Interrogating paradigmatic commitments of focus group methodology
An invitation to context-sensitive qualitative research methods
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19569554 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Apurv Chauhan (0000-0002-0270-2263, University of Brighton), Surbhi Sehgal (0000-0002-4418-2892, University of Brighton) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 127-139 |
| Publication date | 2022-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Qualitative Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2326-3598 • E-ISSN: 2326-3601 |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/qup0000227 |
| OpenAlex | W4213184320 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 34 |
Paradigmatic methodological guidelines predominantly reflect communicative norms of societies where the methods were developed and formalized. Using the example of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), we highlight the dangers of indiscriminately following paradigmatic guidelines when using qualitative methods in varied sociocultural settings. We argue that their universal implementation can lead to ethnocentric biases in qualitative research practices. In this article, we discuss four specific issues related to: (a) the significance of existing relationships between participants and the presence of onlookers during research, (b) a priori determination of the level of privacy required by participants, (c) considering atomistic individuals as creators of qualitative data, and (d) overlooking the social practice aspect of research. The article also presents our theorization of a tripartite conceptualization of research context that can facilitate a considered use of paradigmatic norms and guidelines. The article concludes with our reflections on how qualitative research can achieve greater symmetry between its methods and the varied sociocultural contexts where they are used
Conceptualization · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Ethnocentrism · Focus group · Management science · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Anthropology · Computer Science · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Psychology · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications · Social Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Culture Three Ways
A focus group exploration of the impact of izzat, shame, subordination and entrapment on mental health and service use in South Asian women living in Derby
Reconceptualizing Qualitative Research
International Focus Group Research
Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communications Research
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Science teachers’ decision-making in Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage (Aoum) classrooms
Cultural differences in shame-focused attitudes towards mental health problems in Asian and Non-Asian student women
Contributions and challenges of cultural research on the development of social cognition
The Future of Focus Groups
Exploring the changing forms of caste-violence
Self-Esteem as Folk Theory
Qualitative interviews in psychology
The concept of a child within sub‐Saharan African migrant homes
Twenty Years Post‐genocide
A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research
A Social Cognitive Theory of sustainability empathy
Adapting Western Research Methods to Indigenous Ways of Knowing
Privacy and Research with Human Beings
Privacy and Secrecy
Focus groups
Focus Groups in Rural Gujarat, India
Acute and Everyday Violence in Sri Lanka
Collective Violence and Everyday Practice in Sri Lanka
Desert island data
Researching the researcher-as-instrument
The Status of Method
Focusing on focus groups
The reflexive interview and a performative social science
Kundera's Immortality
Impossibilities of Reconciliation
Risk, trust and patients' strategic choices of healthcare practitioners
Advanced Focus Group Research
Learning How to Ask
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |