Qualitative Data: Focus Groups and Interviews

Schuller (2007, p. 23) states that “the act of investment should be recognizable, even if it cannot be recorded quantitatively”. Identifying social capital necessitated the use of qualitative methods because a criticism of social capital research is that it lacks qualitative insight (Blackshaw and Long, 2005). Gibson and Connell (2012) also argue for qualitative theorisation to better understand the impact of festivals. In this research, in depth focus groups and interviews were the qualitative methods employed.

A focus group, as the name suggests, is a group of individuals collectively interviewed with a particular focus in mind (Ruddell, 2011). Focus groups can be used to recall or stimulate “experiences shared by members of the group” (Fontana and Frey, 2005, p. 704). The elucidation of shared experiences, especially social experiences, from an emic perspective (Atkinson et al., 2001, Murchison, 2010, Ruddell, 2011) is integral to the exploratory nature of this study. Equally, a focus group can be exploratory. Fontana and Frey (2005, p. 704) argue that “exploratory interviews are designed to establish familiarity with a topic or setting … [and] the questions are usually unstructured or open-ended”. For this reason the focus group method was chosen for the 2010 component of the study. This approach assisted to unearth the weak ties phenomenon.

Stake (2005, p. 455) proposes that when the researcher “can become experientially acquainted with the case” it is then embraceable. He continues on to suggest that “through observation, enumeration, and talk, the researcher can personally come to perceive that nature of the case” and that “when the researcher can see and inquire about the case personally … that researcher can come to understand the case in the

most expected and respected ways”. The personal observation and participation process involved in a focus group can assist to triangulate the understanding phenomena to add greater validity to findings. Also, it can be advantageous to ‘do what the locals do’ by participating in their activities as this can elucidate further stories and build rapport (Joseph and Donnelly, 2012).

According to Fontana and Frey (2003, p. 90), “There is a growing realization that interviewers are not the mythical, neutral tools envisioned by survey research”. In an interview, the facilitator, researcher or moderator can become a part of the discussion itself as they guide and shape discussion to elicit responses that are deeper and more meaningful. Fontana and Frey (2003) also argue that “interviewers are increasingly seen as active participants in interactions with respondents, and interviews are seen as negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and respondents that are shaped by the contexts and situations in which they take place” (p. 90-91). The interactions may also be guided and shaped through the facilitator obtaining a level of trust through demonstrating a deeper understanding of the participants’ context. Fontana and Frey (2005, p. 696) afford an example of this when discussing work by Douglas (1985) where he “advocated revealing personal feelings and private situations to the interviewee as quid pro quo of good faith”. They continue on to emphasise that “he [Douglas] failed to see that his openness was merely a technique to persuade the interviewee to reveal more and be more honest in his or her responses”. Murchison (2010, p. 101) strongly emphasises that “the ethnographic interview should not be an interrogation” meaning that it is a learning process not an authoritarian approach. He also argues that “you can learn a lot by being part of a conversation without completely orchestrating it” (p. 102).26

Ruddell (2011, p. 122) observes that “the in-depth interview is among the most popular of qualitative methods used in leisure, recreation and tourism research”. Sarantakos (2005) describes them as talking questionnaires. Travers (2010, p. 290)

26

argues that “in-depth interviewing is an exciting and challenging activity” in that the interview can be undertaken in an array of different social settings using different groups and processes. Ruddell (2011, p. 122-123) explains that “the in-depth interview is a conversation between the researcher and respondent designed to explore a topic in greater depth than can be had in the traditional quantitative survey”.

Veal (2011, p. 242) suggests that “conducting a good in-depth interview could be said to require the skills of a good investigative journalist”. To assist a good investigative journalist to investigate, an interviewer should create an interview guide (Travers, 2010). An interview guide assists with ensuring that all desired information is elicited but to allow conversation to flow. The use of structure in an interview can shape discussion but the level of structure is what will determine how the interview is conducted (see Ruddell, 2011, Veal, 2011). Veal (2011, p. 243) explains that “the interaction between researcher and subject is, as far as possible, similar for all subjects”. A semi-structured approach was adopted in this study. This approach allow a degree of open-endedness to not limit the field of enquiry but with an associated agenda of scope for questioning (Ruddell, 2011, Veal, 2011). The shape of the in-depth interviews and focus groups and the involvement of the researcher as a participant in the process are explored in the next section to describe the format of the qualitative methods.

2010 Facilitated Focus Group Discussions

The focus group prompt questions, using an interview guide (Travers, 2010), were designed to build on and complement the questions to be asked on the esurvey. These were predominantly open questions to explore participants’ motivations to attend the Falls, feelings about their experience at the Falls and how and where they have formed social ties. Similar to the esurvey, indicators of social capital such as frequency of interaction, trust, reciprocity and tolerance (see ABS, 2000) underpinned the questioning. The researcher elected to camp in ‘tent city’ rather

than camp in the Very Important Person (VIP) area27. The conducting of focus groups at the Falls meant that participants could be engaged within their space, or their temporary home.

The focus group discussions (n=17) were semi-structured (see Appendix 3) to allow the time to flow naturally according to the response of the participants but also to scope interaction. The interviewer’s role was to operate as a facilitator rather than interviewer. The researcher guided and shaped discussions according to responses. Similarly to Douglas’s research mentioned in the previous section (1985 in Fontana and Frey, 2005, p. 696), the researcher often mentioned that he was camping and was an avid music fan to assist with developing “good faith” (p. 696). He also wore similar clothing and spoke in language that was similar to the words of the participants. The researcher was a participant in the discussions to assist participants to feel at ease but not a deliberate influence on content. Focus groups were selected at random and conducted in situ using an interview guide at the participants’ campsites. Focus group members were permitted to invite ‘neighbours’ who they had met at or prior to attending the Falls as this could add to the social story of their festival experience. The focus groups were asked to describe their motivations, experiences and social activities at the Falls.

Contained within these focus groups was an element of participant observation. When referring to work by Tedlock (2005), Denzin and Lincoln (2005, p. 16) stated that “participant observation has become the observation of people”. During the focus groups the researcher was guided by the interactions between the participants. This process enabled the researcher to flow with the conversation but also afford those with a ‘smaller voice’ to be included.

27

Participants were advised that no recorded audio material would be made public and that they were to use a pseudonym for the duration of the discussion. The use of a pseudonym was designed to place the participants at ease and proved to be a positive engagement tool as did the use of a microphone in a music festival setting.

2011 One-on-one and Two-on-one Targeted Interviews

Like the 2011 survey, a series of semi-structured interviews was conducted with attendees (see Appendix 4). The use of interviews with either one or two people at a time enabled targeted, yet open, questions to be asked to deepen understanding of the Falls responses obtained in phase one of the study. These interviews were more structured than the focus groups discussions of the previous year. They still contained a level of fluidity for ebbs and flows but the discussion was contained to responses to the questions asked.

Similarly to the focus group process, participants were advised that no recorded audio material would be made public and that they were to use a pseudonym for the duration of the discussion. Once again, this process proved to be a positive engagement tool as did the use of a microphone. The use of a pseudonym again in 2011 confirmed that this approach to interviewing is an effective tool for research in these kinds of settings. It is recommended that this approach be considered for future festivals and events research.