Way
back in the middle of July, I finally completed the fieldwork for my dissertation
exploring the environments of walking simulator video games. Armed with data gathered
from interviewing 11 game developers, playing 12 games, and a wealth of
secondary sources, I somehow had to make a path towards fulfilling my research
aim. This was to understand the extent to which virtual video game environments
can be experienced as places – spaces
we come to know through the human meanings and feelings we associate with them.
I
had a great deal of data to work with, but unfortunately not a lot of time. My
fieldwork finished later than originally planned, due mainly to a couple of
game developers having to postpone interviews because of their own commitments.
Although this couldn’t be avoided, I knew I would have to make up the time by
being efficient with my analysis. After all, the final deadline for submitting
my dissertation wasn’t moving, and soon enough I would need to get words on
paper.
I
had already transcribed all of the recordings from my interviews and typed up
my handwritten research diary to make the data as accessible as possible. To
make it valuable for my research, though, I needed to somehow translate these
texts into key themes and points that have something interesting to say for the
questions I’m asking as a researcher. In qualitative research, this process is
known as coding.
The
only way to get started is to dive straight into the data. I started off by
reading everything as closely as possible, noting down details that came across
as significant in the context of my research aims, the rest of the data set, and
prior reading on the subject. Creating a list of these topics as they were
encountered, I’d then underline each one once for each new instance of that
topic in the transcripts and research diary entries I read. By the time I’d
read through the ~200 pages of data, I was left with 5 sides of topics,
underlined to different degrees, with lines between them to show their
connection to other topics.
So
what do we learn from this early stage of coding? Well, already we can begin to
see which observations were more or less prevalent during the research, simply
by looking at the number of lines underneath each topic. We can also start to
assess how different topics fit together by looking at the network of lines
going between them on the list. It was a messy document, but within it were the
foundations for the series of points I would go on to make in my dissertation.
To
make a coherent argument in a piece of academic work, though, you can’t simply
reel off a list of points. These points need to be placed within a framework that
guides the reader towards understanding how they contribute to a wider
discussion of the subject matter. In dissertations, each chapter usually provides a pivot for the discussion, so the path
you make through the material often becomes a question of how you organise this
chapter structure.
For
subjects with lots of interconnecting factors, as are typical in human
geography, themes are normally the
best way to approach the research subject, which have distinct characteristics but
also fluid boundaries that are able to flow into each other freely. This is the
approach I took to the complex array of topics that my dissertation presented, condensing
my various data into groups of ideas that provided the basis for my
dissertation chapters.
I
can’t claim to have any particular words of wisdom for identifying themes,
especially for this project. It’s like alchemy. You collect together your
thoughts and magically new patterns begin to emerge, and everything starts
making sense. It’s as if your subconscious has been slowly weaving and winding
the different bits of information throughout the research, and only by thinking
deeply can you access this strange fabric that connects everything together. Like
Sherlock’s ‘mind palace’ that he uses to thread evidence together until he
reaches a moment of insight.
It
started at the tired end of a busy day when I was considering getting an early
night. I started to look through the list of topics I’d made, when suddenly
things started to click. I picked out one key theme, then another appeared, and
eventually two more to form a group of four themes that each nicely divided the
range of points I’d identified during the initial coding stage. These themes stayed
effectively the same right the way through the analysis and writing stages, and
were as follows:
Agency
and interactivity: relating to lack
of mechanical interactions in walking simulator games (i.e. button pressing,
complex and precise controls), and instead the loose interactive framework that
designers use to encourage players to explore the game world mindfully.
Immersion
and believability: how the game
worlds feel authentic and visceral, as if you are really experiencing them –
but also how they fail to do this.
Navigation
and narrative: how game
developers design powerful experiences in worlds, and the ways players navigate
these to form stories as they explore.
Emotion
and subjectivity: how game worlds
are designed to make players connect emotionally with them, and how players’
own identities become part of the world itself through this process.
Once
these four themes were solidified, it was time for the highlighter pens –
probably the most important tool for coding analysis. Using four different
colours, I turned back to my list of topics and highlighted each one according
to the theme(s) they were associated with. By the time I was finished, I was
left with a document that not only told me the most prevalent topics and how
they joined together, but also where they would ultimately fit into the chapters
of my dissertation text.
My
dissertation was taking shape.
The
final stage of my analysis was one I’d never properly done before in any
research project, but turned out to be the best course of action I could have
taken. I was lucky enough to have a fantastic, enthusiastic supervisor for my dissertation,
and he gave me a gold nugget of advice for the final phase before writing. He
suggested writing abstracts for each
chapter – short summaries of around 200 words or less – that clearly set out
exactly what I was arguing for each one. This helps you to tie together all the
points in each theme to make a coherent argument for the chapter; taking the
reader on a determined, purposeful journey towards conclusion, rather than a
sprawled collection of ideas that prevent clear understanding. Furthermore, by
knowing exactly what you want to say in each chapter, it helps you to decide
how you’ll order them so that the reader’s journey is logical, flowing from one
argument to the next.
For
my abstracts, I went deeper and further than my supervisor suggested. For each
chapter, I also wrote down three key pivots of the argument, which formed the
chapter’s subsections. This then helped me to categorise the different pieces
of data I’d gathered more precisely to save time. At the larger scale, I also
decided to write a rough abstract for the whole
dissertation. In the end, a dissertation is marked as a single text, and
therefore it has to read well as such. It’s by having a consistent line of
reasoning flowing through the chapters that the reader will get a strong
impression of your research findings, and their place and impact within the
field.
There
needs to be a clear take-home message, otherwise the research will be wasted no
matter how well it was completed.
Like
the winding paths of the walking simulator games I played, my analysis was also
about treading a path through a world of ideas, objects and feelings, and
threading them together to make a story – a series of events that the reader
must encounter to eventually reach conclusion. Hopefully this post has revealed
how you can transform a big bunch of wordy data into a story, but also how this
can be done concisely, wasting as little time as possible.
If
writing an academic text is about taking the reader on a journey, then good analysis
gives you efficient tools to break through the unknown and make a path towards
understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment