Focus Group Research gives the researcher access to tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge in a way that might no otherwise be possible - Discuss.

Authors Avatar

HOLLY BAYLISS/

Focus Group Research gives the researcher access to tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge in a way that might no otherwise be possible.  Discuss.

Introduction:

Focus group research offers the unique opportunity for researchers to perceive an individual, and their opinions, not only in an exclusive situation, but also as part of a group.  Within a group there is a wealth of tacit and experiential knowledge from the outset as in the course of most people’s lives they will have interacted with other people in group situations.  Bryman (2001) refers to the focused interview as the precept for focus group research,

‘The original idea for the focus group- the focused interview- was that people who were known to have a certain experience could be interviewed in a relatively unstructured way about the experience.’(p.336-7)

Bryman (2001) notes that the main aims and merits of focus group research include the discovery of how people have constructed their knowledge, why they think what they do;

Issues that concern the participants are bought to the fore as the moderator relinquishes power.  Throughout the course of the group participants are challenged and may change or revise their views.  The researcher may also use the concepts of group dynamics to study the ways in which individuals make sense of a phenomenon.  Focus group research differs from a group interview, as the motivation is not to save time on individual interviews, but to study group dynamics and get extra information from this.  Arguments and ‘sensitive moments’ within the group may give rise to the tacit knowledge about why participants hold certain views.

My aim is to demonstrate firstly, the different definitions and schools of thought on what actually constitutes a focus group, moving from the more classical approaches to an exploration of ‘radical focus groups.’  I then intend to explore the concepts of tacit, experiential and uncodified knowledge and examine why focus groups are so efficient at eliciting this kind of erudition, in comparison to other qualitative methods.  Finally, I will endeavour to consider the use of focus groups as a feminist research tool and as a means to research minority groups.

What is focus group research?

Traditional literature on focus groups suggests that there is a rigid set of rules that should be followed in their use.  Greenbaum (1998) and Krueger (1994) uphold the view that focus groups cannot function efficiently if these ‘rules’ are broken.  They believe that the researcher should avoid complex issues and sensitive data.  In their view, it is also important that participants shouldn’t know each other and that natural settings are rarely used.  However, I shall also be examining the research of Cohen and Garett (1999), which demonstrates the effectiveness of focus groups even when these ‘regulations’ are not rigidly upheld.  Krueger (1994) notes that the origins of focus groups (as used by social scientists) emerged in the late 1930s as a result of increasing disillusionment in traditional methods of gathering information, such as interviewing, due to the restrictive nature of the influence of the interviewer and the limitations of pre-determined and close-ended questions.  Their aim was to use non-directive individual interviewing as enhanced method of data collection, which was then expanded to group interviews.  Krueger (1994) also provides a strict definition for the use of focus groups,

‘A focus group is a carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment.  It is conducted with approximately 7 to 10 people by a skilled interviewer’ (p.6).

The literature, which I have researched, would acquiesce that focus group research should be well planned and there is firm agreement that the facilitator/ interviewer should be extremely well skilled in the use of the research method.  The main areas of disagreement are with the use of existing groups, which Krueger (1994) and Greenbaum (1998) actually refer to as ‘The danger of existing groups.’  ‘People within these groups may have formal or informal ways of relating to each other that can influence their responses… there may be a reluctance to express negative observations in front of co-workers, especially if supervisors are present’ (Krueger, 1994, p.87).  Krueger suggests that the facilitator cannot be aware of the non-verbal communication within the group or special meanings in that specific context.  Other areas of disagreement lie in the role of the facilitator, the number of participants and whether the information required by the researcher should be gathered regardless of information privileged by participants.  

Cohen and Garett (1999) decided to use focus groups in their research as a data-gathering tool as they are easy; cost efficient; provide quick results; permit a larger sample than other qualitative interview studies and due to the view that interaction can provide richer detail than individual studies.

The role of the facilitator/ moderator/ interviewer is vital to the efficiency and productivity of focus group research.  Cohen and Garett (1999) determine that anyone in this role needs to be able to put participants at ease; foster interaction; be a good listener; move from general to specific topics; probe for depth and reasoning behind statements and refrain from reinforcing participant statements.  Yet, as I have demonstrated this is not always possible.  One of the vital requirements for the interviewer (especially in feminist and minority research) is awareness of gender differences in communication and power relations between participants.  Greenbaum (1998) notes that for the interviewer to be able to obtain any knowledge from the group, ‘it is essential that the client view the moderator as a partner in the research process rather than an outsider’ (p.37).

Greenbaum (1998) notes that from the first use of focus groups there have been definite changes in their management ‘clients are now demanding significantly more interaction among the participants so that group dynamics can be used to elicit various points of view from the participants’ (p.174).  Cohen and Garett (1999) demonstrate that since the method has been adopted by the social scientists a more humanistic approach has been adopted to demonstrate the influence of social work methodology on a research method that had previously been exclusively used by sales and marketing researchers. The input from social science researchers on focus group research changes the methodology of the technique to include mutuality, collaboration and empowerment.  Thus, moving from a positivist paradigm to a more liberating approach to research.

Join now!

What is tacit, uncodified and experiential knowledge?

Tacit and uncodified knowledge are often embedded within action and as such are often unrecognised or unrecognisable; they are also subjective and thus have often been discounted as a ‘viable’ or ‘reliable’ source of knowledge from positivist interpretations.  Experiential and uncodified knowledge incorporate tacit knowledge as they are both forms of knowing that are subjective and often completed without thinking, i.e. as part of a daily routine or action that is regularly undertaken (often without reflection.)  Anning (2001) goes onto suggest that this type of perception often remains unidentified as it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay