Game-Based Technique for Studying Identity Change in Disturbed Communities

Elisabeth Kovtiak

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.20.4.03

Authors

Elisabeth Kovtiak Charles University, Czech Republic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0979-3428

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.20.4.03

Keywords:

Authoritarian Regimes, Ethical Considerations, Game-Based Research, Identity Transformation, Projective Techniques, Sensitive Topics

Abstract

Studying social identity change in non-standard contexts is always challenging. This article presents a new research technique that allows researchers to obtain rich and ethical data even in adverse and fragile conditions. It is based on the popular associative card game and combines projective and game-based data generation methods. The game component adds a playful atmosphere to the research environment and encourages interaction, while the projective aspect allows participants to express identity elements more easily. The features of the new technique presented in this paper are demonstrated through a case study of the post-2020 Belarusian diaspora. In addition to data generation, I describe a coding process that blends deductive and inductive approaches and show how textual and visual data can be analyzed together. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of this innovative technique are assessed, including creative expression, a safe space for dialogue, and the ability to capture nuanced perspectives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Elisabeth Kovtiak, Charles University, Czech Republic

Elisabeth Kovtiak is a qualitative researcher and a sociologist. She is a PhD candidate at Charles University, Prague. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on the transformation of collective identity in Belarus. She obtained her M.A. from the University of Lancaster, focusing on post-communist nostalgia in her master’s thesis. Her academic interests include collective memory and its manifestations in art and public space, the role of art in political activism, and identity in transitional post-socialist societies.

References

Askins, Kye and Rachel Pain. 2011. “Contact Zones: Participation, Materiality, and the Messiness of Interaction.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(5):803-821.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d11109

Astapova, Anastasiya. 2017. “Rumor, Humor, and Other Forms of Election Folklore in Non-Democratic Societies: The Case of Belarus.” Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore 69:15-48.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7592/FEJF2017.69.astapova

Bailey, Peter, Graeme Pritchard, and Hugh Kernohan. 2015. “Gamification in Market Research.” International Journal of Market Research 57(1):17-28.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-003

Barker, David. 1979. “Appropriate Methodology: An Example Using a Traditional African Board Game to Measure Farmers’ Attitudes and Environmental Images.” The IDS Bulletin 10(2):37-40.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1979.mp10002006.x

Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Google Scholar

Branthwaite, Alan. 2002. “Investigating the Power of Imagery in Marketing Communication: Evidence‐Based Techniques.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 5(3):164-171.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750210432977

Coemans, Sara and Karin Hannes. 2017. “Researchers Under the Spell of the Arts: Two Decades of Using Arts-Based Methods in Community-Based Inquiry with Vulnerable Populations.” Educational Research Review 22:34-49.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.003

CohenMiller, Anna. 2018. “Creating a Participatory Arts-Based Online Focus Group: Highlighting the Transition from DocMama to Motherscholar.” The Qualitative Report 23(7): Article 17.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2895

Dunn, Victoria and Tom Mellor. 2017. “Creative, Participatory Projects with Young People: Reflections over Five Years.” Research for All 1(2):284-299.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.01.2.05

Fereday, Jennifer and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1):80-92.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Glasius, Marlies et al. 2018. Research, Ethics, and Risk in the Authoritarian Field. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68966-1

Harper, Douglas. 2002. “Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo Elicitation.” Visual Studies 17(1):13-26.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345

Hájek, Martin et al. 2019. “Uneasy Neoliberal Governance in Low-Trust Society: Barriers to Responsibilisation in the Czech Republic.” Sociological Research Online 25(2):201-218.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780419866464

Janenova, Saltanat. 2019. “The Boundaries of Research in an Authoritarian State.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919876469
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919876469

Koch, Natalie. 2013. “Introduction—Field Methods in ‘Closed Contexts’: Undertaking Research in Authoritarian States and Places.” Area 45(4):390-395.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12044

Lee, Raymond M. 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Martin, Roger and Yolande Strengers. 2022. “Playing Games with the Weather: A Card Game Method for Engaging Households in Conversations about Renewable Energy Generation and Everyday Practice.” Geographical Research 60(4):575-588.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12547

Morgenbesser, Lee and Meredith L. Weiss. 2018. “Survive and Thrive: Field Research in Authoritarian Southeast Asia.” Asian Studies Review 42(3):385-403.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2018.1472210

Parker, Lee D. 2009. “Photo‐Elicitation: An Ethno‐Historical Accounting and Management Research Prospect.” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 22(7):1111-1129.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570910987439

Porr, Caroline et al. 2011. “The Evocative Power of Projective Techniques for the Elicitation of Meaning.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10(1):30-41.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000103

Rohava, Maryia. 2018. “Identity in an Autocratic State. Or What Belarusians Talk about When They Talk about National Identity.” East European Politics and Societies 32(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325417741343
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325417741343

Rowley, Jennifer et al. 2012. “Using Card-Based Games to Enhance the Value of Semi-Structured Interviews.” International Journal of Market Research 54(1):93-110.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-54-1-093-110

Rudnik, Lesia. 2021. “Naskol’ko bezopasno osusaut seba belarusy za granicej? – Centr novyh idej [How Safe Do Belarusians Feel Abroad? Center for New Ideas].” Retrieved August 25, 2023 https://newbelarus.vision/belarusians-safety-abroad/
Google Scholar

Smith, Laura G. E., Emma F. Thomas, and Craig McGarty. 2014. “‘We Must Be the Change We Want to See in the World’: Integrating Norms and Identities through Social Interaction.” Political Psychology 36(5):543-557.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12180

Smithson, Janet. 2000. “Using and Analysing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2):103-119.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/136455700405172

Vila, Pablo. 2013. “The Importance of Photo-Interviewing as a Research Method in the Study of Identity Construction Processes: An Illustration from the U.S.–Mexico Border.” Visual Anthropology 26(1):51-68.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2013.735187