CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Higgins, J. W. (1999, May). Sense-Making’s intersection with focus group research. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
© John W. Higgins (1999).

ESSENCE OF PROJECT:
I am in the early stages of this project, which seeks to bring together Sense-Making and focus group research, addressing both theoretical and procedural aspects of group interviews. The bulk of the current discourse within focus group research attends to the normative practices involved in this method of data collection, particularly as it applies to marketing research. Relatively unexplored are the theoretical assumptions that underlie the method, with their roots in small group communication research of the 1930s and 1940s. Notable exceptions within contemporary discourse include conceptualizations that frame the focus group within the critical tradition—as communication that is socially situated, and as dialogic research consistent with the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Sense-Making (S-M) offers both theoretical and procedural contributions to this discourse. While the primary method of data collection within S-M is the individual interview, group interviews have been utilized that follow the S-M theoretic. Sense-Making provides a systematic and theoretically-driven method of data collection within a group context, illuminates theories of the group interview that are complimentary to the goals of critical social science research, and encompasses the dialectical nature of the individual within the collectivity.

THE REASONS I TOOK THIS ROAD:
My interest in this area stems from connections I note between the group interview process and Freire’s “conscientizing groups.” Dervin’s acknowledgement of Freirean influences led me to view S-M in part as a procedure that implements liberatory aspects of the critical perspective. While working on a study of public access cable television producers, I conducted both group and individual S-M interviews - based on my desire to understand both the individual and larger group/social perspectives within which the respondents were operating. Since that time, I have designed and conducted additional focus groups that were S-M informed, and am interested in providing a theoretical and procedural basis for others interested in utilizing S-M within a group context.

THE BEST OF WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED:
I have become more adept at designing group interviews that are S-M informed, and applying the S-M triangulation while moderating the group and probing participant responses. This practical experience is leading me to a greater appreciation of the absurdity of many of the accepted “rules” for “good” focus groups, and a recognition of S-M’s ability to anticipate and bridge these “gaps” within the group interview discourse.

WHAT HAS BEEN HELPFUL:
Lunt’s & Livingstone’s overview of group interview research and its connection with contemporary critical communication research has been helpful while wading through a discourse that primarily consists of “how-to” manuals. Historical references to Merton’s early work on focussed group interviews have led me to begin searching the small group literature for related underlying theoretical assumptions. Padilla’s discussion of the focus group as a way of implementing Freirean theory has confirmed connections I have seen in the group process. Dervin’s unpublished work related to a project involving focus groups has been invaluable in connecting S-M theory to a practical application on a group level. I am struck by the similarities between Merton’s “stimulus material” and Freire’s “generative themes” used in early conscientizing groups. It has been somewhat satisfying to see that more recent editions of sources related to focus group research have encouraged the triangulation of research methods and analyses. A mixture of qualitative (ethnography) and quantitative (content analysis) approaches, and a variety of data collection methods are currently being encouraged to more effectively surround social phenomena.

WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH:
At times I have been troubled that there is a possibility that this project might lead to co-option of S-M for marketing purposes, stripped of its critical/liberatory aspects. At other times I wonder if the process in which S-M engages is not subversive in its own right, providing participants with the tools that might help them direct their own lives - regardless of institutional motivations based on marketing concerns. I continue to struggle with the significance of group interaction in the formation of individual identity and notions of self and others. Related to this is a question regarding the unit of analysis appropriate to the group interview.

WHAT WOULD HELP NOW:
I could benefit from discussion of the items mentioned above, as well as observations regarding possible adaptations of the S-M triangle to the group context.

PROJECT ABSTRACT:
A growing body of manuals and texts is investigating focus groups as a method of data collection. While this methodology is most often attributed to market research, it has wide application in social science research. While the individual “time-line” interview is the primary method of data collection within Sense-Making, focused group interviews have also been utilized that follow the Sense-Making theoretic. Group interviews offer a social setting that shares similarities with Paulo Freire’s “conscientizing groups.” The process is flexible and recognizes that attitudes are shaped in part through interaction. Sense-Making’s contributions to focus group research stem from the method’s attention to overall theory and processes, including manners through which individual participation is encouraged within a group setting. This precis explores the intersections between focus group research and Sense-Making: general assumptions, procedures, data analysis, perceived benefits and drawbacks.

REFERENCES:
(For references to works by Dervin and colleagues, see Dervin’s writings: Chronological listing.)

Lunt, P. & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communication research. Journal of Communication, 46 (2), 79-98.

Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Padilla, R. V. (1993). Using dialogical research methods in group interviews. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 153-166). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See:http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlisthiggins.html