Plan for the Week

TO DO THIS WEEK:

• FINISH ALL THOSE DOCUMENTARIES
• Start reading Thematic Analysis
• Do some research into interview structure and apply it to my rough plan - IN PROGRESS
• Finish participant information sheet and consent form - IN PROGRESS
• Transcribe Generation
• Catch up with IAD livestream panels I missed - IN PROGRESS
• Update journal with exhibitions I saw last week
• Watch The Imperfects - IN PROGRESS
• Respond to thesis feedback
• Do another round of advertising participation

International Ace Day panels (part 2)

Unfortunately at least one of the IAD livestreams was made private, so there are a couple of panels I wasn't able to catch up on, but there were a few other really interesting ones I got to watch.

• Anti Racism in the Ace Community discussion - discussion between panelists from different races talking about their experiences. One of the panelists echoed a sentiment I've heard from people like Yasmin Benoit and Sherronda J Brown, that when she became part of the community there were not really any spaces for Black aces at the time, and the societal idea of what ace people are like being very white. General consensus that their needs to be more conversation about anti racism in the community and how people's experiences are affected by race, and that the issue is currently very commonly "avoided". Another panelist talked about their experience as an Asian person - how people's perceptions are affected by orientalist tropes, also talked about how most mainstream media representations of asexuality tend to be very white in their experience. Also criticised media depictions of asexuality being very "watered-down" and relying on asexual stereotypes. Talked a fair bit about characters in media - one panelist talked about O from Sex Education, criticsed the show for making her a villain to "make the white guy (Otis) look good". Some improvements - more Black ace voices being heard and centered in media and in conversations generally - mentions Ending the Pursuit, a book that just came out by Michael Paramo that I coincidentally just emailed the library about getting a copy of! Other resources they mentioned: AZE Journal, AVEN Journal, Refusing 18th Century Fictions has some essays/articles about asexuality studies. Also talked a bit about trying to bring asexuality into academia (like ME). Talked about different responses to white aces vs aces of colour - people like Yasmin Benoit are told they don't "look" asexual by white people, even ones who identify as feminists. Also god they talked about the insane transphobic conspiracy theory that asexuality was invented as a conspiracy to cover up that children are having their sexuality "destroyed" by gender affirming care oh my goddddddd I hate this I hate this country. As one of the panelists put it, the fights against racism, transphobia, and aphobia are "all intertwined".
• Interview with Yilin Wang, ace author and translator - drew parallels between asexuality in academia and the teaching of other cultures' literature - criticised a lot of research for talking about ace people as if they're just abstract subjects. Wang talked about being on the lookout for queer and particularly ace/aro works to translate, and that she struggled to find these in Chinese - one problem she said she had is that a lot of the language around asexuality is entirely English-based. Another interesting point she made was that she'd found old Chinese literature to be less amatonormative than a lot of contemporary culture - more common to have friendship and platonic talked about on the same level of importance as a sexual/romantic relationship. Talked about importance of language - how asexuality is commonly defined as a "lack" and alternate definitions, as well as how in a lot of Chinese literature the concepts of emptiness and absence don't have the same negative connotation they'd have in western societies
• Split Attraction and the Complexities of Being Oriented Aro Ace talk - discussing the split attraction model, alternative models of attraction discusses in a-spec spaces, and how these can challenge norms. Interestingly the interviewee, Jenna, said that realising she was aro was harder than realising she was ace - there was a "grieving process" to realising she'd never have the kind of life everyone told her she should want
• School and Education... The Ace Way! - Combining all my main interests tee hee. Main speaker was teacher Ace Schwartz, who talked about teaching a diverse curriculum as well as providing a role model for young queer people. One panellist said something I found interesting - that being able to identify as ace was a "privilege", because most people learned from the internet - the only reason they knew what asexuality was was because they had access to the internet, spoke English etc. Overall I found this panel very poignant - I felt melancholy listening to it, thinking about how there are so many people out there who want to do right by queer kids and trans kids and help them explore their identities in a safe way. It was kind of tough to hear right now, in this time when the UK government is cracking down on any kind of support for trans kids. Puberty blockers are essentially banned now, at least on the NHS, and why? Basically all the evidence shows that they're harmless and reversible, the government's own report shows that most kids who take them DO go on to transition, and somehow that's not enough. And you just know the stupid fucking Cass Report is going to be weaponised against trans people and taking away their medical care even further, even though most of its results were "We should do more research into this", but somehow that's considered enough reason to demonise a vulnerable group of people even further and take away even more of their rights. It's so disgusting and sickening and I feel so angry at this stupid fucking country. I wish I could leave but it's also going to shit everywhere else. I know there's people out there who work in education and actually work with kids who want to make a difference, but can that ever be enough after over a decade of a Tory government and functionally no opposition. What the fuck.

Anyway most of the panels I watched have been compiled in these three videos.

Happy Tutorial Tuesday!

Had my tutorial with Emma on Tuesday, and got some feedback on my draft/focus group prep submission!

• Some v positive news out of the gate - Emma had no comments on my participant information sheet, so that's all good to go!
• Next steps should be: pinning down dates for focus groups, booking rooms (can be done through Emma and Willem yippee), relaunch the participation call on social media to make sure as many people see it as possible, run a pilot session to test out my questions and my recording setup - thinking of asking my flatmates/friends to take part?
• Emma suggested some good options for recording - could use Teams or Zoom since they can transcribe automatically - REMINDER TO SELF TO GO ASK LOUISE HOW THEY DID IT
• As for the thesis - main issue currently is that it needs more of a clear focus, I'm currently bringing in a lot of "enormous" topics. Also I'm acting like I'm writing a sociology paper - need to tie things back into TV more
• Emma's recommendation was to leave most of the sections as they are and wait and see which topics come up in focus groups and I'll know to expand on those
• Other than that - need to restructure media and society section, write an intro for the methods section and a section on data generation and analysis

Back to the methodology cave

With my read of Minimizing Marriage finished (and Emma gently reminding me that all the sociological background detail should maybe. probably. not be my main priority right now), I have officially run out of excuses to put off figuring out my methodology, particularly for analysing my case studies, since I currently have absolute fuck-all figured out for that, I've got to be honest with you. This week I'm finally sinking my teeth into Thematic Analysis by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke!

Important notes:

