Awareness Way

First International Academic Conference of Analytical Psychology.

Svetlana Maslova

0. At The beginning of my report I`d like to do one remark of commonmethodological nature. Why do I seem appropriate to use the methods of analytical psychology in qualitative sociological research? First of all, in the same way, as analytical psychology, qualitative sociology is founded on phenomenological base. In the both cases we deal with reality of human phyche - individual or collective. The criterions of true (or invalidity) of knowledge are not founded on mathematical methods and experimental base in these cases. The reality of dreams is not less significant than physical reality; images of unconscious are not less "true" than subjects of the external world, individual myth renders no less significant influence upon life of the person than external events. The Collective myths founded on images collective unconscious render no smaller influence upon fates of society and states, than events of political or social nature. The patient’s tale about events of his life can not be "true" or "false", any his fantasy contains in himself truth about him self. In the same way on the focus-group are not correct or wrong answers, any rumours and fictions about political events or politicians are their true images in public consciousness.

Sometimes I am asked: which way can we do any conclusions about the condition of public opinion, about thoughts and moods of inhabitants of whole region or representatives of one or another community, founding on data of focus-groups? Unlike quantitative methods, where the question is about statistical significant quantity of respondents, here we deal with small groups from 8 till 12 people. Using the notions of analytical psychology, I`d explain the possibility of qualitative methods by the following way. Using the method of quantitative questionnaire, we deal with the surface level of consciousness of respondents so the conversation carries enough formal nature and implies the rational answers. Then, with the help of statistical processing, we try to reveal the common regularities of public opinion, collective installation and stereotypes. If we use the qualitative methods, the conversation with respondents carries a less formalised nature, comprises as rational, as emotional components, verbal and unverbal communication, not only a usual conversation, but also games and the projective tests. It allows the researcher to touch to much deeper layers of psychic reality, reveal the collective myths and scripts, inherent characterised the representatives of given community and do the forecast about their development and future influence on the social and political situation.

I. Discussing the question about the use of drawing methodics when we undertake of focus-groups, I`d like to light two aspects. Firstly - why do I suppose to use the given strategy in focus-groups? Secondly - what condition is it necessary to keep using drawing methodics in focus-groups possibly and productively?

I.1. First of all, It seems to me that the method of focus-groups and drawing methodics are related from the point of respondents perception view. Science character of this method’s data, the validity of their results for majority of respondents (however, either as for the clients) leaves the frames of the evidence, conspicuity (in difference, for example, from quantitative methods of sociology, where the validity of data is founded on mathematical laws and statistics). Herewith, the exact political forecast, made on the base of focus-groups, causes no smaller client’s surprise, than the correct understanding of the psychological particularities, founded on interpretation of the drawing test. Notice, that the method of focus-groups is enough new for Russia. When I undertake a focus-group, at the beginning of our conversation, I usually ask my respondents, what do they think the focus-groups are and what are we going to do? The word "focus" in the Russian language pulls the "train of association". First of them connected with some unusual, magic. In this sense we get accustomed to name an action with unexpected result, which is not perceived as obvious and predictable, when we use the word “focus”. Really, the focus-groups that were done correctly allow, firstly, to do the untrivial conclusions about the certain aspect of the social reality and secondly - to develop the strategy of further actions (PR-actions), directed on its change. With the help of the focus-groups it is possible to find the decision in such situations, which seem obviously hopeless. But the word "focus" has another meaning - it can mean "cheeting", fraud. So, if the focus-group was undertaken too superficially then even in case of observance of all formal requirements, the results will be poured of the heuristic, they will not contain anything new.

In this specific I see the resemblance of the work of focus-group`s moderator and psychotherapist: the trickster component inherents for each of them. Both of them have a role of mediator between two worlds: external and internal, subjective and objective, he is capable to reveal that regularities, which are not obvious. But at another times he turns out to be the cheater, which "trades the air". In other words, undertaking the focus-groups can turn out to be "miracle" (from the point “every day life” consciousness view), but it can turn out to be fraud, empty forgery.

Finally, one more meaning of the word "focus", having the most direct attitude to the method of focus-groups - concentration, focusing. And here we touch one more important subjects - what moderator’s skills are necessary for successful undertaking of focus-groups? One of them is concentration, "focusing" attention on the certain subjects. Exactly, founding on this skills, the researcher gets the information which he is interested in (rational and emotional nature, verbal and unverbal and etc.). To the question about the skills which are necessary for moderator, I will return later. Now I`d like to say in briefly about the practical advantages, which we have by using the drawing methodics for focus-groups.

1. Firstly, rather often on the focus-groups we discuss the subject, which is not caused the special interest from the respondents. Not all of them are interested in the political themes, so it is usual when many respondents are embarrassed, considering themselves not enough notified in given questions. The use of the drawing methodics allows to transform our discussion to the form of game, does it much easier.

2. Creating their own drawings, respondents behave much easier, than during usual conversation. This allows them in their own drawings to touch some sharp subjects, which are usually suppressed by the censorship of consciousness and does not sound during the discussion.

3. Besides, drawing tests allow to learn not only of the rational installing of the respondents, but also about their emotional attitude to one or other problems. It seems to me that it’s very important, since majority of people attitude to political problems and to politicians is founded on emotional attitude, rather then on logical discourses.

4. One more important moment - drawing tests allow the respondents to express their attitude by the images, rather then words and notions. Thereby, we get the possibility to touch to the deep layers of psyche, archetypical level of perception of one or another problems.

I.2. Now let me go to the second subject. What conditions are necessary to keep to use the drawing methodics in focus-groups possibly and productively?
Qualitative methods of sociology belong to the areas of knowledge, where the important criterion of professionalism of researcher is not only possession of theoretical knowledge, but also it is certain level of personal development, ability self-awareness. Undertaking the quantitative questioning the researcher disposes of certain technology, guaranteed the validation of the results - questionnaire, sample, computer programs for processing of the results, it limits the danger of data’s distortion by the reason of influences of the subjective factor. In case of the use of qualitative methods the main "instrument" of undertaking of the study, providing the validity of information, are the skills of deal with the psychic reality, which he disposes. Enumerate the skills, which are necessary for moderator of the focus-groups:

1. The focusing of attention of group on certain subject;
2. Moving the focus of the attention from one subject to another;
3. The skill of asking the questions;
4. The skill of listening (empathic listening);
5. Leading the group dynamic;
6. Unmarked perceptions (the absence of the critical estimations and influence at the respondents` opinion);
7. The skills to separate his own projections from the real respondents` opinions.

The use of the drawing methodics for undertaking focus-groups, certainly, expects the presence of special moderator’s knowledge for using and interpretation of this data. Besides, the use of this methodic is possible in the situation, when it is reached the certain level of confidence on attitude among respondents and between respondents and the moderator.

Certainly, it is very dangerous when moderator projects his own relations to the subject of researching. This is a serious problem of qualitative methods. In this case in the process of conversation with respondents he is not capable to hold the unmarked position, and when interpreting data and preparing to the report he takes into the consideration only his own utterances of respondents, which are similar to his own attitude to the subject of researching, the rest is not essential for him. Use the drawing strategy allows to fix the respondents` projections by themselves, to do them much clearer. Further discussion of the drawings in the group gives the possibility to interpret them by the respondents.

Let’s discuss the drawings, which were got by undertaking of focus-groups.

II. Drawings.

During 7 yeas I do the study of public opinion of inhabitants of different regions of Russia, focusing on political problems. In my researches I use the method of focus-groups and expert interviews, providing the projective methods, including drawing. I offer to respondents to execute the associative drawing on following questions:

1. 4. Draw the authority ("power") on the peace of paper. What colour for this will you choose? What are they doing?
2. Now draw yourself on this picture. What colour do you choose for it? Where are you on this picture? What are you doing?
   
   Now I`d like to talk about several drawings, which are the most typical for respondents.
   
   
   Drawing 1.
   Woman, average age.
   
   It is significant that in this picture she pretends herself without legs. She is not able to move, can not go away from her problems, and she can’t resolve it by herself. She draws the authority in the opposite side of sheet of paper and moreover separates his by the line. Besides, if the upper side of drawn is executed with the colour soft-tip pens, the authority is drawn with the ballpoint pen. He is separated from her everyday needs and problems and exists in the vacuum space as it were.
   
   Drawing 2.
   Man, average age.
   
   In this case the life of the respondent and his relations with the authority takes place on the first plan on the drawing. Let’s look at the authority. Only the head, hand and higher part of trunk are drowning. The inscriptions express the attitude of authorities to people, from the respondent’s point of view: "let you live like you want". It is possible to understand this phrase in two different meanings. On the one hand it means the leaving of the liberty and right of choice, with another - unwillingness to help in decision of problems, absence of care and attention. It illustrates the very typical reaction of many inhabitants of Russia to democratic reforms with their difficult interaction between the freedom and the responsibility.

III. Conclusions.

1. Applications of the analytical psychology methods in the qualitative sociology seem to me appropriate and fruitful by the reason of the common methodological base of these areas of knowledge.
2. The use of drawing methodics when undertaking of the focus-groups gives the number of appreciable advantages for getting the values results in contrast with the use of usual conversation with the respondents.
3. The undertaking of research in the field of qualitative sociology means that the researcher must have a number of knowledge and skills of psychological nature. The possession of the knowledge and methodics of the analytical psychology allows to touch the deep levels of public consciousness, do available to analyze not only conscious, but also unconscious installation and stereotypes.
4. Made analysis of the nature of people’s attitude to the authority, in connection with the conflict situation, with the use of drawing methodics has allowed to reveal the number of the regularities. In their own drawings respondents use the symbols, provided with the deep archetypal contents. The location of these symbols on the sheet of paper, as well as particularities of their representation (the colour, size and etc) allows to do the conclusions about condition of the problem in the consciousness of one or another group of respondents.