Integral Eye Coaching

Integral Research

		Press Play to Grow! How Could Video Games be Designed to Facilitate Personal and Spiritual Growth? A Mixed Methods and Integral Study

Fifth Methodology:
Empirical Analysis Method and Research Data

Analysis of the survey results

Issues and categories of validity
           
In a mixed methods research study, validity can be also described as being “the ability of the researcher to draw meaningful and accurate conclusions from all the data in the study” (p.146). Hence, it was my goal was to draw accurate inductive and deductive conclusions during the whole analytic process, a practice also described as “inference quality” (Tashakkori & Teddie, 2003a).

In terms of issues and categories of validity related to the data analysis for the empirical survey used in this Third-person methodology (Empirical Analysis), my intention as a research data analyst was to be as much objective, impartial and concise as possible, balancing these aspects as best as I could.

The same could be said in relation to balancing various purposes in the same survey, and taking in account different audiences. The main intention with this empirical survey was to start having a general idea about how those different groups responded to my questions, and use those results for further inquiry, research and inferences in relation to various methodologies.

According to Creswell & Clark (2007), “in quantitative research validity means that the researcher can draw meaningful inferences from the results to a population; reliability means that scores received from participants are consistent and stable over time” (p.132). Both aspects need to be based on external standards which “are drawn from a source external to the researcher and participants: statistical procedures or external experts” (p.133).

In my research, I drawn these quantitative inferences from both the quantitative results of the survey (percentages) and the qualitative (open ended questions) responses and comments, as well as from the other five methodologies, including discussing with various external experts. In general, I consider that both my sample of participants and the way the survey was distributed and collected were fairly reliable, credible and valid from the point of view of my main research intentions.

In addition to collecting pure empirical results, I planned to use this survey data in a process of triangulation (Creswell & Clark, 2007; Seidman, 2006) to explore the validity of some data gathered in the other First-, Second-, and Third-person methodologies.

In terms of the qualitative aspects (open-ended questions), my intention was to bring as much honesty, integrity, authenticity and humbleness into my analysis; which supported the qualitative validity of this methodology. In other words, as much as I tapped into those qualities and was aware of their presence in my study, more valid and significant were my subjective and inter-subjective (First- and Second-person) findings.

I was also aware that due to basically quantitative aspects - and also qualitative aspects from other methodologies partially included in the survey - brought by this method, a whole range of data would be naturally set aside, including:

(1) Individual or collective bias, inner beliefs, blind spots or shadows coming from the researcher and/or participants.

(2) Possible difference of understandings and interpretations of my survey questions that would diverse people from responding to consensual data, due to problems of clarity of communication (coming from the researcher) and/or misunderstanding of the original intentions of the researcher (coming from the participants).

(3) Misrepresentation of a more generic set of population related the 3 groups due to the relative small data samples and also due to the predominance of participants coming from the serious games movement in the groups (1) and (3).

(4) The data that could be better perceived directly from another mode or perspective (methodology), such as First- and Second-person observations.

(5) The data that could better perceived from a collective external (AQAL LR Quadrant) perspective within the same Third-person mode, which is represented by the sixth methodology (Systems analysis) explored in another section of this research; and also by an individual and internal perspective within the same Third-person mode (AQAL UR Quadrant), represented by Autopoiesis Analysis (not covered in this research study).

Analysis and Discussion

The data and numbers presented in the survey results brought a significant body of information. Various correlations, observations and partial conclusions could be drawn from that, in many different ways and combinations. In addition to that, many confirmations and surprises were unfolded by doing this analysis.

I wonder where some of the underlying influences directing many of those responses were coming from, based on different AQAL categories (Wilber, 2007) from the Integral Theory. E.g.: Personality types, genders, levels of personal and spiritual growth and integration, worldviews, beliefs, inclinations, bias, lines of intelligence, professions, social classes, cultural backgrounds, etc.

I am discussing below about some of the aspects that I found most interesting or intriguing, relating them to their question number in the survey (Q#) and also associating this data with different categories of AQAL and the overall topic of the research.

Group (1): people related to the subject of personal and spiritual growth

Group (2): people related to the subject of video games and video game design

Group (3): people related to the subjects of groups (1) and (2)

1. Surprisingly, the overall gender (Types) division of participants was somewhat balanced (79M, 58F), as well as in the group (1) (28M, 32F), in the group (2) (30M, 25F) and the in group of people belonging to the group (3) (19M, 16F), which represented those interested in the subjects of groups (1) and (2).
   This balance of genders was intriguing for me especially in relation to the group (2), due to the fact that according to my observations at GDC 2008, most of participations were male (around 80 to 90%).
   I suppose this pattern may be due to the fact that the genders related to serious games may be more balanced in number, and also probably because women would tend to participate more in surveys related to inner growth (?) However, those are just suppositions at the moment, given this relatively short survey sample.
   
   
2. The professional roles (Q# introduction) of the participants (LR Quadrant) were spread in a very broad range, more than I expected from each group. That brought a richer number of shared experiences, perspectives and opinions into the survey.
   
   
3. In general, a significant number of people in all groups have played video games very often (29.5%) (Q#1). However, the difference of between the group (1) and the two others in terms of playing the past year was significant (1-7 days vs. 91-270 days).
   But, in a quite surprising result, a significant number of people from all groups played more than 365 days in their whole lives (excluding last year). This was a really intriguing discovery, due to the fact that even many people from group (1) (26.1%) have played a lot of video games in the past, but not nowadays.
   
   
4. Most people in all groups experienced some growth while playing a video game (Q#2) in terms of different skills (Lines of Intelligence), which also differed between groups. Group (1) tended more towards growth on reflexes; the two other groups (2) and (3) towards intellectual growth. All agreed on coordination growth which had the third higher score. I wonder what underlies this difference in opinions, based in a general AQAL analysis of individual and collective perspectives (experiential, behavioral, cultutral, social, professional, etc.).
   Other types of growth also listed were: playfulness, non-attachment, lucid dreaming, subtle energies, problem solving, cognitive, financial dexterity, social skills, acoustical, musical, ethical, strategy, relational, cooperation, teamwork, wisdom, writing inspiration, aesthetic, physical, self-esteem, stress management, witnessing, leadership skills, understanding human behaviour, empathy, insight, artistic, cardio rate, educational, cultural appreciation, interpersonal relationships.
   
   
5. Most people in group (1) (47.1%) were cautious (“maybe”) in terms of seeing the potential of existing video games to be used (directly or indirectly) for other areas besides entertainment (Q#3) (LR Quadrant). However, most people in the other two groups strongly agreed with this trend.
   As for the potential of video games in the future (Q#4), the group (1) tended to agree (58.8%), and the other remained mostly strongly agreeing. The majority of people in groups (2) (89.3%) and (3) (80%) think that “this is already happening”, but a significant part of group (1) (46%) think this is going to happen only in terms of many years.
   These differences may probably show a certain bias, resistance and/or lack of knowledge of group (1) in relation to the subject, as well as maybe a more optimistic and/or expert approach of the other two groups, probably due to their professional experience, investment and/or familiarity with the topic. Also, they may reflect differences of views and interpretation of how video games could be possibly used in those contexts.
   
   
6. Most people in groups (1) (73.9%) and (3) (82.1%) considered that existent video games could improve teaching (Q#3) (see education in Systems analysis). Although most people of the group (2) were also agreeing on that, they considered training (88.5%) as the main channel for improvement.
   As for video games’ potential in the future (Q#4), most people of group (1) (86.8%) matched training with teaching, most of group (2) (86.8%) remained the same, and a significant consensual majority of group (3) (94.7%) believed that video games will improve relationships in first place, which may reflect their experience, investment and/or familiarity in both worlds of humanities and technology.
   I found these differences in opinion fascinating, reflecting the importance to really take into account different and complementary perspectives in relation to this complex subject.
   
   
7. In relation to video games having the potential to enhance learning in intellectual and emotional ways (Q#5), both groups (2) (46.4%) and (3) (60%) strongly agree, but group (1) (46%) again was more cautious, although also tending to agree.
   The same pattern happened in relation to their opinions on video games having the potential to enhance experiential (embodied) learning and practical skills (Q#6), with a slightly smaller percentage of group (1) (37.3%) tending to agree, and boths group (2) (50%) and group (3) (55%) strongly agreeing in a short increase. Again, the same issues discussed in the item 5 may have exerted an influence on the different responses.
   
   
8. In terms of existent video games being used to facilitate personal growth (Q#7), surprisingly most of groups (2) (42.3%) and (3) (36.1%) tended to agree, but most of group (1) (54.2%) was again cautions (“maybe”).
   In relation to spiritual (or religious) growth, both groups (1) (47.9%) and (3) (36.1%) kept their positions, but making an intriguing change, a significant part of group (2) (39.6%) tended to disagree.
   I think the reason for this change is probably due to a certain tendency of many people of group (2) to be “turned off” with the word “religious” (which I added as alternative to the word “spiritual” in order to cover a broader spectrum).
   But in any case, I found these differences of groups in relation to the spiritual or religious aspects really interesting, reflecting how complex such issues of inner beliefs, cultural bias and subjective interpretations can actually be.
   
   
9. As for the possibility of future video games being purposefully designed to facilitate personal growth (Q#8), most of groups (1) (45.8%) and (2) (47.2%) tended to agree, and most of group (3) (52.8%) strongly agreed.
   Again the same pattern of results of item 5 showed up in terms of “when” these games will be (or are already being) able to provide it, although with decreased percentages for the last groups.
   In terms of the areas that still need to be improved to make this happen, a significant number of people form the groups (1) (82.3%) and (3) (77.1%) cited “designer’s intentions”. However, group (2) (69.8%) which had probably most game designers although they were also represented by the group (3) -  cited “deeper storytelling”.
   I also wonder what would be the underlying reason of this difference, which could also be related to some of the issues exposed in item 5 , in addition to possible differences of interpretation of the actual meaning related to those options.
   
   Interestingly, most of groups (1) (50%) and (2) (49.1%) would be wiling to play these “personal growth” video games “sometimes”, and most of group (3) (61.8%) would play them “very often” (Q# 9).
   I think this answer brought a key information that could probably confirm the potential marketability of these video games related to personal growth, and actually point into an already existent (and latent) demand for them, as already seen in the blossoming market of best selling books related to self-help, personal and spiritual growth.
   
   
10. As for the possibility of future video games being purposefully designed to facilitate spiritual (or religious) growth, most of group (1) (42.6%) kept their position of tending to agree, although in a lesser percentage. Most of group (2) also lessened their percentage (35.8%) and changed to “maybe”, as well as group (3) (34.3%) who matched in both tending to, and strongly agreeing.
    A different pattern happened in terms of “when” these games will be (or are already being) able to provide it (items 5 and 9), with group (1) (61%) and group (2) (53.7%) thinking that this is going to happen only in terms of many years, and group (3) (48.5%) thinking that “this is already happening”.
    In addition, all groups (73.9%) generally agreed in citing “designer’s intentions” as the main areas that still need to be improved to make this happen.
    Finally, a significant but part of groups (1) (39.6%) and (2) (34%) would be willing to play these “spiritual growth” video games “sometimes”, with the majority of group (3) (37.1%) willing to play them “very often” (Q# 10).
    This answer also added a significant data towards the confirmation of an existing demand and market potential for video games related to spiritual growth, even if lesser than those related to personal growth.
    However, since part of the definition of personal growth includes spiritual growth in the higher levels and lines of development (see definitions of spiritual growth), these video games would probably join those purposes along the way.
    It was stimulating to see a certain “dance” of values and opinions happening especially between groups (1) and (2), in terms of either dismissal, caution and/or optimism related to various issues (e.g.: religion, spirituality, usability, feasibility, efficiency, etc.), and the relatively more integrative and balanced views of group (3).

Finally, many participants offered their important and valuable comments, views, information, opinions and suggestions, both in terms of example of games (open questions) and related to the topic of the research as a whole (final comments).
Although I would love to discuss in more detail some of them in this section, due to time issues and the scope of this paper I opted to use their information as a background for a better understanding, discussion and references for other methodologies in this paper. I also intend to communicate with some of those participants in the future, as previously promised. Click here to see participants’ open ended responses.

My understanding of the research topic - some of it coming from previous observations and collected information; some from a more intuitive or associative basis - was satisfactorily confirmed in many ways, although it was also stretched and challenged due to various aspects related to really interesting surprises, exceptions and patterns described in the items above.

In terms of what I would do differently next time, in general I was satisfied with the whole process and results. However, I would still do some things differently, based on the experience I had, such as: (a) take the world “religious” out of the questions and leave only “spiritual” growth; (b) move straight into the online creation, distribution and analysis of the survey; (c) contact lecture organizers (such as in GDC 2008) with a reasonable time before the events, so public announcements about the survey could be better planned and made more “official”; (d) contact webmasters and online group leaders with a reasonable time before the survey release, asking for their official referrals and publications in specific websites and discussion groups; and (e) spend more time testing the survey before releasing it, so later corrections or adjustments won’t needed to be made while the survey was already “alive” and online.

Click here to see the survey results.

Click here to see the open ended responses.

Click here to go back to research menu page.