As the OP I toiled grievously over Do or Does and opted for the latter, though with reservations. Do seemed to open up vernacular forms, now't so queer and other catch-all phrases that encompass the entire population rather than the problematised, edenic and largely dead strain who conjoured up the tradition. This divide may be a misapprehension of course and 'do' might have yielded riper fruit.

What I was attempting to uncover is whether the cultural artefact known as folk existed as anything more than an abstraction, whether its edges were fuzzy, hard or marked by aperture and transparency enabling a free flow of input and outgoing debate about where it begins and ends.
I find all this very interesting, while acknowledging it's a minority sport - though not necessarily a blood one.