The Dictionary of Human Geography

vis-a`-visnation-states(Dicken, 2003). Other
increasing and accelerating flows – trans-
national flows of information on theinternet,
flows of news images and popular culture
through cable and satellite TV, flows of
migrants andtouristsover barriers big and
small, flows of illegal drugs and weapons, for
instance – all comprise complex component
parts of the ‘space of flows’ that has been
famously associated with the rise of a global-
ized so-called network society (Castells,
1996b). But whereas Manuel Castells was
careful to underline that ‘the space of flows is
not placeless’ (Castells, 1996b, p. 416), other
scholars have been prone to joining their
empirical observations of globalized flows with
extreme epistemological emphases on deterri-
torialization that tend to suggest an end to
geography altogether. For example, in his
otherwise astute arguments about the trans-
national networks of modernity (and -
especially of contemporary migration),
anthropologistArjunAppadurai(1996)ignores
the ways in which global flows reterritorialize
and create new landscapes in the same moment
as they eclipse older ones (see Sparke, 2005).
By contrast, geographer John Agnew
approaches the problem with a keen sensitivity
to the ways in which flows create geographical
integration and differentiation at the very same
time. ‘The main novelty today,’ he says in a
comprehensive rebuttal to end-of-geography
arguments, ‘is the increasing role in economic
prosperity and underdevelopment of fast-
pacedcross-border flowsin relation to national
states and to networks linking cities with one
another and their hinterlands and theincreased
differentiationbetween localities and regions
as a result of the spatial biases built into
flow-networks’ (Agnew, 2006, p. 128). ms

focus group Aqualitative methodused to
obtain opinions and experiences from bet-
ween six and twelve people who participate
in a group discussion organized around a
series of topics or questions posed by the
researcher/facilitator. Focus groups typically
supplement othermethodologies, and can
be useful at different points in the research
process: to get oriented to a new research
field; to generatehypothesesthat can then
be tested more systematically; to gather quali-
tative data about experiences and opinions;
and as a means of presenting preliminary
interpretations to a community for validation.
Focus groups are used instead ofinterviews
or questionnaire surveys if the researcher
believes that the group conversation will

spark ideas among participants so as to elicit

a richer understanding of the issue at hand.

They provide an opportunity to observe

how ideas develop in context, in relation to

other and sometimes contradictory opinions.

Although the researcher carefully facilitates

the event, it can be a less hierarchical, more

negotiated research event. Focus groups

can also provide an important opportunity

for participants to exchange information and

support each other.

Focus groups must be carefully managed

and are not always appropriate.powerhier-

archies within the group will persist and can

potentially silence non-dominant members.

When this happens, less dominant individuals

are effectively excluded from the research

process. For this reason separate focus groups

are often conducted for men and women, or

are divided in terms of other social categories,

such asrace, especially if this is relevant to

the topic under discussion. It should also

be recognized that focus groups are public

events in which individuals give publicper-

formancesand may be reluctant to disclose

private details. The focus group risks being

exploitative if the artificiality of the situation

and the legitimacy of the research context lulls

individuals into revealing private details. This

is especially problematic if the individuals

in the group know each other or are likely to

encounter each other after the event.

A focus group is not equivalent to interviews

with between six and twelve individuals. A

focus group is a singular conversational event.

For this reason, at least five or six focus groups

should be done in order to assess the thematic

consistency across them. Similar to interviews,

they are taped and transcribed. But they

invite a different approach to analysis. Rather

than focusing simply on the declarations of

individuals, they provide an opportunity to

study the generation of meaning, as opinions

are debated, qualified and potentially modi-

fied. There also is a situational geography to

focus groups that is under-explored. The rules

ofdiscourse, what and how one is told, vary

with the context (Pratt, 2002). Geographers

thus have the potential not simply to use this

methodology, but to develop it in fascinating

new directions. gp

Suggested reading

Conradson (2005a); Pratt (2002).

food The study of the spatial and environ-

mental aspects of food production, distribu-

tion and consumption. Food is a recurring

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_F Final Proof page 258 31.3.2009 1:20pm

FOCUS GROUP