Chapter 4: Research Methods Introduction

Group Interview Participants

The Table 4.7 shows the demographics of all the participants from group interviews; again, including the event the participant was collected at, the name of the participant (anonymised using game character names), their age, gender, and home town.

A group interview is a method of interviewing that involves more than one person, usually at least four interviewees. In comparison to a focus group that typically consists between 6 - 10 members (Morgan, 1998), the group interviews consist between 2 - 5 participants. It is important to highlight that this research’s initial intention was to conduct focus groups, however, I have deliberately used the term ‘group interviews’, due to the problem of participants not turning up on the day; which led to smaller groups than typically seen in focus groups. Therefore, the group interviews consists of aspects from a focus group, but at the same time, cannot be considered as a focus group. In particular, Bryman (2004, p.346) highlights three reasons that draws a distinction between the focus group and the group interview techniques;

• 
  Focus groups typically emphasize a specific theme or topic that is explored in depth, whereas group interviews often span very widely.
  
• 
  Sometimes group interviews are carried out so that the researcher is able to save time and money by carrying out interviews with a number of individuals simultaneously. However, focus groups are not carried out for this reason.
  
• 
  The focus group practitioner is invariably interested in the ways in which individuals discuss a certain issue as members of a group, rather than simply as individuals. In other words, with a focus group the researcher will be interested in such things as how people respond to each other’s views and build up a view out of the interaction that takes place within the group.
  

Finally, it is clear that the focus group practitioner will be interested in which individuals to discuss a certain topic as ‘members of the group’. However, due to the size of the group interview, it becomes difficult to analyse certain issues as ‘members of the group’, especially between two people. Hence the use of the term ‘group interviews’.

Participant Observation

Gold (1958) provided a classification of participant observer roles, which can be seen as a continuum of degrees of involvement with members of the social setting (see Figure 4.2). The four roles are:

1. 
   Complete Participant:
   

2. 
   Participant-as-observer:
   

3. 
   Observer-as-participant:
   

4. 
   Complete Observer:
   

Figure 4.2: Gold’s (1958) classification scheme of participant observer roles

In relation to this research, my role as an ethnographic researcher could be considered somewhere between a participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant; where the role switched interchangeably throughout the day from participating actively to simply observing. However, at all times the researcher considered herself to be an ‘active’ ethnographer. For instance, Bryman (2004) suggests than even when the ethnographer is in an observer-as-participant role, there may be contexts in which either participation is unavoidable. For example, Fine’s (1996) research on the work of chefs in restaurants was carried out largely be semi-structured interview. In spite of his limited participation, he found himself involved in washing up in the kitchens to help out during busy periods. In many instances, the research has no choice – for example, as mentioned earlier, as I was considered one of the ‘designated drivers’ to move CRTs (televisions) for the Smash community, I also found myself lifting and moving CRTs up and down stairs, from people’s houses to venues and back. Bryman (2004) suggests that sometimes, ethnographers may feel they have no choice but to get involved; because a failure to participate actively might indicate a lack of commitment and lead to a loss of credibility. Bryman (2004) suggests that this can often lead to dilemmas on the part of ethnographer, especially when the activities in which they actively take part (or might do so) are illegal or dangerous. Although I did not encounter any illegal or dangerous activities, I have heard of incidents of drug-use during video game events – however, due to my physical appearance, I have been told I appeared ‘too innocent looking’ to be involved or even invited. At most, from my field-notes at Insomnia54 (i54), the most dangerous activity I encountered was receiving a ‘playful slap’ from a ‘fellow LAN gamer’ for going to bed early (1am) on the first night on LAN; as traditionally, LAN gamers attempt to stay up all night on the first night of LAN (Thursday), because tournaments and competitions do not start until the weekend (Saturday and Sunday).

Despite going to bed early, Whitehead (2005) suggests that classical ethnographers, who primarily studied local communities, are meant to immerse themselves into the field 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, over different seasons of the year for an extended period of time. In addition, Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) highlights that ethnographic research sampling is not just about people, but also other things – such as time and contexts that need to be considered in the context of sampling. Due to the purpose of these scheduled events, where they only occurred at specific times, observing participants 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and in different seasons of the year, for an extended period of time was not possible. However, during the several game events I attended, I did undertake extensive and almost continuous observations. For example, I attempted to ‘hang around’ as much as possible at the events; from attending pre-meet ups before the event, arriving early at the venue before opening time to observe the queuing process, carrying out research during the whole time the event was open, walking around both indoors and outdoors to observe what people were doing (from cosplay, photo-shoots, workshops and so on), then walking around the venue after the closing time of the events to observe how certain groups continued to ‘hang out’, such as going to after-parties or designated spaces where people decide to meet together after the event.

A similar example can be illustrated with William Whyte’s (1981) study on street corner society of Italian American slum, he called ‘Cornville’ – an ethnography on street gangs and ‘corner boys’ from ‘hanging around’ the streets and observing. From his book, Whyte commented on how he wondered if ‘hanging’ on the street corner was an active enough process to be dignified by the term ‘research’ – he wondered if he should be asking more questions? However, he soon learned the importance of ‘hanging-out’ when he was given advice from ‘Doc’ his gate-keeper;

Go easy on that "who," "what," "why," "when", "where" stuff, Bill. You ask those questions and people will clam up on you. If people accept you, you can just hang around, and you'll learn the answers in the long run without even having to ask the questions. (Whyte, 1981, p.303)

It is important to consider that William Whyte (1981) conducted a covert ethnography, therefore had to be careful of risks. However, ‘hanging out’ provides a chance to overhear exchanges that are not specifically addressed to the researcher. For example, De Garis (2000) study on male identity, aggression, and intimacy in a boxing gym, describes revelations and intimate exchanges in the showers, which provided useful insights.

In relation to this research, using Whyte’s (1981) method of ‘hanging around’ to observe participants was useful. For instance, the method of ‘hanging around’ provided the flexibility to arrange an interview and group interviews at different times of the day; either before the event, during the event, directly after the event in a quiet space in a public setting, or even some time after the event. For example, there were several occasions where I stayed in London a few extra nights in order to conduct interviews or group interviews on the day after the event (such as after MCM London Comic Con, Distant Worlds, and Symphonic Legends).

In addition, this involvement over an extended amount of time at video game events was also advantageous, as it allowed me to build rapport with participants, which eventually enables me to ‘hang-out’ with them, and let me observe them as a group while they did various activities at the event. Agar (1996, p.158) suggests that one of the richest data which ethnography can capture comes from informal talk between research and informants; of which Agar (1996, p.158) calls ‘hanging out’ and places at the centre of ethnographic fields. This suggests that the objective of ethnographic research is to get as ‘experience-near’ as possible (Geertz, 1973); such as allowing the informant to control the discussion, rather than a repertoire of question asking:

Everything is negotiable. The informant can criticise a question, correct it, point out that it is sensitive, or answer in any way they want to (Agar, 1996, p.140).

Similarly, ‘deep hanging out’ was coined by Rosaldo (1989) to capture the send of being profoundly immersed in a culture. The duration of video game events was often spread over between one to four days; therefore the period of time to conduct research (at the venue) was often quite ‘short-lived’. Therefore, possibly a better way to understand my ethnographic research is to consider it a ‘micro-ethnography’ (Walcott, 1995). For instance, while I was ‘hanging around’, I also attempted to conduct ‘walking interview’ with the participants; where researchers ‘walk alongside’ with the participants in order to observe, experience, and make sense of the everyday practices (Clark and Emmel, 2010). Clark and Emmel (2010, p.1) suggest that ‘walking interviews’ could provide the following:

1. 
   Understanding of how individuals conceptualise their neighbourhood
   

2. 
   Understand of how individuals think about and articulate their neighbourhoods as well as create them through socio-spatial practices
   

3. 
   Understand of how individuals locate their social networks and express their sense of community in relation to (local) places.