a queering, or challenging, of identities, labels, and relationships, in a manner that many broader social and community spaces do not allow (Green, 2007; Sullivan, 2003). This queering of narratives is similar to the principles of ‘counterstorytelling’ (Wagaman et al., 2018), where researchers and participants create spaces to tell a different story about marginalised experiences, and contextualise it in relation to dominant social structures. We have found that creating queer connections through storytelling and counterstorytelling – through the use of group conversations on queer young adult literature – allows for the establishment of space, relationships, and trust needed to resist a pedagogy of pathologization (Keenan, 2022). While a significant portion of research with the queer community focuses on negative experiences and deficits, and there are efforts to move away from this perspective (Peel et al., 2022), we show that queer connections are a useful tool for researchers to move away from deficit models and present more nuanced, insightful, and joyful depictions of queer experiences.

Inclusive Strategies

Equally, for social science research with the queer community, efforts to foster inclusion for all participants need to be considered as a central part of the research methods. While previous research has focused on the importance of inclusive recruitment methods (Pollitt et al., 2022), we believe that research with broad and diverse groups need to adopt specific facilitation strategies to support engagement for all individuals within collective settings. This perspective is based off our in-betweener positionality as researchers, where we have seen the impact of exclusion based on identity, but also our professional backgrounds. As a result, researchers need to actively facilitate, include, and support all participants within group-based data collection methods, or risk privileging dominant narratives and identities. We have found that in the context of queer spaces, that empathetic listening offers a framework for these inclusive goals (Andolina & Conklin, 2021). Empathetic listening is a valuable resource for social science researchers working with the queer community, especially those who utilise qualitative methods, as it provides a set of practical considerations for researchers to design methodologies and research practices that resist the structures and stigmas that have done harm to the wider queer community (Keenan, 2022). One of the primary benefits of empathetic listening is that it allows researchers to build trust and rapport with participants. Queer individuals often face discrimination and marginalization, and they may be hesitant to share their experiences with someone they perceive as an outsider, or of having a different relationship to the queer community. Empathetic listening, however, signals to participants that their stories and perspectives are valued and respected. This can help to foster a sense of trust between the researcher and the participant, creating a more open and honest dialogue that can lead to deeper insights.

Digital Considerations and Contingencies

Lastly, we have found that these approaches to developing research methods and strategies support the use of digital and online data collection methods – particularly in situations where a sudden shift to online methods is required. While the research project in question did not anticipate utilising online focus groups for data collection, the establishment of queer connections and fostering inclusion through empathetic listening allowed the groups to transition with minimal disruptions to an online format, and even encouraged some participants to engage more openly with the process (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017). Previous research has argued that “focus groups can empower minority populations who might prefer sharing views among other participants from their community—and online focus groups may provide greater comfort for self-expression than unfamiliar settings” (Keen et al., 2022, p. 2), and we believe that this process can be further aided by actively creating an inclusive, safe, and open research space through the use of building queer connections and fostering inclusion. Previous research has highlighted the difficulties in conducting qualitative research during the pandemic (Tungohan & Catungal, 2022). While there is a significant body of literature on the effectiveness of online data collection methods, our findings and reflections note that the use of queer connections, safe queer spaces, and inclusive facilitation techniques can assist the process of rapid and unexpected transitions in research design, without negatively impacting the experience for participants or the integrity of the project. Future researchers could consider adopting these strategies as a contingency plan in the case of unplanned disruptions to research protocols.

Beyond the potential value these strategies offer qualitative social science researchers in building participant engagement, rapport, and adding to the value of the data provided – we believe that qualitative social science researchers who work with the queer community have the obligation to adopt research methods that resist or pathologize participants. While there are considerable challenges within this work, especially within the confines of academia and traditional power-relationships within qualitative research (Rice et al., 2020), it is important to continue to promote a critical gaze towards social science research methods. This resistance to the pedagogy of pathologization (Annamma, 2017) is increasingly important as the scholarship about genders, sex and sexualities grows, and qualitative social science researchers have an opportunity to present alternative, inclusive, and ultimately ‘queer’ research in this field (Sullivan, 2003).