I work in the field of gambling research in New Zealand, primarily as a qualitative researcher. Over the years, my work has contributed to how gambling-related harm is understood across public health, policy settings, and academic research. I have tended to focus less on purely statistical descriptions or clinical diagnostic framing, and more on lived experience, social context, and the institutional environments that shape gambling behaviour.
A large part of my professional journey has intersected with some of New Zealand’s most influential research initiatives—most notably the New Zealand National Gambling Study (NGS). Through that work, I have helped turn individual accounts into structured evidence that can be used for regulation, resource allocation, and harm-minimisation planning. I am particularly interested in how real people experience gambling in everyday settings, and how those experiences relate to broader systems such as accessibility, marketing exposure, and social and economic pressures.
In this overview, I summarise my academic formation, how I moved into gambling research, the kinds of research methods I use, and how I think my work connects to public health and policy outcomes in New Zealand.
Early Academic Background and Formation
My academic formation developed within the broader tradition of social and health research in New Zealand, where applied research and policy relevance are often central expectations rather than optional extras. From early on, I was drawn to questions about social systems, inequality, and the ways institutions influence behaviour. I became interested not only in what people do, but also in the conditions that make certain choices more likely, or more difficult, across different groups and communities.
My early work was not limited to gambling studies. It included social wellbeing, community health topics, and qualitative inquiry into behavioural patterns. That broader foundation became important later, because it gave me a way to approach gambling as more than an individual activity. I learned to treat it as something embedded in social, cultural, and regulatory environments—something shaped by place, opportunity structures, and everyday pressures, not just personal preference.
Some key characteristics of my early research profile included:
- training in qualitative and mixed research methods;
- experience in health-related social research;
- familiarity with policy-oriented research frameworks.
These foundations prepared me well for participating in large-scale national studies where methodological discipline has to be combined with interpretive depth and practical usefulness.
Entry into Gambling Research
I moved into gambling research at a time when public and governmental concern was growing about the social costs of gambling in New Zealand. Policy makers and public health institutions were increasingly looking for evidence that could do more than report prevalence. They wanted to understand pathways—how people move from recreational gambling into harmful patterns, what makes change difficult, and where systems either protect people or fail them.
My background in qualitative research positioned me well for that work. Instead of focusing only on gambling products or technologies, I examined questions like:
- why people decide to gamble in the first place;
- how recreational play can shift into harmful behaviour;
- what happens to families and communities when harm develops;
- how regulation, availability, and local environments shape decisions.
That shift marked the beginning of my long-term engagement with gambling research as a public health and social policy issue rather than a narrow behavioural topic.
Role in the New Zealand National Gambling Study (NGS)
The New Zealand National Gambling Study is one of the most comprehensive longitudinal research programmes on gambling conducted in the country. It combines large-scale quantitative surveying with in-depth qualitative research designed to capture nuance, complexity, and the kinds of detail that numbers alone often miss.
My own work within this context has been primarily connected to the qualitative phases. The responsibilities I’ve held in that area have included:
- designing interview frameworks;
- conducting and supervising qualitative data collection;
- analysing interview transcripts through thematic approaches;
- contributing to national reports and policy-facing documents.
Through this work, I have been able to help document how gambling-related harm develops over time and how people describe their own turning points—both into harm and, sometimes, toward recovery. In many cases, these processes are not visible through prevalence measures alone. Qualitative research makes it possible to capture structural influences—accessibility, marketing exposure, localised concentration of venues, and socio-economic vulnerability—in ways that are immediately relevant to public health discussions.
Methodological Approach
I am best characterised as a qualitative social researcher. My method is built around depth, contextual interpretation, and systematic analysis of lived experience. I typically use approaches such as:
- semi-structured interviews;
- narrative and thematic analysis;
- longitudinal qualitative follow-ups where possible;
- integration of qualitative insights with quantitative findings (when a project includes both).
This approach allows me to link individual experiences with systemic explanations. It also helps avoid moralising narratives. Rather than treating gambling harm as a simple matter of “good choices” versus “bad choices,” I have tried to situate gambling behaviour within realistic social and economic conditions—conditions that shape risk, opportunity, and capacity for change.
Influence on Public Health and Policy
Research outputs I have contributed to have been used by:
- the New Zealand Ministry of Health;
- local councils and authorities responsible for regulating gambling venues;
- public health organisations focused on harm minimisation.
In practical terms, this work has supported policy directions such as:
- location-based restrictions on gambling venues;
- targeted interventions for at-risk groups;
- culturally responsive approaches to harm reduction.
For me, one of the most important aspects of applied gambling research is ensuring that evidence reflects real experiences and can be translated into workable, legitimate public health approaches.
Searchable workplace table
| Period | Institution | Role | Research Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010–2014 | Auckland University of Technology | Research Associate | Social & Health Research |
| 2014–2019 | National Gambling Study (NZ) | Qualitative Researcher | Gambling Harm Analysis |
| 2019–2022 | Public Health Research Projects | Senior Research Contributor | Policy & Community Impact |
Research themes by workplace
| Institution / Project | Primary Research Theme | Methods Used | Policy / Practice Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auckland University of Technology | Social wellbeing and behavioural context | Qualitative interviews, thematic analysis | Health and social policy research foundations |
| New Zealand National Gambling Study | Gambling harm pathways | Semi-structured interviews, longitudinal qualitative analysis | National gambling regulation and harm minimisation |
| Public Health Research Projects | Community-level impact of gambling | Field research, narrative synthesis | Local authority policy and public health planning |
How My Research Perspective Developed Over Time
As my work in gambling research progressed, my perspective gradually shifted from describing behaviour to understanding systems. Early in my career, I was primarily concerned with documenting what people said about their gambling and how they described harm in their own words. Over time, however, patterns began to emerge that could not be explained solely through individual stories. Similar experiences repeated themselves across different regions, communities, and demographic groups.
This repetition pushed me to think more carefully about structure. I began to focus less on isolated decisions and more on the environments in which those decisions were made. Accessibility, venue density, marketing visibility, and social normalisation all appeared consistently in interviews, regardless of a person’s age or background. Gambling behaviour, as people described it to me, was rarely spontaneous. It was usually shaped by routine, proximity, and familiarity.
Working on longitudinal components of gambling research reinforced this understanding. When individuals were interviewed more than once, their narratives often revealed gradual shifts rather than sudden change. What initially appeared as recreational participation sometimes evolved into harm through small, incremental steps. These transitions were rarely recognised early by the individuals themselves. Instead, they were often normalised until consequences became unavoidable.
This insight influenced how I approached analysis and reporting. I became increasingly careful to avoid framing harm as a failure of self-control. Many participants described strong awareness of risk, combined with limited practical alternatives. In these cases, responsibility was shared between individual agency and structural conditions. Capturing that balance became central to my work.
Another important development in my research perspective involved cultural and community context. Gambling experiences were not uniform across populations. Social expectations, stigma, and access to support varied significantly. In some communities, gambling was closely tied to social connection; in others, it was associated with isolation. Recognising these differences required listening carefully and avoiding assumptions based on dominant narratives.
Throughout this process, I remained committed to qualitative methods because they allowed for nuance. Numbers can indicate scale, but they rarely explain meaning. Interviews, when analysed systematically, make it possible to understand how people interpret their own behaviour and how policy decisions are experienced at ground level.
By the time I was deeply involved in national-level research, my role had become less about collecting isolated accounts and more about translating complex social realities into evidence that could be understood and used by decision-makers. That translation work continues to shape how I see gambling research—not as an abstract field, but as a practical tool for improving public health responses.
