Analysing the ways of participating in interview settings: young people’s identity performances and social class in focus groups

Abstract

Critical discussions on the focus group method have highlighted the importance of considering the forms of interaction generated in groups. In this empirical paper we argue that these forms of interaction are intimately linked to the ways participants interpret the study setting, and these interpretations are likely to differ significantly depending on participants’ social backgrounds. In the light of our data consisting of 18 focus groups with 15-year-old school pupils from both affluent and deprived neighbourhoods of Helsinki discussing film clips about young people drinking alcohol, we ask what kinds of modes of participation are mobilised in focus group discussions in order to mark the social position of participants. We further analyse these modes in relation to situated identity performances, arguing that contextual factors of the study setting become especially important to consider when researching vulnerable groups and heterogeneous populations. The analysis yields three modes of participation: these are active/engaged, resistant/passive and dominant/transformative. We argue that these modes can be viewed as actively taken positions that reveal what kinds of identities and competences participants are able and willing to mobilise in the study setting, and that recognising these modes is important in all interview settings.

Understanding Cultural Non-Participation in an Egalitarian Context

“…Many researchers argue that these challenges related to interview situations should be considered part of what qualitative research actually is: the different problems and challenges foreground the many power relations at play and highlight agendas that the researcher may not have initially thought of (Jacobsson and Åkerström 2012;Katainen and Heikkilä 2020;Vitus 2008). There is wide scholarly support for the idea that researchers should give particular analytical space to the 'failed' and 'negative' parts of interviews (or entire interviews) because different kinds of challenges may help better discern the power dynamics of the interview, thus improving one's understanding of the meaning-making processes of the situation (Bengtsson and Fynbo 2018;Jacobsson and Åkerström 2012;MacLure et al 2010).…”

Counter-talk as symbolic boundary drawing: Challenging legitimate cultural practices in individual and focus group interviews in the lower regions of social space

“…Third, questioning the situation also appeared as deviance from the original questions and topics (see also Jacobsson & Åkerström, 2012;Jarrett, 1993;Katainen & Heikkilä, 2020). The following excerpt departs from the interviewer's original question on school and the preferred subjects there: after someone in the focus group mentioned history as a favourite subject, the discussion almost immediately drifted to anecdotal memories of speakers who came to give classes, for instance here on Finnish missionaries that had been to Africa, and the ensuing sexual connotations.…”

“…However, many researchers have pointed out how the difficulties that emerge in interview settings should be accepted as an integral part of the research process because they provide significant knowledge of the research topic at hand and render study settings into experiments on how participants articulate power relations inherent to the interview situation (Heikkilä, 2011;Jacobsson & Åkerstöm, 2012;Järvinen, 2001;Katainen & Heikkilä, 2020;Vitus, 2008). Drawing on a study on ethnic minority boys, Vitus (2008) suggests that expressions of resistance can provide an important avenue to study power relations in interviews and calls for an 'agonistic approach' to increase researchers' sensitivity towards dynamics of resistance.…”

Sosiaalisia suhteita ja konkreettisia käytäntöjä

“…Myös valitut tukikysymykset suuntasivat sitä, miten haastateltavat katsoivat ja tulkitsivat virik keinä käytettyjä kuvia. Ryhmähaastattelu tilanne ei kuitenkaan ole koskaan täysin neutraali kes kustelutilanne, vaan haastattelijat, tutkimustilan ne ja ryhmän oma dynamiikka vaikuttavat siihen, kuinka haastateltavat toimivat tilanteessa (41). Virikkeitä ja tukikysymyksiä käyttämällä voidaan minimoida haastattelijoiden vaikutusta keskus te luiden sisältöön, koska haastattelijan ei tarvit se juurikaan puuttua keskustelun kulkuun.…”