In and out of focus

Abstract

In this article, I trace the history of focus groups as a method and consider how they produce and filter knowledge, interaction, and engagement; their nature as communicative settings; and their political–ideological associations. I analyze focus groups conducted for a primary health care project in Kenya that involved health officials, Washington, DC‐ and Nairobi‐based staff, a U.S. photographer, a U.S. anthropologist, and local women from the project area. This case provides insights into knowledge production in the context of the transnational development industry, how anthropological methods are incorporated and represented in the process, and the epistemological grounds of ethnographic methods.

Interviewing: Practice, Ideology, Genre, and Intertextuality

“…A third, related set of ideologies links interviewing to broader notions of participation in a modern democracy (Atkinson & Silverman 1997;Briggs 2007a,b;Gubrium & Holstein 2003a;Kratz 2010) or the public sphere (Atkinson & Silverman 1997, Gal & Woolard 2001, Habermas 1991, Lipari 2000. Indeed, with the rise of polling and related practices any individual becomes a potential interviewee, who can and should be able to speak his/her mind (Briggs 2007b, Platt 2002.…”

“…Indeed, with the rise of polling and related practices any individual becomes a potential interviewee, who can and should be able to speak his/her mind (Briggs 2007b, Platt 2002. Kratz (2010) discussed this ideology of the implicit vision of egalitarian democracy in the recent methodological enthusiasm for focus group interviews. Because focus groups include multiple people, they have sometimes been understood as inherently more participatory than dyadic interviews.…”

“…In the social sciences, there are standardized surveys (Dick 2006, Converse & Schuman 1974, Cannell et al 1981, Cicourel 1964, Houtkroop-Steenstra 2000, Schaeffer & Maynard 2002, Schwarz & Sudman 1996, Singleton & Straits 2012, Suchman & Jordan 1990); semistructured, qualitative interviews (Kvale & Brinkman 2009, Laihonen 2008, Richards 2011, Roulston 2006, van den Berg et al 2003, Wooffitt 2005, Yamaguchi 2003); ethnographic interviews (Barker 2013, Bernard 2002, Dick 2006, Ewing 2006, Heyland 2001, Skinner 2012; and focus group interviews (Agar & MacDonald 1995, Beach 1990, Kratz 2010, Morgan 2012, Myers 1998. Beyond academic social sciences, there are opinion polls (Briggs 2007b, De Sola Pool 1957, Lipari 2000, mass-mediated interviews of politicians (Clayman & Heritage 2002, Greatbatch 1988, Ekström & Patrona 2011, Schegloff 1988, and talk show interviews of celebrities (Martínez 2003, Norrick 2010.…”

“…Dick (2006) asked what makes ethnographic versus survey interviews and their re-entextualizations "circulatable" and legitimate, within and beyond the academy. Kratz (2010) investigated how focus group interviews are transformed into knowledge about health care and development in Africa. Written records from other types of interviews may be used to give or deny interviewees access to semiotic and material resources: for example, psychological diagnosis (Mehan 1996), housing (Carr 2011), and asylum (Blommaert 2001, Jacquemet 2008, Kjelsvik 2014, Maryns 2006.…”

Interactional formats and institutional context: a practical and exploitable distinction in interviews

“…This interaction can allow participants to speak with their own voice (Wilkinson 1998) and manage their identities and alignments with regard to important life issues such as health (Ho and Robles 2011). In addition to these goals, interaction pro vides insights for ethnographers and analysts (Kratz 2010). These points empha size the extent to which interviews can be creative research tools for the joint construction of meaning among participants as well as with the interviewer (Briggs 1986;Douglas 1985;Holstein and Gubrium 1995).…”