In the following sections, we will now look at some traditional (e.g. focus groups) and not-so-traditional (oral & research histories, and videography) data collection techniques often associated with interviews and qualitative research methods.

Focus groups

A focus group is a form of interview; however, it differs from situations where we have one interviewer and one respondent. Sometimes there may be multiple respondents present, and occasionally more than one interviewer may be present as well. When multiple respondents participate in an interview at the same time, this is referred to as a focus group interview. Focus groups can be an excellent way to gather information because topics or questions that had not occurred to the researcher may be brought up by other participants in the group. Having respondents talk with and ask questions of one another can be an excellent way of learning about a topic; not only might respondents ask questions that had not occurred to the researcher, but the researcher can also learn from respondents’ body language around and interactions with one another. Of course, there are some unique ethical concerns associated with collecting data in a group setting.

Oral histories

An oral history is a less traditional form of data collection that can take the form of an interview. Its purpose is to make a written record of material that might otherwise be forgotten, by those who are unlikely to themselves create a written record or produce archival materials (Fontana & Frey, 2003; Reinharz, 1992). It involves interviewing people about their past to ensure that their history is not lost and is therefore available to future generations (Palys & Atchison, 2014).

What are we speaking about specifically, as it relates to an oral history? History is broadly defined as everything that happened before this moment in time (Palys & Atchison, 2014).  The fact that we do not know everything about history has not prevented historians from studying what has happened in the past.  Indeed, the only way to study history is to examine the artifacts that remain. When we speak about artifacts, it is not just those we can tangibly see, touch and/or taste.  It also includes other types of artifacts, such as oral histories.  Generally, there are two types of oral histories: Aboriginal oral histories and oral history in research. In the following sections we will briefly examine both of these methods (Palys & Atchison, 2014).

Palys and Atchison (2014) attempt to explain oral history in research by an analogy to a box – a box that contains historical facts.  As they explain, the box is filled with items that have been placed there by historians, who have taken the time to document something and place it into the box. However, it is the selection of some items and not others that Palys and Atchison refer to as “one of the tragedies of history.” They say this because interesting and important facts will remain outside our realm of knowledge, due to the fact that someone did not place those facts into the box (p. 156).

In addition to what issues go into the box, there is also the issue of power and access to the box.  As Palys and Atchison (2014) observe, some people have better access to the box than others.  For example, governments, the wealthy, the powerful, the upper classes of society, and the educated all have more ease of access to the box than others.  Similarly, throughout the course of history, men have had better access to the box than women.  Consequently, when we read historical accounts from, for example, 17th century England, we are reading historical accounts from the views of the wealthy, the upper classes, the powerful, the educated, and the males of that time period. The historical accounts of the poor, the lower classes, females, those without power, and the uneducated often did not make it into the box.

The University of Toronto has an excellent website with an emphasis on primary sources and more than 2,700 collections of oral histories in English from around the world: University of Toronto History Research Resources.

Aboriginal oral histories

European and non-Aboriginal peoples reliance on written documentation and written archival material has led to the assumption that the lack of written documentary evidence related to the history of Aboriginal people meant there is “no history” (see Wolfe, 1982). On the contrary, Aboriginal cultures have been quite successful in preserving their history, despite their reliance upon oral histories. Indeed, each new generation was tasked with accurately remembering and preserving the historical stories passed down from previous generations (Palys & Atchison, 2014). The accuracy of the oral history rests on two facts. First, the memories were not merely recollections of stories. Rather, they were the lived memorialization and verbatim accounts that were repeated throughout the ages. Second, the stories are shared in the context of the potlatch (feast) system, where each speaker provides a recounting of the history of his or her clan, including the clan’s territories and the way its crests and songs were acquired. As Palys and Atchison (2014) note, anyone attending these feasts could challenge the presented oral history, and such this public sharing of a clan´s history helped to preserve the histories. Consequently, it is not uncommon to find that the oral histories told today are much the same as those recorded by anthropologists at the turn of the 20th century (Palys & Atchison, 2014).

Videography

Like an interview, videography can be an effective means for collecting data, both during researcher-participant interviews and during focus groups. However, videography can also be employed to collect data in more natural settings and therefore is a popular tool for those undertaking ethnographic studies (Asan & Montangue).  While it is true that videography has been underutilized, mainly due to confidentiality and privacy issues, it has many benefits as a data collection tool (Asan & Montangue, 2015).  It can accurately record events, enable researchers to verify their observations through multiple raters, and permits the researcher to repeatedly review the video record.  It is particularly valuable for measuring performance (Seagull & Guerlain, 2003) and verifying self-reported behaviours against observed behaviours (Asan & Montangue, 2015). Researchers have also used videography to capture more detailed data such as body language and gazing direction (see Kumarapeli & Lusignan, 2013; Leong, Koczan, de Lusignan & Sheeler, 2006).

Effectively using videography to collect data requires the careful construction of an effective research question(s), and the identification of the type of data required.  Both of these steps will inform the study design (Asan & Montangue, 2015) and are primary considerations at the outset of any study.  Choosing to employ videography to collect data also requires knowledge of cameras, including technical knowledge related to the various types of cameras, the various levels of quality and functions, as well as things as seemingly easy as positioning of cameras, but crucial to ensuring that the video has captured what you wanted (see Asan & Montangue, 2015).