RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

THE NON-DIRECTIVE INTERVIEW AND THE FOCUSED INTERVIEW 377
empowering participants to speak out, and in
their own words
encouraging groups, rather than individuals, to
voice opinions
encouraging non-literate participants
providing greater coverage of issues than would
be possible in a survey
gathering feedback from previous studies.
Focus groups might be useful to triangulate
with more traditional forms of interviewing,
questionnaire, observation etc. There are several
issues to be addressed in running focus groups
(Morgan 1988: 41–8):
Deciding the number of focus groups for a
single topic (one group is insufficient, as the
researcher will be unable to know whether the
outcome is unique to the behaviour of the
group).
Deciding the size of the group (too
small, and intra-group dynamics exert a
disproportionate effect; too large, and the
group becomes unwieldy and hard to manage;
it fragments). Morgan (1988: 43) suggests
between four and twelve people per group.
Allowing for people not turning up on the
day. Morgan (1988: 44) suggests the need to
over-recruit by as much as 20 per cent.
Taking extreme care with the sampling, so that
every participant is the bearer of the particular
characteristic required or that the group has
homogeneity of background in the required
area, otherwise the discussion will lose focus or
become unrepresentative. Sampling is a major
key to the success of focus groups.
Ensuring that participants have something to
say and feel comfortable enough to say it.
Chairing the meeting so that a balance is struck
between being too directive and veering off the
point, i.e. keeping the meeting open-ended but
to the point.
Unlike group interviewing with children, discussed
above, focus groups operate more successfully
if they are composed of relative strangers
rather than friends unless friendship, of course,
is an important criterion for the focus (e.g. that
the group will discuss something that is usually
discussed only among friends).
Focus groups are not without their drawbacks.
For example, they tend not to yield numerical,
quantifiable or generalizable data; the data may
be difficult to analyse succinctly; the number
of people involved tends to be small; they may
yield less information than a survey; and the
group dynamics may lead to non-participation by
some members and dominance by others (e.g.
status differentials may operate), the number
of topics to be covered may be limited; intragroup
disagreement and even conflicts may arise;
inarticulate members may be denied a voice; the
data may lack overall reliability.
Although its potential is considerable, the focus
group, as a particular kind of group interviewing,
still has to find its way into educational circles to
the extent that it has in other areas of life. Focus
groups require skilful facilitation and management
by the researcher.
The non-directive interview and the
focused interview
Originating from psychiatric and therapeutic fields
with which it is most readily associated, the nondirective
interview is characterized by a situation
in which the respondents are responsible for
initiating and directing the course of the encounter
and for the attitudes they express in it, in
contrast to the structured or research interview we
have already considered, where the dominating
role assumed by the interviewer results in ‘an
asymmetry of commitment’ (Kitwood 1977). It
has been shown to be a particularly valuable
technique because it gets at the deeper attitudes
and perceptions of the person being interviewed in
such a way as to leave them free from interviewer
bias. We shall examine briefly the characteristics
of the therapeutic interview and then consider
its usefulness as a research tool in the social and
educational sciences.
The non-directive interview as it is currently
understood grew out of the pioneering work
of Freud and subsequent modifications to his
approach by later analysts. His basic discovery was
Chapter 16