Focus group interaction in evaluation research
-
Hanbyul Jung
Abstract
As multiparty activities focus groups afford participants opportunities to interact with each other rather than only with the moderator. The methodological literature recommends focus groups for data generation precisely for these structural affordances, but few studies examine how the interaction in ongoing focus groups evolves. Consequently it remains largely obscure how focus groups produce disciplinary knowledge. Addressing this gap from the perspective of conversation analysis, the study examines focus group interaction as the participants’ joint accomplishment, with particular attention to the interactional practices that exhibit the participants’ orientation to the institutional activity and its agenda. The focus groups were conducted as part of a program evaluation study with Korean teachers of English who participated in a study-abroad teacher development program in the U.S. The analysis reveals how the participants contingently initiate activity and topic shifts in keeping with the institutional purpose and invoke their collective identity as an epistemic community as they jointly construct responses to the moderator’s questions. The conversation-analytic lens reveals how the focus groups generate profound, nuanced, and grounded knowledge about the program under evaluation from the perspective of the key stakeholders and by implication about the topical concerns for which the focus groups were conducted in the first place.
References
Auer, Peter. 1999. From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 3. 309–332.10.1177/13670069990030040101Suche in Google Scholar
Barbour, Rosaline. 2008. Doing focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781849208956Suche in Google Scholar
Belzile, Jacqueline A. & Gunilla. Öberg. 2012. Where to begin? Grappling with how to use participant interaction in focus group design. Qualitative Research 12. 459–472.10.1177/1468794111433089Suche in Google Scholar
Burch, Alfred R. 2014. Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning 64. 651–684.10.1111/lang.12064Suche in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2013. Reference in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanja Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 433–454. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch21Suche in Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 2008. Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230582187Suche in Google Scholar
Furukawa, Toshiaki. 2010. Intertextuality, mediation, and members’ categories in focus groups on humor. Pragmatics & Society 1(2). 257–283.10.1075/ps.1.2.04furSuche in Google Scholar
Galloway, Katherine L. 2011. Focus groups in the virtual world: Implications for the future of evaluation. In S. Mathison (ed.), Really new directions in evaluation: Young evaluators’ perspectives. New Directions for Evaluation, 131. 47–51.10.1002/ev.377Suche in Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip. 2013. Interviewees volunteered laughter in employment interviews: A case of ‘nervous’ laughter? In Phillip Glenn & Elizabeth Holt (eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction, 255–276. London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781472542069Suche in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Haas, Peter. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46. 1–35.10.1017/S0020818300001442Suche in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSuche in Google Scholar
Kiely, Ray. 2009. Small answers to the big question: Learning from language programme evaluation. Language Teaching Research 13(1). 99–116.10.1177/1362168808095525Suche in Google Scholar
Kiely, Ray & Pauline. Rea-Dickins. 2005. Program evaluation in language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511224Suche in Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A. 2004. Focus group. In Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman & Tim Futing Liao (eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods, 392–396. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A. & Marie A. Casey. 2009. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 4th Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.3138/cjpe.024.007Suche in Google Scholar
Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355Suche in Google Scholar
Li, Jinrui & R. Barnard. 2009. Differences of opinion: Methodological considerations regarding addressivity in individual interviews and focus groups. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 15(2). 15–29.Suche in Google Scholar
Lindegaard, Laura B. 2014. Doing focus group research: Studying rational ordering in focus group interaction. Discourse Studies 16. 1–16.10.1177/1461445614538563Suche in Google Scholar
Lynch, Brian K. 1992. Evaluating a program inside and out. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (eds.), Evaluating second language education, 61–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524575.005Suche in Google Scholar
Lynch, Brian K. 1996. Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lynch, Brian K. 2000. Evaluating a project-oriented CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13(4–5). 417–440.10.1076/0958-8221(200012)13:4-5;1-E;FT417Suche in Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1992. Yale romanization. In A reference grammar of Korean. 1st edn. 8. Rutland & Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Morgan, David L. 1997a. The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781483328164Suche in Google Scholar
Morgan, David L. 1997b. Focus group as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412984287Suche in Google Scholar
Morgan, David L. 2010. Reconsidering the of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research 20. 718–722.10.1177/1049732310364627Suche in Google Scholar
Norris, John M., John McEwan Davis, Castle Sinicrope & Yukiko Watanabe (eds.). 2009. Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Suche in Google Scholar
Peacock, Matthew. 2009. The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programmes. Language Teaching Research 13(3). 259–278.10.1177/1362168809104698Suche in Google Scholar
Pierce, Sena C. 2015. Conducting focus groups. In James Dean Brown & Christine Coombe (eds.), The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning, 224–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9. 219–229.10.1007/BF00148128Suche in Google Scholar
Puchta, Claire & John Potter. 2004. Focus group practice. Sage Publications.10.4135/9781849209168Suche in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Emanuel A. Schegloff Elinor Ochs & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Suche in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Suche in Google Scholar
Shaw, Chloe, Alexa Hepburn & Jonathan Potter. 2013. Having the last laugh: On post completion laughter particles. In Phillip Glenn & Elizabeth Holt (eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction, 91–106. London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781472542069.ch-005Suche in Google Scholar
Stewart, David W. & Prem N. Shamdasani 1990. Focus groups: Theory and practice. London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Vaughn, Sharon, Jeanne S. Schumm & Jane M. Sinagub 1996. Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452243641Suche in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue. 1998a. Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1. 181–203.10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874Suche in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue. 1998b. Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Studies International Forum 21. 111–125.10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00080-0Suche in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue. 2006. Analysing interaction in focus groups. In Paul Drew, Geoffrey Raymond & Darin Weinberg (eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods, 50–62. London: Sage.10.4135/9781849209991.n4Suche in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue. 2011. Analysing focus group data. In David Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research. 3rd edn., 168–184. London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Appendix. List of abbreviations used in the interlinear gloss
| ACC | Accusative | IE | Informal ending |
| ATTR | Attributive | IMP | Imperative |
| CIRCUM | Circumstantial | NM | Nominative |
| COMM | Committal | PL | Plural suffix |
| CONN | Connective | POL | Polite speech level |
| COND | Conditional | PST | Past tense |
| DM | Discourse marker | Q | Question particle |
| GEN | Genitive | QT | Quotative particle |
| HS | Hearsay marker | RT | Retrospective |
| HON | Honorific | TP | Topic marker |
- 2
The focus group with Group A was only audio-recorded, resulting in limited transcription of participants’ gaze and gesture.
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The social life of methods: Introducing the special issue
- Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction
- Interaction in qualitative questionnaires: From self-report to intersubjective achievement
- Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research
- Focus group interaction in evaluation research
- Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment
- Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The social life of methods: Introducing the special issue
- Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction
- Interaction in qualitative questionnaires: From self-report to intersubjective achievement
- Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research
- Focus group interaction in evaluation research
- Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment
- Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment
