2. The Qualitative-Empirical Approach: Methodological and Methodical
2.3 Research Design
2.3.4 Using Group Discussions with Real Social Groups to Learn about
The documentary method, with its epistemological methodological implications, lends itself particularly well to this study, as it focuses on the reconstruction of collective
62 In School A, which offers Roman Catholic and Protestant RE as well as ethics education for those pupils who don’t attend RE, pupils can be found who …
a) belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and attend their religion’s RE, which is a compulsory subject for them.
b) belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and who have opted out of RE, which compulsory subject for them, and who are attending ethics education.
c) don’t belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and attend RE, which is a voluntary subject for them.
d) don’t belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities, which is a voluntary subject for them, but who attend ethics education.
The data shows that in School B, which offers Roman Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Orien- tal Orthodox RE, pupils can be found who …
e) belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and attend their religion’s RE, which is a compulsory subject for them.
f) belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and who have opted out of RE, compulsory subject for them.
g) don’t belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and attend RE, which is a voluntary subject for them.
h) don’t belong to one of the 14 legally recognised churches or religious communities and don’t attend RE, which is a voluntary subject for them.
63 The SCC has 10 members. It is comprised of three elected representatives of parents, pupils and teachers respectively and the school’s headmistress/-master.
attitudinal patterns. It was important to find a way of learning about these patterns, in order to allow the researcher access to collective attitudes in schools. The documentary method was developed in practical research, as a qualitative-reconstructive method that consists of group discussions. Group discussions make it possible to reconstruct col- lectively shared horizons of experience within the group. The documentary method is well established65 from an epistemological and methodological perspective. It is used
in a wide range of disciplines,66 which deal with questions or procedures relating to
the social sciences, including religious education studies.67 By now researchers have a
lot of experience with a variety of different data collection methods that all fall within the framework of the documentary method: starting (chronologically) with group dis- cussions,68 followed by photographs, videos,69 conversations70 and various forms of
interviews.71 For this study, group discussions were conducted with real social groups
in schools. Like Loos/Schäffer, this study distinguishes group discussions from group surveys/group interviews as follows: Group discussions are a process, “where exter-
nally initiated processes of communication are launched within a group, which at least at times, approximate ‘normal’ conversation.”72This stands in contrast to group sur-
veys/group interviews, which take a systematic approach to group members answering questions – sometimes for reasons of time-efficiency. The moderator of group discus- sions takes a much more open approach to the subject matter. The aim is to initiate types of conversation that are close to everyday life. In doing so, group discussions meet the principles of openness, closeness to real life or naturalism.73 Group discussions also
differ from group conversations: The former is initiated externally, while the latter is started by those having the conversation. Group discussions nonetheless aim for their communications to be conversational, as they want to study forms of communication that are close to everyday life. Real social groups allow everyday forms of communica- tion to develop and to be observed particularly well. By definition they “share a common realm of experiences. This [realm of experiences P.K.] is at least a, if not the commu- nality, that keeps the group together or the foundation on which it was established.”74
65 Cf. Bohnsack 92014; Loos et al. 2013.
66 Cf. Bohnsack/Nentwig-Gesemann/Nohl 32007.
67 Cf. e. g. Schmid 1989; Hilger/Rothgangel 1997; Hilger/Rothgangel 2000; Hoffmann 2009; Holl 2011; Strutzenberger 2012; Lehner-Hartmann 2014.
68 Cf. Loos/Schäffer 2001; Bohnsack/Przyborski/Schäffer 22010a.
69 Cf. Bohnsack 22011.
70 Cf. Przyborski 2004.
71 Cf. Nohl 42012.
72 Loos/Schäffer 2001, 13. [italicised as in the original] Loos/Schäffer stand in the tradition of the documentary method. They delineate their understanding of group discussion, which must be ascribed to the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Within this tradition real social groups or group discussions are often chosen because of time pressure. For a historic overview of the Anglo- Saxon and German development of the group discussion method cf. Loos/Schäffer 2001,
15–28; Bohnsack 92014, 107–130. The Anglo-Saxon tradition is not unique in choosing group
discussions because of time pressure rather than for epistemological and methodological reasons. Cf. also e. g. Kühn/Koschel 2011.
73 Cf. Lamnek 22011, 41–43, 51 f.
Additionally,real social groups meet the principle of naturalism to a greater degree than groups that are put together specifically for a piece of research. Due to the documentary method’s epistemological consideration, it is also possible to find shared experiences within groups that have been put together artificially, so long as all group members have a common horizon of experiences, e. g. they all work in the same profession.
Although in principle Lamnek believes that the number of group discussions should be decided based on the epistemological interest of the study, he suggests that there should be at least two. He suggests two to five as a guideline. These numbers have also proven sensible for this study. On the one hand, the documentary method with its comparative approach absolutely depends on there being enough cases to be compared. On the other hand, the number of cases has to be restricted for practical reasons, given that both human and financial resources are limited. This is an important factor to be considered, since explicative and reconstructive approaches to group discussions are always more labour intensive than descriptive and reductive methods.75 Guidelines in
textbooks vary when it comes to the ideal number of participants in a discussion group. Although in principle Lamnek believes that the number of people who participate in a group discussions should be determined by the epistemological interest, he feels that seven to twelve participants is ideal. Whenever real social groups were used in this study to reconstruct collective attitudinal patterns, the author was bound bythe number of people who were already members of a pre-existing group. Pre-existing real social groups offer a greater possibility for observing autonomously flowing discussions, as group members already know each other. According to Loos/Schäffer “autonomous
flow is the highest aim when conducting group discussions”.76 Autonomous types of
conversation that closely mimic day-to-day lifecan provide access to focussing meta- phors77 or collectively shared attitudinal patterns.
Handbooks on this particular subject offer extensive support when it comes to preparing and organising group discussions.78 Methodologically founded support
materials, which have proven themselves in the practical application of the documen- tary method, have been of particular interest to this study. Bohnsack for instance lists eight principles on how to conduct and oversee group discussions: 1. “The group as a whole is the subject of research intervention.”, 2. “Suggest a subject areas, but do not make specific propositions.”, 3. “Be deliberately vague.”, 4. “Do not manipulate how or when group members contribute.”, 5. “Encourage detailed descriptions.”, 6. “Ask intrinsic clarifying questions.”, 7. “A phase of extrinsic clarifying questions.” and 8. “The directive phase.”79 All these principles aim to keep group discussions flowing
autonomously and to keep interventions by the researcher to a minimum. This enables sections of the discussion to play out like everyday interactions, which provides the basis for the reconstruction of collectively shared attitudinal patterns. The aim of this study was to investigate collective attitudes in selected schools in order to answer the research questions outlined above. Real social groups in schools where chosen, based
75 Cf. Lamnek 22005, 177–182
76 Loos/Schäffer 2001, 51. [italicised as in the original]
77 Cf. Bohnsack 32011, 67.
78 Cf. e. g. Lamnek 22005, 89–168; Przyborski/Wohlrab-Sahr 42014, 53–78, 96–102.
on the above mentioned considerations, as schools can be seen as social spaces where joint experiences are made.
All group discussions for this study were conducted during the summer semester of 2012 in the academic year of 2011/12. They took place in either the school library or in meeting rooms of the respective schools. Group discussions with the SCC in
School A and School B took place after an SCC meeting (afternoon or evening). Group
discussions with RE teachers were held in the morning, when they had a free period. When and where this research was conducted is in line with the principle of neutrality. The research period (summer semester 2012) was also in line with this principle. It can be implicitly assumed that all group members had been part of their respective groups since at least September 2011 (beginning of the academic year). This fact ensured that group members knew each other and that the existing groups had already met several times before the start of the research period. They had already established a shared culture of conversation.
Table 6: Group discussion overview80
Group name School A School B
RET 4 group members:
1. Af (female, Roman Catholic) 2. Bf (female, Roman Catholic) 3. Cf (female, Roman Catholic) 4. Df (female, Roman Catholic) (Protestant RE teacher
Em largely not present)
Conducted: March 2012
3 group members:
1. Hm (male, Roman Catholic) 2. Im (male, Oriental Orthodox) 3. Jm (male, Islamic)
(Protestant RE teacher not present) Conducted: April 2012
SCC 9 group members:
1. Qm (male, head of school) 2. Rf (female, teacher representative) 3. Sf (female, pupil representative) 4. Tf (female, parent representative) 5. Um (male, teacher representative) 6. Vf (female, pupil representative) 7. Wf (female, parent representative) 8. Xf (female, teacher representative) 9. Zf (female, parent representative) Conducted: May 2012
5 group members:
1. Kf (female, parent representative) 2. Lm (male, pupil representative) 3. Mf (female, parent representative) 4. Nm (male, teacher representative) 5. Of (female, parent representative) (the head of school Pf was present, but did not participate in the group discussion)
Conducted: April 2012
80 On the anonymisation of group members cf. transcription guidelines in the appendix. Both RE teacher Ff (female, Roman Catholic) and RE teacher Gf (female, Roman Catholic) were members of a discussion group in schools C, which was not analysed in the end, because no group discussion with the SCC had taken place. Cf. also chapter 2.5.1. A Refection on the Enquiry Phase.