A Qualitative Approach to Intergroup Relations: Exploring the Applicability of the Social Identity Approach to “Messy” School Contexts

Abstract

The social identity approach (SIA) is one of the most influential theories of group processes and intergroup relations worldwide. However, we argue that the dominance of (post)positivist research methods in SIA work limits the extent to which it enables an understanding of the complexities of intergroup relations in schools. Drawing on qualitative data from two research studies, we highlight important questions and issues that are obscured by traditional psychological approaches to studying intergroup relations. In particular, we focus on the complex interplay among discourses about popularity within schools, constructions of gender identities, and intergroup relations. In doing so, we demonstrate the benefits that qualitative research may have for social psychological intergroup theories (and their applications) and, specifically, the SIA. We highlight how qualitative data can add considerable richness to understandings of intergroup relations and draw attention to inconsistencies and contradictions that otherwise may go unnoticed.

Diversity, fluidity and threats to social identity: The case of ELT in Oman

“…One-to-one interviews were conducted to explore perceived diversity; the reality of cultural diversity as perceived and experienced by the group members (Hentschel et al, 2013). By opting for investigating perceived diversity, the study avoids falling on the limitation of positivistic research that views social categories as homogenous entities and embraces the view that perceptions are key for understanding salience of identity (Jackson & Sherriff, 2013).…”

The Generality of Theory and the Specificity of Social Behavior: Contrasting Experimental and Hermeneutic Social Science

“…The purpose of the present paper is to introduce the wider field to the intriguing possibilities entailed in the perspective. The interested reader is referred to important work such as Jackson and Sherriff's (2013) qualitative analysis of intergroup relations, De Castro's (2005) study of the experience of being anxious, Halling, Leifer, and Rowe's (2006) examination of the experience of forgiving another, Barrell's (1997) treatment of loneliness, Mastain's (2007) exploration of the experience of being altruistic, Sayre, Lambo, and Navarre's (2006) investigation of what it means to "be a couple," Clegg's (2012) study of the experience of feeling socially awkward, and Way and Pahl's (1999) work on friendship patterns among adolescent boys. CONCLUSION We have suggested that contemporary experimental social psychology, as the progeny of a Hempelian-positivist approach to science, suffers as a result of its heritage.…”

“From start to finish”: Practical and ethical considerations in the use of focus groups to evaluate sexual health service interventions for young people.

“…Focus groups are a well-established technique within qualitative research and evaluation and are commonly used within the health and social sciences, particularly psychology, sociology, health promotion, education, public health, and other related fields (e.g., Bergin, Talley, & Hamer, 2003; Hyde, Howlett, Brady, & Drennan, 2005; Jackson & Sherriff, 2013; Morrow, 2001; Sherriff, 2007a; Sherriff & Coleman, 2013; Sherriff, Hamilton, Wigmore, & Giambrone, 2011; Shrimpton, McKie, Hurworth, Bell, & Richardson, 2008; Wilkinson, 1998). Using focus groups in qualitative research or evaluation studies is commonly considered unproblematic and therefore researchers often fail to provide adequate justification or detailed descriptions for this choice of data generation.…”

“…Nevertheless, focus groups have been used previously with young people in a range of psychologically relevant studies such as explorations of peer group cultures, self-concept, and social identities (Jackson & Sherriff, 2013;Sherriff, 2005Sherriff, , 2007a: quality of life and psychosocial development in adolescents with epilepsy (McEwan, Espie, Metcalfe, Brodie & Wilson, 2004); youth violence (Aubert, Melgar, & Valls, 2011;Pösö, Honkatukia, & Nyqvist, 2008); sexual health (Hyde et al, 2005;Roberts, Oyun, Batnasan, & Laing, 2005;Van Teijlingen et al, 2007); young people's perspectives on their environments (Morrow, 2001); perceptions of health risks of smoking (Gough, Fry, Grogan, & Conner, 2009); and youth homelessness (Ensign, 2003). However, despite the popularity of focus groups as a method, few authors have defined precisely how they conceptualize focus groups in psychological research or how they have applied them (ontologically, ethically, and practically) to their particular study or research context.…”