Methodological approach

A mixed-methods approach was particularly relevant for the current research programme as it aimed to address different types of research questions. A qualitative methodology was required to address the nature of gamers’ attitudes, and examine the diversity and dynamic nature of gaming motivations and experiences. In contrast, experimental research was most relevant for ensuring control when examining the influence of flow on changes in mood. Further, the nature of the experimental context could reflect the traditional videogame research paradigm, whilst demonstrating the importance of resolving previous study limitations (i.e., control of games, limited time period, and sampling). This was useful in developing the empirical evidence of the

199

associations between gaming experiences and a balance of gaming outcomes. Further, using online questionnaires was an effective means of recruiting a larger sample of gamers. Online questionnaires can provide greater access to samples of videogamers compared with previous lab-based studies of convenience samples (Anderson et al., 2004, Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Cicchirillo & Chory-Assad, 2005). The use of sampling from populations of gamers is particularly important since the flow literature has established that an activity (e.g., gaming) must be intrinsically rewarding in order for the flow state to occur (Webster et al., 1993). This suggests that in samples of non-gamers, where there is little intrinsic motivation for gaming, flow is unlikely to be experienced. This has implications for the ecological validity of such research, and the generalisability of associated results to gamers. Differences in motivations, as well as lack of familiarity with gaming, could account for the observed aggressive thoughts and behaviour resulting from gameplay demonstrated in previous studies. Future research should specifically address this limitation through the use of samples of gamers, and a central focus on the gaming experience itself.

The use of mixed methods complements the research process as the different methods built on each others’ relative strengths and limitations. For example, the deductive properties of quantitative research can limit the extent to which new and emergent ideas can arise. In contrast, the inductive nature of qualitative methods provides a more exploratory approach for addressing research questions. The qualitative aspects of the current research were particularly relevant for the nature of some research questions as they could provide an “active voice” for gamers, and examine the linguistic relevance of gamers’ experiences, which are so far, under-represented in the literature. Understanding the meanings gamers attribute to their gaming experiences can be useful for developing theoretical understanding of issues, and informing further research (e.g., developing measures).

Although qualitative methods are often criticised for small sample sizes, this can be disputed based on the fact that as additional focus group sessions took place, there was a decrease in new information being raised. As Study 3 used a homogeneous sample of gamers, it is likely that similar issues and attitudes would be discussed within the sessions, resulting in limited usefulness of conducting more than four focus groups. In reference to Study 3 findings, there was reasonable consistency in the

200

themes being discussed across the four focus group sessions, which supports the contention against limited sample sizes.

Limitations associated with qualitative methods, particularly with thematic analysis should be acknowledged, however. Thematic analysis, by nature, presents evidence for theory as a set of themes. It has been argued that the researcher’s role in constructing these themes may be distinct from the way themes may be interrelated in a participant’s own mind (Boyatzis, 1998). Further, there is a likelihood for researcher projection. That is, it is possible that the researcher’s own conceptualisations can be projected onto meanings derived through the research (Boyatzis, 1998). This presents a confound when interpreting research findings. Using other forms of qualitative analysis (e.g., discourse analysis) could potentially provide better control over these influences, since they can deconstruct the meanings taken from participants’ responses to a greater extent. On reflection, however, it seems that the qualitative findings of would be largely similar, regardless of the type of analysis used. It can be further argued that the influence of the researcher’s own views goes beyond simply the interpretation of qualitative data. This could also potentially influence other aspects of the research process, including study design and interpretation of the quantitative data. This is a persistent issue in empirical research, and should not be solely associated with qualitative methodologies.

The further use of idiographic approaches in examining gaming within leisure frameworks would provide greater understanding of the meanings associated with the activity. Qualitative methodologies can also further address the dynamic and personal nature of gaming motivations and experiences, an issue which is under-represented in the theoretical and empirical literature. Interviews and focus groups can provide the most suitable method for examining individual variations in motivations for playing different games, and their influence on different gaming experiences and outcomes. This can move beyond models which assume all gamers experience, and are affected by games in equivalent ways. Given that the current research suggests varying gaming motivations and experiences both between and within gamers, theoretical models such as the GAM/GLM are restricted in their ability to examine such diversities, and suggest the need for an approach which is largely idiographic to address the range of gaming outcomes.