Focus Groups as Sites of Influential Interaction: Building Communicative Self-Efficacy and Effecting Attitudinal Change in Discussing Controversial Topics

Abstract

Although most focus group theorists consider interaction to be a defining feature of focus groups, the influence that occurs through this interaction has been under-theorized. We argue that two important forms of influence may occur: influence on people's beliefs about the substantive issues under discussion and influence on self-efficacy beliefs. As a result of such influence, focus groups provide a learning context that may facilitate empowerment of participants through the development of communicative self-efficacy as they struggle over constructing and sharing understandings of controversial issues. As part of a larger research project on dialogues about science, we present a case study that puts qualitatively analyzed transcripts of interaction and quantitative self-report measures into empirical conversation. The case study demonstrated that focus group participants were influenced in two important ways: participation and interaction led to increased participant confidence and motivation towards participating in public dialogues and to the construction, modification, and contestation of attitudes toward science, scientists, and biotechnology. Findings suggest that scholars should rethink their rationales for and use of the focus group as just a method of data collection and reconsider and explore alternative ways of presenting focus group results.

Keywords:

• Focus Groups
• Self-Efficacy
• Group Process
• Influence
• Science Communication

This research was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Ministry for Science and Technology. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the International Communication Association conference in New York, May 2005. We would like to thank Aarti Sharma for her help in the early stages of this research, and Tim Sellnow and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback in preparing this manuscript.

Notes

1. We acknowledge that there may be significant differences among approaches within these “camps.” In particular, we note that different orientations within the critical-interpretive camp may lead, for instance, feminist researchers with an empowerment agenda (Wilkinson, 1999) to take a different approach to focus group interaction than interpretive researchers primarily interested in describing the process of meaning or relationship negotiation (Bormann, Bormann, & Harty, 1995; Liebes & Katz, 1990).

2. To be clear, some researchers are not referring to various forms of attitude change when they talk about the empowerment potential of focus groups. Often, empowerment enters discussions about focus groups through the argument that such groups have the potential to shape policy through informing policy-makers of participants’ views. Since focus groups are used as a means of consulting the public about views on products, services, and policies, they may be seen as enhancing meaningful participation in a democracy. However, Cunningham-Burley et al. (1999) warned against this view, arguing that in their research in health services, “Even when empowerment was the aim, this has not been associated with increased democratization of health service planning, merely increased consultation. Put bluntly, it is still managers who choose … and the consumer has little influence” (p. 189).

3. The groups were not completely distinct; for example, some of the business people may have been Maori or mothers of preschoolers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Theodore E. Zorn

Ted Zorn and Juliet Roper are Professors and C. Kay Weaver is Associate Professor in the Department of Management Communication at the University of Waikato. Kirsten Broadfoot is Assistant Professor at Colorado State University