Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Tagging</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Graffiti</strong>: attitudes <strong>and</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>ers<br />
Limitations<br />
The survey did not draw a representative sample <strong>and</strong> so it is not possible to generalise these<br />
findings to the whole population. There were several reasons why a representative sample<br />
could not be selected. Online respondents might be more likely to be involved in or interested<br />
in graffiti <strong>and</strong> this might predispose them to participate. As graffiti is an under researched<br />
topic in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> the research team did not have enough information about graffiti<br />
writers as a population to undertake representative sampling techniques. As stated previously<br />
researching those involved in criminal or deviant activities has many challenges not least the<br />
recruiting <strong>of</strong> respondents. The survey respondents were a self selecting, open sample. The<br />
sample was ‘open’ as its purpose was not to represent a particular population (given the<br />
difficulties this would entail) but to keep the collection <strong>of</strong> data as unconstrained as possible.<br />
This approach was considered necessary due to the difficulty <strong>of</strong> accessing respondents for<br />
this kind <strong>of</strong> research <strong>and</strong> the uncertainty as to how successful this online approach to<br />
gathering data would be. Therefore the survey was designed to access as large a sample as<br />
possible in order to gain information in a short space <strong>of</strong> time.<br />
An additional problem in using the survey was that occasionally the responses contradicted<br />
those from the focus groups. For example, a common theme in the focus groups discussions<br />
was that graffiti writers were motivated by a desire to ‘get their name up’, to be recognised,<br />
to be a ‘celebrity’. In the survey only 24 out <strong>of</strong> 309 graffiti writers chose the category ‘to get<br />
may name up <strong>and</strong> feel like a celebrity’ in answer to the question ‘what would you say was the<br />
MAIN reason why you did it’ However the question does ask what the main reason is for<br />
engaging in graffiti. Therefore the responses from the survey suggest that ‘to get may name<br />
up <strong>and</strong> feel like a celebrity’ is not the most significant reason for engaging in graffiti writing<br />
(the survey respondents could only choose one response).<br />
As no respondents were excluded from the survey <strong>and</strong> the sample was self selecting, some <strong>of</strong><br />
the respondents fell outside the category <strong>of</strong> ‘youth’. The survey did not specify when or how<br />
recently graffiti writing was carried out so it was unclear whether graffiti writing was<br />
contemporary behaviour or something no longer engaged in. This may account for the fact<br />
that 61 out <strong>of</strong> 773 respondents were over 25. The older age group are also likely to be those<br />
who have desisted from graffiti so their views are important when considering policy<br />
interventions.<br />
15