Methodology

About the project
Methodology
Team

METHODOLOGY

How we do it

Inclusion criteria:

  1. The RADAR team documents actions that violate, diminish, disadvantage, or discourage the right to freedom of expression in arts, culture, heritage, and in the creative sector.
  2. These acts may be carried out by any agent, for any reason, through any method, or the combination of any number of these agents, reasons, or methods.
  3. A work/event may not have been fully banned/censored to be included. The methods used may be mild, but have a cumulative effect on the individual artist or community/civic space.
  4. ArtsEquator’s core principles include being agnostic about the content of the work and, therefore, documenting challenges to works with which we may disagree.
  5. The coverage includes actions affecting these eight art forms: Visual arts, Performing arts , Publications, Music, Film and broadcast, Interactive media, Heritage /customs /cultural practices, and Design and creative services.
  6. Cases on media, politics, and general freedom of expression (FOE) do not fall within the RADAR team’s scope.

Methodology: 

The RADAR team utilises a mixed-methods approach to research findings on violations of artistic freedom in Southeast Asia, including cases of threats of or incitement to these acts. In combining qualitative data collection with quantitative data points, the intention is to harness and appreciate the fuller context of the documented cases, and to present the information in both case summary report formats and statistical graphs.

Data is collected through desk-top research from a wide range of public sources (news reports, online posts, art publications, freedom of expression reports).

RADAR also documents cases which are not in the public space through private/confidential sources. Such cases are not included in our public databases. The confidential case data in however included in our annual statistics.

Based on analysis and coding of hundreds of incidents in SEA, our data collection tool and taxonomy is designed to capture and categorizes over 50 data points per case. This includes data on the timing of the attack, aspects of the creator’s identity (gender, ethnicity, affiliations) which may have instigated the challenge, and the levels of support the creator received upon being targeted.

This granular information is used to generate statistics about the frequency, source, methods deployed, and justifications used to constrain free expression in arts and culture in the region.

Below is a summary of the data categories and taxonomy used in the project. A more detailed description of our methodology is available to researchers upon request:

Target

Who or what the challenge is directed at. The target of oppression may be the artwork, creator, presenter or audience/consumer. 

May be an item, event or practice, e.g. painting, music video, advertisement, heritage site,festival, workshop, exhibition, ritual weaving, folk narrative.

May be an individual, group or organisation which created the artwork or event. Artistic and cultural rights apply to a person even if they are not identified as an “artist”, but are part of the wider cultural ecosystem.

May be an  individual, group or organisation involved in the presentation or distribution of the artwork or event, e.g broadcaster, presenters, gallery, booksellers, publishers, advertisers

May be an individual or group who consume, attendee, participant, engage in a work or event 

Forms

A range of artistic forms, heritage and  cultural practices, including everyday cultural and creative expressions or objects, broadly organised under 8 categories: 

  • Visual arts 
  • Performance
  • Music
  • Film & Broadcast 
  • Publications
  • Interactive Media 
  • Heritage, customs, cultural practices
  • Design and creative services

We exclude media, political or general freedom of expression cases as there are existing mechanics to monitor such incidents.

Agent

The institution, organisation, individual or sector whose actions negatively impact artistic freedom. The data divides agents into two distinct groups, state and non-state agents, which are future sub-categorized into different groups. 

State Agents 

  1. Regulatory – e.g.ratings or censor boards, regulators
  2. Arts, culture stakeholders – e.g. arts council, museum, heritage board
  3. Non-arts authority – e.g. ministry, organisation, politician, leader
  4. Enforcement – e.g. police, military, security guard
  5. Judiciary – e.g., court system, lawyers, public prosecutor, etc.
  6. Faith-based -e.g. state religious department, national mufti
  7. Education-  e.g., educational institution, lecturer
  8. Media – government media agency only.

Non-State Agents

  1. Arts stakeholders – e.g. guilds, funder, venue 
  2. Faith-based – e.g individual or community of believers; religious leaders
  3. Education –  e.g. private colleges/schools
  4. Media –  e.g. journalist/news portal
  5. Corporation – e.g.private enterprise 
  6. Foreign – e.g.external government, citizen, organisations  
  7. Public – e.g individuals, groups, netizens, NGOs individuals and groups, influences, community leaders etc. 
  8. Family – e.g.family, friends 
Anonymous – used in cases where the identity of the perpetrator(s) is concealed/unknown.

Method

“Smart censors adjust these levels to achieve their desired results. Censorship detection needs to be similarly calibrated to capture censors’ full spectrum of methods”. 

 Cherian George and Sunny Liew,
Red Lines : Political Cartoons and The Struggle Against Censorship

The methods used by different agents to challenge or violate artistic freedom are wide ranging as identified by participants in the Building Bridges project hosted by Freemuse.  They may be ‘under the radar’ oppressions which are easily identifiable and…‘below the radar’ oppressions that are often more subtle and less easy to identify.”

RADAR uses data bucketing, or binning, to group the wide spectrum of methods we have identified, to impede artistic freedom. The categories are as follows:

  • Methods used on the artwork, event, product:
  1. Destroyed, confiscated, damaged, attacked – E.g. mural destroyed, film reel damaged.
  2. Banned, cancelled – E.g., film banned, concert cancelled, permit denied.
  3. Partial removal, alteration –E.g., one scene cut from broadcast, ethnicity of character changed.
  4. Restricting distribution/access – E.g., change in venue, ratings or platform
  5. Withdrawal of resources – E.g., sponsor pulls out, venue blocks access, funding withdrawn.
  6. Protest, complaint, accusations, boycott – E.g., individuals or groups  protests, petition, boycott.
  7. Questioned/investigated/surveilled/reported – E.g police visit, stake out, intimidation, report lodged
  • Methods used on creators, presenters and audiences
  1. Death, disappearance – E.g., murdered, abducted, death sentence.
  2. Exile – E.g. self-imposed/forced
  3. Physical abuse, attack – E.g., hit, attacked, physically harmed.
  4. Banned, removed, sacked, replaced – E.g., person/collective banned  loses a role.
  5. Sexual violence, gender-related methods – E.g., physical, psychological, and emotional harm targeted at women; sexualised attacks.
  6. Arrested, detained – E.g., taken to police station, held in lock up/remand held for questioning.
  7. Prosecuted, legal process – E.g., charged in court.
  8. Fined, penalised, sanctioned, loss of license – E.g., fined, pay a penalty, lose privileges, formally sanctioned, loss of legal standing.
  9. Restriction of movement, surveillance – E.g., house arrest, followed, watched, restricted to certain areas only, not allowed to enter art spaces.
  10. Questioned, investigated, re-educated, reported – E.g., put under mental, emotional pressure, threatened, called in for “tea”, questioning, “advised”, “re-educated”, warned, threatened, report lodged
  11. Proxy targeted – E.g., family, friends, colleagues, teachers, employers, collaborators are pressured; target’s other jobs are threatened.
  12. Withdrawal of resources – E.g., sponsor pulls out, FOC venue insists on rental, funding withdrawn, loss of grants. Loss of opportunity.
  13. Protest, complaint, accusations, boycott, harassment – E.g., members of the public, government, artists, etc., complain, stage protests, launch petitions, accusations, call for a boycott.

Challenge chain

A case may consist of a single challenge, or a multi-step challenge chain by different agents using different methods. In some instances, the same agent uses multiple methods on the same target.

For example:

1.

Netizens launch an online campaign to cancel a rock concert.

2.

The concert sponsor then withdraws their sponsorship of the rock band.

3.

A third step may involve the police visiting the office of the concert promoter.

4.

On the day of the concert, a vigilante group tries to prevent ticket holders from entering the stadium.

Our research tool captures the individual steps that make up  the challenge chain – the agents and specific methods used on each target type (concert, rock band, concert promoter, audiences). 

Theme

Through analysis of the content of the work, media reports, and other material, the research team groups the target’s theme into broad categories. This dataset is subjective as it uses the research team’s local knowledge, inference and assumptions to assign the theme(s). We note that there are overlaps and seepages between several of the themes below.

  1. Social/economic/class/inequality issues
  2. Culture/art/customs – e.g. ethno-linguistic issues/arts/ethnic identity
  3. Political/the state/power elites/state policies
  4. Religion/spirituality/morality
  5. Gender/sexuality
  6. Historical – e.g works that deal with historical events/characters
  7. Love/humanity/family/universal themes
  8. Environment/climate change
  9. Freedom/human rights
  10. Entertainment/comedy/satire/horror/pop culture
  11. Marketing/promotion

Reason

There are myriad reasons a work might be targeted. These accusations/justifications may have little to do with what the work is about. Or the accusation may be a smokescreen, used to obscure the real reasons for the attack. Based on analysis of hundreds of cases, we use these broad categories to identify the reason the target is challenged.  

  1. Politics
  2. Moral policing, religion, morality, tradition
  3. Misinformation, defamation
  4. Social justice, rights 
  5. International, geopolitical 
  6. Adverse economic impact 
  7. Public safety, property damage 
  8. Failure to comply with regulations

Response

The presenter or creator targeted may respond in one, or a combination of the following ways. 

  1. Compliance (willingly or under duress) 
  2. Non-compliance
  3. Proceeds using strategic tactics 
  4. Legal challenge 
  5. Leaves arts sector

LIMITATIONS

-The information above is a condensed version of our full methodology and analysis guidelines. The data collection and analysis process is supported by in-depth discussion about each case.

-Relying on mainly public sources or the in-country researcher’s local networks means that we may miss cases that are not accessible to us. 

-The increasing use of subtle, below the line methods makes it difficult to conclusively verify some cases, leading to a lower number of incidents than is actually occurring. 

– Some of the data is based on evaluative analysis, with inference and researcher knowledge employed in the data collection and analysis. This carries with it the risk of researcher biases, and also makes building uniformity and consistency in analysis across the countries under study challenging at times. For transparency, we have indicated which data points are arrived using these methods. 

-Some artists may be reluctant to share their experience with us for fear of being further targeted by the agents. Many acts of censorship are often themselves concealed from public view by targets who are compelled by fear to remain silent about these acts of silencing.

Disclaimer

The Southeast Asian Artistic Freedom Radar (Research and Documentation Resource) is a research-based initiative conducted by ArtsEquator Ltd. in collaboration with field researchers across the southeast Asia region. While the data collection and preliminary analysis are carried out by independent researchers, ArtsEquator Ltd. exercises editorial oversight, reviews final outputs and assumes responsibility for the publication of this project’s findings.

Project results and reports are based on verifiable field data, rigorous research and analysis and context-specific consultations. However, given the complex and often sensitive nature of monitoring artistic freedom—particularly in environments marked by censorship or legal risk—there are inherent limitations to access, documentation and verification. Wherever appropriate, we note the constraints affecting the comprehensiveness or specificity of reported incidents.

ArtsEquator Ltd. acknowledges the contributions of individual researchers while emphasising that the responsibility for the overall framing, editing and publication of the project outputs rests with the organisation.

We remain committed to upholding ethical, balanced and contextually informed representation of artistic freedom issues in the region. If any parties have concerns or queries regarding the information presented, we invite engagement directly with ArtsEquator Ltd. via the contact page.

Updated 12 May 2026