The Long Awaited Olympic Bid Project Post

Transcribing interviews, I have an inexplicable affinity for this particular task.  This could be surprising due to its time consuming nature, but I find listening to various opinions in the same setting to be interesting.  That being said, transcribing the focus groups for the Olympic Bid Project offered me the perfect opportunity to see a variety of opinions regarding one specific class.  Furthermore, I had a unique outtake on this task because I was familiar with the class and project.  So without further anticipation, here are my thoughts after fully transcribing all three of the focus groups.

Setting the scene: I transcribed the focus group of only males first (FG1), followed by the focus group of only females (FG2), and ended with the combined males and females group (FG3).  Each transcription was finished within one or two days, so there was not a significant lag time between transcribing the beginning and the end of a particular focus group.

Similarities between groups: I wanted to start with the similarities because there are considerably fewer.  There was not really a point on which all three groups whole heartedly agreed.  The only general agreement was the Olympic Bid Project was one of the most difficult projects the students had encountered, yet also one of the most rewarding upon completion.  Throughout the semester, the project required time, organization, teamwork, and planning, but the end project offered a sense of pride and accomplishment.

Differences between groups (in no particular order):

1)      2-member groups or 3-member groups: Interestingly, everybody in a 2-person group thought two people was the best option. Five of six individuals from 3-member groups were convinced three people was the way to go. Rationale: members from the smaller groups thought communication and setting up meetings around schedules would be more difficult with three people. Meanwhile, members from the larger three person groups thought the work load would have been too much with only two group members. While the larger groups did concede that meeting and coordinating was difficult, the smaller groups did not feel the work load was too great to handle by only two people.

2)      Random city, random group: General consensus was that random group was acceptable. However, two of three groups were against random city due to the Denver situation. Denver didn’t win, though, so potentially not as much of an advantage as initially perceived.

3)      Does the project fit to the class? Two of the focus groups say yes, the third focus group thinks otherwise. I would posit a similar reasoning was applied but from two different perspectives.  The group which said no (FG2) cited the project had to do only with the Olympics while the class dealt with international sport management generally. Therefore, the Olympic Bid Project should essentially be an assignment in a class of its own which deals specifically with Olympic ideals, Olympism, the Olympic Movement etc. FG1 and FG3 determined the project did fit with the class because the idea of the Olympics brought together the entire concept of various international sports and was a way to tie all the individual countries and sports systems together into one unified concept.

4)      Project focus: All of the groups agreed the Olympic Bid Project was a competitive project and the goal was to win the bid.  However, FG1 and FG3 seemed to discuss primarily the legacy of the Olympic Games and the overall meaning of this mega-sport event in relation to their city while FG2 discussed the logistical aspect of the project.  FG2 was very focused on the actual approaches and methods which were utilized to complete the project considerably more than FG1 and FG3.

5)      Homework: There was some difference in opinion as to whether the additional homework in the class was necessary considering the breadth of the project. This seemed to vary more on an individual level as opposed to on a focus group level. Some individuals thought the reading summaries were busy work while others believed they were a good tools to ensure readings were completed on time in order to facilitate class discussions.  Generally, the focus groups seemed to agree the country and article presentations were both conducive to the class.

6)      Point distribution of the project: The focus groups tended to agree the written portion should receive a greater percentage of the points comparatively to the verbal presentation.  The reasoning was also consistent: this bid book should be given greater consideration due to the amount of time and preparation spent creating it.  However, one member of FG2 disagreed and thought the presentation should be worth more.  Since all the bid books had similar information there was less likelihood for variation.  Meanwhile the presentations could have varied greatly between groups depending on what the group deemed important.

These were the main points which I noted during my focus group transcriptions. I am sure that something will strike me in later weeks, in which case I will just have to create another post.  So maybe there will be more Olympic Bid transcription posts/discussion to look forward to in the future.