Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

European Journal of Information Systems volume 20, pages 378–394 (2011)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Abidi SSR (2001) Knowledge management in health care: towards ‘knowledge driven’ decision support services. International Journal of Medical Informatics 63, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson M and Deetz S (2000) Doing Critical Management Research. Sage Publications, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson M and Willmott H (2003) Studying Management Critically. Sage Publications Ltd, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashenden S and Owen D (1999) Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London, Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avgerou C (2005) Doing critical research in information systems: some further thoughts. Information Systems Journal 15, 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bashshur R (1995) On the definition and evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed Journal 1 (1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent J and Laughlin R (1997) Developing empirical research: an example informed by a Habermasian approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10 (5), 622–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooke C (2002) What does it mean to be ‘critical’ in is research? Journal of Information Technology 17, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ciborra C (2002) The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins K, Nicholson P and Bowns I (2000) Patient satisfaction in telemedicine. Health Informatics Journal 6, 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies AR (1999) Where do we go from here? Environmental focus groups and planning policy formation. Local Environment 4 (3), 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Foucault M (1971) L’ordre du discourse. Gallimard, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeden M (2003) Ideology: a very short introduction. In Very Short Introductions p 142, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction. Sage, London; Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass R (2009) Making research more relevant while not diminishing its rigor. IEEE Software 26 (2), 96–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner AW (1976) The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology. Macmillan, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1983) Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives. Handeln, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1991) Erläuterungen zur diskursethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2006) Theorie des kommunikativen handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey L (1990) Critical Social Research. Unwin Hyman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes D (1996) Ideology (The New Critical idiom). Routledge, London; New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes D (2003) Ideology. Routledge, London; New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hirschheim R and Klein HK (1994) Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: the case for ethics. MIS Quarterly 18 (1), 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein HK and Lyytinen K (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Introna LD (1997) Management, Information and Power: A Narrative of the Involved Manager. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A (1996) It's good to talk: the focus group and the sociological imagination. The Sociological Review 44 (3), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly M (1994) Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus group: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16, 102–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311 (7000), 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger J and Barbour RS (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory, and Practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Krueger RA (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA and Casey MA (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvasny L and Richardson H (2006) Critical research in information systems: looking forward, looking back. Information Technology & People 19 (3), 196–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1981) Dilemmatics. American Behavioral Scientist 25 (2), 179–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1987) The focused interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuties. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Walsham G (2010) Toward ethical information systems: the contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Quarterly 34 (4), 833–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan D (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (2009) Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Myers MD and Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Information and Organization 17 (1), 2–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parayii G (2005) The digital divide and increasing returns: contradictions of informational capitalism. Information Society 21 (1), 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T (1975) The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society 53, 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell RA and Single HM (1996) Focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care 8 (5), 499–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuthu K (2002) Information technology and ideology. Journal of Information Technology 17 (2), 79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolander K, Rossi M and Purao S (2008) Software architectures: blueprint, literature, language or decision? European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl BC (2008a) The ethical nature of critical research in information systems. Information Systems Journal 18 (2), 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl BC (2008b) Information Systems: Critical Perspectives. Routledge, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl BC and Brooke C (2008) The contribution of critical is research. Communications of the ACM 51 (3), 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staveren IV (1997) Focus groups: contributing to a gender-aware methodology. Feminist Economics 3 (2), 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Villa DR (1992) Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review 86 (3), 712–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (2005) Learning about being critical. Information Systems Journal 15, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson S (1999) Focus groups – a feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23, 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A (2009) Marketing research: critical perspectives on business and management. International Journal of Market Research 51 (6), 843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson V (1997) Focus groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research? Educational Research Journal 23 (2), 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Management, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, U.K.

    Bernd Carsten Stahl

  2. Decision Sciences and Information Systems, Florida International University, Miami, FL, U.S.A.

    Monica Chiarini Tremblay

  3. Decision Sciences/Information Technology Management, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, U.S.A.

    Cynthia M LeRouge

Authors
  1. Bernd Carsten Stahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica Chiarini Tremblay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia M LeRouge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Carsten Stahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stahl, B., Tremblay, M. & LeRouge, C. Focus groups and critical social IS research: how the choice of method can promote emancipation of respondents and researchers. Eur J Inf Syst 20, 378–394 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.21

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.21

Keywords

search

Navigation