Dialogue is a central feature of focus groups. It is also a primary component of philosophical hermeneutic theories of understanding. Using a focus group with parents on the topic of state standardized testing in New York State, the author explores the process of creating focus group settings that nurture their relational and hermeneutic qualities and actively engage participants in the coconstruction of meaning and understanding. Central to this discussion is the use of alternative elicitation strategies such as using poetic displays of previous focus group transcripts to engage the participants.
Abma, T. A. (1999). Introduction: Narrative perspectives on program evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Series Ed.,)& T. A. Abma (Vol. Ed.), Advances in Program Evaluation: Vol. 6. Telling tales: On narrative and evaluation(pp. 1-27. Stamford, CT: JAI.
2.
Burbules, N. C.,& Bruce, B. C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching as dialogue(pp. 1102-1121. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1916)
4.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1999). Truth and method(2nd ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1975)
5.
Gee, J. P. (1991). The narrativization of experience in the oral style. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the disclosure of the other(pp. 123-135. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
6.
Glesne, C. (1997). That rare feeling: Re-presenting research through poetic transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 202-221.
7.
Hymes, D. (1982). Narrative form as a “grammar” of experience: Native Americans and a glimpse of English. Journal of Education, 164(2), 121-142.
8.
MacNeil, C. (2002). Evaluation as steward of citizen deliberation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(1), 45-54.
9.
Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(2nd ed., pp. 835-850. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Risser, J. (1997). Hermeneutics and the voice of the other: Re-reading Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (Eds.). (2000). Disentangling dialogue; Issues from practice. In G. T. Henry & J. C. Greene (Series Eds.) & K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Vol. Eds.), New Directions in Evaluation: No. 85. Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (pp. 63-76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.
13.
Wadsworth, Y. (2001). Becoming responsive—And some consequences for evaluation as dialogue across distance. New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 45-58.
14.
Waltzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and social criticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the coconstruction of meaning. Women's Studies International Forum, 21(1), 111-125.
