Search results

This article compares responses to questionnaires and contributions to focus groups carried out in 2005-2006 as part of research on attitudes toward European integration. It also compares the stances taken on Europe with those taken on two other issues, the welfare state and immigration. It therefore addresses questions about both the variability of opinions and the specific contribution of focus groups. It demonstrates a certain congruence between the two techniques as well as the existence of subtle shifts. These shifts are not attributable to individuals as such but to topics and to the contexts of discussion. This exploration provides evidence that focus groups are particularly useful to understand how citizens – and among them those with fewer social and political resource – are taking a stand. ; Cet article confronte les réponses à un questionnaire et les interventions dans des entretiens collectifs portant sur les attitudes à l'égard de l'intégration européenne réalisés en 2005-2006. Il compare également les positions sur l'Europe avec celles obtenues sur deux autres thèmes, l'État providence et l'immigration. Il soulève donc à la fois la question de la variabilité des opinions et celle de l'apport spécifique des entretiens collectifs. Il montre une certaine congruence des deux techniques d'enquête mais souligne également l'existence de subtils décalages. Ceux-ci ne sont pas imputables aux individus en tant que tels mais relèvent d'abord des thèmes et des contextes de discussion. Cette exploration fournit des premiers éléments de preuve confortant l'idée selon laquelle les entretiens collectifs sont particulièrement utiles pour saisir les positions des moins dotés socialement et politiquement parmi les citoyens.

L'idée de consacrer un numéro de la Revue française de science politique à l'usage des entre- tiens collectifs (EC) part du constat que cette technique de recueil des données, totalement marginale il y a quelques années dans le champ de la science politique française, est de plus en plus souvent utilisée. En 2004, au moment de la publication du petit sur Les entretiens collectifs dans la collection « L'enquête et ses méthodes », les références de science politique signalées étaient rares. En 2009, une sorte de frémissement était perceptible puisque quelques thèses et des projets de recherche utilisant cette technique étaient disponibles. Ce mouvement nous a semblé justifier l'organisation d'une journée d'étude dans le cadre de l'Association française de science politique (AFSP). Nous nous étions donnés pour objectif de faire un état des lieux des objets ou des problématiques à travers lesquels la recherche fondamentale dans les sciences sociales du politique, mais également la recherche appliquée, en incluant le secteur des études marketing, avaient recours aux EC. Ce numéro est le prolongement de cette manifestation mais il ne rassemble que des contributions consacrées aux usages scientifiques. Depuis 2009, les choses semblent encore avoir évolué, puisqu'on trouve des indices supplémentaires d'une diffusion de la technique dans le milieu des politistes et au-delà. Ces recherches constituent, de par leur nombre mais aussi leur diversité, une masse critique permettant de tirer un premier bilan au moment où la nécessité de dynamiser le débat sur les méthodes en science politique est régulièrement mise en avant. L'inclusion d'un volet d'EC dans un projet de recherche est aujourd'hui une pratique de moins en moins exceptionnelle, même si, le plus souvent, ils font office de complément idéal dans la mise en place d'un dispositif « multiméthodes ». Ils s'inscrivent égale- ment parfois au sein d'enquêtes de type ethnographique, que leur recours soit programmé – quand il s'agit, par exemple, d'étudier le système ...

Auparavant marginale, la méthodologie qualitative des entretiens collectifs est désormais d'un usage plus fréquent en science politique. En lui consacrant un dossier, où les auteurs rendent compte de leur expérience de recherches empiriques, la RFSP entend favoriser le débat sur les méthodes en science politique et s'interroger sur les usages que font les politistes des dispositifs « multiméthodes ». Une large partie des ouvrages socio-historiques traités dans la chronique bibliographique de ce numéro contribue également à cette réflexion

This article compares responses to questionnaires and contributions to focus groups carried out in 2005-2006 as part of a research on attitudes toward European integration. It also compares the stances taken on Europe with those taken on two other issues, welfare State and immigration. Therefore, it addresses both questions about the variability of opinions and the specific contribution of focus groups. It shows a certain congruence of the two techniques as well as the existence of subtle shifts. These shifts are not attributable to individuals as such but to topics and to the contexts of discussion. This exploration provides evidence that focus groups are particularly useful to understand how citizens -- and among them those with fewer social and political resource -- are taking a stand. Adapted from the source document.

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

This article gives an account of experimental research conducted in France with focus groups on delinquency. It is based on theoretical work which shows how the political is partly a mode of expression as well as a way of addressing conflict. An empirical analysis is presented of how people take or resist the risk of conflict in public discussion over social issues. The group discussions corroborate previous insights by attesting that conflict in public discussion is generally latent and often repressed. Specific analysis follows of those processes that contribute to the rare transformation from latent to overt conflict, highlighting the evidence that the public expression of conflict proceeds from participants' alliances and biographical narratives. Moreover, a certain hierarchy of social identification is seen among the participants. The influence of political competence on political implication is complex.

This article gives an account of experimental research conducted in France with focus groups on delinquency. It is based on theoretical work which shows how the political is partly a mode of expression as well as a way of addressing conflict. An empirical analysis is presented of how people take or resist the risk of conflict in public discussion over social issues. The group discussions corroborate previous insights by attesting that conflict in public discussion is generally latent and often repressed. Specific analysis follows of those processes that contribute to the rare transformation from latent to overt conflict, highlighting the evidence that the public expression of conflict proceeds from participants' alliances and biographical narratives. Moreover, a certain hierarchy of social identification is seen among the participants. The influence of political competence on political implication is complex.

This article gives an account of experimental research conducted in France with focus groups on delinquency. It is based on theoretical work which shows how the political is partly a mode of expression as well as a way of addressing conflict. An empirical analysis is presented of how people take or resist the risk of conflict in public discussion over social issues. The group discussions corroborate previous insights by attesting that conflict in public discussion is generally latent and often repressed. Specific analysis follows of those processes that contribute to the rare transformation from latent to overt conflict, highlighting the evidence that the public expression of conflict proceeds from participants' alliances and biographical narratives. Moreover, a certain hierarchy of social identification is seen among the participants. The influence of political competence on political implication is complex.

International audience ; This article gives an account of experimental research conducted in France with focus groups on delinquency. It is based on theoretical work which shows how the political is partly a mode of expression as well as a way of addressing conflict. An empirical analysis is presented of how people take or resist the risk of conflict in public discussion over social issues. The group discussions corroborate previous insights by attesting that conflict in public discussion is generally latent and often repressed. Specific analysis follows of those processes that contribute to the rare transformation from latent to overt conflict, highlighting the evidence that the public expression of conflict proceeds from participants' alliances and biographical narratives. Moreover, a certain hierarchy of social identification is seen among the participants. The influence of political competence on political implication is complex.