Kaya, Karatas, Gurcan, and Dalgic's "A grounded theory study to explore the digital gameplay experiences of adolescents at risk of addiction in Turkey" (Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 63, January/February 2022) is a primary research study that applies a qualitative grounded theory design to explore the impacts of potential digital game addiction on adolescents in Turkey. The researchers collected measured data analyzed through open, axial, selective coding and collected in one-on-one interviews conducted in 2021 from fourteen at-risk participants between the ages of thirteen and seventeen who were enrolled in a high school in the Mediterranean region. The fourteen participants were selected for their achieved data saturation, via a 24-item Likert-type scale titled the "Digital Game Addiction Scale," applied to 149 total students.

I admire the researchers' interest in exploring what theories could emerge from the interviews they conducted (emerging design), particularly about a topic that technological advances are likely to make more common and impactful. However, the study states that "The researchers strove to identify themes that reflected the adolescents' thoughts and experiences related to playing digital games and formulated a core category as a sentence that was abstract enough to clearly explain the data and be representative of all participants" (p. 38), which I think could prompt a theory based on an insufficiently small sample size and one too highly localized to a single high school's student body. Valuably, the data was translated to English and retranslated by a dedicated team to promote transcript accuracy and appropriateness, resulting in themes considered "most representative of the data" (p. 39). In addition, regular, weekly meetings promoted frequent discussion and collaboration in the analysis process. Overall, the researchers' methods suggest an admirable level of care and consideration for their data collection and analysis.

I found the researchers' note on Subcategory 3, "positive experience with digital games," particularly interesting, as it recognizes positive perspectives adolescents may have that can understandably lead to addictive behavior: "[Participants] expressed feeling more free, successful, and self-confident in the digital environment than in real life. They also saw digital games as a means of dealing with problems" (p. 40). Similarly, I also appreciate the study's third main category, "solution pathways," which addresses solutions suggested by the adolescents to limit their significant video game play time. The study's various main categories and subcategories clarify connected and distinct data, which I found to effectively contextualize the study's Discussion section, including its statements that the study "[offered] new insights into how adolescents experience digital play" and found that participants "wanted to limit their time spent playing digital games but needed family support to do so" (p. 41).

The researchers acknowledge what I consider to be the study's two most significant limitations: its small sample size and selection of participants all enrolled at the same high school. While I do agree that the study still fairly theorizes that playing video games excessively can both positively and negatively affect an adolescent in multiple ways, and that guidance and other support from family members and educators can deter the development of video game addiction, this conclusion does not seem surprising. Hopefully, the researchers' recommendation that further research on this subject examine participants' overuse patterns over a longer timeframe is taken, as I agree analysis on more participants over a longer duration of their adolescence may catalyze greater detailed and intriguing conclusions.

1. Do you believe the researchers gathered enough data to appropriately develop their theories and conclusion? Why/Why not?
2. Do you consider the study's coding of information appropriate, effective, and easy to comprehend? Why? If no, what would be your suggestions to the researchers if you had been invited to collaborate with them on conducting and writing their study?
3. Do you believe a similar research approach would be effective if used in the authors' suggested further research (on participants' video game behaviors over a longer timeframe of their adolescence)? Why/Why not?
4. What aspects of qualitative grounded theory design most appeal to you as a developing communications practitioner, based on what this study explored and how, and what aspects might deter you from engaging with it? Why?
5. BONUS QUESTION: How might you celebrate after posting your final research study discussion response? If you're able, perhaps you could perform a victory clasp (clasping your hands, shaking them over each shoulder)? How about opening the nearest window and shouting "Brothers! Sisters! Rejoice with me--whee!"? Please share a suggestion, if you're willing.

Reference

Kaya, A., Karata, N., Grcan, M., & ler Dalg, A.(2022). A grounded theory study to explore the digital gameplay experiences of adolescents at risk of addiction in Turkey. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 63, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.10.019