A qualitative study exploring unique considerations for conducting research with LGBTQ+ persons in physical activity contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LGBTQ+ individuals face an array of unique challenges to physical activity participation, that are related to the diverse minority experience. Research in this area may be challenged because many potential participants have experienced instances of discrimination, exclusion, and homophobia within physical activity settings. The purpose of this study was to explore the unique challenges involved in conducting research on physical activity within the LGBTQ+ communities. As part of a larger project, a qualitative sub-study was devised involving a series of four semi-structured focus groups comprised of adult, self-identifying members of the LGBTQ+ communities. Participants pilot-tested a survey intended for use in the second phase of this larger study, and were then solicited for their feedback on the material. Broad discussions about personal physical activity experiences, as prompted by the survey questions, were encouraged. All focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subject to thematic analysis. Three main themes emerged: (1) complicated intersecting minority identities can uniquely influence experiences with physical activity, (2) preconceived images and notions associated with the word "athlete" make athletics seem like an exclusive, non-accessible context, and (3) macro and micro-aggressions outside of a physical activity context can impact past and current experiences within physical activity. These findings suggest that if these factors are not considered in studies involving LGBTQ+ persons, a homogenous identity may emerge where it does not exist, the typical language used to describe physical activity may alienate participants, and the rich minority context may be ignored.Acknowledgments: The Social Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), McGill University
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".