Research Methodology: Understanding Young Gamblers and Non-Gamblers

Introduction

This chapter will be outlining some of the key considerations, assumptions, and methods used in this study, which aims to have an in depth understanding of the meanings and perceptions of young gamblers and non-gamblers, particularly in the context of psychology dissertation help. The need for developing a theory in this project meant the utilization of qualitative data, collected through two different focus groups consisting of gamblers and non-gamblers. A key aspect of all qualitative research studies includes a ‘strong orientation to every day events’ as highlighted by (Flick et al 2004: 8), and this is of importance when looking at a leisure everyday practice such as gambling. The Research was conducted with the aim of trying to understand how the increased proliferation of and exposure to gambling has affected young males in late modern society. The everyday experiences and encounters that young people have with betting despite the fact that some of them may not actually be gamblers themselves was also of great interest. The key goal in focus groups as a form of data collection in a research process is to evaluate and extrapolate meaning out of participants responses rather than quantify the responses (Levers 2006).

Grounded Theory:

Strauss and Corbin (1990) points out that the goal of grounded theory is to generate innovative and substantive theoretical frameworks that emerge from primary data. Based on the need for theory development within the project, inductive approach of study was considered most appropriate and as such spearheaded the study. The process of inductive analysis is aimed at generating rich, detailed and meaningful data on the participant’s interactions so as to enable the fleshing out of themes and patterns that are crucial for dependable inferences, this is due to the fact that theories derived from the data are more likely to be proximal to the reality than theories that is derived solely from speculation and/or preconceptions (Strauss and Corbin 1998: 12). By employing grounded theory, Data is used to suggest meanings and explanations, which in turn contribute to the developed theoretical model (Payne and Payne 2004: p.99). The theory is therefore ‘grounded’ in the sense that it is extracted from the data (Robson 2003: 90).

However, this does not say that the literature did not provide pre-conceptions of potential theories that could emerge since without any prior ideas the accumulation of relevant information becomes impossible (Robson 2002). While a researcher may have preconceived ideas and hypotheses of what to expect from a study prior to the actual field study, the study itself is not taken to prove or disapprove these theories, but rather to establish the most proximal theory to the situation on the ground. Grounded theory is best suited for studies where phenomena is continually changing in response to evolving conditions (Strauss and Corbin 1998: 5), conditions which can affect the actions and interactions over time. As such, through the use of grounded theory better understanding of the perceptions and attitudes associated with betting can be understood from both the gamblers and non-gamblers perspective.

Choosing the Research Method:

Research methods refer to the tools and techniques used in the actual conduction of the research study (Marvasti P.9); as such, the selection of an appropriate design is crucial to the outcome of the study. Focus groups facilitate the researcher’s ability to gain access to participant’s views, experiences, and attitudes (Levers 2006, Morgan and Krueger, 1993). This is contrary to the earlier on considered option of individual interviews, which for a topic such as gambling could put a burden on the individual and thus influence the data produced. However, in a group environment the dynamics through interaction provide much deeper and richer data, without the need to probe on sensitive topics. The ability of focus groups to generate data based on the synergy of group interaction (Green et al: 2003) gives them a certain control over the direction of the interview. This is useful to the study since despite having a predetermined idea of the themes that might pop up other unintended themes and ideas might also show and further enhance the richness of the study.

Focus groups have historically been used to gage public opinion on marketing campaigns (Fontana and Frey) before it made headway in the social sciences.Focus groups rely on interaction within the group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher (Morgan 1997: 12). The group is ‘focused’ in the sense that it involves some form of collective activity e.g. viewing a film (Kitzinger 1994 P.103). The focus group used consisted of five UK gambling adverts, stimulating discussions surrounding the messages promoted to the consumers which in turn lead to wider debates on societies perceptions on gambling as a practice. The methodology was used to examine the ‘effect’ element (Kitzinger 1994 P.104) by exploring how media messages are processed by audiences and how understandings and norms are constructed in society (Kitzinger 1994 P.104). The nature of the study and its focus on media messages inspired the choice of focus groups when designing the research. The debates that occur in focus groups direct evidence about similarities and differences in the participants opinions and experiences (Morgan 1994) this was also important as a key part of the data analysis involved a comparison between the discussions of gamblers and non-gamblers.

Addressing the potential weaknesses:

A notable criticism of focus groups as a form of social research is that a lot more responsibility must fall on the facilitator to get desired information and reliable data. High-quality moderating is therefore vital, as a rapport must be built in the group. Not only because it is courteous to someone giving up their own time but also the more interest that is shown the richer the data. If a group works well, trust develops, and groups explore solutions to particular problems together (Kitzinger 1995) this can be more insightful than just individual interactions. A key ingredient to a successful focus group is the development of a permissive, non-threatening environment within the group where the participants feel comfortable to share views without fear of judgement (Hennink 2007: 6).The use of recording is key to this, as it enables the researcher to devote their attention to the participants which in turn creates a more relaxed and positive atmosphere. The other benefit of recording participants includes maximizing on the accuracy through its coding afterwards by the researcher. It also enables the determination of a participant’s tone, which is contextually very important when it comes to the data analysis.

Practicalities:

The use of focus groups as a primary means of data collection often leads to an emphasis on research design (Morgan 1997). To gain both rich and reliable data effective planning of all the tools and techniques required is essential. A researcher’s inexperience in focus groups conduction may present a concern, especially concerning the skill set needed to carefully plan a discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a defined environment (Kreugar 1998: 88). Carrying out a pilot study to identify potential problems in the research and protocol prior to the implementation during the full study is one way of ensuring efficiency in the actual research study(Dodd Williamson). This also presents a convenient way for rehearsing key roles and becoming familiar with the recording equipment.

Sampling

When selecting participants for a focus group project, it is more useful to think in terms of minimalizing sample biasness rather than achieving generalisability. Non-probability sampling was appropriate for this study as a randomly sampled group is unlikely to hold a shared perspective on the research project and therefore fail to generate meaningful discussions (Morgan 1997: 7). Focus groups should include enough participants to yield diversity of information provided, yet not too many participants that people may become uncomfortable to share information (geezer). Taking this into consideration the study used small groups of just five people on both the groups (gamblers and non-gamblers) due to the need of developing a more intimate environment where people feel more at ease to express their opinions and interact with others. Dynamic interaction is an often-claimed attribute of focus groups (Carey 1995, Morgan 1995) this was heavily considered when designing the focus groups.

For all non-gamblers convenience sampling was used, involving the selection of only the most accessible participants (Marshall 1996: 523) who were keen to be involved. This was done through an advert posted on social media. This was done on a Newcastle University forum page asking only those that have never staked a bet of any kind to put themselves forward. Important to note is that, the intent of focus groups is not to infer but to understand, not to generalize but to determine and not to make statements about the population but to provide insights about how people in the groups perceive a situation (Kreugar and Casey 2009: 66). Morgan (1997) suggests overrecruiting by around 20% so seven participants were selected for both groups. This was lucky, as one dropped out only two days before, meaning one of the reserve interviewees was needed. At such short notice, finding a participant to fill in the spot would prove to be a challenge and as such impact the delay of the discussion.

Recruiting the gamblers presented a more difficult task however due to the need of identifying only recreational gamblers rather than individuals with gambling problems. For this the snowball sampling technique was used, a relatively easy and informal method of reaching a target population (Atkinson 2001). Through a single contact in Newcastle University racing and gambling society the researcher was able to get in touch with several other recreational gamblers, and after organising a location and time all six of the willing participants were present. Focus groups are easiest formed by using pre-existing groups at a place that is familiar to all. Given that all the respondents were students at Newcastle University the Robinson Library was chosen as the meeting spot due to its convenience for all the participants.

It is important that focus groups have a moderator (Krueger 1994) to help facilitate the discussion and the organisation. The presence of the moderator helps to balance the discussions and afford all the participants’ equal time to share their perspectives and sentiments. The moderator also helps in being able to prevent and monitor any biasness that may arise from the discussion process. In addition, they should be neutral as concerns the topic of study in which manner they can be unbiased themselves. The moderator provided the stimulus material (the adverts) to the participants and also acted as an assistant researcher by recording the interview, this means the researcher can concentrate solely on the research.

