Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.286

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Focus group interaction in evaluation research

Hanbyul JungORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3347-3050
Published Online: 2017-04-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0023

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.

Keywords: focus groups; program evaluation; conversation analysis; interaction management; epistemic community

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.Google Scholar

  • Barbour, Rosaline. 2008. Doing focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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.Google Scholar

  • Burch, Alfred R. 2014. Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning 64. 651–684.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.Google Scholar

  • Ford, Cecilia E. 2008. Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Furukawa, Toshiaki. 2010. Intertextuality, mediation, and members’ categories in focus groups on humor. Pragmatics & Society 1(2). 257–283.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.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Haas, Peter. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46. 1–35.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.Google Scholar

  • Kiely, Ray. 2009. Small answers to the big question: Learning from language programme evaluation. Language Teaching Research 13(1). 99–116.Google Scholar

  • Kiely, Ray & Pauline. Rea-Dickins. 2005. Program evaluation in language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.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.Google Scholar

  • Krueger, Richard A. & Marie A. Casey. 2009. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 4th Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Lindegaard, Laura B. 2014. Doing focus group research: Studying rational ordering in focus group interaction. Discourse Studies 16. 1–16.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.Google Scholar

  • Lynch, Brian K. 1996. Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lynch, Brian K. 2000. Evaluating a project-oriented CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13(4–5). 417–440.Google Scholar

  • Martin, Samuel E. 1992. Yale romanization. In A reference grammar of Korean. 1st edn. 8. Rutland & Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, David L. 1997a. The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, David L. 1997b. Focus group as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, David L. 2010. Reconsidering the of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research 20. 718–722.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.Google Scholar

  • Peacock, Matthew. 2009. The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programmes. Language Teaching Research 13(3). 259–278.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.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9. 219–229.Google Scholar

  • Puchta, Claire & John Potter. 2004. Focus group practice. Sage Publications.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emmanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Stewart, David W. & Prem N. Shamdasani 1990. Focus groups: Theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Vaughn, Sharon, Jeanne S. Schumm & Jane M. Sinagub 1996. Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson, Sue. 1998a. Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1. 181–203.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson, Sue. 2011. Analysing focus group data. In David Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research. 3rd edn., 168–184. London: Sage.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-04-22


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0023.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in