**2. Methods**

#### **2.1 Participants**

Institutional Review Board Approval was granted for this study and active written informed consent obtained. Thirty-seven self-identified WSW volunteered to participate in 60–80-minute focus groups in person or virtually. In total, the 37 selfidentified WSW (either current or in past relationships) voluntarily participated both in-person or virtually. For this study ages ranged from 20 to 64 (*M* = 34.5). Generally,

*Perspective Chapter: Is Inclusion Safe? The Importance of Community Among Women Who... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110361*

participants were largely non-Hispanic/White (94%), residing in Ohio (32%), South Carolina (27%), and Georgia (27%) in the United States of America.

#### **2.2 Design and procedure**

The data was collected between October 2016 and March 2017 with a lone, trained interviewer and a student assistant for administration support. Demographic variables including age, gender, orientation, and race were collected from each participant.

Prior to the study the research team gathered relevant information for the proposed studies and developed a list of questions related to core areas that heavily influence one's life. Those influences were identified as: marriage/relationships, family/ parenting, community/social fabric, and emotional well-being. These condensed influences were pulled from positive psychologist Vanderweele [9] who proposes that the five domains of human life needed to flourish are: spirituality, family, work, health, and community. The same list of questions was asked to each participating focus group in the same sequence and the questions were open ended in which the participants discussed among themselves the question highlighted by the researcher. If conversation delayed, or illumination was needed the researcher further probed the participants to better recognize the data they were providing by their answer. Following the initial questions follow up probes were administered to gather relevant additional data. The questions were open-ended and were not mandatory, as to ensure emotional and identity safety.

Focus groups were utilized due to the benefit they specifically provide researchers in the health and medicine field, as they provide a safe space for participation from people who are often hesitant to be interviewed individually, who might lack the skills to write or read, and feel as if what they might have to contribution is not important to the conversation [10]. Additionally, the opportunity to join the focus group remotely or anonymously was offered in order to provide safety the already present minority stress or heteronormative pressures often apparent in society. Data collection was planned and conducted using the theoretical framework of the minority stress model [11], as researchers were gathering data that specifically related to


**Figure 1.** *Recruitment flyer.* collecting the unique and sometimes hostile stressors that might arise within experiences of WSW in regards to social and emotional well-being.

Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed for validity in collection. After reading the transcripts, two trained coders/researchers formulated a system based on recurrent themes. Codes were preliminary until verified by relevant quotes [12]. As such, findings presented are a description of themes that recur [13].

Recruitment of participants occurred across multiple strategies. Each approach started with an informational flyer (**Figure 1**) describing the study's intended purpose. The flyer was disseminated across social media, Universities and word of mouth. Potential participants accessed a SurveyMonkey sign up link on the flyer and researchers then scheduled focus groups based on availability.

## **3. Results**

Four over-arching core themes were identified including: 1. Shame and Fear, 2. Community, 3. Gender Roles and 4. Normalcy. This article further explores the core them of Community and participants perceptions of community. Community subthemes occurred over 463 times among the transcribed data. Four subthemes within community emerged including the ideas of (a) Community is easy to find, (b) Community is hard to find, (c) Community as a physical space, and (d) community as a social network. **Table 1** references a sample of statements identified under the core theme of Community and further categorized by its subtheme.

#### **3.1 Perceptions and experiences**

Through the collection of data it is noted that participants of the study had experiences that differed greatly. From having an easily accessible community immediately available and often right out their door in cities, to only knowing a handful of similarly minority identities within their hometowns that are more rural and having to drive 2+ hours to find a "gay" physical community. In addition, participants noted the drastic ease that comes with being in a city compared to just 30 minutes outside of a city center. The data also represented the experience and ease of use in utilizing social network platforms to find a community, both in physical spaces and online spaces. Lastly, the overarching theme found within these four subthemes is that community and safety often lie within a younger generation as mentioned by participants: it is found in in liberal traditional colleges, and among artsy "kids", etc.
