Watching queer online
Exploring the experience of LGBTQ+ emerging adults of their portrayal on streaming platforms
Myrthe Vermeulen 11888598 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Program Communication Science: Entertainment Communication Supervisor: Dr. R. van Bronswijk
Abstract
This research is an explorative study with the goal to explore the experience of LGBTQ+ emerging adults of their own portrayal on streaming platforms. Previous studies on LGBTQ+ portrayal were largely carried out before the rise of streaming platforms which has drastically changed the media landscape. In addition, this older literature rarely took the LGBTQ+ experience as its focal point. To this researcher’s knowledge, this current study is the first to explore this specific topic which gives new scientific insights on LGBTQ+ portrayal in streaming platforms. A qualitative study was conducted that included 6 focus groups with a sample of international LGBTQ+ emerging adults (N=19). Findings of this study showed that participants mainly experienced their portrayal on streaming platforms in a positive way, especially on Netflix. They appreciated portrayal when there was a representation of round characters and when their portrayal was normalised. Furthermore, participants mentioned a change of experience comparing the content they saw when they were teenagers and the content that is accessible today. Participants linked this change of experience to a positive evolution in the portrayal of LGBTQ+. Despite of the overall positive experience, participants also negatively experienced some forms of portrayal like the representation of stereotypical token characters and tragic depiction.
Keywords: qualitative focus groups, streaming platforms, LGBTQ+, experience, portrayal, inclusivity
Introduction
The initialism LGBTQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexuality, transgender and queer or questioning. This acronym is more and more trending in our society today but wasn’t born
yesterday. In the 1960s, both men and women were included under the definition of gay. Ten years later, women preferred to be called by the word lesbians. In the 1990s, bisexuality achieved recognition. Finally, at his turn, the word transgender achieved recognition. Then, the letter Q was added meaning queer which defines a sexual orientation that does not conform to the heteronormative society or questioning which means exploring your sexual identity. There has been a lot of debate on who to include in this community. Besides gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people and queers, there are other sexual orientations that can be added like for example pansexual, asexual, intersex and gender-fluid. A pansexual is attracted towards more than one gender identity and an asexual is someone who has little or no sexual attraction to anyone else. An intersex does not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies, a gender-fluid is aware of the changeability of their gender and thus could change their gender throughout their life. Another debate that takes place is how to call this community, there are several
possibilities and a few examples are LGBT, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA or LGBTTQQIAAP.
LGBTQIA adds intersex and asexual and LGBTQQIAAP adds intersex, asexual, pansexual and ally which is a straight person who supports equal civil rights. But who is part of this
community? McGillivray and Jennings (2008) point out that the letters in LGBTQ+ refer to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation being physical, emotional, and spiritual attraction. In this study, LGBTQ+ will be applied in the broadest sense, including everyone who identifies as LGBTQ+. Anyhow, these acronyms are more and more trending in our society which is why it is socially relevant to explore this topic.
This trend can be found on television. This is at least what the annual report GLAAD (2017-2018) "Where We Are on TV" claims. The results of this report showed that there has been an increase in the number of LGBTQ characters on broadcast scripted primetime. In the
period 2017-2018, 6.4% were identified as LGBTQ whereas in the period 2015-2016 only 4,8% were identified as LGBTQ. But as GLAAD has been blamed in the past for using media releases to frame its message into public discourse (Cabosky, 2014), this information need to be
considered carefully. Furthermore, this non-governmental media monitoring organization only tracks LGBTQ on American television. To the best of this researcher’s knowledge, no similar report has been done focusing on other geographical areas. Furthermore, in recent years, only few studies have been done on the portrayal of LGBTQ+ on television or movies. This can be explained by the fact that social media has become more and more prevalent in our lives and thus in our studies. The focus on social media led to a literature gap concerning studies on traditional media. The research on LGBTQ+ in social media has mainly positive outcomes: LGBTQ+ individuals mainly have a positive experience. For example, a study by Fox and Ralston (2016) explored how social media serves as an informal learning environment for LGBTQ. A study by Craig and McInroy (2014) found that new media allows LGBTQ to access resources, explore identity, find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out. Internet-based new media are
increasingly used by LGBTQ+ individuals and experienced in a positive way. It is questionable to think of streaming platforms as part of this new media as they also fall under the category of lean-back media contrary to social media which falls under the category of interactive media. However, social media and streaming service share something: they both are accessible for everyone and produce a space for individuals where they can find themselves. In addition, streaming platforms are also increasingly used among LGBTQ+ individuals which asks for attention on how they experience this. Therefore, with the rise of international streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, the interest of some researchers shifted again. With the original Netflix series with LGBTQ+ characters like Queer Eye, Sense8, Orange is the New
Black and Elite it seems relevant that these streaming platforms should be explored. A study by Cook (2018) conducted an analysis of nine television shows from the 2016-2017 season of broadcast and streaming platforms concerning the representation of LGBT characters. The results of this study suggest, as the GLAAD report also stated, that the representation of bisexual and transgender characters has increased since 2001 even if they are still less represented than lesbians and gays. Overall, LGBT characters are portrayed through affective demonstration more than before. In general, there is more LGBT portrayal on streaming platforms compared to broadcast television. This confirms that streaming platforms are indeed important to take in account and might even be more interesting for research than broadcast television today. Because of this literature gap and the rise of streaming platforms and the numerous LGBTQ+ characters, it seems relevant on an academic level to explore the portrayal of LGBTQ+ on streaming platforms.
To this researcher’s knowledge, little research has been done on the way viewers experience portrayal of LGBTQ+ individuals in entertainment media. Two outdated studies (Ellis & Riggle, 1996) and (Herek & Capitanio, 1996) found positive effects on the attitude of heterosexuals towards LGBTQ+. But given the date of publication, these findings are doubtable today. A more recent study by Bond and Compton (2015) focuses on the effects that portrayal of gay characters has on non-LGBTQ+. Results showed that "there is a positive relationship
between exposure to on-screen gay characters and heterosexuals’ endorsement of gay equality". Another more recent study by Gillig and Murphy (2016) compared how LGBTQ individuals experience the portrayal compared to non-LGBTQ individuals. The study explored the influence of gender identity and sexual orientation on viewers’ reactions towards media portrayal of two gay 13-year-old characters. Results showed that for LGBTQ youth the story fostered positive
attitudes contrary to heterosexuals for who the story fostered negative attitudes. But most of the studies tend to forget to lay most focus on the main persons involved: the LGBTQ+ individuals themselves. Researchers need to start acknowledging that the research on LGBTQ+ is not focused on LGBTQ+ enough. Research should focus more on how they experience their own portrayal in entertainment media. Furthermore, as LGBTQ+ do not have many role models in their environment, they are probably easily impacted by media role models which makes this exploration even more pertinent. The findings of a study by Gomillion and Giuliano (2011) showed that the media influence the self-realization of LGBTQ+ by providing role models and inspiration. In this way, LGBTQ+ role models in the media may positively influence LGBTQ+ identity. For all these reasons, it is relevant to conduct research on how LGBTQ+ experience their portrayal on streaming platforms. This leads to the following research question:
How do LGBTQ+ emerging adults experience their portrayal on streaming platforms?
Theoretical framework Streaming platforms
Streaming platforms have become more and more popular (Juluri, Tamarapalli & Medhi, 2016). According to the online statistics website statista (2019), there were 137.1 million Netflix streaming subscribers worldwide in the third quarter of 2018. In this research, there is no
distinction between legal and illegal streaming platforms even if the interviewer focuses on legal and paid streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus and HBO. Illegal streaming platforms are not excluded of the study because their mentioning by participants is inevitable as TV was the most regularly consumed pirated content in 2017 with 106.9 billion visits worldwide
according to the online statistics website statista (2019). Platforms like YouTube and
Dailymotion are also included as they offer similar services and are heavily used. A recent study by Sajib, Malik, Islam and Halder (2018) stated that "thousands of users watch and upload millions of videos daily" on YouTube. Streaming platforms add some new dimensions to entertainment. First, users have a wide range of choices and can sharpen their research by picking categories (films, series, drama, romance, international…). Second, users can binge watch as much as they want. Binge watching is "viewing multiple episodes of the same
television show in the same sitting" (Walton-Pattison, Dombrowski & Presseau, 2018). Finally, concerning services that streaming platforms can offer, it is important to note that Netflix has a recommendation system that suggest items of interest to users based on their preferences. This can have an impact on their experience of the portrayal as there is a bigger chance that the viewer will enjoy what he is watching. A research by Jenner (2016) which explores the relationship between television and streaming platforms, focused specifically on Netflix and found that its success lays in its potential to appeal to smaller niche audiences. It was expected that these dimensions would be mentioned during the focus groups.
Portrayal
Portrayal can be understood in terms of the amount of depiction and the way LGBTQ+ individuals are represented. Concerning the way LGBTQ+ portrayal, a study by Bond (2014) showed that when there is LGB sexual talk, it is often talk about stereotypes or are jokes and insults related to sexuality. Portrayal is seldom about sex and relationships of LGB individuals. Concerning sexual behaviour, these are almost non-existent. This study looked at mainstream media entertainment, it is expected that these themes will also be addressed in relation to the
portrayal in streaming platforms. A few years later, a study by Seif (2017) showed that there is a positive progress in the way lesbian and gay characters are represented in US television but that there are still gendered stereotypes. A study by Avila-Saavedra (2009) notes that in the past, gay men were mainly portrayed in an effeminate way while in today’s mass media, gay man are more masculine. In fact, media’s gay characters are predominantly "young, white, Caucasian, preferably with a well-muscled, smooth body, handsome face, good education, professional job, and a high income" (Avila-Saavedra, 2009). There is a high possibility that this representation will also occur in the portrayal of streaming platforms even if it is not by definition a mass media. To analyse the representation of gay teenagers in TV-series Glee, Dhaenens (2013) conducted a qualitative textual analysis. Results show gay teens as happy and self-confident as well as victims suffering from their sexual orientation. These are different options of portrayals possible of LGBTQ+. The research field on LGBTQ+ portrayal seem to have found more negative portrayal than positive portrayal. Therefore, negative portrayal was expected to be mentioned during the focus groups in the current study.
Experience and effects
This study aims at knowing how LGBTQ+ individuals experience their portrayal on streaming platforms. If this portrayal is negative, participants will certainly experience it in a negative way. On the other hand, if this portrayal is positive, participants will certainly
experience it in a positive way. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) states that people can learn from others through observation, imitation and modelling. Considering this theory, it is a possibility that LGBTQ+ portrayal inspires LGBTQ+ individuals; LGBTQ+ individuals may imitate and behave in the same way as the portrayed LGBTQ+ characters. LGBTQ+ portrayal could provide experiences on which to create beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour because their
real-life experiences are limited. Effects are linked to experience. Depending on how viewers experienced the portrayal, it will have a certain effect on their behaviour and attitude. An experiment (Levina, Waldo & Fitzgerald, 2000) was conducted to examine the effects of visual media on heterosexual individuals’ attitudes towards gays and lesbians. The results showed that the participants attitudes were significantly different after being exposed to the videos. More precisely, participants who saw a pro-gay video were more positive towards gays and lesbians whereas participants who saw an anti-gay video were more negative towards gays and lesbians. A study by Gillig, Rosenthal, Murphy and Folb (2018) found that portraying transgender individuals was significantly associated with more supportive attitudes toward transgender people and policies. These studies focus on the potential that entertainment narratives must influence the attitudes of viewers toward marginalized groups. But as stated before, these studies are focused on heterosexuals’ attitudes towards LGBTQ+ and are not focused on the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals or the effects it has on their attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, the current study explored the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals and the influence it can have on their attitudes and behaviour.
Emerging adults
Emerging adulthood can be defined as a transitional period between adolescence and adulthood, and ranges approximately from the age of 18 to 25 (Arnett, 2004). It can be described as a period of profound change. More precisely, it is a period for distinct possibilities in love, work and perspectives when emerging adults search to be independent from social roles and normative expectations (Arnett, 2004). This is a general definition of emerging adults, but it is important to note that the emerging adults of today which will be considered in the current study are different than the emerging adults in the past. The results of a study by Coyne,
Padilla-Walker and Howard (2013), who looks at emerging adults who emerge in a digital world, are considered as characteristics of the participants of this study. Concerning their media use, the results showed that emerging adults spend more time using the media than spending time with another activity. They spent most time on Internet. Exposure can influence both positive and negative outcomes like aggressive or prosocial behaviour, influence on body image or sexual behaviour. Furthermore, their media use gratifies certain of their important needs like autonomy, identity and intimacy. These characteristics were kept in mind by the researcher during the study.
Method
Qualitative research is used when researchers opt for an open-ended research strategy (Bryman, 2016). This is in fact the case for this study, the study aims to find out more about how LGBTQ+ experience LGBTQ+ portrayal but there are no strong expectations regarding the way they will experience it because not enough research has been done before. Qualitative research can deeply analyse viewers’ experience and truly understand their feelings. Furthermore, it permits some flexibility and concepts and theory are outcomes (Bryman, 2016). For several reasons, focus groups were found to be most suited as the research method. First, this method is convenient for research about people’s experiences and is used to examine how people think and why they think that way (Kitzinger, 1995). Second, focus groups are the perfect-fit for open ended questions which encourages participants to talk about issues of importance "in their own vocabulary, generating their own questions and pursuing their own priorities" and "can
encourage contributions from people who feel they have nothing to say" (Kitzinger, 1995). Third, group interaction helps participants to explore and analyse their opinion in a way that is not possible through one interview.
Sample
Participants were international emerging adults (18-19) that identify as LGBTQ+. A recent report by Pew Research Center (2017) found through surveys that 61% of young adults (aged 18-29) in the U.S. primarily use online streaming to watch TV. Even if this information is for U.S. young adults, this will be used as reference for the sample choice of this research. Furthermore, people aged between 18-29 years old are likely to have experienced the shift from television to streaming platforms. The sample consisted of 19 participants and was international to gain a broad perspective on the topic. Participants had a similar social background to ensure access to internet in their daily life. The sample was a purposive sample, a non-probability sample based on characteristics of a population and the objective of the study (see Table 1).
Concerning recruitment, participants were recruited through several ways to find as many participants as possible. First, participants were recruited through word of mouth. Second, flyers were left at strategic locations like LGBTQ+ bars and highly attended places, with the main message that focus groups will be held to give LGBTQ+ individual the opportunity to give their opinion with a telephone number and e-mail address to contact. Third, the same message was conveyed through posts on Facebook in LGBTQ groups (see Appendix 4). Fourth, participants were recruited by contacting LGBTQ+ organizations and associations (see Table 2).
Table 1. Participants
Name (pseudonym) Country of origin Sexual and gender identity
Ella The Netherlands Bisexual
Mark Germany Gay
Dirk The Netherlands Questioning
Hannah The Netherlands Questioning
Pedro Brazil Gay
Olivia Australia Lesbian
Isabella Mexico Lesbian
Sanne The Netherlands Lesbian
Jan The Netherlands Gay
Lieke The Netherlands Bisexual
Robin The Netherlands Transgender bisexual
Daan The Netherlands Questioning
Joris The Netherlands Gay
Joost The Netherlands Gay
Afonso Portugal Gay
Amandine France Lesbian
Clara France Lesbian
Guillaume France Bisexual
Table 2. LGBTQ+ associations, organizations and others
Associations Organizations Others
A.S.V. Gay COC Nederland Iedereenisanders.nl
De Jongeheerenborrel TNN Nederland Homogeschiedenis.nl
Stichting UvA Pride Transvisie IHLIA
Data gathering
A study by Coenen, Stamm, Stucki and Cieza (2012) found that five focus groups were enough to reach saturation which was taken as guidance for his research. Participants were invited to attend the focus group at the researcher’s house but the possibility to do it at another place was suggested to put participants at ease. It is important to meet the participants face-to-face because the researcher can get an idea of what participants are really saying and can focus
on the tone of their voice, their speed and the body language (Braun & Clarke, 2013). A pilot test focus group was held to evaluate the quality of the interview guide. The pilot test was a success thus the interview guide didn’t undergo any correction after this pilot test (see Appendix 2).
Before the focus groups, participants were told that the focus group would be recorded and that their participation is anonymous. Then, they were asked to sign an informed consent letter (see Appendix 3). The focus group started by explaining the goal of the study, then the researcher put participants at ease by saying that it is a safe place and there are no wrong answers. To get the participants to know each other, they were asked to introduce themselves through a color. The first topic was about the LGBTQ+ community, to find out how participants feel about their sexuality. Especially one question was meant to be an ice breaker, so that
participants felt that they could trust each other and as a result would open up : "Do you
sometimes feel misunderstood by others? Or instead, do you feel understood?" The second topic was on streaming platforms and their portrayal of LGBTQ+. The third topic was about the impact that the portrayal of LGBTQ+ has on participants (see Appendix 2).
Besides the pilot focus group, four focus groups were held at the researcher’s house. The participants were offered drinks and snacks. The first focus group was a little bit stiff, two participants already knew each other which created a distance with the other participants and affected the group dynamic. The second focus group had a good group dynamic and two participants were very engaged in the conversation. In the third and fourth focus group, the atmosphere was easy-going and participants appeared comfortable. The last focus group was held via Skype because a meeting in person wasn’t possible. The fact that they didn’t meet in person didn’t affect the conversation flow. At the beginning, one participant appeared to be apprehensive and was rather quiet but this person opened-up throughout the conversation. For all
focus groups, the interviewer adopted a comprehensive attitude so that the participants would easily open-up. The general impression of all focus groups was that participants were honest and were not afraid of giving their opinion. The average time of a focus group was 39 minutes and 20 seconds, ranging from 33 minutes and 44 seconds to 49 minutes and 48 seconds.
In terms of transparency, this researcher used two techniques: memo writing throughout the process and using a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. Peer debriefing throughout the process and prolonged engagement with the sample enhances credibility. Prolonged engagement can be understood by spending sufficient time in the field to learn and understand the sample. This was achieved by reading relevant literature, attending LGBTQ+ events, watching LGBTQ+ entertainment and spending time with LGBTQ+ individuals.
Analysis of the data
Grounded theory was used as guidance for this explorative study. According to Charmaz (2006), "grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analysing qualitative date to construct theories grounded in data themselves". In other words, the researcher starts with analysing individual experiences and develops to more abstract
conceptual categories. These categories are put in a concept indicator model to understand the data and identify relationships. But before the concept indicator model was made, the focus groups were transcribed in Microsoft Word (see Appendix 5) and then data was coded in the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.it. This "well-designed interface" was used because it has "no limits of units of coding" and "assists creative and visualised theoretical thinking" (Barry, 1998).
Every transcript was read three times by the coder. A first time to get a global knowledge of the transcript, a second time to code the transcript in an open way, a third time to see if coding
was clear and if something should be added. After these three steps, there were around 1.000 codes in total. After open coding, the coder looked for structure and variation. This was done through axial coding, i.e. merging codes and creating groups. In total, ten groups were created but through the process of selective coding, only four groups were acknowledged as relevant to explore the experience of LGBTQ+ of their own portrayal and were used as categories in the concept indicator model. The first group "positive experience" focused on all codes that had expressed a positive experience. This group gathers codes like "realistic portrayal" and "coming out naturally portrayed". On the other hand, the second group "negative experience" focused on codes that express a negative experience. This group gathers codes like "lgbtq+ characters die" and "stereotypes". The third group "eudaimonic experience" (this concept will be explained in the result section) focuses on the impact of the experience and gathers codes like "copy lgbtq+ behavior" and "have insight on others of the lgbtq+ community". The fourth category group "change of experience" focuses on the idea that there has been a shift in the way participants experience their portrayal and gathers codes like "bad representation when we were younger" and "representation is changing so much’. Finally, the other groups who are not considered as categories for the concept indicator model were relevant for a better understanding of context and added examples. After creating groups and merging codes, there were 235 codes left (see Appendix 2). The four groups that appeared as most relevant converged into the concept indicator model (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Concept indicator model the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals of their own
portrayal on streaming platforms.
Results Experience of portrayal
The goal of this study was to discover how LGBTQ+ individuals experienced their own portrayal on streaming platforms. Participants expressed different ways of experiencing the portrayal but some common themes were discovered.
Positive experience. Positive experience was associated with series who were "upfront
with queer" and "down to earth" and shows "which don’t have (...) bad stereotypes". Some examples of series and movies that were mentioned as having good portrayal and most
appreciated by the participants were "Love, Simon", "Brooklyn 99", "Please like me", "RuPaul Drag Race", "Queer Eye", "Dear White People", "Scum", "The 100", "DC legends of tomorrow",
"Matrix", "Merlin", "Transparent", "Chilling adventures of Sabrina", "Elite", "Riverdale", "Skins", "Black Sail", and "Sense 8". Furthermore, the participants particularly liked the following LGBTQ+ characters: "Mama Tammy" from Queer Eye, "Rosa" from Brooklyn 99, "Josh" from Please like me, "Rupaul" from RuPaul Drag Race, "Bruno and Pol" from Merlin, "Maxxie" "Noemy and Katy" from Skins. Participants said that they positively experienced the portrayal of these series and the depiction of these characters.
Round characters. Firstly, positive experience was associated with the concept of round
characters which are characters who are complex and undergo development. Participants felt that characters have the possibility to be round characters when their personality does not revolve around the fact that they are LGBTQ+. Participants said that they appreciated characters when "even without them being gay" "they are still interesting". This concept was addressed several times and addressed by Guillaume:
You don’t like the characters for their orientation, it is just a detail. (Focus group 4)
Positive portrayal was thus associated with characters whose storyline didn’t revolve about being LGBTQ+ and were described by participants as "interesting characters". Participants positively experienced the portrayal of these round characters therefore favourite LGBTQ+ characters that were mentioned were mostly round characters. When asked about their favourite LGBTQ+ characters, most of the examples given by participants were based on completeness of the character and not on their sexual orientation. An example of that kind of characters were given by Lieke:
Ok, I wrote down two things: the hundred and DC legends of tomorrow and my favourite characters are both lead roles, both are female and I think that's why I like them, the feminine power yeah something like that. Like females can also be the boss or have a powerful position and be the leader of others! (Focus group 4)
Round characters were also associated with realistic representation. For series to be realistic "there should be one, at least, (...) maybe more (LGBTQ+ characters) " and these characters should be "really realistic". For example, a character is realistic by making "the good kind of gay jokes, the gay jokes gay people make". Participants appreciated LGBTQ+ representation most when it was "a pure representation" and a "nice representation of the actual experience".
Normalised portrayal. Secondly, positive experience was associated with the idea of a
normalised portrayal. In other words, the fact that characters are LGBTQ+ is irrelevant for the viewer and does not shock the other characters. Participants said they appreciated a certain depiction if their sexual orientation was considered as "normal" and characters do not have "a sexual label". Good portrayal occurs when being LGBTQ+ "is normalised" and is far from being taboo. A specific example was given by Clara:
What I really liked in the series Elite is that there a lot of characters with different sexual orientation but that is not at all the subject, if they kiss a guy or a girl, it doesn’t matter. At the end, I didn’t even notice it anymore. (Focus group 5)
Now it is way more open, with young characters. Before, it was taboo. And now, they are represented in a lot of different themes. They are in skins, riverdale, sabrina… (Focus group 6).
Negative experience. Negative experience was associated with concepts like "queer
baiting" and "queer dodging". This is how participants called the process of hinting at, but then not actually depicting, a same-sex romantic relationship. Participants negatively experienced this process. Another point was raised which is the sexualized depiction of LGBTQ+ that Daan clearly expressed:
When there are LGBTQs, then it needs to be sexualized (Focus group 4).
Some examples of characters, series and movies that were mentioned as having negative portrayal and not appreciated by the participants were RuPaul of RuPaul Drag Race who has done "a couple of questionable statements", "Shrek 2 the movie" and "old movies in general". Another example of negative experience is the feeling that there is "still not enough" LGBTQ+ portrayal.
Stereotypical token characters. Firstly, negative experience was most of the time
associated with "stereotypical token characters". Participants mentioned the fact that LGBTQ+ characters are "extremely stereotypical characters" and "usually portrayed (...) as extremely stereotypical characters that have tended to be comical". Participants experienced stereotypical portrayal in a negative way. Isabellaexplained this very well:
I think for me the problem is on representation, like it's not so much of how but what types of personalities or identities we are showing. They're constructing them in a very fixed way. So, if you're gay you're completely gay. And there's specific way for being gay that's acceptable and like recognisable. (Focus group 3)
When asked what they would change if they had the possibility, participants mentioned the research that screen writers should do before creating characters. They felt that straight screen writers don’t do enough research on LGBTQ+ before portraying them and therefore blamed them for the bad portrayal because they "just have this already picture perfect image of what a gay should be". Negative stereotypes were associated with the concept of tokenism. A token minority character is a character who has no true, narrative function in the plot. This issue was very much insisted on by a lot of participants because it was very negatively experienced by them. This issue was addressed by Mark:
You could leave them out on the block, it wouldn't change anything. It's not very truthful. You could leave them out and the plot wouldn’t change. (Focus group 1).
Ella also referred to the concept of tokenism to express a negative experience of LGBTQ+ portrayal:
I feel like what most series tend to do is that they have like a token queer person. (Focus group 1)
Tragic depiction. Secondly, participants also raised the issue of the repeatedly tragic
representation of LGBTQ+ characters. LGBTQ+ characters "very seldomly they end up happy" and their plots revolve around "struggle and homophobia". This is also something that was badly
experienced by participants. Joris raises the issue by saying:
I believe that in these series, if there is a gay man being murdered, it's never a by the way things. (Focus group 5)
Mark also talks about the issue of tragic representation of LGBTQ+ characters:
And if it is a lesbian couple, one of them dies because that always happens. It is burying your gays troll. It is like it involves drama, domestic abuse or one of them died tragically. (Focus group 1)
Eudaimonic experience. Concerning the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals on their
portrayal on streaming platforms, another important theme was raised during the focus groups: the impact of this portrayal. This category is called eudaimonic experience. Eudaimonic happiness is conceptualized in terms of personal expressiveness, self-realization, and personal development (Waterman, 1993). In terms of entertainment, it adds a dimension of
meaningfulness-seeking and truth-seeking (Oliver & Raney, 2011). Eudaimonic well-being consists of seven dimensions: positive relations with others/relatedness, purpose or meaning in life, autonomy, environmental mastery/competence, self-acceptance, personal growth, and living according to central personal values (Wirth, Hofer & Schramm, 2012). Three dimensions stood out in the focus groups: self-acceptance, personal growth and positive relations with
others/relatedness. Self-acceptance and personal growth merged into one category: self-construction. Positive relations with others/relatedness became the category: insight on the community.
Self-construction. Firstly, one kind of impact that was addressed during the focus groups
dimensions: physical appearance and mind-set. When asked if LGBTQ+ portrayal has impact on his physical appearance, Mark said yes and gave the following example:
Their fashion sense, Queer Eye again, Tan talked like about this (fashion) technique. It's called the French tuck, you put it like in the front and I did that for like four months. My mum actually knew about it, it’s a known thing and I was like, oh, I'm doing a French tuck and she was like, yeah, I know I can see that… (Focus group 1)
Most of the participants gave examples of how LGBTQ+ portrayal influenced their physical appearance. An impact "make up wise" was also mentioned as a perceptible impact on their physical appearance. The second dimension, the influence that LGBTQ+ portrayal can have on your mind-set was also addressed during the focus groups. Participants said that portrayal helped them "to form an opinion" and "change (their) perception". Ella mentioned the important
influence that the portrayal of LGBTQ+ had on her mind-set:
I definitely think it’s made me aware of where I stand in the world and how I conduct myself according to that. (Focus group 1)
LGBTQ+ portrayal has influence on the way participants perceive their selves and their self-construction and this was perfectly expressed by Mark:
It's weird, but I started watching it and my life was literally transported, like I'm never going back and that is something that really helped me, to just embrace my own identity just because I could place it on like a broader spectrum and it wasn't as confined as it was before. It's the same thing with queer eye because they are just authentically like being themselves in clothing, behaviour and in the methods, they spread to the
people on the show. Be authentically you and don't be ashamed even if it's not like traditional gender conforming. (Focus group 1)
Jan also mentioned the influence that portrayal has on his way of thinking:
Sometimes in the way of thinking, sometimes you get like a message of the movie and you're like, oh yes that’s true I didn’t think of that. Okay. And then later, it has an impact on your life in general, after. (Focus group 4)
Insight on the community. Secondly, another category of eudaimonic experience was
mentioned in the focus groups: the insight on the community. This category is also divided into two dimensions: the insight that a member of LGBTQ+ has on other members of the LGBTQ+ community and the insight a non-LGBTQ+ has on the LGBTQ+ community according to the participants. Like several participants, Joris talked about how the portrayal positively influenced his way of considering other LGBTQ+ members:
But I think a child who is growing up seeing gays who were not that, that really helps. And another example is transparent. Like I'm not transgender myself. So seeing that that really gave me insight in how the community is and what are the difficulties. (Focus group 5)
Portrayal also influences the insight that a non-LGBTQ+ has on the community of the LBTQ+ community. Participants said that thanks to good LGBTQ+ portrayal "people become more accepting" and it "makes people more open". Concerning this theme, Alfonso stated:
When I was younger, I thought, I know that I'm gay, but I'm not going to let this (being gay) happen to me, because I thought I was in control. And it was because of these opinions that people had because of the
portrayal but now that the portrayal is different, yeah, I think it changed not only me but the people who are around me. (Focus group 5)
Olivia expressed the same feeling by saying:
You see the impact on the greater community and how they accept you. (Focus group 3)
Change of experience. Concerning the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals on their
portrayal on streaming platforms, another topic was recurrent during the focus groups. This topic was the change of experience that participants underwent regarding LGBTQ+ portrayal.
Evolution of portrayal. Firstly, a comparison was made between what type of portrayal
the participants had when they were teenagers and what type of portrayal teenagers have today. First, participants mentioned the fact that they didn’t have enough characters to identify with when they were younger. This was clearly addressed by Sanne:
Our generation didn't have much shows to watch growing up you know, so you couldn't identify… (Focus group 4)
Participants felt that this is different for teenagers today who have more characters to identify with. In general, participants experienced the portrayal of today better than before. They "only watch new stuff" and want to "avoid old series and movies". They "can’t watch it" because it "has a lot of nasty" portrayals. Alfonso talked about this change of experience generated by the evolution of portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters:
It's just that now we have different ways. For a long time, we only had one representation of gay characters in entertainment. And now we have more that we can show our parents. I don't identify with the characters that I grew up with. It's not that they're only gay characters now, it's just the way that it's that it's done now. (Focus group 5)
Technological development. Secondly, participants also expressed a strong preference
for streaming platforms rather than TV. They said this preference is based on the new
dimensions that streaming platforms add. They prefer streaming platforms because "you can pick the genres" and "there’s more space" for LGBTQ+ portrayal. Participants particularly liked Netflix because it is "a great tool" and thanks to the "fixed algorithm" their "feed is super gay". Guillaume mentioned the benefits of Netflix:
What is really good also about this evolution in portrayal is that most of the open series like that are Netflix. This means that Netflix has cool values. I think that in the future, all other productions will always follow this direction, maybe even better. (Focus group 6)
Isabella mentioned the fact that the way we consume entertainment changed thanks to streaming platforms:
I think that it has changed in the way that we consume things, because it's a bit less monopolistic or now it's maybe another monopoly but like, you know, it's decentralized. (Focus group 3)
Finally, participants mentioned the fact that Netflix permits a certain accessibility to LGBTQ+ portrayal that did not exist before.
Conclusion & Discussion
The goal of this research was to explore the experience of LGBTQ+ individuals of their own portrayal on streaming platforms. The research question, how do LGBTQ+ individuals experience their portrayal on streaming platforms, was amply explored. LGBTQ+ individuals mentioned several ways of experiencing their portrayal: positive experience, negative
experience, eudaimonic experience and change of experience. This study adds to the research on LGBTQ+ portrayal in the media and to this researcher’s knowledge, it is the first study to
explore the experience of LGBTQ+ themselves of their portrayal on streaming platforms. Based on previous literature about LGBTQ+ portrayal, it was likely that participants would mention a negative experience more than positive. But this was not the case: for the most part, participants were positive about their portrayal on LGBTQ+ portrayal.
Diving into the concept indicator model, first, participants indeed showed a more positive attitude than negative towards their portrayal on streaming platforms. Participants felt that streaming platforms allowed the depiction of round LGBTQ+ characters and this was very much appreciated by them. Furthermore, participants experienced their portrayal on streaming
platforms positively because their portrayal is normalised, their sexual orientation is background information. Even if participants were mainly positive about their portrayal, there were still some factors that they felt negative about. Participants negatively experienced their portrayal when the characters were stereotypical token characters and when they were tragically depicted. This negative portrayal was most of the time associated with the past. In other words, participants referred to negative experiences they had when they were younger while positive experiences were linked to portrayal nowadays. This can be linked to the change of experience that participants addressed. They pointed out that there is a positive evolution in the portrayal of
LGBTQ+ when they compared the content thath they watched when they were teenagers and the content that is on streaming platforms now. First, it is important to note that when they grew up, legal streaming platforms like Netflix weren’t popular and widely used as it is today. Therefore, when they talked about content they watched when they were teenagers, they refer mostly to television content and movies. Participants expressed the regret they have that they didn’t have the same access to good portrayal as teenagers today thanks to streaming platforms, especially Netflix. Netflix was the streaming platform that was the most mentioned by the participants.
Findings of this research confirmed the findings of a study by Jenner (2016) who explores the relationship between television and streaming platforms, focusing specifically on Netflix: "Netflix builds its own brand, a premium online channel independent from more
‘traditional’ forms of channel branding in network and cable television with even smaller ‘niche’ audiences with the autonomy to build their own schedule". Netflix seems to be between the long tail marketing which refers to the strategy of targeting many niche markets with a product or service (Anderson, 2006) and traditional mass media. Because of this, it enables LGBTQ+ portrayal in both niche and mainstream series, and may even facilitate the transition from the one to the other. Indeed, according to the online statistics website statista (2019), the series Orange Is the New Black, mentioned by participants as favourite LGBTQ+ portrayal, is one the most viewed Netflix series in the United States in 2018. In this research, the participants were indeed very positive about Netflix as a tool, as it offers a possibility to easily have access to LGBTQ+ content. They also felt very positive about the LGBTQ+ portrayal in Netflix series because they could easily identify with at least some characters. It was expected that participants would mention that in the past, gay men were mainly portrayed in an effeminate way while in today’s mass media, gay man are more masculine (Avila-Saavedra, 2009). But this was only rapidly
mentioned in one focus group. Therefore, it appears that participants did not felt that this
phenomenon was present in streaming platforms or at least, they did not feel the need to mention it.
Participants also mentioned that the portrayal of LGBTQ+ influenced their self-construction and their way of thinking. This finding confirms the social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 2001). Participants mentioned that they had the impression that they could learn from LGBTQ+ portrayal on streaming platforms through observation, imitation and modelling. In this way, Netflix can be perceived as an informal environment for LGBTQ+ (Fox & Ralston, 2016). Finally, the findings of the current study partially supported the findings of a study by Craig and McInroy (2014) which found out that new media, internet-based media, allows LGBTQ+ to access resources and explore their identity. But it stays questionable if streaming platforms can be considered as new internet-based media as they also fall under the category of lean-back media contrary to social media which falls under the category of interactive media. However, participants felt that streaming platforms, like social media, allowed them to access resources and explore their identity due to the LGBTQ+ portrayal.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Keeping the interpretations and contributions in mind, it is also important to recognize the limitations of the current study. The first limitation of the current study is the sample size, considering it in relation to the population of the study. Results might have been richer if more participants took part in the study. But it was very difficult to find participants because the population is a minority and because of the limit of time.
The second limitation is the data collection process for the last focus group. This focus group was held via Skype, contrary to the other focus groups who were all held face-to-face. Even if the fact that they didn’t meet in person didn’t affect the conversation flow, it is still important to meet the participants face-to-face in qualitative research because the researcher can focus on the tone of their voice, their speed and the body language. The findings of the last focus group should be interpreted with caution.
Limitations should also be mentioned regarding the transferability of the results of this research, to which extent the results can be transferred to other populations (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The research study's findings might not be applicable to other populations. For example, findings for a population who do not have the same social background and accessibility to internet will certainly be different. Furthermore, a sample consisting of adolescents will also certainly provide different findings as they didn’t consciously experience the shift from
television to streaming platforms in the way emerging adults did. Further research should focus on LGBTQ+ adolescents and their experience of their own portrayal on streaming platforms to get an opinion of a community that takes streaming platforms for granted. In general, further research should look at other age groups to get a broader perspective.
Another limitation that needs to be considered is that the current study approached LGBTQ+ as one group, out of convenience, because it is a well-known compound concept. However, each of the subgroups would obviously merit their own research. In addition, homosexuality was more approached than the other minorities in this study and this reflects a common phenomenon in the field of study. Other minorities should be focused on in further research.
A final suggestion is to use the findings of the current study as starting point for
quantitative research on this research topic. As an illustration, a longitudinal study conducting a content analysis on LGBTQ+ portrayal in streaming platforms can give insight on the evolution of portrayal that participants mentioned. Another illustration is a study conducting a survey with questions based on the findings of this qualitative study. This would allow a broader perspective.
References
Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New- York: Hyperion.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: the winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Avila-Saavedra, G. (2009). Nothing queer about queer television: Televized construction of gay masculinities. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 5-21.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nudist compared. Sociological research online, 3(3), 1-13.
Bond, B. J. (2014). Sex and sexuality in entertainment media popular with lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. Mass Communication and Society, 17(1), 98-120.
Bond, B. J., & Compton, B. L. (2015). Gay on-screen: The relationship between exposure to gay characters on television and heterosexual audiences' endorsement of gay equality. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 717-732.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Cabosky, J. M. (2014). Framing an LGBT organization and a movement: A critical qualitative
analysis of GLAAD’S media releases. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 69-89.
Charmaz, K (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
Coenen, M., Stamm, T. A., Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2012). Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative
methods. Quality of life research, 21(2), 359-370.
Cook, C. (2018). A content analysis of LGBT representation on broadcast and streaming television. (Honors thesis). The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Tennessee. Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A
decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125-137.
Craig, S. L., & McInroy, L. (2014). You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of new media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 18(1), 95-109.
Dhaenens, F. (2013). Teenage queerness: Negotiating heteronormativity in the representation of gay teenagers in Glee. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(3), 304-317.
Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. (1996). The Relation of Job Satisfaction and Degree of Openness About One’s Sexual Orientation for Lesbians and Gay Men. Journal of
homosexuality, 30(2), 75-85.
of LGBTQ individuals on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 635-642. Gillig, T. K., Rosenthal, E. L., Murphy, S. T., & Folb, K. L. (2018). More than a media moment:
The influence of televised storylines on viewers’ attitudes toward transgender people and policies. Sex Roles, 78(7-8), 515-527.
Gillig, T., & Murphy, S. (2016). Fostering support for LGBTQ youth? The effects of a gay adolescent media portrayal on young viewers. International Journal of
Communication, 10, 23.
Glaad (2018). Where We Are on TV Report – 2017. Retrieved from https://www.glaad.org/whereweareontv17
Gomillion, S. C., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of homosexuality, 58(3), 330-354.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of My Best Friends" Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma, and Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Gay Men and
Lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.
Jenner, M. (2016). Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and binge-watching. New media & society, 18(2), 257-273.
Juluri, P., Tamarapalli, V., & Medhi, D. (2016). Measurement of quality of experience of video- on-demand services: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(1), 401- 418.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299-302.
Levina, M., Waldo, C. R., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2000). We're Here, We're Queer, We're on TV: The Effects of Visual Media on Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians
1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 738-758.
Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of
Communication, 61(5), 984-1004.
Rainie, L. (2017). 61% of young adults in U.S. watch mainly streaming TV. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from young-adults-in-u-s-primarily-use-online-streaming-to-watch-tv/ Sajib, M. S. R., Malik, M. A. I., Islam, M. A., & Halder, S. K. (2018). Video Recommendation System for YouTube Considering Users Feedback. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology. 18(1).
Seif, R. (2017). The Media Representation of Fictional Gay and Lesbian Characters on Television: A Qualitative Analysis of US TV-series regarding Heteronormativity. (Master Thesis). Jönköping University, Jönköping.
Statista (n.d.). Global number of visits to media piracy sites by medium 2017. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/819983/media-piracy-site-visits-by-medium/
Statista (n.d.). Number of Netflix subscribers 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-of-netflix-streaming- subscribers-worldwide/
Statista (n.d.). Most viewed Netflix series in the United States in 2018, by share of Netflix users. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/583249/netflix-series-viewership/ Walton-Pattison, E., Dombrowski, S. U., & Presseau, J. (2018). ‘Just one more episode’:
Frequency and theoretical correlates of television binge watching. Journal of health psychology, 23(1), 17-24.
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(4), 678.
Wirth, W., Hofer, M., & Schramm, H. (2012). Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 406-428.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Code list
ATLAS.ti Report
Focus groups LGBTQ+ portrayal streaming platforms Code groups
Report created by Myrthe Vermeulen on 15 jan. 2019
Change of experience
Members:
○ bad representation when we were younger ○ google for lgbtq+ series ○ in the future productions will go in the same way as netflix ○ lgbtq+ portrayal as a trend ○ more visible more accessible ○ not enough portrayal when we were growing up so cannot identify ○ not sure if there has been an evolution ○ portrayal better today ○ portrayal more focused on family which we can identify with thanks to marriage for all ○ portrayal was sexualized ○ representation is changing so much ○ still no good lgbtq+ portrayal today ○ streaming
platforms allows pure representation ○ streaming platforms as great tools ○ we are getting there
Eudaimonic experience Members:
○ copy lgbtq+ behavior ○ copy lgbtq+ physical appearance ○ difficult come out in portrayal different then my own easy experience ○ good representation matters ○ having insight on others of the lgbtq+ community ○ impact of portrayal on way of thinking ○ importance of portrayal because it has influence ○ importance of the impact of the show ○ influence of lgbtq portrayal ○ influence of portrayal is subconscious ○ influence on attitude ○ influence on language ○ influence on non lgbtq+ ○ influence on self confidence ○ lgbtq characters portrayal as example ○ lgbtq+ series more relatable ○ netflix changed my life ○ portrayal has influence on coming out ○ the benefits of lgbtq+ well portrayed shows ○ we are all influenced by portrayal
Examples
Members:
○ favourite lgbtq+ cartoon ○ favourite lgbtq+ character ○ favourite lgbtq+ movie ○ favourite lgbtq+ netflix series ○ youtube miniseries
Frequency of watching streaming platforms Members:
○ bing watcher ○ effort to watch less streaming platforms ○ frequency of using streaming platforms with youtube ○ not using any streaming platforms
LGBTQ+ community Members:
○ common interest lgbtq+ ○ diversity in lgbtq+ ○ don't feel like we belong to lgbtq+ community ○ feel like belonging to lgbtq+ community ○ feel more misunderstood by lgbtq+ members than heterosexuals ○ I have interest for lgbtq+ communtity ○ keep the quality of the brand ○ lesbian bi gay stuff well represented ○ lgbtq+ associations ○ lgbtq+ community a way of getting involved with student associations ○ lgbtq+ community as a little cosmos ○ lgbtq+ community is normative ○ lgbtq+ community very chill and
accepting ○ lgbtq+ community very cliquey ○ lgbtq+ definitions ○ lgbtq+ events ○ lgbtq+ groups ○ lgbtq+ is a brand ○ some people in lgbtq+ community discriminate
Negative experience Members:
○ a bit more representation would be better ○ adult series representation is cliché ○ anime does queer baiting/dodging ○ asexual portrayal of gay characters ○ comical stereotypical ○ different portrayal for gay characters then heterosexual characters ○ feminity ○ gay
characters white men ○ lgbtq+ characters die ○ mainly unhappy endings ○ misrepresentation of lgbtq+ ○ movies and series about high school experiences are unrelatable ○ no lgbtq+ romantic life focus ○ not good example of lgbtq+ character ○ overact portrayal ○ parody level ○ portrayal is to sexualized ○ rather watch
heteronormative serie because characters are interesting ○ reducted characters ○ sexuality is nuanced ○ stereotypes ○ stereotypes comedy ○ still no good lgbtq+ portrayal today ○ straight vs lgbtq+ actors and screenwriters ○ there is a difference between visibility of men and women ○ token characters ○ tragedy and drama ○ unrealistic portrayal ○ very
categorical portrayal ○ very negative experience of portrayal ○ wrong approach not helping lgbtq+ movement
No impact
Members:
○ behavior not directly affected by lgbtq+ portrayal ○ do not consciously copy physically a lgbtq+ character ○ don't know if I am copying anyone ○ never copied a physical
appearance of lgbtq+ character ○ not so much influence
Positive experience
Members:
○ being lgbtq not a big deal portrayal ○ can relate with gay characters ○ cannot relate but know more about a community ○ character has been appropriated by gay community ○ characters no stereotypes ○ coming out naturally portrayed ○ documentaries ○ gender fuck ○ getting better with cartoons ○ how sexuality is approached ○ impact of portrayal on way of thinking ○ importance of diversity different portrayals ○ in the half of netflix series there is a lesbian/gay character ○ less token characters nowadays ○ lgbtq+ character female power ○ lgbtq+ characters diversity ○ lgbtq+ characters interesting without them being lgbtq ○ lgbtq+ movie emotional ○ lgbtq+ playing straight character and straight playing
lgbtq+ character ○ lgbtq+ portrayal centered on family ○ lgbtq+ portrayal trivial ○ like that the character is explicitly gay ○ like the portrayal because I wouldn't do things like that ○ necessilary find a character to identify with ○ no good balance between heterosexual and lgbtq+ representation but that's ok ○ not bothered by bad representation ○ portrayal more focused on family which we can identify with thanks to marriage for all ○ portrayal of lgbtq+ is mostly informative ○ postitive opinion on lgbtq+ portrayal ○ realistic portrayal ○ representation lgbtq and heterosexuals not 50/50 and shouldn't be ○ romance portrayal ○ rupaul shows that you can be good in one way and definitely not have everything figured out yet ○ sexual orientation just a detail ○ sexual orientation only revealed after few episodes or season ○ unexpected lgbtq+ characters ○ unrealistic portrayal ○ why lgbtq+ love this lgbtq+ show ○ young characters
Sexual orientation
Members:
○ context sexual identity ○ different than others ○ do whatever makes you happy ○ don't understand myself ○ no category ○ no problem with sexuality ○ queer as sexual identity ○ questioning ○ sexual identity ○ struggles lgbtq+ meet
Streaming platforms
Members:
○ other streaming platforms ○ using amazon prime ○ using illegal streaming websites ○ using netflix ○ using npo ○ using rtl ○ using youtube
Appendix 2: Interview guide
Introduction:
Goal: Discover how LGBTQ+ indviduals experience LGBTQ+ portrayal on streaming platforms
Put participants at ease: This is a safe place and there are no wrong answers Recording: This focus group will be recorded for research purposes
Informed consent: Hand the participants the informed consent letter
Presentation: Introduce yourself: What colour would you pick to describe yourself and why?
Topic 1: LGBTQ+ community
Goal: To find out about how participants feel about their sexual identity
Introduction: Write words that come to your mind when you hear LGBTQ+ community
1st question: How would you describe your sexual identity?
2nd question: Do you feel like you belong to the LGBTQ+ community? 3rd question: Are you part of any LGBTQ+ groups (social media) or did you once participated at an LGBTQ+ event?
4th question (ice-breaker): Do you sometimes feel misunderstood by others? Or instead, do you feel understood?
Topic 2: Streaming platforms and LGBTQ+ portrayal
Goal: To find out about the
participants’ use of streaming
platforms and LGBTQ+ portrayal
Introduction: Are you using streaming platforms, which one? 1st question: How often do you watch streaming platforms?
2nd question: Do you prefer watching series or movies with LGBTQ+ characters rather than series without ant LGBTQ+ characters on streaming platforms?
3rd question: Do you feel like LGBTQ+ characters are well-portrayed? If not, what should be changed?
4th question: Do you feel there is good balance between LGBTQ+ and heterosexual representation on streaming platforms?
Topic 3: The impact of the portrayal
Goal: To find out to how the way the participants
experience this portrayal has an impact on them
Introduction: Choose a favourite LGBTQ+ character or scene and explain why it is your favourite character/favourite scene
1st question: Did you ever copy a physical appearance of a LGBTQ+ character?
2nd question: Was your behaviour ever impacted by portrayal of LGBTQ+?
3rd question: Has your opinion regarding LGBTQ+ ever been impacted by portrayal of LGBTQ+?
4th question: Can you name one other impact that LGBTQ+ portrayal had on you?
Rounding of the interview
Appendix 3: Informed Consent Letter
Dear
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be
conducted for my thesis for the master Communication Science Entertainment, a part of
the University of Amsterdam. The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘LGBTQ+ and streaming platforms’. During this focus group, we will discuss the portrayal of LGBTQ+ in streaming platforms. Only people aged 18-29 part of LGBTQ+ may participate in this study. The goal of this research is to give LGBTQ+ individuals a voice and discover how LGBTQ+ individuals experience LGBTQ+ portrayal on streaming platforms. The study will take about 20 minutes.
I can guarantee that: 1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this. 2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research. 3)
Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. 4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research. For more information about the research, you are welcome to contact me, Myrthe Vermeulen, at any time. Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the
research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can also contact me at 0640162829 or myrthe.ariane@gmail.com. I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate. Kind regards, Myrthe Vermeulen
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Myrthe Vermeulen. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can also contact Myrthe Vermeulen.
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. Date:
Signature:
Appendix 5: Transcripts of the focus groups
Focus group 1
Interviewer: Hi Eli, Max. Uh, so do I have your permission to record this? Speaker 1: Yes
Speaker 2: Yes
Interviewer: Okay. So, um, so than we're going to start. It's nine, zero four, PM. Um, so first I would like that you introduce yourself and to introduce yourself, I want you to pick a colour. So you pick a colour and then you explain why this colour and why would it represent you? So who wants to start?
Speaker 1: So I should say my name or like?
Interviewer: Yes you can, so you can say your name and like to introduce yourself, like instead of saying I do this, this and this, you pick a colour and you say like, why does this colour represent you?
Interviewer: No.
Speaker: Okay. So my name is Max and the colour I pick is like a dark blue. Um, which I picked. Um, I know it's always been my favourite colour and also it kind reminds you of water, like wherever I've lived I've always lived close to water. They get at the sea or river or like now the canals in Amsterdam. So I like it. Nothing. It's very calming and soothing and um, yeah, I just don't think that that's aggressive and some other colours. So I really like it. I like the clothes, so it is an all-around fit.
Interviewer: And so do you think that that represents you in a way? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Interviewer: Nice. Mm, Really good. Eli?
Speaker 2: Um, my name is Eli. Um, um, the colour I choose to represent me is, um, I'm kind of torn between two.
Interviewer: You can also say two if you want
Speaker 2: then, um, first is sort of that of terracotta brown, orangey red, um, and second sort of deep dark forest green. The first one because it's a very sort of grounding colour. It's a warm colour and I really liked that. And um, these were my two options because recently I asked a couple of my friends to describe me with seven weird categories as sort of gay. Um, and one of them was describing me with a colour and they picked the greenish one and orangey one for like a couple of them, which was very surprising and they had their reasons for it. So I am sure these reasons were good reasons. I was very surprised that they like that several people that didn't know each other came up with like similar to be honest.
Interviewer: Yeah, it's true too. Speaker 2: And what colour are you?
