GESTIÓN DEL CAMBIO

This section documents the quantitative and qualitative processes in more detail. It includes matters such as sampling, questionnaire content, interview selection, data analysis, and validity.

a. Phase One: Quantitative – Postal Questionnaire

Measures

The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide statistical background information on competitive bodybuilding in New Zealand to frame the research, as well as insights into a range of matters potentially aligned with bodybuilder identity that could inform the interview process. A questionnaire was developed based on issues highlighted in the literature and is attached in Appendix 1. It comprised 55 questions; the first 18 elicited the demographic composition of the participating bodybuilders (e.g., age, gender, and ethnicity), their participation in bodybuilding (e.g., competitive experience, category and future intentions), and information on their training

regime. Questions 19–54 invited participant feedback on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements concerning bodybuilding. These statements related to a broad range of issues referenced in existing bodybuilding theory, pertaining to concepts such as muscularity and gender, bodily perfection, discipline and control, personal health and social engagement. To develop these statements, a table with topics and accompanying research links were placed on one side of the table then survey statements generated on the other side. For example, ‘health’ was identified as a topic debated within the competitive bodybuilding literature. Corresponding research included Roussel and Griffet (2000) whose findings highlighted participant perceptions of health, while Klein (2001a) portrayed competitive bodybuilding as unhealthy. The following statement was subsequently developed and included in the questionnaire: “I consider participating in bodybuilding to be a healthy activity’. The scale contained within this section comprised rating options of 1–4 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree). This meant participants could not elect a neutral position, and were thus forced to declare an opinion on each of the statements (Zikmund, 2000). Respondents were also provided with an opportunity to submit additional comment or explanation for any of the above issues. At the end of the questionnaire respondents were given the opportunity to indicate their interest in participating in the qualitative part of the research. Before distribution, the questionnaire was piloted on a former competitive bodybuilder, who provided feedback concerning the format, its comprehension, and completion time.

Sample

Participants were competitive bodybuilders living in New Zealand, who were either actively competing, had competed in the past or were novice contenders in training for their first bodybuilding competition. The prime avenue for distributing the questionnaire was via the membership lists of the New Zealand Federation of Bodybuilding (NZFBB) and the National Amateur Bodybuilding Association of NZ (NABBA). In order to compete in New Zealand

bodybuilding events, bodybuilders must be members of either the NZFBB or NABBA. Both Associations host bodybuilding shows throughout the year, culminating with their respective national championships. The NZFBB is affiliated to the International Federation of Bodybuilding and is one of over 170 countries aligned with this sporting body. NABBA (NZ) was established after the creation of the NZFBB, and is aligned with NABBA International. Both New Zealand bodybuilding associations operate in accordance with the rules and processes of their respective international bodies. A Pacific Island Bodybuilding Association (PIBBA) also exists in New Zealand. Founded in 1997, it hosts an annual bodybuilding event for NZFBB members of Mā_ori

and/or Pacific Island descent, and sampling was therefore included via the NZFBB questionnaire mailing. The purpose of PIBBA is to raise self-esteem and promote bodybuilders with these ethnic roots (www.pibba.org.nz).

The postal questionnaire was distributed in May 2005 to 1431 competitive bodybuilders, comprising, at the time of the research, current members of the NZFBB (n = 450) and current and former financial members of NABBA since 1999 (n = 981). The NZFBB posted the survey to its members in conjunction with their regular Association mailings. NABBA provided membership details to enable a mail out to be undertaken to their members specifically for the research. A cover sheet attached to each questionnaire introduced the research purpose, details about myself as researcher and bodybuilder, confidentiality, benefits of participation, and the option of participating in the next phase (the interview process) (see Appendix 2). Prepaid postal envelopes were provided and participants were asked to return the questionnaire within a 2-week period. The questionnaire, with accompanying explanatory information, was also emailed to ten gyms whose electronic contact details were posted online at www.yellowpages.co.nz (the New Zealand phone directory Yellow Pages), as well as to two New Zealand bodybuilding web sites (www.gofigure.co.nz and www.nzbb.co.nz). The purpose was to further promote the questionnaire to the competitive bodybuilding community and to reach bodybuilders, such as

those intending to compete for the first time, who may not be current members of the bodybuilding associations. Questionnaire forms were colour-coded to enable the researcher to distinguish their distribution source (i.e. NZFBB = yellow, NABBA = light brown, direct electronic approach to gyms/web sites = white).

