EU Fifth Framework Programme Improving Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base Key Action: Socio-Economic Research Cluster: Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and Social Exclusion/Integration (Project Acronym: ‘XENOPHOB’, Contract No. HPSE-CT-2002-00135) The European Dilemma: Institutional Patterns and Politics of 'Racial' Discrimination WorkPackage 2 ‘Immigrant’ Focus Groups Responsible for WP2: England and Austria Project Coordinator: Professor Masoud Kamali Reference period: May - August 2003 November 2003 WorkPackage 2 1 Introduction to WorkPackage 2 The main objectives of WorkPackage 2 were to i) investigate through focus group discussions the experiences, understandings, and strategies of immigrants and minorities and ii) to establish an archive of the voices of immigrants across the axes of Europe. This Introduction provides a general overview of the research methodology employed to these ends, and also includes a discussion of the partners’ research plan in more specific detail. An Overview of the Focus Group Methodology The focus group method was the main form of data collection used in WorkPackage 2. As the general aim of this phase of the research was to provide a platform for migrants’ voices, it was important to choose a discourse-centred method that would facilitate this. Previously focus groups have been used to good effect in a number of key social scientific studies addressing racism and discrimination, such as Gamson (1992), Essed (1991), Wodak et al (1999), and Lamont (2000). As focus group research emphasizes the interaction of the participants and the construction, in a group setting, of arguments, ideas and themes it was decided by the lead partners that this was the most suitable methodological approach to adopt for this phase of the research. The key to this approach is in letting a group of people with generally similar experiences (in this case migration) of a broadly defined topic (in this case discrimination) discuss their opinions in a discursive, relatively ‘natural’ social context; it is in this way that focus groups are useful for finding out about the taken-for-granted assumptions that people make about their everyday lives. Certainly, when successful, this research method can lead to an understanding of how individuals conceptualize issues that are relevant to them when they are part of a group, and vitally focus groups provide a way to observe how individuals explain or defend their position in relation to that of others. Frequently in the course of focus group interactions an individual participant will qualify, or sometimes even change their opinion. It is important that interaction within the group should allow for such fluidity and that participants feel they can discuss issues with each other, as opposed to speaking directly to the researcher/moderator as would be the case in a group interview for example. Because of the importance of the group dynamic for focus group research moderators should certainly allow for the development of issues related to the pre-defined topic, but occasionally do have to ‘steer’ the discussion back in line with the research area. Moderators should be WorkPackage 2 2 flexible enough to allow participants to raise issues that they feel are relevant and are important to them, while not straying too far from the focus. Morgan (1988) suggests that, due to the fact that new themes often emerge as a result of the group dynamic, the moderator or researcher can sometimes have relatively little control over the data that is produced, in comparison to, for example a ‘closed’ questionnaire. Knowing how to keep the group ‘focused’ on the topic without stifling discussion or expression is central to being a good moderator. For example, it is acceptable for the moderator to ask people to expand on their viewpoints in a non-aggressive way by asking ‘why do you think that?’ or ‘has that always been the case?’ and so on (Morrison, 1998). Again, given this group dynamic it is important to keep in mind that the views expressed by a participant is not necessarily their understanding of their ‘reality’; participants may be wary of group censure, may be shy, may not be very articulate and so on. It is also the job of the moderator to ensure that everyone in the group feels that they can make a contribution if they so wish, although of course it is also important not to put people under undue pressure to contribute if they don’t feel comfortable doing so (Homan, 1991). The researcher or moderator should also avoid showing any favoritism or offering opinions that may influence participants’ contributions (Kreuger, 1988). Focus groups are particularly useful when researching a particular, relatively well-defined topic, as they draw on the relevant lived experiences of the group’s participants. Because of the discursive nature of focus groups, this type of social research is useful to understand why participants hold certain opinions, as well as exploring the values held by the members of the group. As a result of this emphasis participants should be encouraged to engage with each other’s experiences and question each other’s views, as this allows for differences, as well as similarities, to emerge in the course of a discussion (Morgan, 1988). It is in this way that focus group research offers an opportunity to explore how social actors make collective sense of their realities and legitimate their world-views in a discursive, argumentative way. Because focus group research has the potential to generate a range of opinions on any one topic, they are an excellent way to generate a lot of data in a relatively short period of time (Bryman, 2001). However, a point that is necessary to consider when engaging in focus group research is that one of the underpinning theoretical/methodological assumptions is that ‘discourse’ is constructed in a group context and is therefore not reducible to an individual’s experience or consciousness. The epistemological basis is perhaps best considered a critical hermeneutics, for not only does discourse have its own ‘reality’, it is itself a reality creating force. The aim of this method is to analyze latent, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, notions of identity, and so on. WorkPackage 2 3 The constitution of the focus group is potentially a problematic issue (see below). There is a danger that when the experiences of a given group’s individuals are too diverse it is sometimes difficult to generate coherent discussions. However, conversely there is also the problem of a group with too narrow a range of experience, as they can tend to arrive at consensus and discussion can become a bit stifled. It is also a consideration that meeting with others whom they think of as possessing similar characteristics or levels of understanding about a given topic, is often more appealing to poential participants than meeting with those who are perceived to be ‘different’ (Morgan, 1988). On this point it is very important to make sure that the general topic of the discussion and the individual prompts (see below) are suitably ‘focused’ while at the same time allowing for contributions from participants with a more disparate range of experiences and opinions. For this reason the composition of the group is not really the critical issue and there is no reason why the participants cannot have much in common. There are some ethical issues that need to be taken into consideration when conducting a focus group. For example, it is not possible to guarantee confidentiality in the same way it is with some other research methods, such as one-to-one interviews, as everyone in the group is party to what is said. You can encourage people to respect each other’s right to confidentiality, but can’t really ensure what will happen to the discussion – in this sense it’s ‘out there’. Given the moderator’s neutrality it can also be difficult to know when to intervene in the discussion if one participant has views considered offensive by the rest of the group. It is important that members of the group do not feel threatened or vulnerable during their participation, and on rare occasions it is necessary to expel someone from the group to ensure this is the case. In general it is important to make sure that the participants have a clear idea of where their contributions are going and what the purpose of the research is. It’s also good practice to let the group know the research outcomes. There is no real agreement about how many focus groups should be carried out on any one topic. In general it seems that previous focus group research usually uses between 8-15 sessions, although there is the suggestion that the researcher should do as many groups as is needed until ‘finished’. For example Calder (1977) says that when you can anticipate what the next group are going to say accurately, or in other words when no new material is being generated, then that’s the time to stop. Between 6-10 participants is the most common size for groups, which usually take between 2-3 hours to complete. Morgan (1988) recommends the use of smaller groups when the participants may have a lot to say on the topic. Focus groups are quite limited in terms of their ability to generalize findings. This is primarily because of the small numbers of people in the groups and the likelihood that the WorkPackage 2 4 participants, almost by definition as they tend to have shared experience of a topic will not be a representative sample. However, there is also the question of how far any generalization can be made, and whether, for example, the experience of Somali migrants living in Liverpool can be generalized to the experiences of Somalis living in other northern British cities, other European cities or not at all.