Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad

Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad

blogs.unpad.ac.id
from blogs.unpad.ac.id More from this publisher
16.11.2014 Views

In-depth interviewing Generally, the more intense the interaction, the more time people will need to wind down emotionally. Always leave time for some day-to-day conversation at the end of the interview—some people will not want to engage at this level but for others it will be an important part of the closure process. It shows you have a genuine interest in them as a person and not just a research topic. Saying yes to a cup of tea that is offered can be an important message of acceptance of the interviewee as a person. It is unlikely to signal the opening of the floodgates of never-ending contact, as some researchers may fear. It is more likely to provide the time and space for a real and meaningful interaction that enables both researcher and participant to effectively disengage from the relationship. Remember that in many cases people achieve a level of sharing and disclosure about themselves in in-depth interviews that is rare in everyday life; it is important that they feel they have been dealt with sensitively and are not left feeling emotionally raw or used. Sometimes the researcher will need some assistance to work through emotions aroused during interviews. In the case of research on topics that are potentially disturbing, it is important to have a debriefing strategy worked out beforehand. Writing down your reactions can be a valuable aid to debriefing, as can talking with a supervisor or trusted colleague, but be careful not to jeopardise confidentiality. Focus groups Long used in market research, focus groups have been increasingly used in social science research since the 1980s. This is still a developing area and the trend is towards expansion of the possibilities for their use rather than narrowly prescribing how and when they should be used (Morgan 1997). Like interviews, focus groups vary on a continuum from highly structured through to relatively unstructured and data obtained from focus groups can be analysed quantitatively or qualitatively. Focus groups share many of the advantages of in-depth interviews as a means of data collection. Basch says, for example, that ‘Focus group interviews are particularly well suited to collecting in-depth, qualitative data about individuals’ definitions of problems, opinions and feelings, and meanings associated with various phenomena’ (1987, p. 434). 61

Qualitative research in practice Particular advantages of focus groups relate to the benefits of group interaction, such as the extent to which the cross-flow of communication sparks ideas that would not emerge as easily in a one-to-one interview. Groups also take the pressure off participants to respond to every question. Hearing others talk about their experiences, in a supportive environment, may enable participants to feel comfortable about sharing their own experiences. The group context also enables exploration of a range of subjective responses in relation to one or more topics in a relatively short space of time and relatively economically (Basch, 1987; Mariampolski, 1989; Morgan, 1997). It is also in relation to the group interaction that potential disadvantages of focus groups arise. These relate to the extent to which participants may experience peer pressure to remain silent about some views or to readily agree with more dominant views in the group. With sensitive topics there is the potential for embarrassment, and participants may be reluctant to talk about personal experiences. Focus groups also place limits on the amount of time each participant has to speak. In-depth interviews allow for concentrated and uninterrupted focus on the perceptions of one person and are preferred when this is sought. As with any qualitative research, participants in focus groups should be given as much information as possible about the purpose of the research and the topics to be discussed and given the opportunity to opt out if they do not feel able to participate comfortably in group discussion. It is in the initial pre-group meeting that trust begins to be established. Issues of trust apply to focus groups as much as they do to in-depth interviews. Unless there is trust in the facilitator—that they will be heard when they speak, their contribution will be valued, they will not be pressured to speak when they don’t want to or about things they don’t want to talk about, and that they will be ‘protected’ from the group if needs be—prospective participants are not likely to agree to take part. Worse, they may choose to participate and, if their trust turns out to be unwarranted, be at emotional risk in the process. Darlington, Osmond and Peile (2001) used focus groups in a study of child welfare workers’ use of theory in practice. They were used as a third stage of data collection, following two in-depth interviews, so participants had developed considerable trust in the researchers by this stage. The focus groups involved two activities. The first activity involved presenting back to participants the thematic analysis of the material obtained from two rounds of 62

<strong>Qualitative</strong> research <strong>in</strong> practice<br />

Particular advantages of focus groups relate to <strong>the</strong> benefits of<br />

group <strong>in</strong>teraction, such as <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>the</strong> cross-flow of<br />

communication sparks ideas that would not emerge as easily <strong>in</strong> a<br />

one-to-one <strong>in</strong>terview. Groups also take <strong>the</strong> pressure off participants<br />

to respond to every question. Hear<strong>in</strong>g o<strong>the</strong>rs talk about <strong>the</strong>ir experiences,<br />

<strong>in</strong> a supportive environment, may enable participants to feel<br />

comfortable about shar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir own experiences. The group context<br />

also enables exploration of a range of subjective responses <strong>in</strong> relation<br />

to one or more topics <strong>in</strong> a relatively short space of time and relatively<br />

economically (Basch, 1987; Mariampolski, 1989; Morgan, 1997).<br />

It is also <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> group <strong>in</strong>teraction that potential disadvantages<br />

of focus groups arise. These relate to <strong>the</strong> extent to which<br />

participants may experience peer pressure to rema<strong>in</strong> silent about<br />

some views or to readily agree with more dom<strong>in</strong>ant views <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

group. With sensitive topics <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> potential for embarrassment,<br />

and participants may be reluctant to talk about personal experiences.<br />

Focus groups also place limits on <strong>the</strong> amount of time each<br />

participant has to speak. In-depth <strong>in</strong>terviews allow for concentrated<br />

and un<strong>in</strong>terrupted focus on <strong>the</strong> perceptions of one person and are<br />

preferred when this is sought.<br />

As with any qualitative research, participants <strong>in</strong> focus groups<br />

should be given as much <strong>in</strong>formation as possible about <strong>the</strong> purpose<br />

of <strong>the</strong> research and <strong>the</strong> topics to be discussed and given <strong>the</strong> opportunity<br />

to opt out if <strong>the</strong>y do not feel able to participate comfortably<br />

<strong>in</strong> group discussion. It is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial pre-group meet<strong>in</strong>g that trust<br />

beg<strong>in</strong>s to be established. Issues of trust apply to focus groups as<br />

much as <strong>the</strong>y do to <strong>in</strong>-depth <strong>in</strong>terviews. Unless <strong>the</strong>re is trust <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

facilitator—that <strong>the</strong>y will be heard when <strong>the</strong>y speak, <strong>the</strong>ir contribution<br />

will be valued, <strong>the</strong>y will not be pressured to speak when <strong>the</strong>y<br />

don’t want to or about th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>the</strong>y don’t want to talk about, and that<br />

<strong>the</strong>y will be ‘protected’ from <strong>the</strong> group if needs be—prospective<br />

participants are not likely to agree to take part. Worse, <strong>the</strong>y may<br />

choose to participate and, if <strong>the</strong>ir trust turns out to be unwarranted,<br />

be at emotional risk <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> process.<br />

Darl<strong>in</strong>gton, Osmond and Peile (2001) used focus groups <strong>in</strong> a<br />

study of child welfare workers’ use of <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>in</strong> practice. They were<br />

used as a third stage of data collection, follow<strong>in</strong>g two <strong>in</strong>-depth<br />

<strong>in</strong>terviews, so participants had developed considerable trust <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

researchers by this stage. The focus groups <strong>in</strong>volved two activities.<br />

The first activity <strong>in</strong>volved present<strong>in</strong>g back to participants <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong>matic analysis of <strong>the</strong> material obta<strong>in</strong>ed from two rounds of<br />

62

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!