How do participants in discussion groups co-construct knowledge?

Cunningham, Stuart (2023). How do participants in discussion groups co-construct knowledge? University of Birmingham. Ph.D.

Preview

Cunningham2023PhD.pdf
Text - Accepted Version
Available under License All rights reserved.
Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

This thesis explores how participants in discussion groups co-construct knowledge. The data for the research comprises transcripts of interviews with small groups who are given one of three topics to discuss. The interviews follow the concept of a question route, as outlined in traditional Focus Group practices. The analysis was undertaken using a combination of discourse analysis and micro-analysis.

The thesis raises three primary research questions and three secondary questions. The first primary questions asks what are the underlying organizational principles that are observable amongst participants of discussion groups. The thesis shows that the group moves through three distinct stages: individual knowledge claims, a group discussion, and displaying a preference for closure. The first of these stages exists at the level of the individual whereby a participant makes a knowledge claim in response to the moderator’s question. The second stage sees the other group participants engage with the epistemic content of the individual participant’s knowledge claim. Finally, upon reaching an acceptable consensus, the participants display an unwillingness to alter the consensus-based knowledge claim by resisting any attempts at either expansion of the topic or by the introduction of a new knowledge claim. This resistance takes the form of minimal responses or not acknowledging the knowledge claim was made. Eventually, the moderator treats this non-engagement as a cue to begin the next question. The second question asks how participants in the discussion groups support the individual knowledge claims they make. The thesis argues that the claims can be arranged within an explicit taxonomy, based on how the participants present their claims. This taxonomy is arranged into three strands: unsupported claims, sourced claims, and justified claims. The sourced claims and justified claims are further sub-divided based on the nature of the source and the nature of the justification. The third question asks how participants arrive at consensus. The participants can be observed to display a preference for avoiding or mitigating disagreement and a preference for agreement. Participants avoid disagreement by ignoring the claims of another participant. This is type of ignoring whereby participants acknowledge that the other participant has issued an utterance but do not engage in the epistemic content of the utterance. A second way that participants avoided disagreement Is by shifting the focus from the source of potential disagreement within the utterance onto another aspect of the utterance that is less problematic. The participants display a strong preference for agreement amongst themselves. The participants are observed to agree with each other even in instances when this agreement is at odds with an earlier knowledge claim or takes place in an utterance where there is not any content with which to actually agree. A major contribution of this thesis is the development of the concept of the ‘Interpersonal Engine’, which is proposed in opposition to the ‘Epistemic Engine’ as the key motivator behind group consensus-building. The secondary questions in the thesis explore the institutional nature of the discussion groups, the role of the moderator, and how a knowledge claim can be defined. This thesis shows that, despite there being no actual institution, the participants displayed qualities of institutional talk. The quality of institutionalism was talked into being by the participants and the moderator. Participants oriented towards the moderator as having the right to terminate topics under discussion; however, the moderator only did so when participant participation had become minimal. The issue of what is meant by the term ‘a knowledge claim’ is discussed. The definition used throughout this thesis is that a knowledge claim is a claim that permits progressivity.

Type of Work:

Thesis (Doctorates > Ph.D.)

Award Type:

Doctorates > Ph.D.

Supervisor(s):