Advertisement

Discrepancy Reduction: Conducting Focus Group with Senior Citizens in Hong Kong

  • Yuen Hang NgEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Despite numerous qualitative studies conducted in the aging context (e.g., Goulding in The Gerontologist 53:1009–1019, 2012; Kania-Lundholm and Torres in J Aging Stud 35:26–36, 2015), the discussion of discrepancies and corresponding solutions for reducing them has been trivial (Olson in Essentials of qualitative interviewing. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2011). The limited available literature provides only a general discussion of interviews with older adults (Olson in Essentials of qualitative interviewing. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2011; Wenger in Handbook of interview research: Context & method. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 259–279, 2002). This chapter aims to enrich and elaborate on the information in this area by identifying discrepancies in age, gender, and education from the perspective of discrepancy theory and discussing the corresponding reduction of the discrepancy. In the study detailed in this chapter, a number of aging discrepancies, such as the wording of expressions, were solved by asking participants what they would like to be called. Some gender discrepancies involving arguments arising from the refusal to accept various viewpoints were addressed by emphasizing respect for various views. Educational discrepancies related to the participants’ concerns for their ability were reduced by empowering the participants by providing them with example questions and support. The following section details discrepancy theory.

References

  1. Abbott, P., Wallace, C., Lin, K., & Haerpfer, C. (2015). The quality of society and life satisfaction in China. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. (2015). Motherhood: A discrepancy theory. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 29(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2003). The reluctant respondent. In J. A. Holstein & J. A. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 153–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (2010). A god of one’s own: Religion’s capacity for peace and potential for violence. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, R. (2013). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, R., & Malkinson, R. (2000). ‘Therapeutizing’ research: The positive impact of research on participants. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 70, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binstock, R. H., & George, L. K. (2005). Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Botterill, K. (2014). Family and mobility in second modernity: Polish migrant narrative of individualization and family life. Sociology, 48(2), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broom, A., Hand, K., & Tovey, P. (2009). The role of gender, environment and individual biography in shaping qualitative interview data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane, H. K., & Weibel, D. L. (2012). Missionary impositions. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Diehl, M., Hay, E. L., & Chui, H. (2012). Personal risk and resilience factors in the context of daily stress. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 32(1), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galam, R. G. (2015). Gender, reflexivity, and positionality in male research in one’s own community with Filipino seafarers’ wives. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(3), Art. 13.Google Scholar
  15. George, L. K., & Ferraro, K. F. (2015). Aging and the social sciences: Progress and prospects. In R. H. Binstock, L. K. George, K. F. Gerraro, D. Carr, J. M. Wilmoth, & D. Wolf (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/estaging/aging_and_the_social_sciences_progress_and_pro.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Germain, C. M., & Hess, T. M. (2007). Motivational influences on controlled processing: Moderating distractibility in older adults. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 14, 462–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulding, A. (2012). How can contemporary art contribute toward the development of social and cultural capital for people aged 64 and older. The Gerontologist, 53(6), 1009–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenwood, N., Ellmers, T., & Holley, J. (2014). The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grenier, A. (2007). Crossing age and generational boundaries: Exploring intergenerational research encounters. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 713–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gringart, E., Helmes, E., & Speelman, C. P. (2005). Exploring attitudes toward older workers among Australian employers: An empirical study. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 17(3), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamzeh, M. Z., & Oliver, K. (2010). Gaining research access into the lines of Muslim girls: Researchers negotiating muslimness, modesty, inshallah, and haram. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hand, K., & Lewis, V. (2002). Fathers’ views on family life and paid work. Family Matters, 61, 26–29.Google Scholar
  23. Horowitz, J. A., Ladden, M. D., & Moriarty, H. J. (2002). Methodological challenges in research with vulnerable families. Journal of Family Nursing, 8(4), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins, A., Eslambolchilar, P., Lindsay, S., Hare, M., Thornton, I. M., & Tales, A. (2016). Attitudes towards attention and ageing: What differences between younger and older adults tell us about mobile technology design. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 8(2), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kania-Lundholm, M., & Torres, S. (2015). The divide within: Older active ICT users position themselves against different ‘others’. Journal of Aging Studies, 35, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasmo, M. A., Possumah, B. T., Mohamad, Z., Hassan, W. Z., & Yunos, N. (2015). The role of religion in social cohesion within the contemporary Muslim society in Malaysia: Revisited. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 168–174.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, Y. (2010). Female individualization? Transnational mobility and media consumption of Asian women. Media, Culture and Society, 32(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. S. (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research (pp. 1–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Krueger, R. A. (1998a). Developing questions for focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krueger, R. A. (1998b). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lohan, M. (2000). Extending feminist methodologies: Researching masculinities and technologies. In A. Byrne & R. Lentin (Eds.), (Re)searching Women (pp. 167–187). Dublin: IPA.Google Scholar
  32. Longhurst, R. (2016). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In N. Clifford, M. Cope, T. Gillespie, & S. French (Eds.), Key methods in geography (pp. 143–156). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Lu, S.-H., & Dai, Y.-T. (2009). Normal body temperature and the effects of age, sex, ambient temperature and body mass index on normal oral temperature: A prospective, comparative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(5), 661–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lundgren, A. S. (2013). Doing age: Methodological reflections on interviewing. Qualitative Research, 13(6), 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moody, H. R. (2012). Aging: Concepts & controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups: Focus group kit 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nikunen, M. (2012). Individualization and identity work: Coping with the ‘entrepreneurial’ university. In S. Ahola & D. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Higher education research in Finland (pp. 271–289). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nilsson, H., Bülow, P. H., & Kazemi, A. (2015). Mindful sustainable aging: Advancing a comprehensive approach to the challenges and opportunities of old age. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 494–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson, K. (2011). Essentials of qualitative interviewing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  40. Padfield, M., & Procter, I. (1996). The effect of interviewer’s gender on the interviewing process: A comparative enquiry. Sociology, 30(2), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Pini, B. (2005). Interviewing men: Gender and the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. Journal of Sociology, 41, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ross, L. M., & Squires, G. D. (2011). The personal costs of subprime lending and the foreclosure crisis: A matter of tryst, insecurity, and institutional deception. Social Science Quarterly, 92(1), 140–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seale, C., Charteris-Black, J., Dumelow, C., Locock, L., & Ziebland, S. (2008). The effect of joint interviewing on the performance of gender. Field Methods, 20(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, B. A. (1999). Ethical and methodological benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic phenomenological research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stawski, R. S., Sliwinski, M. J., Almeida, D. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2008). Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: The roles of adult age and global perceived stress. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol. 20). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan-Singh, S. J., Stanton, A. L., & Low, C. A. (2015). Living with limited time: Socioemotional selectivity theory in the context of health adversity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 900–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tarrant, A. (2016). ‘Betweenness’ and the negotiation of similarity and difference in the interview setting: Reflections on interviewing grandfathers as a young, female researcher. Gender Identity and Research Relationships, 14, 43–62.Google Scholar
  50. Van Dyke, R. (2013). Investigating human trafficking from the Andean Community to Europe: The role of goodwill in the researcher–gatekeeper relationship and in negotiating access to data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(6), 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenger, G. C. (2002). Interviewing older people. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 259–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Yan, Y. (2011). The individualization of the family in rural China. Boundary, 38(1), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social ScienceChinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations