Search results

Information technology is a facilitator in knowledge diffusion by enabling individuals to communicate directly in personal exchange. This includes interactive communications through newsgroups and discussion groups. Two discussion groups were analysed, the Social Work Discussion Group SOCWORK, and ABUSE‐L, a professional forum for child abuse issues. Three types of communication were identified: information transfer, requests for information and discussion of issues. The discussion of issues was the main type of communication in both discussion groups, followed by the request for information and then information transfer. Communications in the discussion groups were dominated by a small number of people. Policy issues were the main topic of discussion in both groups. The control of information technology by academics appears to limit the participation of social work practitioners in determining the agenda of the discussion group or the contents of the communications. Social worker practitioners have not increased their access to information even though the technology to make it accessible exists.

This paper seeks to highlight the current confusion in the terminology for group research, identify the geographic, historical and scientific sources of this confusion and suggest a reduction in the number of terms used to two, thereby offering a definition on which researchers from different cultural backgrounds and scientific traditions may be able to agree.

A review of the academic and practitioner literature on qualitative group research in academic, social and market research indicates that various terms for groups are used interchangeably and are often assumed to have the same meaning. These terms include; Focus Group, Group Discussion, Group Interview, Group, Focus Group Interview, Focus Group Discussion, Qualitative Group Discussion and Nominal Group Interview.

The contribution of this paper is that it offers a resolution of this issue and so allows researchers from across geographic borders, different scientific traditions and from both academic and practitioner backgrounds to talk to one another in a common language.

This issue of differences in terminology for groups has largely been ignored by researchers and this paper hopes to bring some clarity and understanding of the key differences between focus group interviews and focus group discussions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion and small-group collaborative drafting as pre-writing tasks on Iranian intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. Additionally, the difference between the writing components was examined.

To achieve these objectives, a group of 120 intermediate EFL learners participated in a pretest–posttest study in which they were randomly assigned into two experimental groups and one control group. The students in all three groups were tasked with writing a textbook evaluation report for the pretest and posttest. The pre-writing process in the first experimental group consisted of a group-to-whole student-led oral discussion, while the second experimental group engaged in small-group collaborative drafting.

The results indicate that both pre-tasks were effective in improving the participants’ writing skill, while collaborative drafting was even more efficient. Furthermore, it was observed that more writing components improved through collaborative drafting. It is concluded, therefore, that the social atmosphere created through oral discussion and the scaffolding resulting from collaborative drafting can help in writing improvement.

The findings herein can have implications for first language (L1) composition instruction and second language (L2) writing teaching and, thus, underscoring the utility of the social constructivist approach to writing instruction.

As there has been no study conducted to explore the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion on EFL learners’ writing skill and to compare its impacts to those of small-group collaborative drafting, the results of this study fill this gap in the literature.

This paper includes three analyses concerning: expert support in the selection of impact variables for scientific models relevant to environmental planning, the quality of students’ individual estimates of corresponding impacts before and after a group discussion, and the accuracy of artificially‐aggregated judgments of independent groups. Participants were students of environmental sciences at ETH Zurich. The first analysis revealed that during participation in an environmental case study, students’ individual estimates of impacts of variables which have been suggested by experts increased, as compared to the estimates of impacts of additional variables, which have been selected by the students. The remaining analyses consider group discussions on the strength of particular environmental impacts. The quality of the estimates was analyzed referring to expert estimates of the impacts.

This study aimed to discuss the key success factors in focus group discussions among the elderly as a means of supporting novice researchers and also to share the experiences of novice researchers with focus group discussions.

This study used a literature review of previous studies that revealed three themes regarding the key success of focus group discussions with the elderly. Focusing on issues published between 2009 and 2019, four health-related databases, namely the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, PsycARTICLES and Thaijo were investigated using keyword searches, both individually and in combination, and the inclusion criteria used in selecting relevant articles as primary sources included research written in the English and Thai languages.

The literature review involved eight published articles related to this topic in the nursing field. Three themes for key successes were identified as follows: good planning and convenient organization, being accepting and flexible concerning their opinions and good management.

Focus group discussions with the elderly are complex and challenging for novice researchers. It is necessary that a novice researcher in the nursing field builds up the skills of a moderator in conducting focus group interviews if he or she wishes to obtain rigorous data.

Reaching decisions in a deliberative manner is of utmost importance for boards, as their decision-making impacts entire organisations. The current study aims to investigate (1) the quality of group decisions made by board members, (2) their confidence in, satisfaction with, and reflection on the decision-making, and (3) the effect of two discussion procedures on objective decision quality and subjective evaluations of the decision-making.

Board members of various Dutch non-profit organisations (N = 141) participated in a group decision-making task and a brief questionnaire. According to the hidden-profile paradigm, information was asymmetrically distributed among group members and should have been pooled to reach the objectively best decision. Half of the groups received one of two discussion procedures (i.e. advocacy decision or decisional balance sheet), while the other half received none.

Only a fifth of the groups successfully chose the best decision alternative. The initial majority preference strongly influenced the decision, which indicates that discussion was irrelevant to the outcome. Nevertheless, board members were satisfied with their decision-making. Using a discussion procedure enhanced participants' perception that they adequately weighed the pros and cons, but did not improve objective decision quality or other aspects of the subjective evaluation. These findings suggest that board members are unaware of their biased decision-making, which might hinder improvement.

Rather than using student samples, this study was the first to have board members participating in a hidden-profile task.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on teachers’ attention to student learning in post-lesson discussions in Lesson Study (LS) by exploring the depth and analytic stance of noticing (van Es, 2011) and by identifying interactions that may extend or narrow the levels of noticing.

The study has dug deeply into post-lesson discussions in the context of two different LS groups at a Norwegian lower secondary school.

The paper provides empirical insights about crucial elements of teachers’ learning processes pertaining to their professional noticing. Sharing of rich descriptions of evidence of student learning appeared to be a necessary foundation for the deepening of the teacher groups’ analytic approach. The study highlights the importance of teacher groups’ openness and attention to the collected data and a shared willingness to go deep into the interpretations. Interthinking and exploratory talk (Littleton and Mercer, 2013) are emphasised as important social interaction and talk modes to deepen the analytic stance and depth of noticing.

Even though this is a small study, it brings to light important knowledge about how interactions in post-research lesson discussions in LS can influence teachers’ professional noticing.

An implication of the study is to design observation forms that capture student learning as tools for teachers’ professional noticing.

This paper fulfils an identified need to investigate teachers’ learning processes in LS, including how interactions within a teacher group influence noticing.

Research shows that teams often fail to surface and use unique information to evaluate decision alternatives. Under a condition known as the hidden profile, each member uniquely possesses a critical clue needed to uncover the superior solution. Failure to share and adequately evaluate this information will result in poor decision quality. The aim of this paper is to examine the impact of the devil's advocacy technique on the decision quality of hidden profile teams.

In order to mitigate this team decision‐making bias, the present study utilizes experimental research to examine the impact of the devil's advocacy technique on the decision quality of hidden profile teams.

Results show that devil's advocacy groups achieved higher decision quality than groups under free discussion. However, devil's advocacy teams also had higher levels of affective conflict. As a result, while they selected the best solution, devil's advocacy introduced conditions that may hinder the solution's implementation

Similar experiments with advocacy techniques suggest that the positive effect on decision quality found here may be reduced in the presence of stronger hidden profiles.

While the devil's advocacy technique has the potential to uncover hidden profiles and improve group decision making, the paper recommends that managers use this technique only in teams with strong critical thinking norms that foster constructive conflict.

To the authors' knowledge, no study has examined the impact of devil's advocacy in groups where information is not shared equally prior to deliberations.

Considers the relationship between the perceived quality of discussion within a group and that group′s performance on a marketing decision‐making game. Reviews the relevant literature and discusses an instrument for the measuring of perceived quality of discussion within a decision‐making group. Evaluates the structural ramifications of the instrument with relevance to a study of 95 MBA students playing a marketing decision‐making game in groups. It was found that, with one exception, the instrument maintained its underlying structure as a measure of perceived quality of discussion within a group. With regard to the faculty of the behavioural variables within the instrument to predict overall unidimensional perceived quality of discussion within a decision‐making group, it was found that, while significant prediction was still maintained, fewer behavioural variables were significant in the regression model. No relationship was found between the perceived quality of discussion in a decision‐making group and the profit achieved by that group.

The purpose of this paper is to present a qualitative methodological model applied in the human security research in local communities as a part of a wider community‐based participatory research (CBPR).

This paper synthesizes methodological experience from four empirical researches where a qualitative model of studying the security indicators in the local communities of Serbia has been applied. The paper presents how to apply qualitative approach and indicates its potentials, and suggests how to implement the study, design the sample plan and analyse obtained data.

The research of complex phenomenon of social perception of security demands a complementary approach strategy. At the most general level, it means the application of quantitative and qualitative research methods in order to achieve an integral insight into the self‐reflection of citizens about their individual and collective security.

The methodological experience from four conducted investigations on which this paper is based, gives only an initial foundation for the creation of a successful model of security appraisal. Further elaboration of this model demands inclusion of the findings from other surveys.

The suggested model may be further developed as well as in the sense of methodological subtilization, and as a practical model for the appraisal of security condition in a local community. This would be the starting point for creating strategies and their operationalization into specific action plans, in order to improve those indicators, which are established as expressing some form of security threat in the local communities studied.

By complementary application of qualitative and quantitative research perspective (using CBPR approach), we can get profound insights into the causes and character of security threats inside communities. Through application of this approach we get deeper understanding of comparable and representative (in)security survey findings, as well as significant participant's opinions about a potential model of action for improving their security and safety.