Ethical consideration:

Once participants have been selected and converged for the study, the researcher has a duty to explain in appropriate detail, and in terms meaningful to the participants, what the research is about and how it is to be distributed and used (BSA). The potentially sensitive nature of gambling as a research topic was taken into consideration when planning the study, to prevent any psychological harm to anyone that had volunteered to take part. It is vital that ethical guidelines are always followed in both the research itself and the analysis of data. The recruiting process of participants for a topic such as gambling is also important in the consideration of ethical issues.

Through talking to members of the racing and gambling society the researcher was sure avoid anyone who may have a problem with gambling since the focus group alone could encourage them to gamble more (Mariounneaue 2015, P. 51). Information sheets and consent forms were given to all participants to provide awareness of any potential risks they may incur (Social Research Association) as well as outlining that participation is voluntary and one can withdraw at any time. Anonymity and confidentiality of participants is central to ethical practice in social research (Crow, 2006). The consent form assured participants that pseudonyms will be used, and all data would be destroyed in the interest of their well-being. With a potentially sensitive subject like gambling, it is vital that the participants have an understanding of what is required of them, this was presented in a concise and clear information sheet. For the safety of both the researcher and the participants, neutral grounds were chosen to facilitate the focus groups which was also a familiar location for all participants.

Reflexivity:

Reflexivity has been increasingly recognised as a crucial strategy in the process of generating knowledge by means of qualitative research (Berger 2015: 219).The use of qualitative research places the interviewers as a “central figure who influences, if not actively constructs, the collection, selection and interpretation of data” (Finlay, 2002, p. 212). Before carrying out any fieldwork, it is important to understand how the researchers own viewpoint and relationship with participants could influence results and hamper the validity of my data. Both of focus groups started with the same gambling adverts and that was effective in facilitating the direction of the conversation. The moderator was also key to regulating the researchers’ role. In the pilot focus group, the moderator noticed a bias from the researcher and encouraged the maximization of interactions between the participants to minimize the researchers influence on the data.

Interaction within the focus groups is thought to better reflect the socially constructed nature of knowledge, as participants are encouraged to query, question and explain their viewpoints (Moore et al 2015: 18). Reflexivity in focus group must also be considered in terms of the power relations between the participants, as there is always a chance that the presence of others can evoke responses, which are for public consumption (Denscombe 1995: P. 138). It is therefore a priority to try to and create a positive environment for all the interviewees where they feel comfortable expressing their opinions. If certain participants seem to be marginalised from the discussion the moderator should inspire their contribution to further enhance the outcome of the data. The key to reflexivity in social research is to understand the role of the self in the creation of knowledge (Berger 2013) and therefore be vigilant of the impact that beliefs and personal experiences have on the outcome of a study.

Data Collection:

A grounded theory approach to research meant coding the interactions in the focus groups to find theory in the data. The data collection and analysis occur simultaneously (Strauss and Corbin 1990) with a grounded theory approach unlike with quantitative methods where data is collected and then analysed. Doing the analysis in the process of the ground theory improves data collection in focus groups (Kruegar and Casey 2009: 116). This means that throughout the process of the study the researcher takes note of the similarities that could signpost common conceptions or interpretations. In the first focus group with non-gamblers, a systematic analysis noted the theories that began to develop through common themes and messages. This developed a framework and platform for the second focus group. Both group interviews lasted around eighty minutes. After reading both transcripts several times and coding themes the study began a comparison to see if the theories that appeared between the two focus groups were different and the reasons behind this. Eventually the researcher further compared the results with the theories that emerged from the literature to try and gauge an overall understanding of the perceptions and attitudes of gambling amongst young people and what had shaped this. Group interviews can expose details about how the participants relate to one another and offer some data on shared perspectives rather than just individual views (Denscombe 1995: 137).

• http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
• gaining insights into people’s shared understandings of everyday life
• Campbell & Stanley, 2005; Kerlinger & Lee, 1999
• BSA MAXWELL
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?
• https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6895/650998233a7bb52efcdaa39b0e42d2102f3c.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0sTXL63YNk_QpoKIBPKekal_b5AukK08gPonPu9CWC2JkvYWQsmnCfyOU
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2012.00678.x?fbclid=IwAR23KRfe2Tn9HWDahX1kjPTKs5CgetnA92J_bdj_zxlffWmB6DfAYPtWeGM&
• https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43144_12.pdf
• https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335244492.pdf