Year: 2018
Type: book-chapter
Abstract: Chapter OutlineIn this chapter we look at the use of both interviews and focus groups within social science and linguistics research.Working on the basis that they are closely related methods, we begin by examining the arguments, put forward by a number of critical commentators, that they are fundamentally flawed in offering up artificial or contaminated data.In line with those criticisms, we agree that there are some serious problems involved where they are deployed and understoodin traditional terms -as means of mining particular 'nuggets of truth'.Rather, following a more constructionist stance, we recommend that interviews and focus groups are treated as collaborative or interactional events in which the interviewer or moderator plays an important, participative role.So conceived, we argue that there is still a legitimate case for employing either of these research methodsand we end by providing a critical review of what are widely considered to be their primary strengths and weaknesses.Armistead, 1974;Hepburn, 2003;Pancer, 1997 for a discussion of the so-called 'crisis debates').Within Psychology, one of the principal drivers of that shift -Rom Harréonce came out with a memorable injunction: that the basic principle for any social research should be to 'treat people as if they were human beings' (Harré and Secord, 1972).Harré's point was that people are not robots; their behaviour is meaningful rather than mechanical.So instead of concocting all kinds of weird and wonderful experiments in attempting to track down the causes of human behaviour, 'why don't we simply talk to people?', he said 'Ask them to account for their own actions because', he went on, 'it is very likely that people will be able to provide us with good or, at least, plausible explanations'.Since then, it seems that many social researchers have opted to speak to those in whom their interests lie.Not only has focus group methodology become popular within many social research projects (in education: e.g.
Authors: Nigel Edley, E. Litosseliti
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2948485642