Just the facts, ma'am: decentring the analysis of content in focus group research

In literature around focus groups, much is often made of the ‘generativity’ of focus groups (e.g. Kamberelis and Dimitriades, 2005) – the way in which the interview strategy facilitates the generation of ideas. In this paper we interrogate this claim more closely. Exploring the ‘appearance’ and ‘disappearance’ of race, class and gender within the focus group transcripts, we focus particularly on how the group format opens up certain marginalised positions, while foreclosing on other kinds of accounts. Holstein and Gubrium (1995) suggest that it important to explore not just the content of the interview, but also the way in which the interview is achieved. They argue that: “To say the interview is an interpersonal drama with a developing plot is part of a broader claim that reality in an ongoing, interpretive accomplishment” (16) The generativity of the focus group can open up new and creative ways of framing issues, and can provide a context of solidarity and validation for participants. This can enable the expression of subjectivities that run contra to dominant discourses within psychology training. However, focus groups can also function to shut down the expression of alternative points of view (Blumberg and Soas, 1997). This is particularly problematic when participants are trying to articulate an already marginalised point of view, or give voice to accounts already peripheralised hegemonic political formations more broadly. In this paper we unpack how the focus group structure operates to enable/disable representations of professional identity as raced, classed and gendered in specific ways