Pinball Survey

Since my last post, "Pinball Prologue," I have narrowed the scope of my thesis, created a survey to code and quantify data about pinball machine artwork, and discovered additional sources that will aid me in conducting my analyses (both quantitative and qualitative). According to my abstract, my analysis is meant to  "[document] how the depiction of women has or has not changed in pinball artwork over time, and what it might mean today for a [pinball] industry to depend on the visual sexualization of women for its commercial success."


Before I decided to do a quantitative survey, I was going to examine machines from 1930 to present. Once I decided I was going to do a more thorough investigation in a narrower time frame, 1970-1989, I estimated how many survey entries I would have, total, based on the number of pinball machines produced by six major manufacturers. That early estimate revealed I would average 30 entries per year, for an approximate total of 300 machines! I would need to find a way to make the sample size smaller if I was going to complete the survey by the end of spring break.
I also decided I would eliminate entries that did not reach a certain production number, since very limited quantities meant less visibility in the public sphere, but I wasn't sure where that "cut-off" number would be.

So, during yesterday's meeting with my primary advisor, Dr. Tamar Carroll, we considered several ways to refine the quantitative survey parameters to make the selected sample more manageable. In addition to what I discussed above, we decided to eliminate one of the manufacturers from our criteria. Chicago Coin was not as competitive in the pinball market during the 1970s as it had been in prior decades, and production numbers were hard to come by. Stern was not as competitive in the 1970s as the other major manufacturers, so while it would be a huge oversight to exclude them from an analysis of the 1980s, onward, it doesn't seem unreasonable to exclude them in my sample. This is a tough decision and I would be more comfortable making it after a discussion with my secondary advisor.

I discovered early on that despite having different titles, many pinball machines form 1970 to 1978 shared the same artwork with another title. There might have been 2 to 4 machines with the same artwork, because in order to create certain features within electro-mechanical pinball machines, like the ability to add-a-ball OR a replay as a reward, different machines had to be produced to accommodate these features (this began to change with the introduction of solid state electronics in 1977). Duplicate machines with different titles were also produced when a company made a two-player and four-player version of the same game. Sometimes games for foreign markets also received a new title. In all of these instances, because I was focusing on the artwork, I could use the earliest example of the artwork as the baseline for the entry, and simply note 1) how many machines were produced with the same artwork; and 2) list alternate titles within that single entry.

Combined, these methods of narrowing my survey tell me what to prioritize. After all, I can always add entries if I have the time to do so. For now, I should be conservative and develop a solid survey for analysis.

I have also changed my survey sample "questions" from an original set, to a set based on sociologist Erving Goffman's survey in Gender Advertisements, then back to my original set (with revision) again! Although Goffman's survey seemed like a neat ready-to-use package of period-appropriate questions for gender analysis, they were neither as straight forward, nor as appropriate for my thesis, as I originally thought they would be. After receiving positive feedback on my initial set of questions, including suggestions for improvements, I decided I would move forward with those.

My primary advisor and I will meet more regularly following Spring Break to ensure my survey and the thesis, overall, are on the right track.

Finally, there is one more event worth mentioning here. From December to February, I assisted the development of a pinball timeline to be used in conjunction with Pinball Playfields, a permanent exhibit at The Strong National Museum of Play, which opened on February 27, 2016. The timeline is called "Pinball in America." It exists as an interactive display on the exterior of the exhibit space at The Strong, and as an online exhibit, though the Google Cultural Institute. That version is embedded in The Strong's web page (linked above). In addition to the timeline, there are interpretive texts and displays throughout the exhibit that I can now utilize as additional sources for my thesis! What an exciting time.

Stern Pinball Cluster in the Pinball Playfields exhibit at The Strong National Museum of Play. Press photographs of the exhibit, like this one, capture interactions visitors have with pinball machines and other visitors. Staged or not, the content of this photograph demonstrates the behavior that is expected from museum visitors within the exhibit space. Is female participation contingent upon their relationships with male players? Look closely and you can see two individual female players in the back row.

The exterior of the Pinball Playfields exhibit at The Strong National Museum of Play. Photograph taken by author. The digital display that features the Pinball in America timeline is out of the frame, on the right side of the exhibit. Can you believe this used to be a gift shop for butterfly-related merchandise? I'd call this an upgrade. More exhibits mean more opportunities for play, and more play means more opportunities to learn and grow.

What's next? While I have also made progress in writing the body of my thesis, there is still a long way to go! First I will focus on completing the survey, then I will continue writing content.