Analysis

The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequencies, descriptives, and relevant statistical tests (e.g., T-test, ANOVA) were undertaken to explore potential trends and relationships. In situations where the Levene’s test indicated significance, the “equal variances not assumed” value was reported (Pallant, 2005). Academic judgment (Hinton, Brownlow, McMurray, & Cozens, 2004) was used in adopting this position on the basis that the purpose of the questionnaire was exploratory and its intention was to generate ‘possible’, as opposed to necessarily ‘definitive’ leads. Factor analysis, which examines “the correlation between variables in large sets of data to see if a small set of underlying variables or factors can explain the original set of variables” (Hinton et al., 2004 p.340), was applied to questions 19–54. This analysis helped identify potential themes and dimensions for inclusion and further exploration within the interview process (Child, 1990). As I did not hold any prior hypothesis regarding factors likely to be identified to explain the data, or how many, an exploratory mode of factor analysis was applied, using a principles components analysis procedure (Pallant, 2005). The appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was tested using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and Barlett’s test of sphericity was used to confirm relationships existing between the variables. As the KMO value was greater than 0.5 and Bartletts Test of Sphericity indicated a p value < 0.05, factor analysis proceeded (Pallant, 2005). A combination of latent root and visual analysis of the scree plot were used to determine factors of importance. Despite listing eigenvalues greater than one, a straightening of the scree at an earlier stage resulted in fewer factors being extracted for further analysis for all the elected themes.

Although several rotation options were tested, resulting in similar outcomes, a varimax method was ultimately applied as it proved more conducive to factor interpretation (Kline, 1994). In some situations, variables loaded on more than one factor. While technically not encouraged (R. Miller, Acton, Fullerton, & Maltby, 2002), cross-loading was accepted in my analysis, as in many instances variables genuinely appeared to apply to more than one factor (Miller et al., 2002) and such additions and alternative interpretations proved helpful at this exploratory phase. For an item to be included in a factor, a loading above 0.3 was applied (Pallant, 2005).

Limitations

While this questionnaire provided significant levels of data to help inform the research process, it was not without its limitations. The results can not be generalised as representative of all competitive bodybuilders in New Zealand, and there is no definitive list documenting all active, former, and intending competitive bodybuilders in New Zealand. While the mailing lists of the Bodybuilding Associations captured a significant number of current bodybuilders, not all members responded to the questionnaire. The membership contact details on the Association databases were also not necessarily up to date. Biases may have existed with respect to the type of bodybuilder who responded compared with those who did not (e.g., former bodybuilders still interested in the activity may have responded; those no longer interested may not). The use of quantitative questionnaire methods may also not necessarily appeal to certain groups, such as those from Pacific Island communities (Teevale, 2001), which may affect responses including the validity of the demographic results. The quantitative nature of analysis, while generating valuable statistics, also contains limitations. Factor analysis is a complex and often subjective procedure and not an “exact science” (Miller et al, 2002, p. 183). As a consequence, the results can be open to interpretation and differences of opinion, resulting in validation issues. Quantitative results offer limited insights to underlying explanations, motivations, and rationales that may have underpinned the responses. They therefore provided surface-level information, not detailed

insights of identity and meanings. Finally, the data generated were restricted to the topics covered by the questionnaire, potentially overlooking broader issues concerning identity, which may have been pertinent and meaningful to participants.

b. Phase Two: Qualitative – In-depth Interviews and Photo Elicitation

Participant Selection and Interview Process

Results from the quantitative process were used to inform the qualitative phase. The quantitative results provided an indication of New Zealand bodybuilder demographics, ideas for interview questions, and generated a list of potential interview participants. The selection of participants for the interview was undertaken in a purposeful manner (Zikmund, 2000), a technique in keeping with both a grounded theory and a phenomenological approach (Cutcliffe, 2000; Miklaucich, 1988). Participants were chosen to reflect a mix of gender, age, bodybuilding experience and ethnicity. Selection was also tempered by considerations of travel convenience, cost and practicality. Participants were predominantly based in the following locations – Auckland, Wellington, Hawke’s Bay and Taranaki – reflecting a mix of city and provincial regions.

Demographically, the questionnaire results indicated Pacific Island Peoples comprised a relatively small percentage of participants (see Chapter Four). However, my informal observations at New Zealand bodybuilding competitions, coupled with the presence of ethnically-specific structures, such as the Pacific Island Bodybuilding Association (PIBBA) and the hosting of the Pacific Island Bodybuilding Competition, suggested that a higher rate of participation and interest may exist in bodybuilding within this ethnic group. A snowball technique was therefore utilised to enhance access to New Zealand-based Pacific Island bodybuilders. This process enlists the help of others to facilitate introductions and can prove a useful strategy for hard-to-reach research participants (Lowe, 1998). It was also more in keeping with the relational style of interface often favoured by Pacific people and their cultural sensitivities (Teevale, 2001). Leaders from the

Pacific Island Bodybuilding Association were contacted concerning the research, identified several potential participants, and arranged interviews on my behalf.

Information sheets and consent forms were sent to participants and a semi-structured interview schedule was developed (See Appendix 3). The content of the interview schedule was informed by the literature review, questionnaire results, and the research proposition. The questions provided guidance and structure yet were sufficiently open to allow participants to describe their experiences and life stories in their own way, style and flow. This format was consistent with a grounded approach on the basis it encouraged openness. Questions were flexible in their arrangement, to complement the direction of the interview and the rapport established, as well as receptive to further refinement to reflect emerging participant themes. Additional questions were sometimes added during the course of individual interviews to follow trails of dialogue. In accordance with the grounded theory approach, additional participants were sought for interview purposes, especially during the latter phases of the research process, to “fill out theoretical categories” and “discover variation” (Charmaz, 2003, p.325). These included young bodybuilders, participants of Mā_{ori descent, and the inclusion of more muscular and chemically}

enhanced bodybuilders. In total, 32 bodybuilders were interviewed, 17 women and 15 men, ranging in age from 19 years to over 60.

Interviews took place in locations that accommodated participant preferences and schedules. The shortest interview was 15 minutes; the longest lasted 3 hours and 15 minutes. Some participants were interviewed in gyms, including on treadmills, in gym lobbies, gym changing rooms, and toilet areas. Others were met at their homes, at cafes or at work. One was interviewed early in the morning on a street footpath (as shops and cafes were not open at that time) and others occurred at my motel unit. Although Easton, McComish and Greenberg (2000, p.705) wisely recommend that researchers arrange interviews “ahead of time”, to ensure they “take place in a quiet room” without interruptions and to request participants “set aside a designated time” so interviews can

“finish uninterrupted”, I found quiet rooms and uninterrupted interviews were rare. Bodybuilders are busy people. Many work and have families, and some were in the middle of training for upcoming bodybuilding contests. Time was at a premium and interviews were therefore slotted in with these other activities.

Although interview details were usually prearranged and confirmed directly between myself and the participant this was not always the case. In terms of the snowball approach, arrangements were undertaken on my behalf. I was required to turn up at a designated gym to meet several (unknown) participants who would be working out. The resulting interviews occurred in the gym lobby – one for only 15 minutes – and the official paperwork (e.g., information sheets and consent forms) had not been forwarded to participants. I learnt to be flexible and prepared – always to carry a pack of consent forms, spare tapes, and tape recorder, and to be able to reprioritise questions rapidly when time was limited. I also learnt that these types of sessions, while not ideal in a technical sense, can prove valuable and encourage researchers to look outside the box and use such opportunities creatively and to their best effect. Field notes recorded my researcher experiences and observations (see Appendix 4).