• "TA is a method for developing, analysing and interpreting patterns across a qualitative dataset, which involves systematic processes of data coding to develop themes – themes are your ultimate analytic purpose." - well I for one love themes and patterns! (p.4)
• Not a full methodology - "TA as method offers you a set of tools – concepts, techniques, practices, and guidelines – to organise, interrogate and interpret a dataset; but using these well involves thinking, and making choices, about other aspects of your research project and process" (p.4)
• Several different approaches to Thematic Analysis - look at chapter 8 for more detail on these! (p.4)
• The specific version Braun and Clarke use is "Reflexive TA" (p.5)
• "The analytic process we have described is one of six phases: (1) dataset familiarisation (see Chapter Two); (2) data coding (see Chapter Three); (3) initial theme generation; (4) theme development and review; (5) theme refining, defining and naming (see Chapter Four for phases 3–5); and (6) writing up (see Chapter Five). But the process is not the method. The process applies the method to work with and makes sense of data, but is embedded in, and surrounded by, a bigger set of values, assumptions and practices, which, collectively, make up the method." (p.6) - so there's a process and a larger method
• When is a qualitative approach correct? When you have "An interest in process and meaning, over cause and effect", "The ability to reflect on the dominant assumptions embedded in your cultural context – being a cultural commentator as well as a cultural member", "A desire for understanding that is about nuance, complexity and even contradiction, rather than finding a nice tidy explanation", "The ability to embrace the idea that knowledge comes from a position, and a disinterest in the idea of a singular universal truth to be discovered" - these all sound pretty appropriate to what I'm doing, especially the first couple of points (p.7)
• "One of the key advantages of reflexive TA is that it offers researchers a lot of flexibility. You can do reflexive TA using different broad theoretical frameworks, foci for meaning, and orientations to data" (p.9)
• "Viewing subjectivity as something valuable, rather than problematic, is a key aspect of a qualitative sensibility. Your subjectivity is essential to processes of reflexive TA; it is the fuel that drives the engine, and reflexive TA doesn’t happen without it." - more appropriate for analysing art? (p.12)
• Reflexivity "means turning of the researcher lens back onto oneself to recognize and take responsibility for one’s own situatedness within the research and the effect that it may have on the setting and people being studied, questions being asked, data being collected and its interpretation. As such, the idea of reflexivity challenges the view of knowledge production as independent of the researcher producing it and of knowledge as objective" (p.13, quoting Roni Berger, 2015, p.220)
• RELEVANT 4 ME: "Locating yourself also means developing awareness of your personal positionings or standpoints (e.g. your socio-demographic positioning in relation to intersections of race, culture, religion/belief, social class/socioeconomics, sex/gender, sexuality, ability, age, and so on), and your values and assumptions about the world" (p.14)
• "Reflexive research journal" is used to reflect on yourself and your positionality - I guess I'm already kind of doing that lol? (p.15)
• REMEMBER TO LOOK AT BOX 6.6 IN CHAPTER 6 + WORKING WITH EXISTING THEORETICAL CONCEPTS IN CHAP 7
• Reflexive Qs to think about: "How are your positionings and/or life experiences related to your topic? What assumptions do you hold about your topic? How might your participants perceive you? Where and how do you occupy positions of privilege and marginality in relation to your topic and your participants? And are you an insider researcher (a member of the group you are studying) or outsider (not a member)? Or are you both? How might this shape your research, and your relationship with your participants?" (p.18)
• "It’s important to remember the question is not whether these assumptions influence the research (trust us, they do!), but how they influence, and how that might matter. Influence is not contamination to be worried about; it is an inevitable part of the knowledge production process " (p.18)
• "there are different ways to approach reflexive TA, but that you don’t have to know exactly which approach you’ll use when you start" (p.22)
• The Six Phase Process!
• "Phase 1: Familiarising yourself with the dataset. Here, you become deeply and intimately familiar with the content of your dataset, through a process of immersion. Practically, this involves reading and re-reading your data (and, if working with transcripts of audio data, listening to the recordings at least once), and making (brief) notes about any analytic ideas or insights you may have, both related to each data item and the dataset as a whole." (p.35)
• "The first practice of familiarisation is immersion in the data. Think of it as the analytic equivalent of settling in to the cinema to avidly enjoy the latest, much awaited release in your favourite movie series. Practically, familiarisation involves reading and re-reading through text-based data items, repeatedly viewing visual data items, and if working with transcripts of audio data, also listening to the audio recordings" (p.43)
• "At the same time as you are becoming deeply immersed, you want to critically engage with the data. [...] During familiarisation, you stop just taking in the information, and start asking yourself deeper questions about the data. " (p.43)
• Examples of Qs to consider: "How does the person make sense of whatever it is they are discussing? Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? In what different ways do they make sense of the topic? How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? How would I feel if I was in that situation? (Is this different from or similar to how the person feels, and why might that be?) What assumptions do they make in describing the world? What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account?" (p.44)
• "There is a second note-making process in familiarisation, which is important preparation before coding. This involves making brief but systematic overall familiarisation notes related to the whole dataset, capturing your ideas about potential patterning of meaning, and questions you may have. The point of overall dataset familiarisation note-making is to take the time to reflect on your responses and the dataset as a whole, rather than just individual data items, so you can head into coding with an already-engaged, critically questioning mindset. " (p.47)
• "When is it time to move on from familiarisation to coding? There’s no right answer. In general, it’s once you’re familiar with, but also potentially starting to be critically engaged with, your data; once you start to have a sense of some possible patterns and interesting features" (p.49)
• "Phase 2: Coding. Here, you work systematically through your dataset in a fine-grained way. You identify segments of data that appear potentially interesting, relevant or meaningful for your research question, and apply pithy, analytically-meaningful descriptions (code labels) to them. Your focus is specific, and detailed, with coding aimed at capturing single meanings or concepts [...] You code the entire dataset, systematically and thoroughly. When done, you collate your code labels and then compile the relevant segments of data for each code." (p.35)
• "In reflexive TA, a code is the smallest unit of your analysis. Your codes form the building blocks of your analysis; from these you will go on to develop your themes. Your codes capture specific and particular meanings within the dataset, of relevance to your research question. They have succinct labels that evoke the data content." (p.52)
• "This means codes can range from the more summative or descriptive to the more interpretative or conceptual. Coding can capture a range of meaning abstraction, from the semantic or manifest content of the data, to latent or underlying meaning. " (p.52)
• "The coding process involves reading each data item closely, and tagging all segments of the text where you notice any meaning that is potentially relevant to your research question with an appropriate code label. This means some segments of data will not be tagged with any codes, because there isn’t anything of relevance to the research question" (p.53)
• " some segments might be tagged with many different codes – because a number of different meanings are evident in a particular segment of data" (p.53)
• "Codes and coding labels can shift and change throughout the coding process, to better evoke and differentiate between the range of meanings in the data." (p.55)
• Inductive vs deductive approaches: "An inductive orientation takes the dataset as the starting point for engaging with meaning. At some ‘pure’ level, it would only capture that meaning – it’s evoked by the idea that qualitative research can ‘give voice’ to participants and tell their stories in a straightforward way." (p.56), " a deductive orientation refers to a more researcher- or theory-driven approach, where the dataset provides the foundation for coding and theme development, but the research questions asked – and thus the codes developed – reflect theoretical or conceptual ideas the researcher seeks to understand through the dataset." (p.57)
• Semantic vs latent: "Semantic coding involves exploring meaning at the surface of the data. Semantic codes capture explicitly-expressed meaning; they often stay close to the language of participants or the overt meanings of data. Latent codes focus on a deeper, more implicit (p.57) or conceptual level of meaning, sometimes quite abstracted from the obvious content of the data. " (p.58)
• 
• "The process of coding involves systematically working through each data item and your entire dataset. So where do you start? Take your first data item. Start reading, and stop when you think you have spotted something relevant to addressing your research question, even if (p.60) it’s only potentially relevant. Each time you spot something interesting or potentially relevant, tag it with a code label. Each time you encounter some text you want to code, consider whether an existing code applies, or you need to develop a new code." (p.61)
• 
• Possible methods for the actual coding process itself: "Handwriting code labels on the printed data – it’s helpful to print with wide margins to facilitate this. You need to indicate what bit of data the code relates to. You can do that with circles, underlining, highlighting, etc. – whatever works for you. • Writing code labels on sticky notes and attaching those to printed data. Again, you need a way to clarify which bit of the data the code relates to. • Writing each new code label on a hard-copy file card and clearly noting where to find each associated extract of data (and where each extract starts/ends). • Typing the code label beside the data in an electronic version of the dataset formatted into a two-column table – as in Table 3.3. • Using the comment box in Microsoft Word to select a section of text and tag it with a code label (Box 3.4 contains a handy hack, if coding in this way). • Attaching electronic sticky notes to a PDF version of the dataset." (p.65)
• "Because of the organic nature of coding in reflexive TA, your codes will likely evolve as your analytic insight develops. You may decide your first code was a bit too precise or narrow, and want to make it a bit broader, to capture more related data extracts. If you’re finding each code is unique, and there’s little repetition or patterning starting to happen as you work your way through your dataset, your developing coding is likely too fine-grained, particular, and ultimately fragmented" (p.69)
• "We recommend that with each different coding run, you go through the dataset in a different order." (p.70)
• "So when do you know your codes and code labels have done a good enough job of capturing and differentiating diverse meaning? Once you’ve gone through the dataset thoroughly a couple of times, and refined and finalised your code labels and checked coding for consistency and thoroughness, you’re probably in a good position to stop – especially as you know you can come back to coding, if you need to." (71)
• Good test of if your coding is good enough - "Imagine you had compiled all your code labels, but lost your dataset (Meth, 2017) – gaahh! Look at your list of code labels and ask whether they provide you with a summary of the diversity of meanings contained in the dataset? Do they also provide some indication of your analytic take on things?" (p.71)
• "Phase 3: Generating initial themes. Here, you aim to start identifying shared patterned meaning across the dataset. You compile clusters of codes that seem to share a core idea or concept, and which might provide a meaningful ‘answer’ to your research question. [...] Where codes typically capture a specific or a particular meaning, themes describe broader, shared meanings. Once you’ve identified potential or candidate themes that you feel capture the data and address your research question, you collate all coded data relevant to each candidate theme" (p.35)
• "Phase 4: Developing and reviewing themes. Here, your task is to assess the initial fit of your provisional candidate themes to the data, and the viability of your overall analysis, by going back to the full dataset. Development and review involves checking that themes make sense in relation to both the coded extracts, and then the full dataset. Does each theme tell a convincing and compelling story about an important pattern of shared meaning related to the dataset? Collectively, do the themes highlight the most important patterns across the dataset in relation to your research question? Radical revision is possible; indeed, it’s quite common. Certain candidate themes may be collapsed together; one or more may be split into new themes; candidate themes may be retained; some or all may be discarded. You have to be prepared to let things go! " (p.35)
• "Phase 5: Refining, defining and naming themes. Here you fine-tune your analysis – ensuring that each theme is clearly demarcated, and is built around a strong core concept or essence. Ask yourself ‘what story does this theme tell?’ and ‘how does this theme fit into my overall story about the data?’ Key activities in this phase involve writing a brief synopsis of each theme. You also decide on a concise, punchy and informative name for each theme" (p.36)
• "Phase 6: Writing up. Writing is an integral phase of the analytic process for TA, as it is for many qualitative analytic approaches, so you start writing early on. In reflexive TA, formal analytic writing often starts from Phase 3; the more informal (just for you) writing you do from the start of the process – familiarisation notes and reflexive journaling – can feed into the more formal writing. In writing up, you finesse and finish the writing process." (p.36)

This week is also the week I've finally started making a serious effort to get something vaguely resembling an interview plan sorted. I already have a list of potential questions to ask both groups, but I want to work that into something a little bit more structured. Or maybe less structured, who's to say! So. Back to the 2 million books about research methods.

Notes from Your Research Project: Designing and Planning your Work by Nicholas Walliman:

• "The structuring of the interview depends on the type of information you wish to elicit. For very precise answers to very precise questions, used for quantitative and statistical analysis, a tightly structured interview is required with closed questions formulated in a method similar to a questionnaire. At the other extreme, if you need to explore a situation and wish to get information that you cannot predict, a very open and unstructured form of interview is appropriate. A semi-structured interview falls between the two, achieving defined answers to defined questions, while leaving time for further development of those answers, and including more open-ended questions" - so for what I'm doing, an unstructured/semi-structured interview seems the way to go, but like admittedly I did kind of already know that LOL (p.193)
• "You should aim to achieve a balance between open questioning to explore issues, and obtaining responses that can subsequently be easily examined and compared" (p.193)

I can't lie to you I feel like Nicholas is good for the very basics but I have obtained jack shit from him in terms of useful information here. Moving on to Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies by Bonnie S. Brennen:

• "Semi-structured interviews are also usually based on a pre-established set of questions that are asked to all respondents. However, there is much greater flexibility with semi-structured interviews. Interviewers may vary the order of the questions and may also ask follow-up questions" (p.28)
• "Unstructured interviews focus on the complex voices, emotions and feelings of interviewees, as well as the meanings within the words that are spoken. Unstructured interviews are in-depth purposeful conversations that seek complex information about complicated issues, emotions and/or concerns in an attempt to understand the historical, social, economic and cultural experiences of individuals and/or groups [...] Unstructured interviews usually begin with a general list of topic areas, themes and/or open-ended questions that an interviewers draws on" - sounds like it might be a bit TOO broad for me (p.28)
• "Listening is central to qualitative interviewing. Researchers often start each interview with one introductory question and base their follow-up questions on the respondents' answers as well as on their own background research and other interviews they have conducted" (p.28)
• During the interview "it is helpful to jot down key concepts and topic areas to help keep the conversation flowing and to prompt follow-up questions" (p.32)
• "At the beginning of each interview it is important to explain the purpose of your research study, help the respondent to see the relevance of the project and to express your genuine interest in his or her views and experiences" (p.32)
• "Icebreaker questions are used to engage respondents in a conversation about key aspects of their personal lives, and they should begin to establish an environment where questions can be asked and answered in a non-judgmental manner" - could be "creative icebreaker questions based on a person's interests or career" (p.32)
• "Once trust has been established through your icebreaker questions, it is time to focus your questions more directly on the research topic. The questions you ask should be simple, sincere, direct and open-ended, encouraging respondents to explain and elaborate about their experiences. Open-ended questions offer respondents the freedom to respond with little influence from the interviewer" (p.33)
• "Be sure to ask follow-up questions for clarification and to delve deeply into the experiences, emotions and feelings of each respondent" e.g. "Can you tell me more about [...]?" or "Can you give me an example of [...] ?" (p.33)
• VERY RELEVANT 4 ME: "You may need to ask a respondent a difficult question about a sensitive aspect of his or her life. Sensitive questions should be addressed carefully and respectfully, and should only be raised after you have established trust with an interviewee. One strategy is (p.33) to depersonalize difficult questions by putting them in the third person and beginning the line of questioning by addressing the topic indircetly" (p.34)
• "It is helpful to adopt a neutral stance during your interviews and to refrain from influencing a respondent's commentary. Whenever possible, use non-threatening body language and make sure that your non-verbal gestures, looks and body postures reinforce your interest in and support for the interviewee" (p.34)
• Different types of responses: "An understanding response is used to clarify information", "Probing responses take the form of follow-up questions", "Evaluative responses make value judgments about what an interviewee has said [...] should be avoided because they can alienate a respondent and derail the conversation. Interviewers frequently use phatic responses to let respondents know that they understand what has (p.35) been said and want respondents to keep talking. Comments such as 'uh huh,' 'OK' or 'Yes, I understand' are comforting phatic responses that let the interviewee know you are listening, and may also encourage a reticent respondent to speak more freely" (p.36)
• "One final interview strategy: be sure to ask all respondents at the end of their interviews whether they have anything else to add to the conversation" (p.36)
• "Successful focus group facilitators should be personable, persuasive and energetic, have excellent listening skills, be organized and flexible, communicate effectively and have a great short-term memory. It is important for focus group moderators to be skilful enough to draw out shy participants and to handle difficult ones while encouraging discussion among all members of the group" (p.63) - well. I can do like half these things and probably fake it til I make it with the other half so :thumbsup:
• "In order for a focus group to be successful, a moderator must be able to gain all of the participants' attention and quickly create a welcoming environment of openness and trust. The facilitator should also control the group dynamics so that everyone can share their experiences and interact effetively in a non-threatening enviornment. At the outset of each focus group, the moderator takes charge of teh session, setting rules and procedures and explaining to the participants the topic under discussion as well as the research goals. Focus group facilitators should notify participants that the session will be taped [...] It is also important that moderators explain that their role in the focus group is to facilitate discussion among membmers of the group rather than to share their personal opinions with the group members" (p.64)
• Four types of "active listening responses" that can be used by moderators: "Clarifying responses encourage the participant to explain what he or she has said", "Paraphrasing responses restate key aspects of what a participant has said in order to make sure that the moderator fully understands what the person intended to say" (p.64), "Reflecting responses are used to determine the feelings that people have regarding a product, issue or concern", "Summarizing responses reiterate the key statements and/or feelings of a participant in a focus group" (p.65)
• "Experienced facilitators are aware that their tone of voice and the way they word their questions can significantly impact the way participants will respond" e.g. phrasing as a statement vs as a question (p.66)
• "Focus group moderators do their best to remain neutral and are careful about their own body language so that it does not influence the conversation. If they remain interested and engaged in the discussion, chances are the participants will too" (p.66)
• "A facilitator might take a break, walk around the room or even tell a joke to get all members refocused on the topic at hand" if people seem to be losing interest (p.66)
• Strategies for dealing with "a dominant focus group member" i.e. someone who is monopolising the conversation: "Non-verbal cues such as looking directly at the person but not calling on him or her to speak, or holding up a hand to indicate that someone else is speaking", "If none of the previous strategies works, a moderator should directly address the dominant group member by saying something such as 'Bob, I can tell that you are very passionate about this issue, but we really need to hear how the others feel about it'" (p.70)
• "Sometimes a focus group member may feel intimidated or become uninterested in the conversation and stop participating in the discussion. If this happens, the facilitator should remind the group that it is her or his job to make sure that everyone participates. If the focus group member still does not talk, the moderator should direct a question to the individual to help him or her become engaged in the discussion" (p.70)

I think I got a bit more guidance from Brennen's book on guidelines for interview questions, as well as how to manage moderating the focus group! Finally I looked at Doing Focus Groups by Rosaline Barbour:

• "It is worth considering providing refreshments, as a way of showing gratitude to participants and encouraging a relaxed atmosphere" - I wonder if I can get the uni to pay for that LOL (p.75)
• "The focus group literature advises over-recruiting due to the likelihood of 'no shows' on the day" - WELL I'VE SUCCEEDED AT STEP ONE THEN (p.75)
• A note on recording setup: "The less complicated the equipment, the less there is to go wrong" (p.76)
• "As with all qualitative research encounters, it is advisable to record your immediate observations about the focus group discussion, noting any salient features of group dynamics, and your own impressions of the topics that most engaged participants" (p.77)
• "It is helpful to consider aspects of the moderator's presentation and to ensure that anything likely to emphasize differences in status is minimized" (p.80)
• If participants disagree: "Rather than viewing disagreement as a problem, the trick is to turn this to advantage and use it as a resource in the analysis. Rather than seeking to move the discussion along, my advice would be to probe and invite participants to theorize as to why they hold such different views. This will often occur naturally, as focus group participants generally do not want the session to degenerate into a 'slanging match' and are likely themselves to attempt some resolution of conflicting perspectives" (p.81)
• "It is likely that the persons who have been silent so far is acutely [SIC?] aware of their failure to engage. The longer they don't say anything, the more they are likely to feel that their first utterance is required to be especially pertinent and insightful. An invitation from the facilitator - even if this merely provides an opportunity to echo comments already made - can be a source of relief for the uncomfortable quiet group member" (p.82)
• "The use of unthreatening general questions is recommended in order to ease one's way into the topic of choice" (p.83)
• "Advice such as that of starting with non-threatening questions and progressing to the more sensitive ones is helpful, but groups vary in the speed with which they are comfortable to progress and some participants may be less inhibited than others" (p.83)
• Also mentions having a "topic guide" - "A set of broad questions or headings that anticipates the areas to be covered in a focus group discussion" (p.157)

TV of the Week

Continuing my jaunt down the rabbit hole of really obscure shit, I started watching the Netflix dark comedy (?) superhero show The Imperfects, about a group of people who were secretly experimented on as teenagers and are now developing superpowers as a result, except all their superpowers are a bit crap. One of the three is Abbi, who is experiencing the awkward combination of being asexual and having the powers of a succubus - everyone who is around her for too long starts becoming obsessed with her. It's a fun character concept, even if I must admit I've mostly found the show quite boring so far. Though maybe that's just my own personal superhero fatigue setting in, who's to say. I will say, I do think the show is noteworthy for being the first show I've seen so far that brings up asexuality without feeling the need to explain/define it. Instead, there's just a scene where Abbi essentially tells the others "This power is really inconvenient for me because I'm ace" and then the show doesn't elaborate on that. Which I think is pretty interesting - basically all the other shows I've watched seem to be working from the assumption that the audience won't know what asexuality is, while The Imperfects assumes that they will. Oh wait I forgot about Hazbin I guess that also did that just. worse.

Anyway that's all the thoughts I've developed on The Imperfects so far, because then halfway through the week the second season of Heartbreak High dropped and I got distracted by watching all of that instead. SORRY IT'S A MORE FUN SHOW. SUE ME.

I believe I mentioned in my entry about the first season that I was interested where the second season would go - and in particular whether they would explicitly describe Ca$h as asexual - it turns out that they did briefly, but there was less about him discovering his actual identity than I expected. Instead, Ca$h's story was more about how his (possible) asexuality affects his relationship with Darren - and also about him struggling to leave a gang. Again, I love that the same character gets these two stories I quite genuinely think it's wonderful.

I'll admit I wasn't overly impressed by the asexuality stuff in this season - mostly just because I thought it felt like a rehash of the same problems we'd gone through in the first season, with Ca$h and Darren trying to make their relationship work when one of them's ace and the other isn't. It didn't really feel like anything had developed on that front between the end of season one and end of season two. That said, there were some good scenes - I like that they've actually brought up asexuality even if Ca$h is still clearly on the fence about if this is actually how he wants to identify, thseason ere was a great scene with Ca$h getting support from his Grandma, I actually liked the conversation between Ca$h and Dusty where Dusty clearly doesn't get what he's going through and is being kind of judgy about it and Ca$h has no time for him - I thought it was a fun bit of conflict.

Also, unsure how to say this, but I do think this season (and really I'd say the show as a whole) is also notable for being the most... explicit, I guess, depiction of asexuality out of the shows I've seen. Explicit is like. Definitely the wrong word but I can't think of a better way to phrase it so let's go for it for now. What I'm trying to get at is that most of the depictions of ace characters I've seen tend not to really depict sex or show ace characters having a clear relationship to sex. Whereas Heartbreak High in its first season did show Ca$h almost having sex and being uncomfortable with it, and this season shows that there are some things that might be considered sexual that he is comfortable with. I don't know, I think it's interesting that asexuality is a spectrum, and ace people in real life often have very different boundaries around sex and relationships with sex, whereas a lot of shows seem to just say that a character is asexual and leave it at that. So I guess I like that Heartbreak High seems to have thought in a bit more detail about that? I think BoJack Horseman is probably the only other show that's come close imo. Anyway at the end of the day I don't necessarily believe any of this I'm just saying words recreationally.

Transcripts for The Imperfects here and for Heartbreak High here

Other Events of the Week

• Got work done on my participant information sheet and wrote up my consent forms - now just waiting for feedback on those and I'll be able to send them off!
• Attended the AUB Human talk by Timo Peach on Tuesday. He seems like a cool guy with a great performance style - talked about all sorts of topics from Marshall McLewan to Solarpunk to Shakespearean tragedies to how he doesn't get poetry (same king). His main point was about the importance of stories - quoted Neil Gaiman: "Fiction is the lie that tells the truth". It's a relevant statement to me, I suppose, since I'm writing about stories reflecting societal attitudes and whether they can help promote tolerance and such. It got me thinking about it - I feel like as time has gone on I've grown more cycnical abou this, or at least more conflicted. I used to be so convinced that art had an important role to play in social change, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know if any of it means anything. Sure, there are more queer characters in TV now, but that hasn't stopped governments around the world targeting trans people (and other queer people, for that matter). I want to have Timo's faith in the power of art, but I don't know if I can. I don't think art is meaningless - I do think it provides a great mirror to our society, but can it really change things? Or am I just wasting my life here at art school? I just don't know. But then I think about teaching art and running art workshops and what I get out of it and what my students get out of it and surely that has to mean something? I don't know.
• ANYWAY. Judith Noble lecture about art and magic. I found her work really interesting - how she worked with archaeologists and made experimental films. The thing that really captured me was her talking about making saltwater prints by printing out pictures on an InkJet printer, soaking them in salt water, and pressing them onto watercolour paper to print the image - I recently got a job running art and design workshops for the AUB All Access summer course, so I've been on the lookout for things that could make good workshops - maybe something like this? I definitely want to do a printmaking thing! If nothing else, it's for sure something I want to try myself.
• Actually went to one of our weekly peer review sessions with the MADFI students - discussed the issue of whether I wanted to go through with what Daniel Fountain suggested back at the presentations - they thought it might be a good idea to use things drawn by focus group participants during the meeting as part of my results. I was conflicted on that because it would require rewriting the information sheet and consent form to reflect that. Miles and the other students seemed to agree - advised me to keep things simple, which I'm certainly not gonna complain about.

Previous week

Next week

Back to weekly journal

Back to home