Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Methods in focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings

Methods in focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to focus on empowering migrant voices. While many write about researchers struggling to be more ethical, few write about specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). The paper reports on one method, the handing over control of the running of the focus group interviews to the Korean parent research participants. In considering the outcomes, the paper examines the resultant situated interactive discourse patterns, the data produced and the cues given for data interpretation. Analysis suggests voice can be empowered in co-ethnic settings pushing back constraining conventions of public face. Design/methodology/approach– The issue arose during the author's PhD study. As an outsider, a monolingual English speaker interested in cross-cultural participatory research in a school setting, the author sought to empower participant voices. The research was informed by pragmatic critical theory; used an ethnographic approach (Charmaz and Mitchell, 1997); relied on Charmaz's (2006) modified grounded theory for thematic analysis; and, in this paper, drew on linguistic ethnography's contextualised approach to linguistic analysis, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) patterns of verbal interaction. Findings– The hands-off approach activated an interview genre with more culturally familiar talk-in-interaction and therefore richer sense making. Analysis showed that constraining cultural norms may be challenged in a host setting when a dominant group member subverts familiar boundaries of silence in public discussion of education. The co-constructed group talk provided clear guidelines for data analysis and for memoing, the foundations of theory building, when using modified grounded theory. Issues around the artfulness of sensitive interviewing were also raised. Research limitations/implications– Translating and analysing concepts across languages is not within the scope of the paper. Practical implications– The paper informs practice for monolingual researchers conducting focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings. The paper valorises time spent, commitment and reciprocity in ethnographic research. The research also suggests ways researchers can work with schools and their communities to hear migrant voices and imagine new practices and polices. Originality/value– The paper studies an under-researched field – specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). Few have written about qualitative interviews as interactive events in cross-cultural settings (Talmy and Richards, 2011). The paper is valuable to qualitative researchers interested in methods of ethical knowledge production in cross-cultural settings. It is of value to educational groups, and others, that wish to explore methods of engaging in dialogue with migrant communities. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Qualitative Research Journal Emerald Publishing

Methods in focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings

Qualitative Research Journal , Volume 13 (3): 13 – Oct 28, 2013

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/methods-in-focus-group-interviews-in-cross-cultural-settings-LpDif0ZtGl

References (33)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1443-9883
DOI
10.1108/QRJ-01-2013-0005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to focus on empowering migrant voices. While many write about researchers struggling to be more ethical, few write about specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). The paper reports on one method, the handing over control of the running of the focus group interviews to the Korean parent research participants. In considering the outcomes, the paper examines the resultant situated interactive discourse patterns, the data produced and the cues given for data interpretation. Analysis suggests voice can be empowered in co-ethnic settings pushing back constraining conventions of public face. Design/methodology/approach– The issue arose during the author's PhD study. As an outsider, a monolingual English speaker interested in cross-cultural participatory research in a school setting, the author sought to empower participant voices. The research was informed by pragmatic critical theory; used an ethnographic approach (Charmaz and Mitchell, 1997); relied on Charmaz's (2006) modified grounded theory for thematic analysis; and, in this paper, drew on linguistic ethnography's contextualised approach to linguistic analysis, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) patterns of verbal interaction. Findings– The hands-off approach activated an interview genre with more culturally familiar talk-in-interaction and therefore richer sense making. Analysis showed that constraining cultural norms may be challenged in a host setting when a dominant group member subverts familiar boundaries of silence in public discussion of education. The co-constructed group talk provided clear guidelines for data analysis and for memoing, the foundations of theory building, when using modified grounded theory. Issues around the artfulness of sensitive interviewing were also raised. Research limitations/implications– Translating and analysing concepts across languages is not within the scope of the paper. Practical implications– The paper informs practice for monolingual researchers conducting focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings. The paper valorises time spent, commitment and reciprocity in ethnographic research. The research also suggests ways researchers can work with schools and their communities to hear migrant voices and imagine new practices and polices. Originality/value– The paper studies an under-researched field – specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). Few have written about qualitative interviews as interactive events in cross-cultural settings (Talmy and Richards, 2011). The paper is valuable to qualitative researchers interested in methods of ethical knowledge production in cross-cultural settings. It is of value to educational groups, and others, that wish to explore methods of engaging in dialogue with migrant communities.

Journal

Qualitative Research JournalEmerald Publishing

Published: Oct 28, 2013

There are no references for this article.