Abstract
This chapter introduces IMAGINE – a card-based group discussion method for qualitative research and engagement processes. IMAGINE was developed as a response to three major challenges that tend to emerge in discussion groups and participatory exercises. First, it renders new or complex issues accessible by offering participants a broad repertoire of structured resources without pre-configuring the issue too much. Second, it seeks to contribute to participatory justice by assuring that all participants get time and space for expressing their visions. Third, the cards allow the introduction of expert opinions without expert presence, thus avoiding the emergence of strong lay-expert divides. The method consists of a number of different card sets and a specific choreography. We explain the rationale behind different card types and how researchers can go about creating their own card sets. The contribution also includes suggestions for how to conduct and analyze IMAGINE discussion groups so as to harness their full potential. It concludes by pointing towards potential future directions in which the method could be developed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett I. Developing plausible nano-enabled products. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM, editors. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Volume I: presenting futures. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 149–55.
Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. Focus groups in social research. London: SAGE; 2001.
Bowman DM, Hodge GA. Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2007;27(2):118–32.
Chang JC, Cluss PA, Ranieri L, Hawker L, Buranosky R, Dado D, McNeil M, Scholle SH. Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want. Womens Health Issues. 2005;15(1):21–30.
Chilvers J, Kearnes M, editors. Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics. London: Routledge; 2016.
Delgado A, Kjølberg K, Wickson F. Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(6):826–45.
Felt U, Fochler M. Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva. 2010;48(3):219–38.
Felt U, Fochler M, Mager A, Winkler P. Visions and versions of governing biomedicine: narratives on power structures, decision-making and public participation in the field of biomedical technology in the Austrian context. Soc Stud Sci. 2008;38(2):233–55.
Felt U, Fochler M, Müller A, Strassnig M. Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(3):354–71.
Felt U, Schumann S, Schwarz CG, Strassnig M. Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qual Res. 2014;14(2):233–51.
Felt U, Schumann S, Schwarz CG. (Re)assembling natures, cultures, and (nano)technologies in public engagement. Sci Cult. 2015;24(4):458–83.
Felt U, Fochler M, Sigl L. IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting responsibility in life science research. Under Review. 2017.
Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Tutton R. Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue. Soc Stud Sci. 2007;37(3):385–411.
Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn. 1994;16(19):103–21.
Law J. After method. Mess in social science research. London/New York: Routledge; 2004.
MacLean S, Burgess MM. In the public interest: assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(4):486–96.
McNeil M, Arribas-Ayllon M, Haran J, Mackenzie A, Tutton R. Conceptualizing imaginaries of science, technology. In: Felt U, Fouché R, Miller C, Smith-Doerr L, editors. Handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2017. p. 435–63.
Schwarz-Plaschg C. Nanotechnology is like…The rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement. Public Underst Sci. 2016. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516655686.
Stirling A. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2008;33(2):262–94.
Sutton B. Playful cards, serious talk: a qualitative research technique to elicit women’s embodied experiences. Qual Res. 2011;11(2):177–96.
Türk V. Nanologue. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM, editors. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Volume I: presenting futures. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 117–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Felt, U., Schumann, S., G. Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2017). IMAGINE: A Card-Based Discussion Method. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_9-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_9-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences