It is acknowledged that social research does come with axiological idiosyncrasies depending on factors such as the social landscape, the participants’ world view and
the researcher’s values (Walter, 2010b). The researcher’s perspective as a former practitioner in local government and the related practitioner’s dilemma influence the framing of the research. Walter (2010b, p. 15) claims that social research being “value free is next to impossible”. However, the use of a mixed methods approach in this research may minimise the effect of what Husey and Husey (1997, p. 48, cited in Fraser, 2014) refer to as the value-laden bias associated with qualitative research.
Although other population groups also attend the Falls in smaller numbers, participants in this research are predominantly from generations X and Y. The extent to which findings from these population segments may hold for society more broadly is canvassed in chapter seven of this thesis.
The Falls is described in this thesis as an atypical, or outlier case. While not necessarily unique when compared to the contemporary music festival landscape it still has its own idiosyncrasies (see chapter five). Researchers need to be wary of generalising from a single case study (Arksey and Knight, 1999). Stake (2005) raises the issue of basing wider assumptions on an outlier case and he states, “People find in case reports certain insights into the human condition, even while being well aware of the atypicality of the case. They may be too quick to accept the insight.” (p. 456).28 It is not assumed that the Falls is a representative case nor that the findings can be generalised across the wider community or the contemporary music festival landscape per se. This case is utilised to explore the Falls as a context to tease out findings that can be tested in future research.
Stake (2005, p. 456) expresses concern about the researcher telling their own story and choosing what goes in the report as “less will be reported than is learned”. He furthers this by arguing that “it may be the case’s own story, but the report will be the researcher’s dressing of the case’s own story”. It is not possible to represent the whole case detail in this thesis as “the whole story exceeds anyone’s knowing and
28
anyone’s telling” (Stake, 2005, p. 456). He also feels that it is “risky to leave it to the case actors to select the stories to be conveyed” and that a balance has to be found between telling the stories of the actors as dictated by them and the insights drawn by the researcher. The use of the participants’ words in this thesis has been implemented to minimise the impact of a “researcher’s dressing”.
In regard to the use of questionnaires, these too come with sampling and end-user limitations such as exaggeration, under-reporting, accuracy of recall and sensitivity (Lynch and Veal, 2006, Veal, 2011). Survey questionnaires are also subject to the participants’ understanding of the questions and whether they answer them “truthfully, accurately and fully” (Lynch and Veal, 2006).29 Esurvey questionnaires can hold a bias toward those who have access to a computer Veal (2011) also argues that esurveys are easily treated as junk mail. The 2011 survey carries an extra limitation as well in that participants had to visit the Marion Markets to encounter the survey marquee. (Walter, 2010c, Veal, 2011). As participants self-selected to complete the surveys, sampling biases may also have occurred. Attempts to minimise the impacts of potential biases include mass promotion of the 2010 esurvey via the Falls email list and the prominent location of the survey marque within the Marion Markets for the 2011 survey. As stated previously, the questionnaires that are utilised in this study are to gain insights, not to be representative of the population. The biases noted are not believed to have afforded a significant impact on the research.
The focus groups in 2010 hold limitations as a method in that it was only groups that were located in their campsites at the time of the researcher approaching that were asked to participate. Numerous groups declined to be interviewed. It was attendees from Tasmania who seemed to be more frequently located in their campsites; hence a majority of focus group interviews were conducted with Tasmanians. The interviews hold similar limitations in that it was only people who approached the
29
stall who were asked to participate. In addition, the interviews were conducted in the Marion Markets which was found to not be conducive to interviewing for two primary reasons. The first was the close proximity to the Field Stage in regard to the decibel level of the music being played; the second was the significant number of people willing to participate in the survey which made for difficulties in allocating resources to interviews. The interview participants were, in the main, chosen following the researcher hearing a story that they were conveying or had conveyed to the researcher. This approach was the primary window to secure participants.
Overall themes are drawn from the data collected and generalised to enable a grouping of information to analyse. The ability to interact with every actor in the case was impossible given the researcher’s resources. Therefore, the data collected comes with the caveat that this is an exploratory case with limitations but with rigour in data collection. In addition, no comparisons are drawn between other cases. The exploratory nature of this study to uncover themes and stories does not come with the aim of comparing informal leisure contexts. The comparison of different contexts is not within the scope of this thesis.