Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collective Production of Discourse: An Approach Based on the Qualitative School of Madrid

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A New Era in Focus Group Research

Abstract

In recent years, social researchers who use focus groups have shown a growing interest in group discourse, recognizing that this involves much more than the simple aggregation of individual opinions or individual discourse. This has also extended to include a focus on the necessary conditions for group discourse to emerge. We argue that a specific branch of discourse methodology can be particularly useful, namely the qualitative research method proposed by Jesús Ibáñez more than 30 years ago and later developed by other Spanish and Latin American social researchers of the so-called Qualitative School of Madrid. This paper aims to present this group technique for discourse production to a wider audience, and demonstrate that it is particularly powerful for fostering the production of group discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, the paper published by Merton in 1987 in which he compared ‘focussed interviews’ to focus groups (Merton 1987) or the first edition of Krueger’s famous handbook published in 1988 (Krueger 1988).

  2. 2.

    Years later, Ibáñez also provided a foundation for discussion grou from a more constructivist perspective based on the second cybernetics (Ibáñez 1991). However, some elements of these psychoanalytic origins remain, such as the need for discussion groups to relax the censorship of inconsistencies characteristic of interviews, al least in part. In this sense, discussion groups aim to broaden the discursive field by permitting inconsistencies to a greater extent than other research situations (Callejo 2002: 97).

  3. 3.

    Javier Callejo’s handbook (2001) is a notable exception to this disregard forfocus groups in discussion group methodology. To a large extent, Callejo equates both techniques and makes several references to focus groups.

  4. 4.

    For more on the differences between these two traditions and types within the focus group technique, see Smithson (2000), Wilkinson (1998), Hollander (2004), and Farnsworth and Boon (2010). A defense and summary of individualistic approaches to focus groups can be found, amongst others, in Hughes and DuMont (2002), Lezaun (2007), and Onwuegbuzie (2011).

  5. 5.

    The difficulty in reaching agreement is often the cause of unease amongst participants, thus demonstrating agreement is the more or less implicit goal of the conversation. When it is not possible to reach agreement, the conversation is brought to an end, or participants change the topic of conversation. Farnsworth and Boon (2010) referred to a similar situation when they stated that ‘in one group, for example, one of us found the continued splintering of discussion cognitively overwhelming. In the end, she stopped processing and went into a passive state, effectively ‘shutting down’. So when it came time to introduce the next major topic she had trouble re-engaging with the focus group research agenda’ (p. 615).

  6. 6.

    Of course, the artificial nature of the group is also a feature of focus groups (Morgan 1997; Hyden and Bülow 2003). However, some authors suggest the poss it can build rapport and trust amongst participants and hence the disclosure of their particular opinions or views (Barbour 2008; Kitzinger 1994). From the point of view of discussion groups, using pre-existing groups is highly problematic, if not outright unadvisable, as this prior relationship may have an adverse effect on the collaborative production of a shared discourse. The prior relationship amongst participants in a discussion group, or even mutual knowledge, is always an inconvenience because it hinders the group dynamics. Elsewhere we have defended a small group format in the form of a triangular or minimum group as the best way to ensure the production of shared discourse in these atypical or exceptional conditions (Ruiz 2012).

  7. 7.

    This seems to be the sense of Morgan’s recommendation to offset the homogeneity in the background characteristics of participants in focus groups by the greater diversity in their attitudes (Morgan 1997).

  8. 8.

    In a sense, group homogeneity may be considered counterproductive with regard to the discursive production of the group, as it reduces the discrepancies amongst the participants. However, as Kitzinger (1994: 113) noted regarding natural groups, which are particularly homogeneous, when the group is properly conducted discrepancies and different opinions amongst participants emerge in all conversational contexts, even those in which unanimous agreement is initially reached.

  9. 9.

    Although Jesus Ibáñez recognized that the topic of discussion can be approached directly, he preferred an indirect approach due to the problems involved in a more direct approach to presenting the issues (1979: 303 ff).

  10. 10.

    For example, with questions like ‘Does everyone agree with that?’; or statements such as ‘I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on this issue’, participants are encouraged to express differences but not individual views that hinder or close the conversation. These questions therefore contribute to building a collective discourse by contrasting different positions. Again the difference may seem subtle, but the effects on discursive output are substantial.

  11. 11.

    This is a concept formulated by Goffman and adopted by Hyden and Büllow (2003: 307) to refer to a situation in which individuals agree to sustain for a time a single focus. The point is that this concept can serve to characterize some forms of focus groups, but defines a situation that is insufficient for conducting a discussion group.

  12. 12.

    In this regard, discussion groups bear a close resemblance to the group discussions developed by the Institute for Social Research of Frankfurt in the 1950s (Gugglberger et al. 2013). Beyond their names, the two techniques are similar in terms of their objectives (the production of a collective discourse), and the strategies adopted to achieve them (specifically, an open and unstructured approach). However, we also found significant differences between both techniques, although this issue exceeds the scope of this work.

References

  • Agar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995) ‘Focus groups and ethnography’. Human Organization, 54: 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, L. E. (1996) ‘El grupo de discusión en su práctica: Memoria social, intertextualidad y acción comunicativa’. Revista Internacional de Sociología,13: 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. (2005) ‘Making sense of focus groups’. Medical Education, 139(7): 742–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. (2008) Doing Focus Groups. London, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejo, J. (1998) ‘Articulación de perspectivas metodológicas: Posibilidades del grupo de discusión para una sociedad reflexiva’. Papers, 56: 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejo, J. (2001) El grupo de discusión: Introducción a una práctica de investigación. Barcelona: Ariel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejo, J. (2002) ‘Grupo de discusión: La apertura incoherente’. Estudios de Sociolingüística 3(1): 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canales, M. (2006) ‘El grupo de discusión y el grupo focal’, In M. Canales (ed.), Metodología de investigación social. Santiago de Chile LOM, pp. 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canales, M., & Peinado, A. (1994) ‘Grupos de discusión’, In J. M. Delgado & J. Gutiérrez (coord.) Métodos y técnicas cualitativas de investigación en Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Síntesis, pp. 288–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, M., & Smith, M. (1994) ‘Capturing the group effect in focus group: A special concern in analysis’. Qualitative Health Research, 4(1): 123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conde, F. (2009) Análisis sociológico del sistema de discursos. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, M., & Davila, A. (2008) ‘La práctica conversacional del grupo de discusión: Jóvenes, ciudadanía y nuevos derechos’, In A. Gordo & A. Serrano (eds.), Estrategias y prácticas cualitativas de investigación social. Madrid: Pearson Educación, pp. 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, J., & Boon, B. (2010) ‘Analyzing group dynamics within the focus group’. Qualitative Research, 10(5): 605–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, J., & Fontana, A. (1991) ‘The group interview in social research’. Social Science Journal, 28: 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H. G., (2004). Truth and Method USA: Bloomsbury Publishing (translation revised by Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G.) New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H. G. (2006) ‘Language and understanding (1970)’. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(1): 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, Ch., & Delmar, Ch. (2011) ‘Analyzing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator’. Qualitative Studies, 2(1): 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gugglberger, Lisa., Adamowitsch, Michaela., Teutsch, Friedrich., Felder-Puig, Rosemarie., & Dür, Wolfgang. (2013) ‘The use of group discussions: A case study of learning about organizational characteristics of schools’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology (ahead-of-print), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez Brito, J. (2008) Dinámica del Grupo de Discusión. Madrid: CIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez Brito, J. (2011) ‘Grupo de discusión: ¿Prolongación, variación o ruptura con el focus group?’ Cinta de Moebio, 41: 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennink, M. M. (2007) International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, J. A. (2004) ‘The social contexts of focus groups’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5): 602–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D., & DuMont, K. (2002) ‘Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research’, In Ecological Research to Promote Social Change. USA: Springer, pp. 257–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyden, L. C., & Bülow, P. H. (2003) ‘Who’s talking?: Drawing conclusions from focus groups – some methodological considerations’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(4): 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. (1979). Más allá de la Sociología. El Grupo de Discusión: Técnica y Crítica (1986, segunda edición corregida). Madrid: Siglo XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. (1989) ‘Cómo se realiza una investigación mediante grupos de discusión’, In M. García Ferrando, J. Ibáñez & F. Alvira (eds.), El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y Técnicas de investigación. Madrid: Alianza editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, J. (1991) ‘El grupo de discusión: Fundamento metodológico y legitimación epistemológica’, In M. Latiesa (ed.), El Pluralismo Metodológico en la Investigación Social. Granada: Universidad de Granada, pp. 53–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000) ‘Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research’. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3): 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (1994) ‘The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants’. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1): 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (1995) ‘Introducing focus groups’. British Medical Journal, 311: 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. (1988/1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London: Sage. (Published in Spanish in 1991: El Grupo de Discusión. Guia Práctica para la Investigación Aplicada. Madrid: editorial Pirámide).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2010) ‘Focus group interviewing’, In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (3rd ed.). San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, J. (2007) ‘A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups’. Sociological Review, 55: 130–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madill, A. (2012) ‘Interviews and interviewing techniques’, In Harris Cooper et al. (ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 1. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association, pp. 249–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín Criado, E. (1997) ‘El grupo de discusión como situación social’. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas (REIS) 79: 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1987) ‘The focussed interview and focus group: Continuities and discontinuities’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51: 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1956) The Focused Interview. Glencoe IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1996) ‘Focus group’. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’, In D. L. Morgan (ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 3–19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Munday, J. (2006) ‘Identity in focus: The use of focus groups to study the construction of collective identity’. Sociology, 40(1): 16, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., Dickinson, W. B., & Zoran, A. G. (2009) ‘Toward more rigor in focus group research: A new framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3): 1–21. (Published in Spanish in 2011: Un marco cualitativo para la recolección y análisis de datos en la investigación basada en grupos focales. Paradigmas, 3(2): 127–157).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortí, A. (1986) ‘La apertura y el enfoque cualitativo o estructural: La entrevista abierta y la discusión de grupo’, In G. Ferrando, J. Ibáñez & F. Alvira (eds.), El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y técnicas de investigación. Madrid: Alianza, pp. 71–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006) ‘Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate.’ International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29(1): 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. (1970) Encounter Groups. London: Penguin Press, Allen Lane (Published in Spanish in 1973: Grupos de Encuentro. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J. (2009) ‘Sociological discourse analysis: Methods and logic’. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2) (online).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J. (2012) ‘El grupo triangular: Reflexiones metodológicas en torno a dos experiencias de investigación’. EMPIRIA. Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales, 24: 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J. (2014) ‘El discurso implícito. Aportaciones para un análisis sociológico’. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas (REIS), 146: 171–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithson. J. (2000) ‘Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and possibilities’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2): 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithson. J. (2008) ‘Focus groups’, In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman & J. Brannen (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 356–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valles, M. S. (1997) ‘Los grupos de discusión y otras técnicas afines’, In M. S. Valles (ed.), Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional. Madrid: Síntesis, pp. 279–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valles, M. S., & Baer, A. (2005) ‘Investigación Social Cualitativa en España: Presente, pasado y futuro. Unretrato’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research(FQS), 6(3) (online).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. (1998) ‘Focus groups in health research: Exploring the meanings of health and illness’. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(3): 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. (2006) ‘Analyzing interaction in focus groups’, In Drew, Paul, Geoffrey, Raymond & Weinberg, Darin (eds.). Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: Sage, pp. 50–62.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, Th. (1998) Conversation. London: Harvill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IESA-CSIC, Institute of Advanced Social Studies, Cordoba, Spain

    Jorge Ruiz Ruiz

Authors
  1. Jorge Ruiz Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Ruiz Ruiz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. WELS, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

    Rosaline S. Barbour

  2. Portland State University, Portland, USA

    David L. Morgan

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruiz, J.R. (2017). Collective Production of Discourse: An Approach Based on the Qualitative School of Madrid. In: Barbour, R., Morgan, D. (eds) A New Era in Focus Group Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58613-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58614-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation