Month: October 2021

I had been thinking of my research method as a ‘focus group’ and/or ‘group interview’ interchangeably. However, reading around these research methods I realised that there is a distinction between the two, and that my research aligns with using a focus group as my method.

One of the resources I looked at (see references for further methods reading) is The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects by Martyn Denscombe, focussing on chapter 10 (‘Interviews’) and Appendix 4 (‘Focus Groups’). This outlines three distinctive and crucial points about focus groups (which separate this method from group interviews):

• there is a focus to the session, with the group discussion being based on an item or experience about which all participants have similar knowledge
• particular emphasis is placed on the interaction within the group as a means for eliciting information
• the moderator’s role is to facilitate the group interaction

(Denscombe 2010, p. 352)

The focus of my research project is developing good practice around mitigating archival bias in object-based learning. My chosen participants share a similar professional context – all working with archives and collections, and using these in teaching at UAL – which provides the shared experience/similar knowledge required for a focus group.

By emphasising interaction between the participants, “sharing and comparing is especially useful for hearing and understanding a range of responses on a research topic” (Morgan 2006, p. 121). The reason for generating group interaction is to create data which allows me to understand the motives behind participant views and opinions; get a broad sense of how my topic is perceived and understood; gauge the level of agreement on a topic between participants and expose any contrasting views (Denscombe, 2010, p. 354).

My role as moderator of the focus group should be to facilitate and encourage participants to talk with one another. Rather than dictating the discussion, I will be decentering myself and allowing the group to talk amongst themselves. To achieve this, during the focus group I will be taking responsibility for:

• creating a comfortable atmosphere for the discussion;
• introducing the stimulus;
• keeping the discussion on track, focused on the topic;
• encouraging participation from all members;
• ensuring there is no abuse or intimidation

(Denscombe 2010, p. 353)

I plan to use a semi-structured approach to my focus group, and will have a prepared list of issues and open-ended questions. However, these will be flexible in terms of the order they are considered and I will encourage the group to develop these ideas, speak more generally and elaborate on points of interest (Denscombe 2010, p. 175).

Denscombe sets out that focus groups should have between 6-9 participants (others, such as Kleiber (2004), say up to 12) and be 1.5-2 hours long (2010, p. 354-355). I will be following this guidance for my project.

References

Alvesson, M. (2012) Views on Interviews: A Skeptical review. In Interpreting Interviews. London: Sage. Available at: https://methods-sagepub-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/book/interpreting-interviews/n2.xml

Bell, J. and Waters, S. (2014) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Morgan, D.L. (2006) ‘Focus group’, in V. Jupp (ed.) The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: Sage.

Morgan, D. and Lobe, B. (2011) ‘Online Focus Groups’ in The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273809338_Online_Focus_Groups [Accessed 27 October 2021]

Kleiber, P. B., (2004) ‘Focus Groups: More Than a Method of Qualitative Enquiry’ in deMarrais K. and Lapan, S. (ed.) Foundations for Research: Methods of Enquiry in Education and the Social Sciences . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp. 87-102.

Krueger, R.A., and Casey, M. A. (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th edition), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (2013). ‘Why Use Focus Group Interviews in Educational and Psychological Research?’ In Focus group interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

I presented my draft research question and action plan to my tutor and a small group of peers.

Feedback from the group has lead to the development of my project, with the key changes being to my research methods:

1. I will remove the student questionnaire from my project
2. I will add autoethnography as a second research method

I had wanted to gather the opinions of students on my topic, as I believe that their views and experiences are important to the development of good practice. I feel that my research being, in some way, a collaboration with students where we co-create a better pedagogy is important, and this could be a valuable aspect to my continuing practice. However my tutor proposed that, based on the nature of my question, as practitioners my colleagues would be best placed to contribute my research at this stage and should be prioritised. I also reflected that feedback from student participants may be most valuable when I had delivered an intervention. Due to the scope and scale of this project, my final presentation will include plans for this, but I won’t have had a chance to deliver it. Therefore, student contributions could form the next phase of evaluation and development in the action research cycle (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, p. 9), but this will be outside of the scope of my SiP.

This prioritisation of my colleagues’ experiences also raised the suggestion by my tutor that I could be a site of research, using autoethnography as “an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze (graphy) personal experience (auto)” (Ellis, Adams and Bochner 2011, p. 1.). Using this method will enable me to evaluate my own practice and experiences, exploring the paradigm shifts in my thinking.

In my reading around research methods, this has raised the question of whether my project has now become a ‘mixed methods’ approach, as I will be using two forms of research (focus group and autoethnography). Many understandings of this approach, such as Creswell (2014), see it as using quantitative and qualitative approaches within a single project, which does not align with my research methods. However others see it is as more of a philosophical or theoretical approach, which can combine qualitative approaches. For example Kara (2015) speaks of ‘bricolage’ a technique for combining qualitative methods. Furthermore, it is generally seen to have an “emphasis on practical approaches to research problems” (Denscombe 2010 p. 138), which aligns with my action research methodology. Considering that a mixed methods approach generally requires a focus on the link between the research methods used, this is an area I will continue to research and consider as I continue with my project.

References

Creswell, J.W. (2014) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E.and Bochner, P. A. (2011). ‘Autoethnography: An Overview’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12 (1). Available at: https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095 (accessed 25 October 2021)

Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about Action Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc

A write-up of the notes that I have been making to get started with my research project.

Topic

The topic, or research interest, for my project was established earlier this year. The original articulation of this, in my portfolio for the Teaching and Learning module, was along the lines of:

“For my self-initiated project, I want to examine and understand to what extent archival biases are communicated to students in my teaching, what my practice does to challenge this, and what more I can do to unpack these biases and support social justice through object-based learning”

Using McNiff’s guidance on action research, I identified the “area of practice to be investigated” (2021) as how using archives in my teaching may be perpetuating the structural biases of UAL’s collections.

I chose this topic because it:

• Aligns with my professional practice and interest in critical archive theory
• Is relevant to my academic practice in inclusive teaching and learning
• Supports UAL’s social justice action plan

Purpose

Prompted by Bell’s advice to consider “why you want to carry out this research” (2010, p. 30), and using Denscombe’s guidance on types of question, I identified that the purpose of my enquiry as “developing good practice” (2009, p.12).

Noting down ideas around this purpose, I fleshed out potential ‘good practice’ outcomes:

• Develop methods to address archival bias and structural bias of UAL
• Develop tools for social justice using object-based learning

Question

Considering Punch’s advice of “putting questions before methods” (2016, p.47) and “narrowing the focus of the proposed research” (p. 49) I embarked on a process of trying to narrow down my research focus to a specific question.

This exercise resulted in the production of a series of draft questions:

• How can I use archives and collection objects in my teaching to challenge archival bias?
• How can I use object-based learning to challenge archival bias?
• How can object-based learning be used as a tool for social justice?
• How does the use of archive objects in teaching convey biases?
• Do objects need to be removed from their archival/collection context to be unbiased and used in teaching?
• How can I use archive objects in my teaching to challenge the structural biases of UAL’s collections?
• Are the structural biases of UAL’s archives and collections transmitted in my teaching by using object-based learning?

From these, I came to my current focus and draft question:

How can I use object-based learning in my teaching without enacting the structural biases of UAL’s archives and collections?

Method

I identified that my colleagues at UAL and students who participated in my teaching could provide me with information to help answer my question.

From my colleagues, I considered gathering data on their:

• Professional views and experiences of this topic
• Potential professional practice in addressing this (something akin to a review of the work already going on)
• Opinions of what else is needed or could be done

From students, I considered gathering data on their:

• Experience of being taught using archive objects
• Opinion on whether they felt represented in the archives of UAL
• Thoughts on whether the archives at UAL challenged or supported institutional values that they identified with

Data gathered from this research would inform the design of my intervention.

Due to the nature of my question, my research would be qualitative. Researching and considering different methods for this, I suggested:

1. A focus group (or group interview) would be the most appropriate method for gathering data from colleagues on my topic, as this method suits “the exploration of more complex and subtle phenomena” (Denscombe 2010, 173). Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub (2013) outline some further the advantages of the focus group:

• Enables direct contact with participants, so “the researcher can elicit substantive information about participants thoughts and feelings on the topic of interest in relatively little time” (p.4)
• Encourages dynamic and interactive discussion, where “focus group interviews encourage interaction […] between the participants themselves” (p. 5)
• In a group setting participants are more likely to express their opinions than in individual interviews, as “the group format offers support for individual participants and encourages greater openness in their responses” (p. 6)
• The group exchange of ideas allows “individuals to form opinions about the designated topic through interaction with others” (p. 6)

2. An anonymous online questionnaire would be the most appropriate method for gathering data from students.

• As I don’t have regular access to a specific cohort of students, this would be a practical way of gathering data as they are “relatively easy to arrange” (Denscombe 2010, p. 169).
• “Questionnaires are economical” (Denscombe 2010, p. 169). I anticipated that a low participation rate may be challenge in my research, so this method would enable me to send a high volume of requests.
• An online survey gives participants an undefined amount of time to consider their answers, which may elicit more reflective responses (than other methods, such as interview).
• Anonymity encourages honest and open responses, without the hesitancy of feeling the need to say what is expected.

Action plan

Using the methods I had identified, I produced an initial draft outline of my project:

• Conduct a focus group with colleagues
• Design intervention based on data gathered from colleagues (toolkit or set of guidance for staff, or workshop design)
• Deliver this intervention
• Gather feedback from students who participated
• Evaluate feedback and develop the intervention

However, I realised that the scope of this was too large for my project – the timeframe was unrealistic.

So, I refined this outline down to a second draft, which I presented to my tutor and peers in a tutorial:

• Conduct online focus group with colleagues
• Gather feedback from students (who have previously participated in sessions I delivered) via an online survey
• Design an intervention based on data gathered (toolkit or set of guidance for staff, or workshop design)

See next blog for feedback from my tutorial, reflections on this and development of my action plan.

References

Bell, J. (2010) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2009) Ground Rules for Social Research: Guidelines for Good Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

McNiff, J. (2021) Booklet. Available at: https://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp (accessed 25 October 2021)

Punch, K. (2016) Developing Effective Research Proposals. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. and Sinagub, J. (2013) Why Use Focus Group Interviews in Educational and Psychological Research? Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.