Advocating the Use of Informal Conversations as a Qualitative Method at Live Events

Conducting Informal Conversations at the Live PDC Darts Events

The informal conversations the first author conducted were casual and maintained some flow so that the darts fans did not feel like they were in a formal question-and-answer process. The discourse was framed in a way that the fans could understand the first authors conversations in a multi-purpose venue environment, where other fans were moving into their seating position as the venue numbers grew towards capacity. It was established early in the conversation whether the fan/s had attended an event before; their experiences previously if they had, or what they expected if they had not. This then helped to develop some of the rationale for the fan’s attendance; what their expectations were; and how these may have altered over time if they were long-term darts fans. By framing the conversation from the fan’s perspective, this allowed the fan to showcase their knowledge of the sport and event, or their understanding of the sport or event if they had watched the sport of professional darts on a traditional or new media format before. This then helped the conversation advance as to why they were attending the live event in person (and various motivations for attendance).

The best time period to speak to the fans was prior to the darts matches starting, or between matches. The main reason that discussion was avoided when a match was in play, was because there are certain moments in a darts match that become very emotive, and the fans responses may have been unclear or unfocused, such as if a lengthy question was asked when the match was at a pivotal moment (for example at the end of a leg, a set, or if a player had a chance to complete a nine-darter). The fan may have responded with half an answer or become distracted (and forget the point of the question asked), meaning a sub-question would have had to be asked - which could have increased the length of the conversation.

The conversations helped to establish the themes in the first authors study that began to emerge regarding the critical role of prosumer fandom in the spectacle of live darts events. When the first author approached PDC darts fans, the fans were unaware of what he was going to say. Although this approach could link to Swain and Spire’s (2020) concerns linked to ethics when approaching participants to gain data in terms of consent and providing clear participant information about the study, the first author ensured he gained verbal consent to have a conversation with the fans and explore fans thoughts and perspectives linked to the objectives of his study. We will return to a discussion about ethical considerations later in this article.

There were differing perspectives that the darts fans symbolize and exemplify that the first author was interested in gaining data about. Before speaking to the fans, he had to consider the angle at which the concept was approached. Primarily, it had to be ascertained where the conversations would be conducted. The arena itself was the place chosen, because it was in this area that the fan would portray their true sense of darts fandom, being within the spectacle as the conversation developed with the fan. With the issues regarding fan typologies (that were critiqued by Dixon, 2016), rather than focusing on a specific type of fan to interview, the first author was open to speaking to any type of fan and moved amongst the arena to speak to a variety of fans, regardless of their (supposed) categorized typology. This kept his position neutral and ensured the sample was consistent. This also helped to avoid bias in searching for fans wearing fancy dress (for example), as the first author required to understand perspectives from all typologies of fans.

Conducting Informal Conversations at the Live Music Events

The best period to speak to the concertgoers was prior to the supporting artists performing, or before the main artist/group came onstage, to ensure that the authors did not detract from the concertgoers watching the artists. Conducting informal conversations provided the authors with the chance to conduct opportunistic conversations with concertgoers. Therefore, the authors had to portray some of the understandings and passions of the concertgoer when engaging in the informal conversation process.

Rather than focusing on a specific type of concertgoer to engage with, the authors were open to speaking to any attendee and moved amongst the different areas of the venues. This kept the authors positions neutral and ensured that the sample was consistent with a standard music concert event experience. The authors did not specifically stick to a place in the stadiums: they conducted informal conversations wherever necessary inside and around the stadium grounds. Having the ability to conduct informal conversations with concertgoers in the queues before the stadium doors opened provided a good time to engage, and the authors found that concertgoers were willing to discuss their experiences.

The informal conversations were spontaneous and allowed concertgoers to speak in turn. What was noticeable during the informal conversations (that both authors conducted) was when asking a specific concertgoer a question, sometimes other concertgoers would engage and provide added points or a different perspective which further developed the conversations in a fluid manner. This could have been linked to the nature of the setting, particularly on the ground/pitch level of a stadium, which meant that lots of concertgoers were congregated together. However, both authors ensured that they spoke conversationally to each concertgoer individually to garner various perspectives and to avoid a focus group style discussion. Approaching all types of concertgoers meant a broad sample could be gathered from all characteristics. The discourse was styled in a way that would not detract from any purchase behaviour – the authors avoided approaching concertgoers as they were purchasing food, beverages, or memorabilia, or if they were focused on locating their allocated seat.

