GROUP RESEARCH METHODS

An Introduction

Andrea B. Hollingshead

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Marshall Scott Poole

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

Because you are reading this introduction, it is likely you need little convincing that groups are a worthwhile topic to study. In fact, this book presupposes that you are already interested in studying groups, and are looking for some guidance or ideas about how to study them.

Defining a “group” is not a simple task, and there is some disagreement among group scholars across disciplines about what constitutes a group. Hence, we take a broad and inclusive view of groups in this volume. We define groups as collectives with more than three people whose members share a common goal or purpose, have some degree of interdependence, interact with one another, and generally perceive themselves as a group. Groups have an internal structure and are embedded in larger social systems, members have various types of relationships with one another, and varying levels of influence on the group and vice versa. As a result, studying groups is often difficult and complex: substantively, logistically, and statistically. Group scholarship is on the upswing, and with this comes the need to understand methods specifically designed for group research. That is the purpose of this volume.

This volume is devoted to describing the challenges of studying groups, and strategies for meeting those challenges. There has never been a better time to study groups. With the rise of social networking, online communities, wikis, distributed work, crowd sourcing, and virtual worlds, there are many new forms of groups to study and new contexts in which to study them. The internet has also provided researchers with more access to information about traditional groups through publically available transcripts, databases, archives, and knowledge management systems. Powerful new methods and tools for voice recognition, social network analysis, interaction and content analysis, and statistics have reduced the costs in money, time, and labor to analyze group process. There is an increasing number of funding opportunities through governmental, corporate, and private foundations for studying collaboration and the social aspects of new media.

Structure and Organization of the Book

The objective, content, and approach of this book are different from those of most methods books. The book's major objective is to summarize the current state of group methods and tricks of the trade in a relatively brief volume that is readable, insightful, and useful for both new and experienced group researchers. In a sense, this volume features a backstage view of group research with tips, guidance, and suggestions. It covers topics related to both traditional and new methods for studying groups in face-to-face and online settings. Our hope is that the collection of essays in this book will inspire new and established researchers alike to look beyond their current methodological approaches.

We recruited a set of authors who are highly regarded experts and well known to group researchers across disciplines. Each author team has many years of experience with the method described in their chapter. Taken together, the authors study a wide range of groups: top management teams, sports teams, political action groups, families, juries, support groups, friendship cliques, emergency response teams, project teams, ad-hoc laboratory groups, and game guilds in face-to-face and online settings.

Each chapter provides a general introduction and an overview of the method that describes its strengths and weaknesses, noteworthy examples, and latest innovations. The authors relate their personal experiences in conducting research and present aspects not usually reported in the method section of research articles. As a result, the chapters come alive with personal anecdotes about conducting research in the given domain: the authors’ great successes as well as their grave errors.

The chapters of this volume are ordered chronologically to parallel the way in which a typical group research project unfolds. We considered dividing chapters into sections based on type of method (quantitative, qualitative, modeling) or locus of research (laboratory, field, simulation), but these categories seemed artificial and restrictive. The orthodox position that there is “one best way” to conduct social and behavioral research has given way to an increasingly common tendency to employ multiple methods in programs of research. So we decided to put categories to the side and invite readers to sample a variety of methods and research experiences.

Some Thoughts on Selecting Methods for Group Research

Identifying a problem of interest

Research necessarily involves a problem of interest: a phenomenon, context, situation, condition, or issue that needs to be described, explained, predicted, or understood. Group research method selection often comes after you have determined the problem, and formulated a research question that is informed by the relevant literature. Generally, the research question should guide the selection of the method. However, there are notable exceptions to this rule, for example, researchers who develop new methods and statistical techniques may search for a problem domain or dataset that meets that method's underlying assumptions and requirements.

Finding a problem to tackle can be the easiest step of the research process but it takes time, effort, and perseverance. There are myriad problems to study, and multiple paths for locating one. First, by reflection through engaging with the literature on groups, you may discover a theory that you would like to test in a novel situation, generate an alternative explanation for a finding in an empirical article, or become inspired by an idea for future research directions from a discussion section. By browsing the table of contents of journals in your home discipline, and in the many interdisciplinary journals focusing on the topic of groups such as, group dynamics, group and intergroup relations, group decision and negotiation, small group research among others, you can identify the contemporary issues of the field and strategically select a topic that would interest your target audience.

A second path to discovering a problem is through direct observation where you detect an unusual occurrence or interesting practice and seek to understand why and how it occurred. For example, you may have come across an online community of competitors where members share information freely when the incentive structure, at least on the surface, suggests that members should not or you may have watched a charismatic person convince a group to act in ways that are clearly outside their collective interest. A third path is through direct experience, which can be the most rewarding as it is personally relevant and you may also have some insight that can help guide (and sometimes hinder) your quest. For example, perhaps you were a member of a group that exceeded expectations and won a competition despite very small odds or were a member of a team that failed miserably despite having very talented members.

The path becomes more treacherous once you have determined your problem of interest. The next step is forming a research question. A good research question defines the problem, describes the context, sets boundaries, and provides a direction for your investigation in the form of a question. Forming a research question is an iterative process that requires narrowing, clarifying, and redefining the problem through reading the relevant literature. Some researchers develop research questions inductively by creating a concept map that links together topics, theories, and findings (O'Leary, 2004). Others use a set of criteria or a checklist. The most important criterion on most checklists is whether it will sufficiently engage and motivate you through the research process, which can be long and arduous. Other often mentioned criteria include: (a) the potential contribution (is it novel and important, how will it add to existing knowledge, will it inspire future studies, and what are the policy or practical implications?); (b) feasibility (is it doable; and do you have access to the necessary resources?); and (c) ethical considerations (do the benefits for the participants and for society outweigh the risks and costs?).

Selecting an appropriate method

So far, the first two steps on the path to group research method selection, finding a problem and developing a research question, are similar for researchers with different epistemological orientations, although the form of the question and the approach taken in formulating it may be quite different. The next step is choosing the most appropriate method given the research question. As Runkel and McGrath (1972) suggest, there is no single best method: each has its inherent weaknesses and threats to validity, although some methods may be less well suited for some research questions than others. For example, a laboratory experiment may not be the best method for understanding how city council members deal with controversial topics during public hearings.

McGrath, Martin, and Kukla (1982) described research design as a three-horned dilemma. The three horns are: precision (control and measurement of behavior), realism (observing behavior in the context in which it naturally occurs), and generalizability (generalizing findings across actors and populations). All horns are equally important in the research process, but they are impossible to achieve in a single study. For example, laboratory experiments score high on precision, but score low on realism and generalizability. In contrast, field studies score high on realism, but low on precision and generalizability. However, there is a solution: by examining a given phenomenon using multiple methods and looking for convergence and triangulation of findings across methods. Although it is uncommon and difficult for any single researcher to do so in a single article (especially when the topic involves groups), a community of scholars using multiple methods engaged on a common research question can solve the three-horned dilemma. It is our hope that this edited book will encourage small group researchers to look beyond their current approach for new ideas, new methods and new techniques.

The central role of theory

Theory should play a central role in the method selection process. Edmondson and McManus (2007) provide a useful framework for understanding the relations between theory and method fit, and provide three archetypes of methodological fit (mature, intermediate, nascent) based on the state of theory in the problem domain. In a nutshell, they propose that theory falls along a continuum from mature theory that has well-developed constructs and established relations based on many studies by different researchers to nascent theory that proposes tentative answers for novel questions regarding the how and why behind a given phenomenon. Intermediate levels of theory development fall along the continuum. Research questions based on mature theory tend to describe relations between established constructs whereas research questions based on nascent theory tend to be more open-ended about the problem of interest. Hypothesis testing using quantitative methods is a more powerful approach for research questions based on mature theory, whereas qualitative, exploratory methods are more powerful for research questions based on nascent theory where theory generation comes after data collection and analysis.

A good place to find the current state of theory in group research across disciplines is in our first edited volume: Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspectives (Poole & Hollingshead, 2005). In fact, working on that volume inspired the present volume, which focuses on method and serves as a companion volume.

A Final Word of Thanks

We are very grateful to the authors for their outstanding contributions to the book. We heard from more than one author that writing their chapter was one of their most enjoyable writing projects ever. Their knowledge and passion for research shine in this volume and we hope you find the chapters as inspirational, insightful, and useful as we do.

Authors’ Note:

We thank Peter Carnevale for his helpful comments on this introduction.

References

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research . The Academy of Management Review, 32, 1155–1179.

McGrath, J. E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A . (1982). Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

O'Leary, Z . (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.

Poole, M. S., & Hollingshead, A. B. (Eds.) (2005). Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior:A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.