I.
For the first part I chose a paper that study first hand accounts of digital game experiences. It's empiricism is based on interviews in six focus groups with three to five participants in each (N=19). They argue that the low number of participants allowed to go deeper in their interviews (to be more qualitative). The focus groups were varied to create some diversity between them in respect to age, gender, gaming frequency, occupation etc. The 90 minutes were divided into the following: an introduction in which the moderators presented themselves and stated the goals of the focus groups, an individual task, a group discussion and finally a group task. The participants received a minor monetary reward. The data collected during the interviews is used as a basis for a discussion in which they present nine dimensions that can be used to categorise gaming experience. They argue that these dimensions allows and simplifies further research in the field of digital gaming.
Focus groups are more time-effective than solo interviews and promote a discussion. There may however be some things that participants leave out in the company of others. Perhaps focus group discussions can be expanded with a short open questionnaire afterwards asking if there was something that they'd like ot add or something they didn't get the chance to say. Also, this could be made iterative. The conclusions that the researchers make could be presented in new (or the same) focus groups in order to evaluate them. Perhaps the participants wouldn't agree with the conclusions the researchers have made if they were presented to them. There is always a subjective dimension when analysing or choosing how to analyse data.
Reference: Poels, K., de Kort, Y., & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2012). Identification and Categorization of Digital Game Experiences: A Qualitative Study Integrating Theoretical Insights and Player Perspectives. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, Special Edition: Encountering the Real-Virtuality: Digital Games in Media, Culture, and Society, 9(1), 107-30.
II.
A case study focus on a single setting. This setting may be a person, a group, an event or an artifact inter alia. The central thing is that with a smaller scope the research may become more comprehensive for that case. Several methods, often but not necessarily qualitative, may be used within a case study such as interviews, observation etc. It is important that the case chosen is relevant for the research that it is chosen for. The case should be representative of the population the study strives to explore. From the results of the case study a hypothesis for this population may be constructed.
The article I have chosen (Marshall 2004) tries to make conclusions regarding the effects of piracy in the music industry by looking at a specific type of piracy: bootlegging (unofficial recordings of live music that are otherwise unavailable). They mostly look at what has been said in literature and news and combine this with the views of bootleggers, collectors and music industry representatives expressed in interviews with the author. It explores a number of different facets on bootlegging including economical incentives for and against.
The strength of this paper is that it gives a comprehensive overview on bootlegging and its effects on the music industry. However, it concludes that it is not possible to generalise the case to the population. The case of bootlegging is shown to be a special case which doesn't represent piracy as a whole. The table in Eisenhardt (1989) shows an ideal case study. I think this paper lacks some of the activities of a model case study but still manages to explore the case in a comprehensive way.
References:
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Marshall, L. (2004). The effects of piracy upon the music industry: A case study of bootlegging. Media, Culture & Society, 26(2), 163-181.
Hey! I like the fact that you discussed in focus groups that participants sometimes leave things out because they are too embarrassed to speak in front of the other people. I also like the fact you gave reasonable solutions to this problem. My question would be how you try to control the group if a person took a leader role and spoke too much or "bullied" the others? Would that defy the aspect of the researcher taking the back seat? Would the participants in the questionnaire afterwards always be able to remember everything they wanted to say at the time if the interview was a long duration?
SvaraRaderaHi. You wrote that your paper used focus groups with 3-5 participants in each group, which I think is a good idea. As you mentioned that they argued, it allows for deeper discussions with the participants. I think it also gives more space for every participant to take part in the discussion and better reflect upon their own opinions as they are given enough time to express them. This could lead to more genuine answers I guess.
SvaraRaderaI also agree with your idea that the focus groups could have been followed up with a short questionnaire to make sure that all possible valuable opinions or thoughts of the participants are picked up. It's also a great suggestion to do this iteratively. That could strengthen the study even more as it would assure the results, that the analysis of the data is agreed upon by the participants too so the matter of subjectivity is minimized.
I like your idea to follow up with a little questionnaire after the focus group sessions. I can see several advantages wight his:
SvaraRadera1) for people who were too shy to speak out during the focus grow session
2) for ideas that popped into your head afterwards. Normally a focus group discussion stays in your head, and you might afterwards think of several great answers to questions discussed. That often happens to me.
3) in order to afterwards state any ideas discussed that you maybe do not agree with but were not able to "voice a protest" on during the session.
You say that "Focus groups are more time-effective than solo interviews and promote a discussion" and I agree that the promote a discussion better than an interview which can be quite unpleasant way of talking for some people. But is this always the case? An interview can be tedious in a research. If you interview a person for one hour and then later on transcribe it for 2 hours. That is 3 hours per person interviewed. In a setting where you instead choose to have a free discussion in the form of a focus group you might have it for 1hour too. I guess the transcription is more time demanding but on the totalt It might require less time and can yield good results too.
SvaraRaderaWow, a lot of comments on this one!
SvaraRaderaIt is pointed out that there may be problems with bullying and that there should be some follow up as I wrote. Also, it is said that focus groups might give better results than interviews in some cases.
As always, the result you'll get from any method will rely very much on the context. To get a more complete result I think you should combine a lot of methods, and the settings within a method could also be varied greatly. One could for instance have focus groups of very varying sizes and see how that affects how participants express their views. If somebody bullies others in a focus group it could mean that they have very strong views on the subject or that they are just mean. Varying settings could discriminate between that. For the follow-up I think that the more you have the better. Perhaps one focus group is not enough.
I think the only thing that limits this is time or money. So more time and money to researchers will give better research... ;)