As highlighted previously, the timing of the conversations (pre the artists going onstage) meant that the conversation was more about the concertgoers’ experiences in the lead up to the live event, and within the surrounding areas. However, it was established early in the conversation whether the concertgoers had attended a live music event before, or a music event by the artist/s; and their experiences previously if they had, or what they expected if they had not. By opening with this type of discourse, concertgoers would be relaxed but enthusiastic about the upcoming live music event, whether waiting for the supporting act or the main act. This meant that any initial barriers were diminished, and concertgoers would be open about their perspectives.

Logging Responses for Informal Conversations

We will now explain how we logged the data we collated during the informal conversations. Most observers will try to develop a system in which they can record their responses (see Harari et al., 2016). It was understood that logging responses would require a pen, paper, or a book/clipboard in a highly active environment, which would have been more obvious to the participants in the event areas and could have heightened their reaction and sense of perspective, thus, their attitude to engage may have changed. Also, we did not audio record the responses from the concertgoers on a dictaphone or smartphone, as we felt this moved towards an interview method, and respondents can provide stilted answers or become nervous when being recorded. During both studies, we logged the data gained into the Notes app of our smartphones in the live event setting.

What did have to be considered was whether the overt or covert approach was used to type the data we gleaned during the conversations. The differing objectives of the two studies led to opposing approaches being used. For the first authors doctoral data collection, the covert method was utilized – following the end of each informal conversation, the first author used his smartphone/tablet to make response-based notation in various areas of the venue as an observer, but out of the eye line of the darts fans: those who may have seen his engagement on the smartphone naturally thought he was sending a text or on the internet/social media and did not change their expressiveness towards the first author.

For the music concert data collection, both authors used the overt method, letting concertgoers explain their point whilst the respective author noted the key points made on their smartphone during the conversation, which was clarified for validity following the end of the conversation. The difference between the second study (to the first authors study) was primarily due to the objectives centering upon accessibility provisions and the stadium experience as a different venue (music concerts instead of football matches). Therefore, the concertgoers were very receptive as they understood that their points were being logged as key information for the football club to utilize to improve the stadium experience for future concerts. The overt logging of responses also fostered further conversation between author and concertgoer. In line with Swain and King (2022), informal conversations rely on memory. Therefore, the authors found that the overt method was more reliable for the music concerts as they logged the conversation as it occurred, so it was more closely aligned to being verbatim as opposed to the covert method, where (for the first author) this became more of a summation of the points the darts fans made.

Crucially, the key to informal conversations being utilized in the most appropriate way at live events is the location. Taking participants out of the live event setting to conduct interviews or focus groups can lead to protracted answers, refusal to engage with the researchers, or persons just saying ‘anything’ to return to the actual event experience. This is particularly apt when fans/concertgoers are in queues or stationed in certain areas such as disabled viewing platforms or hospitality sections. They will converse in these areas in an informal conversational manner, but do not want to be moved from their position. The conversations fostered a deep range of perspectives being provided by participants, whilst also encouraging other fans to add to the conversations, developing more context.

Consent

There are clear challenges in regard to gaining consent when conducting informal conversations at live events. Interviews typically have the benefit of informed consent being agreed before the participant and researcher engage in discussion (Nusbaum et al., 2017) which, as academic scholars, satisfies the relevant guidelines linked to university ethical processes. However, this is not always a possibility with informal conversations as a qualitative method, given the nature of the live event setting. Therefore, gaining full written informed consent from participants could call into question the validity of the research (see Fielding–Lloyd, 2006). Signing a consent form adds an air of formality that may influence the participants thoughts and perspective. Furthermore, the participant may be taken out of their natural sphere to obtain this, and they would subconsciously ‘know’ they were performing a certain role which could invalidate the research.

Linked to the case studies in this article, it was noted that within the terms and conditions of the tickets for the live PDC darts events and the live music concerts, the fine print details that the recording of persons or perspectives would occur before, during and after an event. For the organizers or event promoters, this content covers the aspect of what it means to participate, and the terms of risks and benefits. Although this was embedded within the ticket transaction, if the fan or concertgoer did not want to participate or speak, we agreed that we would not use their points. Fully understanding when gaining consent can also pose difficulties when there are cultural differences and language barriers, which is common at live events with sportspersons or artists from a multitude of regions and countries. It is the responsibility of the researcher/s to make certain that participants understand their rights, especially the right to not participate or to withdraw from the research at any time (Thorpe, 2014). However, we do understand that there are still challenges with this approach.

Primarily, our data collection was in live events in stadia or venue-based facilities, where ticket transactions are commonplace. This would not occur within non-ticketed events, or event spaces not within stadiums or venues. For example, a fan-zone, typically found at international sports events such as the FIFA World Cup, UEFA European Football Championships or the four tennis majors (Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) would be a more challenging place to obtain verbal informal consent. Secondly, the aspect of inebriation at live events must be considered. Alcohol was widely available at all event venues and stadia in both case studies explained earlier in this article. A potential limitation of the first authors research (see Case Study 1) and subsequent research in Case Study 2 was not only the validity and credibility of fans and concertgoers’ comments under the influence of alcohol (see Davis, 2022), but actually gaining fans/concertgoers consent from to participate in an academic research study. This is another key ethical challenge that scholars using this method will face. Considerations are needed in terms of the actual time when researchers approach fans or concertgoers at venues. Conducting informal conversations before the event activities start, or prior to the sportspersons or musicians entering the field or stage respectively, typically meant that the participants were less inebriated than later into the event. The specific time of day should also be considered – participants were more conducive pre-daytime events or earlier in the day (see Davis, 2020).

Thirdly, the aspect of sound/noise had to be considered when gaining consent to conduct informal conversations. We conducted the informal conversations before the event activities started, or before the sportspersons or musicians took to the field or stage respectively, and/or during intervals. This resulted in less noise or interference from musicians, staff, other fans or concertgoers, but we understand the challenges that researchers will face with this, and that location within a live event venue or stadium when conducting informal conversations will be paramount. Added to this, trying to gain consent or conduct an informal conversation close to a speaker or PA system can affect the responses from participants and the researcher’s ability to hear and understand what is being said, so this also had to be taken into consideration during the process.

We found that the best way to gain informed consent was verbally as we approached the participant/s. However, in doing this, there can be an alteration in terms of the power dynamics between a researcher and potential participant, as participants mannerisms, language or behavior can change (see Collis & Hussey, 2021) when it is evident to the participant/s that the person/s they thought they were going to informally chat to, is actually a researcher. Ultimately, it is dependent on the objectives of the overall research and the skill of the researcher in how they present their discourse. From our perspective and the objectives of our studies, we framed our research in a way so that the participants understood and felt that their voice was vital in providing feedback or improving repeat or future events.

Confidentiality & Anonymization

Anonymization is a strategy used to maintain privacy and confidentiality: typically, numbers, letters or pseudonyms are used (Stam & Kleiner, 2020). In Case Study 1, as the fans are members of the public, the first author adhered to the ethical practice of anonymity assuring the fan that any notes created would be anonymized (Hennink et al., 2020). The first author avoided obtaining personal information that would make a fan identifiable – the only elements of information collected was age, but in regard to whether they were under or over 35, not a specific age; the persons’ identified gender (what they identified themselves as under the Equality Act 2010); and whether the fan was a PDC member, had attended before as a non-member or was a first-time fan (see Davis, 2022). This ensured that the collection of information collated regarding the fans upheld the core ethical principles (anonymity, confidentiality, honesty, data protection, risk of harm, disclosure, and consent) as outlined by Veal (2018).

Whilst in both case studies, we asked for verbal consent to ensure that we could have a conversation with the fan or concertgoer, we also had to ensure we maintained anonymity for these participants. We found that there are two main ways to do this – to state this after gaining consent at the start of the conversation, or outline that all discourse will be anonymous at the end of the conversation. There are benefits and limitations to both approaches: stating this at the start of the conversation ensures the main elements of consent and confidentiality are covered immediately. However, stating this at the start of the discourse can change participants behavior due to their uncertainty of the nature of the conversation that is about to take place. Therefore, stating the confidential point at the end of the conversation may be preferable. There is also the implied nature of not stating anything about confidentiality/anonymity – by not asking for a participant’s name or any personal details by which a participant can be identifiable, anonymity is maintained. However, in line with various Ethical Board/Committee processes, in respect of the two case studies in this article, we adopted the approach of stating that confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained at the end of the informal conversation.

When citing Lipson (1994), Corbin and Morse (2003) noted several ethical issues related to qualitative research, which we believe apply to informal conversations. One element was the researcher’s responsibility to informants, sponsors, and colleagues (also see Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Researchers have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality and to provide for the personal safety and well-being of participants, namely those intoxicated, subject to any abuse from other fans or concertgoers, or in any immediate danger. This also links to the aspect of exploitation: although this term refers to power and status differences, with many scholars believing that the balance of power tends to be in favor of the researcher (see Thompson, 1995).

Corbin and Morse (2003) argued that all research exploits participants to some extent and that researchers stand to benefit more than individual participants from any given research project. There is reciprocity between researcher and participant, with each gaining something from the experience. In addition, there are benefits to society in the form of professional knowledge development. When conducting the informal conversations for Case Study 2, we found that the concertgoers saw the informal conversations as an opportunity to fully explain their experiences of the event when positioned in their section of the stadium and were very appreciative of the chance to ‘have a chat with someone’ about their experiences. They perceived this as a better way to get their views across rather than a survey or a post event meeting, interview, or forum, with the general consensus being that they believed the other methods were time consuming post event. Advancing Corbin and Morse’s (2003) assertions, it was clear that the benefits of the informal conversations were not undervalued or overlooked by participants, who often consider participating in research as the opportunity to give back indirectly to society, especially at events that occur on a recurring weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis.

Overall, the data collections conducted in both case studies were approached with the highest levels of personal integrity with the research philosophy communicated throughout and care and courtesy shown to all participants (also see Nixon & Davis, 2023; Walliman, 2021). The design was ethical as it was possible to keep all participants anonymized and all participants gave verbal informed consent ahead of their participation, the research could be undertaken within our respective universities ethical framework and had ethics committee approval, and no harm would come to participants from taking part in the study.

Limitations

Alongside the ethical challenges when conducting informal conversations at live events, we also understand there are a number of limitations to this qualitative method, especially in relation to conducting informal conversations at live event spaces. One of the common challenges is that a reader has to make a judgement regarding the author’s honesty and the integrity linked to the findings displayed within a journal article. This is no different when conducting informal conversations: the intention, when logging responses following informal conversations, is to capture the key content. It is challenging to represent a word for word viewpoint, particularly as informal conversations are not typically recorded. A clear limitation of informal conversations is that they are not as accurate as data represented from a recorded conversation (see Swain & King, 2022). Similar to interpretive description, the effective use of an informal conversation as a qualitative method depends on a researchers’ ability to describe, comprehend, synthesize, theorize, and recontextualize data (also see Pringle-Nelson, 2023; Thorne et al., 2004). Linked to our discourse regarding logging responses, it is vital for researchers that conversations are noted/transcribed as close to the event as possible to minimize this limitation.

Swain and King (2022) explained how informal conversations and the deciphering of these are based upon memory. Via this method, the intention is usually to represent a point of view or line of argument, rather than the exact wording, but there can be a danger that humans have a natural tendency to misremember what has been said (also see Lampinen et al., 1997). In agreement with Swain and King (2022), researchers bring their own expectations and assumptions into conversations and reflexivity is needed to consider their own biases. Interpreting others’ lived experience whilst connecting one’s own critical reflexivity as a researcher is crucial to mitigate ethical challenges throughout the research (Dahal, 2021). Critical reflexivity when conducting informal conversations should be considered continuously to ensure that a researcher understands that attitudes and actions affect your role as researcher, but also in relation to the way broader social assumptions and context may influence it (see Charmaz, 2017). Reflexivity is an ongoing process that is vital when conducting informal conversations due to the varied nature of each individual conversation.

Another limitation links to researcher bias. Whilst we outlined the links to bias in terms of logging or recording participants responses, this can also link to the interpretation of participants responses when actually asking questions during the informal conversations. As Saunders et al. (2023) highlighted, researchers can also demonstrate bias in the way that they interpret responses. The comments, tone or non-verbal behavior of the researcher/s creates bias in the way participants respond to questions or points within an informal conversation. This is because a researcher typically imposes their own beliefs and frames of reference through probing within the conversations. Saunders et al. outlined a strategy which can help minimize bias: by paying careful attention to how a researcher phrases their questions, so that they do not lead the participant to a particular response.

Another challenge when conducting informal conversations is the difficulty in ensuring validity and reliability. In regard to participant discourse, we understand that validity can be undermined in a number of ways when conducting informal conversations. Firstly, respondents might prefer to give rational responses rather than fuller emotional ones, as we approached them as ‘strangers’, so they may not provide a true account. Also, participants may not reveal their true thoughts and feelings because they do not coincide with their own self-image, so they simply withhold information. Many participants at live events do not attend solo, so certain participants would concur with other participants, in a similar manner to focus groups, so their true understandings can be withheld or not fully explained. Similarly, participants can provide responses they think the interviewer wants to hear, in an attempt to please them (Holbrook et al., 2003). Researchers must be tactful to converse with each participant to gain their perspectives.

Added to this, there is a challenge of the control of conversational flow – within interviews, a set of questions are posed and through each, the researcher can let the participant answer, but guide them onto the next question to keep a consistent thread. When conducting informal conversations, the causal and open flow of the discourse, with no formal structure and without the disclosing of a specific agenda, means that each informal conversation conducted can provide very varied answers and limit the validity of the data obtained. Researchers need to be adept to limit the flow of the conversation to avoid tangents, and probe within the discussion in a natural manner befitting a typical conversation.