This post was edited by Chat GPT to reduce word-count
After much consideration, I chose focus groups as the research methodology for their ability to generate diverse responses quickly, emphasizing a moderator approach (Morgan, 1997; Liamputtong, 2011, p.12-15). The moderator/facilitator approach, highlighted in A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education, ‘focuses on process rather than content only-the process of how participants relate to one another’ (Tapper, 2013, p430). Despite the studies primary focus being student engagement to digital software, the social learning environment is just as important to this research. Focus groups offer an ideal setting for capturing real-time responses to personal artifacts.
“Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world and with each other”
Friere, P. (2018, p.65) Pedogogy of the oppressed
Originally, I had planned to restrict the study to final-year students on the same course and stage, but due to a participant shortage, I expanded to include second-year students. – see Changing Tides. This, unintentionally, provided opportunity to explore the question from different perspectives (Liamputtong, 2011, p.45 cited from Kitzinger, 1995). As a result, I re-examined my approach to accommodate interactions and contributions from students at different study levels. Discussions were re-structured to provide opportunity for each participant to voice opinions before incorporating participative activities, fostering peer learning whilst maintaining a moderator approach.
The moderator’s role in focus groups is pivotal and can influence the group both positively or negatively. (Morgan, 1997; Liamputtong, 2011) Discussion with and without the moderator was incorporated to enable student led learning and peer feedback. The removal of an ‘authoritative’ teacher/moderator created a new dynamic. Although interesting results emerged, I have chosen not to use observations or audio recordings as a data collection method for this investigation. Traditionally, observations and audio recordings are used to capture social interactions between the group. However, these require interpretation which can be skewed by the observers bias “and so (can) potentially perpetrate unsatisfactory or inappropriate understandings of the phenomenon of interest” (Liamputtong, 2011, p.25 cited from Dew 2007: 433). Instead self-reporting was utilised to provide participants control over shared data, beneficial within a study where sensitive discussions may arise. Participants were verbally informed of the data collection method. This created a safe(r) environment to discuss sentimental items.
Focus groups have their own limitations, relying heavily on group dynamics that may influence the research negatively. Participants level of engagement, extreme views or conformity can have a negative effect on the data (Morgan, 1997) Additionally, verbal discussion may not be an ideal form of communication for all and may reinforce social hierarchy amongst the group (Tapper, 2013, p,416) To mitigate this, code of conduct was established at the beginning of the session; outlining appropriate behaviour, methods of engagement and UAL resources available. Participants were encouraged to collectively analyse artefacts and experiment, reporting their ideas onto a loosely structured worksheet. A range of mediums were provided, pens, fabric, small scale mannequins, to encourage a diverse range of responses.
I had initially planned an activity, ‘Why Fashion?’ to explore group identity- see Laying the Foundation-images but decided to remove as I felt it deviated from the research question. To support the student led approach I also changed the activity order placing my examples after participant discussion. This prevented a ‘top-down’ approach and allowed for student centred learning (Tapper, 2013; Cadwell, 2018). Additional digital techniques were demonstrated, followed by flexible experiential practice.
The focus group concluded with participants providing open-ended qualitative feedback. This method provided a wider range of responses capturing participant experience and engagement with personal artefacts (Pew Research Center, 2023). In the development of this form, I took consideration to effects of question wording and ordering on participant response.
For my reflections on the workshop itself, view the next blog post – Reflections on THE ACTION
Freire, P. (2018) Pedagogy of the oppressed. 50th edn. Edited by Donaldo Macedo. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. (Accessed 1 November 2023)
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as a qualitative method. SAGE Publications, Inc., Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287 (Accessed 7 November 2023)
Liamputtong, P (2011) Focus Group Methodology : Principle and Practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Limited, London. ProQuest Ebook Central. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=689539 (Accessed 7 November 2023)
Hahn Tapper, A.J. (2013) ‘A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social identity theory, intersectionality, and empowerment’. Conflict Resolution Qtrly, 30, pp. 411–445. Available at: https://aspireonline.org/aspire2016/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/10/A-Pedagogy-of-Social-Justice-Education.pdf (Accessed 22 June 2023)
TEDx Talks (2018) Students need to lead the classroom, not teachers | Katherine Cadwell | TEDxStowe. 26 April 2018. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzQhiB2EOVE&ab_channel=TEDxTalks (Accessed 17 December 2023)
Pew Research Center (nodate) Writing Survey Questions. Available at from: https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/u-s-surveys/writing-survey-questions/ (Accessed 13 November 2023)