Advertisement

Creative Focus Group as an Instrument to Evaluate Work Related Stress

  • Silvia Gilotta
  • Francesco Deiana
  • Cristina Mosso
  • Mariangela Ditaranto
  • Massimo Guzzo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)

Abstract

From the literature and the outlines guides, it is possible to find different methodologies to collect data from the practice of occupational stress evaluation. Among these, it emerges the Focus Group that Zammuner [24] describes as a “method of qualitative data collection, based on a group talk from which emerge data that the researcher is interested on deeply investigating it”. There are several variants of the methodology, that can be used depending on the research purposes. In the case history presented here, there is the need to deal in depth with the aspects concerning the organizational climate and culture. To highlight all the contents, facilitate the sharing of the different points of view, and to ensure the involvement of all participants, it has been chosen a creative alternative inspired by Greenbaum’s “expressive drawing” [11]: it is a “projective technique that can be very helpful in eliciting information that might otherwise not be generated in traditional focus group discussions, and that can also energize the group when it’s necessary”. In practice, it envisages the realization of an artistic artifact in which the workers represent their own perspective, emotional opinion and emotional reaction on topics in question. Compared to a normal “focus group”, this variant allows further structuring of the discussion, encouraging participation and comparisons, facilitating the creation of common meanings. Specifically, the operational layout applied is the following: first of all it has been set a short tutorial session related to the constructs of organizational climate and culture; then, it started a warm up phase followed by a creative moment in which the workers have produced some artifacts through which they have described their perception of organizational climate and culture; finally, it has been set a debate in plenary where the participants have talked about their job and its meaning, with the support of a moderator. The data has been collected as notes and processed according to the following categories, obtained from the literature on the organizational climate and culture (James and Jones 1974–1979; Rousseau 1990; Schein [20]): identity-values-ideologies, communication, leadership, rules and incentive, responsibility and freedom, individualism and sense of team, criteria of success. The results obtained have shown that the focus group, in the proposed variant, represents a valid instrument for this activity: the use of the artistic artifact as a way of transmission and sharing the meaning allows a rich and articulated data collection, ensuring a broad and deep vision of organizational reality.

Keywords

Work-related stress Focus group Expressive drawing 

References

  1. 1.
    Avallone F (1994) Psicologia del lavoro. La nuova italia scientifica, RomaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagnara S, Pietroiusti A, Guidi S (2015) La valutazione approfondita dello stress lavoro correlato in una grande azienda in cambiamento. Med Lav 106(4):250–260Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbour R (1999) Are focus group appropriate tool for studying organizational change? In: Barbour R, Kitzinger J (eds) Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice, pp 113–126Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berland A (2012) Patient safety and falls: a qualitative study of home care nurses in Norway. Nurs Health Sci 14:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berland A, Karvin Natvig G, Gundersen D (2008) Patient safety and job related stress: a focus group study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 24:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cataldi S (2012) Come si analizzano i focus group. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockrell KS, Placier P, Cockrell DH, Middleton J (1999) Coming to terms with “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in teacher education: learning about our students, changing our practices. Teach Teach Educ 15:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellis BH, Miller K (1993) The role of assertiveness, personal control and participation in the prediction of nurse burnout. J Appl Commun Res 21(4):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frisina A (2010) Focus Group: una guida pratica. BolognaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frey JH, Fontana A (1990) The group interview in social research. Soc Sci J 28(2):175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenbaum TL (1998) The handbook for focus group research. Sage, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hicks C (2015) Utilization of a focus group to evaluate the percieved stress levels and coping mechanisms of student registered nurse anaesthetist. Doctoral Nursing Capsone Projects. Paper 21Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    INAIL Dipartimento di Medicina del Lavoro - ex ISPESL (2015) Valutazione e gestione del rischio da stress lavoro-correlato, Manuale ad uso delle aziende in attuazione del D.Lgs. 81/08 e s.m.i. RomaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobasa S, Maddi S, Kahn S (1982) Hardiness and health: a perspective study. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krueger RA (1994) Focus group, a practical guide for applied research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janis L (1994) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan DL (1996) Focus groups. Ann Rev Sociol 22:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panteli N (2014) Travelling through Facebook, exploring affordance through lens of age. AIS Electroniv Library (AISeL)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De vito Piscitelli P (2002) Clima organizzativo modelli teorici e ricerche empiriche. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schein E (1990) Cultura d’azienda e leadership. GueriniGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schein EH (2001) La consulenza di processo. come costruire relazioni di aiuto e promuovere lo sviluppo organizzativo. Raffaello Cortina, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warr P (1990) Decision latitude, job demands, and employee well being. Work Stress 4(4):285–294MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warren B (1993) Arteterapia in educazione e riabilitazione. Erickson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zammuner VL (2003) I Focus Group. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang T, Gobster P (1998) Leisure preferences and open space needs in an urban Chinese American community. J Archit Plann Res 15:338–355Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yuen FC (2004) J Leisure Res 36(4):461–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia Gilotta
    • 1
  • Francesco Deiana
    • 2
  • Cristina Mosso
    • 2
  • Mariangela Ditaranto
    • 3
  • Massimo Guzzo
    • 3
  1. 1.SGS Silvia Gilotta StudioTurinItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.Azimut Benetti GroupAviglianaItaly

Personalised recommendations