The relational style and insider stance proved beneficial in the interview process. It fostered connectivity and rapport and the use of bodybuilder jargon and terminology enabled participant stories to be conveyed with ease and flow. Participants often asked about my own experiences and about similarities with theirs. During the course of the research process, some re-contacted me with updates of their lives, competitive aspiration, and progress. They expressed interest in the research, were pleased someone was giving the sport some attention, and seemed to enjoy sharing their experiences.

However, there was a constant need to ensure I did not overlook sub-cultural behaviours, observations, and dialogues that were ‘normal’ for a bodybuilder, and thus risk being considered

inconsequential. For example, preliminary small talk concerning training; the presence of competition diets stuck to fridges; the ability to recite daily schedules; and the ease with which activities such as post-competition bingeing were recounted and described. I also discovered that being a bodybuilder did not necessarily mean I had insider status on all occasions and in all settings. As highlighted by Naples (2003, p.49) insiders and outsiders are “not fixed or static positions…. they are shifting and permeable”. I was also a female, white, non-steroid-using bodybuilder interviewing a participant base that included men, people from different social and ethnic backgrounds, and steroid-using bodybuilders. There were also occasions when I felt my insider status was being tested. Informally joining a group of competitive bodybuilders at their posing practice in the absence of a sport crop top, I was asked to participate in my bra. I subsequently did so. An outsider may have refrained on the basis of personal modesty. Later I sensed any initial caution and potential cynicism regarding my presence and work had relaxed to include greater warmth and group acceptance.

Photo Elicitation

Initially, participants were asked to bring photographs of their family, significant events and their favourite bodybuilder. However, this format proved unsuccessful as participants were not bringing photographs to the session. This appeared due to several factors:

• The time and effort involved.

• Relevant photos may not be readily at hand (e.g., their favourite bodybuilders). • The impracticality of bringing photographs to interview locations (e.g., gyms). • The hesitation of showing private photos (e.g., family) to an unknown researcher. • General forgetfulness on the part of the participant..

Procedurally the request was subsequently simplified. Participants were asked to bring a single photograph of themselves as a bodybuilder. Before the interview, a reminder concerning this

request was also sent. These changes enhanced the process. The use of photographs provided a useful focus point for discussion and made the sessions more personalised, reinforcing interest in participant stories, progress, and accomplishments. However, the quality and format of photography varied considerably and this was another unexpected outcome of the process. Participant ‘photographs’ varied from professional, full-coloured, glossy photographs to black and white photocopies of images of themselves extracted from newspaper clippings. Furthermore, their elected form of imagery was not always in the form of a photograph. They included bodybuilding posters, which featured their picture, as well as Digital Video Disk, within which were images I was required to capture as a ‘still’. Some participants brought albums full of personal bodybuilding photographs to the interview while others, despite my best endeavours, brought none. This was due to the following added reasons:

• Some conveyed they did not have a favourite or good photograph of themselves.

• Participants whose interview sessions had been set up indirectly were unaware of the

photograph request, and follow-ups after the session to secure photographs often proved elusive.

Whilst securing photographs from all the participants would have been advantageous for consistency reasons, the manner by which the photograghs were ultimately used in the research to highlight themes meant that not having everyones photographs did not compromise the key outcomes.

Data Analysis

The interviews were tape recorded. Additional notes were also taken. These notes document not only the time and place of the interview, but also other observations and personal impressions from the interview. Tapes were transcribed soon after the interview and were member checked

(Seale, 1999). A web site (www.nzbb.info) was also established to enable participants to follow the research, receive updates, and provide feedback at any stage.

The text was selected and coded, utilising the assistance of HyperRESEARCH, a qualitative data analysis software package that enables text to be coded, organised, and retrieved. This enabled reports to be generated and trends and repetitive words and examples to be grouped, viewed, and emphasised. This was valuable as it enabled a broad listing of participant responses relevant to a particular meaning to be reviewed – and therefore reduced potential researcher bias through being swayed by one or two particularly memorable quotes, which can dominate the findings. It also challenged and tested my views. As a participant myself, it reminded me that not all bodybuilder experiences are similar to my own, and although I may wish to present the activity in a positive light, not all experiences were positive or pleasurable. The use of this software helped keep me honest with data interpretation, reduced bias, and aided self-reflexivity.