European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 378–394

Focus groups and critical social IS research: how the choice of method can promote emancipation of respondents and researchers

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
  • Monica Chiarini Tremblay
  • Cynthia M LeRouge
Original Article

Abstract

Critical social research in information systems has been gaining prominence for some time and is increasingly viewed as a valid research approach. One problem with the critical tradition is a lack of empirical research. A contributing factor to this gap in the literature is the lack of agreement on what constitutes appropriate methodologies for critical research. The present paper contributes to this debate by exploring the role that focus group research can play in the critical approach. This paper outlines the main characteristics of critical research with an emphasis on its emancipatory faculties. It then reviews the focus group method from the perspective of critical approach and provides a critical account of two research projects that used focus groups as a method of data collection. The paper presents the argument that focus groups, if designed and executed in light of a critical approach, can contribute to the emancipation of researchers and respondents. This argument is built upon the critical theories of the two most influential theorists in critical social information systems research, namely Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Critically oriented focus groups have the potential to improve communication and move real discourses closer to Habermas's ideal speech situation. At the same time, they can contribute to challenging the prevailing orthodoxy and thereby overcome established regimes of truth in the Foucauldian tradition. The paper ends by developing a set of guiding questions that provide a means for researchers to ensure that the emancipatory potential of focus group research can be achieved.

Keywords

critical social research focus groups research methodology information systems 

References

  1. Abidi SSR (2001) Knowledge management in health care: towards ‘knowledge driven’ decision support services. International Journal of Medical Informatics 63, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson M and Deetz S (2000) Doing Critical Management Research. Sage Publications, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson M and Willmott H (2003) Studying Management Critically. Sage Publications Ltd, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Ashenden S and Owen D (1999) Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London, Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Avgerou C (2005) Doing critical research in information systems: some further thoughts. Information Systems Journal 15, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avgerou C and McGrath K (2007) Power, rationality, and the art of living through socio-technical change. MIS Quarterly 31 (2), 295–315.Google Scholar
  7. Bashshur R (1995) On the definition and evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed Journal 1 (1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadbent J and Laughlin R (1997) Developing empirical research: an example informed by a Habermasian approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10 (5), 622–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooke C (2002) What does it mean to be ‘critical’ in is research? Journal of Information Technology 17, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2001) Doing critical is research: the question of methodology. In Qualitative Research in is: Issues and Trends (TRAUTH EM, Ed.), pp 141–162, IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2005) Basic assumptions of the critical research perspectives in information systems. In Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application (TRAUTH DHE, Ed.), pp 19–46, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Ciborra C (2002) The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, NY.Google Scholar
  13. Collins K, Nicholson P and Bowns I (2000) Patient satisfaction in telemedicine. Health Informatics Journal 6, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies AR (1999) Where do we go from here? Environmental focus groups and planning policy formation. Local Environment 4 (3), 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickinger A, Arami M and Meyer D (2008) The role of perceived enjoyment and social norm in the adoption of technology with network externalities. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (1), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolin B (1998) Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretive research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13 (Special Issue on Interpretive Research in Information Systems, edited by M. Myers and G. Walsham), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doolin B and McLeod L (2005) Towards critical interpretivism in is research. In Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application (TRAUTH DHE, Ed.), pp 19–46, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Ferratt TW, Hall SR, Prasad J and Wynn Jr. Donald (2010) Choosing Management Information Systems as a Major: Understanding the smiFactors for MIS. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 27 (1), 265–284.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault M (1971) L’ordre du discourse. Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Freeden M (2003) Ideology: a very short introduction. In Very Short Introductions p 142, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Friede A, Blum HL and McDonald M (1995) Public health informatics: how information-age technology can strengthen public health. Annual Review of Public Health 16 (1), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gergen KJ (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction. Sage, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Glass R (2009) Making research more relevant while not diminishing its rigor. IEEE Software 26 (2), 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gouldner AW (1976) The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Habermas J (1983) Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives. Handeln, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1991) Erläuterungen zur diskursethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas J (2006) Theorie des kommunikativen handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey L (1990) Critical Social Research. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  29. Hawkes D (1996) Ideology (The New Critical idiom). Routledge, London; New York.Google Scholar
  30. Hawkes D (2003) Ideology. Routledge, London; New York.Google Scholar
  31. Hevner A, March S, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design science research in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28 (1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  32. Hirschheim R and Klein HK (1994) Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: the case for ethics. MIS Quarterly 18 (1), 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirschheim R, Klein HK and Lyytinen K (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Introna LD (1997) Management, Information and Power: A Narrative of the Involved Manager. Palgrave Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson A (1996) It's good to talk: the focus group and the sociological imagination. The Sociological Review 44 (3), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly M (1994) Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.Google Scholar
  37. Kevern J and Webb C (2001) Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Education Today 21 (4), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kincheloe JL and McLaren P (2005) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (DENZIN NK and LINCOLN YS, Eds), p xix, 1210p. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  39. Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus group: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16, 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311 (7000), 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitzinger J and Barbour RS (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory, and Practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Klein HK (2008) Critical social is research today: a reflection of past accomplishments and current challenges. In Critical Management Perspectives on Information Systems (BROOKE C, Ed.), Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.Google Scholar
  43. Klein HK and Huynh MQ (2004) The critical social theory of Jürgen Habermas and its implications for is research. In Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (MINGERS J and WILSON L, Eds), pp 157–237, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  44. Krueger RA (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Krueger RA and Casey MA (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumar K, Dissel HGv and Bielli P (1998) The merchant of Prato revisited: toward a third rationality of information systems. MIS Quarterly 22 (2), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kvasny L and Richardson H (2006) Critical research in information systems: looking forward, looking back. Information Technology & People 19 (3), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. LeRouge C, Hevner A and Collins R (2007) It's more than just use: investigating telemedicine use quality. Decision Support Systems 43 (4), 1287–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. LeRouge C and Niederman F (2006) Information systems and health care xi: public health knowledge management architecture design: a case study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 18 (9), 2–54.Google Scholar
  50. Lichtenstein S and Swatman PMC (2003) The potentialities of focus groups in e-business research: theory validation. In Seeking Success in e-Business: A Multidisciplinary Approach (ANDERSEN KV, ELLIOT S, SWATMAN P, TRAUTH E and BJORN-ANDERSEN N, Eds), pp 207–226, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McGrath JE (1981) Dilemmatics. American Behavioral Scientist 25 (2), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGrath K (2005) Doing critical research in information systems: a case of theory and practice not informing each other. Information Systems Journal 15, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merton RK (1987) The focused interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuties. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 550–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Mingers J and Walsham G (2010) Toward ethical information systems: the contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Quarterly 34 (4), 833–854.Google Scholar
  56. Model S (2009) In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 20 (3), 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morgan D (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morgan DL (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Myers MD (2009) Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  60. Myers MD and Klein HK (2011) A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 17–36.Google Scholar
  61. Myers MD and Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Information and Organization 17 (1), 2–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ngwenyama OK and Lee AS (1997) Communication richness in electronic mail: critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly 21 (2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parayii G (2005) The digital divide and increasing returns: contradictions of informational capitalism. Information Society 21 (1), 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parsons T (1975) The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society 53, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Powell RA and Single HM (1996) Focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care 8 (5), 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richardson H and Robinson B (2007) The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: a review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Information Systems Journal 17 (3), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saravanamuthu K (2002) Information technology and ideology. Journal of Information Technology 17 (2), 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simon HA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  70. Smolander K, Rossi M and Purao S (2008) Software architectures: blueprint, literature, language or decision? European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stahl BC (2004) Whose discourse? A comparison of the Foucauldian and Habermasian concepts of discourse in critical is research. In the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp 4329–4336, New York.Google Scholar
  72. Stahl BC (2006) Emancipation in cross-cultural is research: the fine line between relativism and dictatorship of the intellectual. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (3), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stahl BC (2008a) The ethical nature of critical research in information systems. Information Systems Journal 18 (2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stahl BC (2008b) Information Systems: Critical Perspectives. Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stahl BC and Brooke C (2008) The contribution of critical is research. Communications of the ACM 51 (3), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Staveren IV (1997) Focus groups: contributing to a gender-aware methodology. Feminist Economics 3 (2), 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stewart KJ and Gosain S (2006) The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 291.Google Scholar
  78. Tavazzi L and Arbustini E (2004) A research project focusing on uncommon aspects and novel markers in congestive heart failure – critical evaluation of multicentre research management. European Heart Journal Supplements 6 (F), F1–F6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trauth E and Jessup L (2000) Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Trauth EM and Howcroft D (2006) Critical empirical research in is: an example of gender and the it workforce. Information Technology & People 19 (3), 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tremblay MC, Hevner AR and Berndt DJ (2010) Focus groups for artifact refinement and evaluation in design research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 26 (27).Google Scholar
  82. Villa DR (1992) Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review 86 (3), 712–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walsham G (2005) Learning about being critical. Information Systems Journal 15, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Waring T (2004) From critical theory into information systems practice: a case study of a payroll-personnel system. In Information Systems Research – Relevant Theory and Informed Practice (KAPLAN B, TRUEX D, WASTELL D, WOOD-HARPER A and DeGROSS J, Eds), pp 555–575, Springer, Boston.Google Scholar
  85. Webb C and Kevern J (2008) Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 33 (6), 798–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wildinson S (1998) Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women's Studies International Forum 21 (1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilkinson S (1998) Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women's Studies International Forum 21 (1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilkinson S (1999) Focus groups – a feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23, 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilson A (2009) Marketing research: critical perspectives on business and management. International Journal of Market Research 51 (6), 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilson V (1997) Focus groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research? Educational Research Journal 23 (2), 209–224.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
    • 1
  • Monica Chiarini Tremblay
    • 2
  • Cynthia M LeRouge
    • 3
  1. 1.Information Management, De Montfort University, The GatewayLeicesterU.K.
  2. 2.Decision Sciences and Information Systems, Florida International UniversityMiamiU.S.A.
  3. 3.Decision Sciences/Information Technology Management, Saint Louis UniversitySaint LouisU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations