Introduction

A central problem in the social sciences concerns the relationship between the individual and larger social aggregates (see della Porta and Keating, ch. 1). One influential approach is based on methodological individualism, allied with the assumption that individuals are motivated by a rational assessment of their own self-interest; larger social processes are merely the sum of individual actions. Some of the difficulties of this approach are addressed by Christine Chwaszcza (ch. 8), who shows how even self-regarding individuals must consider the actions of other people.

A different approach is the one that could be considered the classical sociological approach (from Durkheim to Lazarfeld and Merton), pre-dating the introduction of methodological individualism. What follows is a redescription of such an approach taking into consideration the necessity of answering certain positions advanced by rational choice theory.

In discussing some important contributions in classical sociology this chapter will advance the general position that sociality is based not on the social action of an actor maximising utility (or self-interest) but on a relation between actors attributing to each other a social name, or social identity.

Introduction

One of the fundamental issues in social science is about what we know and how we know it (see della Porta and Keating, ch. 2). Constructivism addresses these issues in a distinctive way, but one that is often misunderstood. For a long time, constructivists were sequestered to the margins of social science, along with other ‘reflexivists’, because they had not used the conventional methodological tools. On the other hand, they are not to be confused with ‘deconstructionists’ in denying truth or preaching relativism. Now they are admonished to seize the middle ground (Adler 1997: 319–63) and to demonstrate by their commitment to science that they are doing neither. This all raises sensitive issues about the nature of reality and the possibility of creating warranted knowledge, as well as the nature of proofs or tests.

Obviously, we need to sort out some things before we understand what constructivism is, as opposed to some other post-modern approaches such as deconstruction, and before we can show how a particular research project might profit from a constructivist perspective. Therefore, I will clear some ground in the remainder of this section before I attempt a more detailed examination of constructivism. The following sections are devoted to some major issues in social theory (concept formation and explanation) when addressed from a constructivist perspective.

Introduction

A significant part of what we know about the social and political world comes from case studies. Case studies famously contributed, for instance, to uncovering the tendency towards oligarchy in political parties, the inner working of the exercise of power in democracies, the dynamics of international crises, the logics of authority and control in organizations, the interplay between values and institutions in the Indian caste system, the sources of success and failure of deterrence, and the causes of social revolutions (Michels 1911; Dahl 1961; Crozier 1964; Dumont 1970; Allison 1971; George and Smoke 1974; Skocpol 1979). Beyond these classical and influential works, the case study research tradition remains popular as researchers explore the political development of imperial Germany in comparative perspective, the causes and characteristics of nuclear accidents, the 1986 Challenger launch disaster, the evolution of institutions, the role of reputational claims in foreign policy decision-making or the genesis of the welfare state (Esping-Andersen 1990; Sagan 1993; Mercer 1996; Vaughan 1996; Berman 2001; Thelen 2004; for more examples, see Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg 1991; George and Bennett 2005: 287–325; Gerring 2007: 2–5). In international relations, case studies have made a central contribution to both the international security and the international political economy subfields (Snyder 1989; Kacowicz 2004; Odell 2004).

The genesis of this book lies in the early 2000s, at the European University Institute (EUI), where a number of PhD researchers started to complain about the neglect of ‘qualitative methods’. As only a minority of the faculty worked principally with quantitative methods, we had assumed that the rest were qualitative in the way that Molière's M. Jourdain was a speaker of prose. A series of discussions and debates revealed that in most cases they were talking about something else, a specific form of epistemology rather than a method, and one whose meaning was being continually stretched across the discipline. While it was difficult to tie down exactly what was meant by ‘qualitative’, it seemed to be defined in opposition to ‘positivist’, another description that most professors found difficult to accept for themselves and which was also subject to considerable stretching.

The EUI was not alone here, for this was merely the latest expression of a Manicheanism in which social scientists seem to be driven to define themselves into opposing camps. The fact that we could never find a shared name or vocabulary for the two approaches suggested that the question was altogether more complicated. It was also apparent that most of the issues at stake were not new but echoed debates in philosophy, sociology and political science going back to classical times.

Quantification is one way of employing the scientific method to discover things about the world. In the social sciences we are trying to discover things about the social world, but the approach we use can still be regarded as scientific. The scientific approach attempts to abstract from the nuances and details of a story the salient features that can be built up into a theoretical statement (or statements) expected to hold true of any situation that can be defined in terms of the same abstractions. If such a theoretical statement does not hold true in some specific situation, this is presumed to be either because the theory was wrong or because it was not sufficiently elaborated. Elaborating social theories to bring in additional features of the world, found necessary for a full explanation, is an important feature of the scientific approach; but for elaboration to progress very far we need to employ quantitative analysis, as this chapter will try to show.

The transition from case studies to quantitative analysis is largely a matter of the number of cases. If you have one case, no causal inferences can be made. If you have two cases, you can rule out something as a necessary condition for something else. If you have three cases you can rule out two things, or you can start to make quantitative statements (for example, something might be found to pertain two-thirds of the time).

Paradigms in the social sciences

Partisans articulate their positions with passion and intensity, yet the nature of what divides them is hard to pin down. At times we hear of a stand-off between ‘qualitative’ scholars, who make use of archival research, ethnology, textual criticism, and discourse analysis; and ‘quantitative’ scholars, who deploy mathematics, game theory, and statistics. Scholars in the former tradition supposedly disdain the new, hypernumerate, approaches to political science as opaque and overly abstract, while scholars of the latter stripe deride the ‘old’ ways of studying politics as impression istic and lacking in rigor. At other times the schism is portrayed as being about the proper aspiration of the discipline – between those who believe that a scientific explanation of political life is possible, that we can derive something akin to physical laws of human behavior, and those who believe it is not … at still other times the rivals are portrayed as ‘rational choice theorists,’ whose work is animated by the assumption that individuals are rational maximizers of self-interest (often economics, sometimes not), and those who allow for a richer range of human motivations (Shapiro, Smith and Masoud 2004a: 1).

This quotation from the introduction to a recent volume on Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics addresses a core methodological issue for the social sciences in general: how many approaches/methods are available for students in the discipline?

Introduction

Normative theory and empirical research have become separate branches of social science. Yet, as I will suggest, empirical research can be guided by normative theory; and normative theory can be improved by empirical research. This is not always well done. Empirical researchers resort too often to ad hoc normative assumptions. On the other side, some theorists studying social problems still rely on hypothetical arguments in spite of available empirical evidence, while others interpret empirical research naïvely without the necessary critical knowledge (Favell and Modood 2003).

We should not, moreover, erase the difference altogether. Normative problems can never be fully resolved through analytical explanation or hermeneutical interpretation, nor can deep disagreement within normative theory be overcome by testing the empirical presuppositions. The goal of a unified political theory is not merely illusory but profoundly misunderstands the nature of this enterprise. Normative political theory mirrors political disagreements among citizens that cannot be resolved through conceptual analysis nor by inference from empirical evidence, but only through politics itself. The contribution of political theory to political debates is not to settle disputes but to clarify arguments and to highlight the values involved in political choices. Such theory should be supported by social science research to specify the realworld conditions and consequences of the choices that its normative propositions advocate.

Introduction

The location of the group discussion is an important consideration in planning focus group research. Both the physical venue and the internal environment are important in fostering a productive group discussion. Many aspects of the location will influence the progress of the discussion and participants' willingness to openly contribute to the discussion (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990; Vaughn et al. 1996). The group location needs to set a positive tone for the group discussion, and provide a comfortable, relaxed and informal environment which is conducive to a productive discussion.

Ideally, the location of a focus group discussion should be quiet, private, comfortable, spacious, free from distractions and in a neutral venue. However, in some research contexts, particularly when conducting research in rural areas and in resource-poor communities, these characteristics may be compromised. Therefore, researchers need to strike a balance between the ideal type of location for a group discussion and what is available at the field site. However, it should be remembered that successful focus group discussions can be conducted in a wide variety of locations, ranging from purpose-built rooms for discussion, to improvised locations at the study site and even in outdoor locations. Some compromises will inevitably need to be made when selecting a group location, particularly when holding group discussions in outdoor locations; however, of prime importance is whether and how these compromises will affect the group discussion and the quality of the information received. This chapter discusses important aspects of the location of group discussions.

Introduction

Focus group discussions have been in the toolkit of social scientists for some time now. In more recent decades the use of focus group discussions has increased amongst the health and social sciences as a tool to inform policy and practice. For example, focus group discussions have been used in health and behavioural research, strategic planning, health promotion, policy development and programme evaluation. The increased use of focus group discussions is partly due to a broader acceptability of qualitative methods in these disciplines, but also due to a greater emphasis on the inclusion of qualitative methods in mixed-method research designs, to respond to research issues not accessible by quantitative approaches. This more recent emphasis on integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches has been encouraged by research funding bodies and has led to a renewed focus on training in mixed-method research design for post-graduates in academic institutions.

The increased use of focus group discussions has led to a greater number and variety of researchers using the method. Focus group discussions are also being applied in a greater variety of settings than in the past. In particular, focus group discussions are often used in international research, particularly in developing country contexts. For example, health research on issues such as family planning, HIV/AIDS and the development of social and community initiatives now often include focus group discussions in the research methodology.

Introduction

Recruiting participants for the group discussions is one of the fundamental tasks of focus group research. Participants in focus group research are recruited non-randomly (sometimes referred to as ‘purposive’ recruitment), according to criteria specific to the research objectives. There are a wide variety of participant recruitment strategies for focus group research; the most appropriate strategy to adopt will be influenced by the characteristics of the study population and the context of the research. The process of participant recruitment will be determined by whether the study participants are members of the general community or represent specific sub-groups of the population. The research context will also determine the most appropriate recruitment strategy to adopt. For example, participant recruitment in developing country contexts typically involves following local protocol to seek endorsement for the research and seeking assistance from local ‘gatekeepers’ in gaining access to community members. Recruitment in developing country contexts also makes use of the often close-knit social structures, which can be beneficial in quickly identifying appropriate participants. This chapter describes a range of strategies to recruit focus group participants and the situations in which each strategy is most applicable.

What is participant recruitment?

Participant recruitment refers to the process of identifying individuals with certain characteristics and inviting them to participate in the group discussion. Careful selection of participants is essential to create an environment suitable for productive discussion. Participants in focus group research are typically selected non-randomly, and according to certain criteria specific to the research objectives.

Introduction

The optimum size of a focus group discussion is determined by the topic of discussion, the type of participants and the level of detail required in the discussion. The number of group discussions to conduct will vary by research project and is influenced by the nature and scope of the research topic, the level of segmentation of the study population and by the resources available for the research. The number of group discussions will also determine the size of the research project, as it will directly influence the volume of data generated and the complexity of the data analysis, and will determine the resources required for data collection and analysis. Therefore, the number of focus groups to conduct needs to be given careful consideration. Essentially the number of groups to conduct will be a balance between the resources available and gaining the information necessary to adequately address the research question. However, regardless of resources, it is important to make informed and justified decisions about the number of groups to conduct and the group size. This chapter identifies the range of methodological and practical issues which influence decisions on group size and the number of focus groups to conduct in a study. It also highlights common situations that arise during the fieldwork which may compromise the desired group size for the research project, and how to manage these situations.

Group size

Typically a focus group discussion will comprise between six and ten participants, with an average of eight.

Introduction

Group composition refers to the characteristics of participants in the group discussion, and how these characteristics may affect group cohesion and productive group discussion. The composition of individuals in a focus group discussion has a significant effect on the group dynamics and can therefore aid or inhibit productive discussion. Group interaction is vital in focus group research, therefore careful attention to the composition of the group is important (Bloor et al. 2001; Fern 2001). Good group composition will generate a productive discussion with useful data to meet the research objectives, while poor group composition may lead to little or irrelevant discussion or at worst conflict between participants.

There are two aspects of group composition which are likely to impact on the group dynamics: the level of acquaintance between participants and the level of homogeneity in participant characteristics. This chapter discusses how each of these issues influence the group discussion for research in both developed and developing country contexts. The key issues for consideration are highlighted as well as strategies to achieve the optimum group composition. It is important to highlight that there is no rigid formula for group composition, and the most effective group composition will differ by the research context and the type of study participants. The primary influence on group composition will be creating an environment which fosters an effective discussion, the components of which are likely to vary by the context of the research.

There exist a large number of books on conducting focus group discussions, however, most texts have an implicit assumption that the focus group research will be conducted in western settings. These texts provide little guidance for those embarking on focus group research in developing countries. While many of the principles of focus group research remain the same despite the context, the practical application will often differ. Existing texts provide no guidance on conducting focus groups in another language, developing a culturally appropriate discussion guide, translation issues, training a field team, seeking research permissions, using tape-recorders in culturally conservative settings and a range of other practical issues. As a result novice users of the method remain uncertain of how to apply the principles of focus group research to developing country settings. Unfortunately, this uncertainty often leads to the absence of rigorous science with inevitably poor quality outcomes.

There exists a great deal of experiential knowledge amongst those who have conducted international focus group research, there are accepted procedures and common strategies that we use for applying the method and for managing difficult situations, but little of this knowledge is published to assist those embarking on focus group research in developing countries for the first time. Therefore, this book is written in response to frequent requests from researchers and research students for advice on how to conduct focus group discussions, particularly in developing country contexts, and to respond to the common concern ‘Am I doing it right?’