Using a survey to initiate and sustain productive group dialogue in focus groups

ABSTRACT

Interaction is the distinctive feature of focus groups, yet little attention has been devoted to understanding techniques for enhancing the quality of interactions. We argue that using a quantitative survey instrument with focus groups has specific benefits beyond traditional open-ended topic lists or questions. We describe particular features of a survey that provoke reflection and reaction by participants, thereby deepening dialogue. When using this approach, we recommend that individuals complete the survey privately first, reflecting and taking a position on the statements individually, and then engage in discussion, which can surface differences and similarities. Drawing on our work with the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative involving collaborative cross-disciplinary research, we demonstrate the benefits of such a survey instrument to initiate and sustain productive dialogue, in this case regarding scientific beliefs and values. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, as well as recommendations for designing and using survey items for focus groups.

KEYWORDS:

• Structured dialogue
• interaction
• critical reflection
• research methods

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the participants represented in the excerpts provided and members of the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative community involved in the collection of the data presented.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Darcy’s law is ‘a law in geology describing the rate at which a fluid flows through a permeable medium’ and is used ‘to describe the flow of water from one part of an aquifer to another’ (Dictionary.com, retrieved 18 February 2019) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/darcy-s-law.

Additional information

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-0823058. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. O’Rourke’s work on this article was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project [1016959].

Notes on contributors

Marisa A. Rinkus

Marisa A. Rinkus is a Postdoctoral Research Associate with the Center for Interdisciplinarity (C4I) at Michigan State University. Her work with C4I involves facilitating Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (TDI) workshops and studying the impact of philosophically structured dialogue on cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration. She specializes in mixed-methods approaches to data collection and analysis, particularly in the areas of conservation social science and science of team science.

Shannon M. Donovan

Shannon M. Donovan is an Associate Professor of Sustainable Rural Systems at Eastern Oregon University. She is a conservation social scientist who specializes in bioregional planning, sense of place, and public perceptions of the environment. She works across disciplines to help address pressing environmental problems.

Troy E. Hall

Troy E. Hall is Professor and Department Head of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. She specializes in communication about natural resources, with a focus on persuasive messaging and improving communication in interdisciplinary groups. She has taught courses on social science research methods, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Michael O’Rourke

Michael O’Rourke is Professor of Philosophy and faculty in AgBioResearch and Environmental Science & Policy at Michigan State University. He is Director of the MSU Center for Interdisciplinarity (http://c4i.msu.edu/) and Director of the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, an NSF-sponsored research initiative that investigates philosophical approaches to facilitating interdisciplinary research (http://tdi.msu.edu/). His research interests include epistemology, communication and epistemic integration in collaborative, cross-disciplinary research, and linguistic communication between intelligent agents.