Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practice Theoretically Inspired Focus Groups: Socially Recognizable Performativity?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A New Era in Focus Group Research

Abstract

Focus groups have been theorized along a continuum, ranging from different types of scientific realism to various forms of social constructivism. One of the main points of disagreement relates to the understanding of the relations between the content of expressions in the focus group and the social dynamics of group interactions. A crucial question is the extent to which the patterns of expression in focus group interactions are recognizable (socially and culturally) in relation to participants’ everyday lives. Alternatively, these can be viewed as being uniquely situational. This chapter examines how recognizability is discussed in the existing focus group literature. A practice theoretical perspective is offered as allowing researchers to take a middle position, to enable focus group data to shed light both upon patterns of everyday activities across contexts and to illuminate situational negotiations as patterns are made and re-made. It is argued that recognizability can be produced through employing strategies, such as network groups and media representations. Empirical examples are drawn from work on contested food habits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lemon mousse is a classic Danish dessert that mainly contains sugar, lemon juice and lemon peel, and raw egg whites that are whipped stiff.

  2. 2.

    Amo refers to a brand of flour and other baking products, including ready-made cake powders and bread mixtures.

  3. 3.

    Karen Wolff is the most common Danish brand of cheap ready-made biscuits and cookies, which you can get in every store.

  4. 4.

    Æbleskiver is a smaller Nordic version of doughnuts and are traditionally served at nearly all x-mas gatherings in Denmark, together with ‘gløgg’ which is warm spicy wine.

References

  • Atkinson, P. and Coffey, A. (2003). Revisiting the relationship between participant observation and interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds.), Postmodern Interviewing. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belzile, J.A. and Öberg, G. (2012). Where to begin? Grappling with how to use the participant interaction in focus group design. Qualitative Research, 12, 459–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjur, J., Schrøder, K.C., Hasebrink, U., Courtois, C., Adoni, H. and Nossek, H. (2013). Cross-media use. Unfolding complexities in contemporary audiencehood. In N. Carpentier and K.C. Schrøder (eds.), Audience Transformations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thoms, M. and Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J. and Pattman, R. (2005). Work-family matters in the workplace: The use of focus groups in a study of a UK social services department. Qualitative Research, 5, 523–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colucci, E. (2007). ‘Focus groups can be fun’: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions. Qualiative Health Research, 17, 1422–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14, 115–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, C. (2010). ‘Generalizability’ as recognition: Reflections on a foundational problem in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies, 1, 115–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demant, J. (2006). Fokusgruppen – spørgmål til fænomener i nuet [The focus group – questions for phenomena in the present]. In O. Bjerg and K. Villadsen (eds.), Sociologiske Metoder. Fra teori til Analyse i Kvantitative og Kvalitative Studier [Sociological methods. From theory to analysis in quantitative and qualitative studies]. København: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15(6): 832–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, J. and Boon, B. (2010). Analyzing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research, 10, 605–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fern, E.F. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Vol.1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, K.K. and Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research, 1, 169–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (2006). Nurturing dialogic hermeneutics and the deliberative capacities of communities in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., Crespigny, C. and Delmar, C. (2011). Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2, 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B. (2001). Consuming ambivalences. Consumer handling of environmentally related risks in Food. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1, 205–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B. (2009). Suitable Cooking? Performances and positions in cooking practices among Danish women. Food, Culture and Society, 12, 357–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B. (2010). Focus groups as social enactments: Integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Research, 10, 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B. (2011). Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 787–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T. and Martens, L. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of consumption: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Editorial article. Special issue of Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R. and Newbold, C. (1998). Mass Communication Research Methods. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, H. (2012). Focus groups and methodological rigour outside the minority world: Making the method work to its strengths in Tanzania. Qualitative Research, 12, 111–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K.B. (2012). A Handbook of Media and Communication Research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepperson, R. and Meyer, J.W. (2011). Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of methodological individualism. Sociological Theory, 29, 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, P.S. and Parshall, M.B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigour in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 718–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L. and Krueger, R.A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D.L. Morgan (ed.), Successful Focus Groups. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peek, L. and Fothergill, A. (2009). Using focus groups: Lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research, 9, 31–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puchta, C. and Potter, J. (2005). Focus Group Practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. (2002). The Site of the Social. A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practices. Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N. and Rook, D.W. (2007). Focus Groups. Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2): 131–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr, D.J. (2005). ‘It was fun…but we don’t usually talk about these things’: Analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2): 200–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wibeck, V. et al. (2007). Learning in focus groups. Qualitative Research, 7(2): 249–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bente Halkier

Authors
  1. Bente Halkier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bente Halkier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. WELS, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

    Rosaline S. Barbour

  2. Portland State University, Portland, USA

    David L. Morgan

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Halkier, B. (2017). Practice Theoretically Inspired Focus Groups: Socially Recognizable Performativity?. In: Barbour, R., Morgan, D. (eds) A New Era in Focus Group Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58613-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58614-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation