interest group research assignment

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9.1 The Interest Group System

Learning objectives.

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:

• What are interest groups?
• What are the main types of interest groups?
• What are the most important elements of interest groups?
• What incentives encourage interest group membership?
• How do interest groups recruit members?
• How do the media portray unions and union activity?
• How do interest groups influence elections?

Interest groups are intermediaries linking people to government, and lobbyists work for them. These groups make demands on government and try to influence public policies in their favor. Their most important difference from political parties is that they do not seek elective office. Interest groups can be single entities, join associations, and have individual members. The University of Texas at Austin is an educational institution. Its main purposes are teaching and research. Like other educational institutions, it is an interest group when it tries to influence government policies. These policies include government funding for facilities and student grants, loans, and work study. It may also try to influence laws and court decisions applying to research, admissions, gender equality in intercollegiate sports, and student records. It may ask members of Congress to earmark funds for some of its projects, thereby bypassing the normal competition with other universities for funds based on merit (Savage, 1999; Brainard & Hermes, 2008).

Figure 9.1 University of Texas Logo (“Disciplina Praesidium Civitatis,” translated as “The cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy”)

Devoted to education (and sports), universities try to influence government policies that affect their interests.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

Single entities often join forces in associations. Associations represent their interests and make demands on government on their behalf. The University of Texas belongs to the Association of American Universities. General Electric (GE) belongs to over eighty trade associations, each representing a different industry such as mining, aerospace, and home appliances (Schlozman & Tierney, 1986).

Many interest groups have individuals as members. People join labor unions and professional organizations (e.g., associations for lawyers or political scientists) that claim to represent their interests.

Types of Interest Groups

Interest groups can be divided into five types: economic, societal, ideological, public interest, and governmental.

Economic Interest Groups

The major economic interest groups represent businesses, labor unions, and professions. Business interest groups consist of industries, corporations, and trade associations. Unions usually represent individual trades, such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Most unions belong to an association, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

Economic interest groups represent every aspect of our economy, including agriculture, the arts, automobiles, banking, beverages, construction, defense, education, energy, finance, food, health, housing, insurance, law, media, medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports, telecommunications, transportation, travel, and utilities. These groups cover from head (i.e., the Headwear Institute of America) to toe (i.e., the American Podiatric Medical Association) and from soup (i.e., the Campbell Soup Company) to nuts (i.e., the Peanut Butter and Nut Processors Association) (Birnbaum, 1993).

Societal Interest Groups

Societal interest groups focus on interests based on people’s characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as religion and sexual preference. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is one of the oldest societal interest groups in the United States.

Ideological Interest Groups

Ideological interest groups promote a reactionary, conservative, liberal, or radical political philosophy through research and advocacy. Interest groups that take stands on such controversial issues as abortion and gun control are considered ideological, although some might argue that they are actually public interest groups.

Public Interest Groups

Public interest groups work for widely accepted concepts of the common good, such as the family, human rights, and consumers. Although their goals are usually popular, some of their specific positions (e.g., environmental groups opposing offshore drilling for oil) may be controversial and challenged.

Government Interest Groups

Government interest groups consist of local, state, and foreign governments. They seek to influence the relevant policies and expenditures of the federal government.

Life Stages of Interest Groups

Interest groups commonly experience a life cycle of creation (or birth), growth and change (or evolution), and sometimes death.

As the United States has become more complex with new technologies, products, services, businesses, and professions, the US government has become more involved in the economy and society. People with common interests organize to solicit support and solutions to their problems from government. Policies enacted in response to the efforts of these groups affect other people, who then form groups to seek government intervention for themselves. These groups may give rise to additional groups. [1]

Some interest groups are created in reaction to an event or a perceived grievance. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was founded in 1973 in response to the US Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision earlier that year legalizing abortion. However, groups may form long after the reasons for establishing them are obvious. The NAACP was not founded until 1909 even though segregation of and discrimination against black people had existed for many years.

Oral Arguments in Roe v. Wade

Listen to oral arguments in the Roe v. Wade at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/arguments .

Interest group entrepreneurs usually are important in the creation of groups. Often they are responding to events in their lives. After a drunk driver killed one of her daughters, Candy Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980. She thereby identified latent interests : people who could be grouped together and organized to pursue what she made them realize was a shared goal, punishing and getting drunk drivers off the road. She was helped by widespread media coverage that brought public attention to her loss and cause.

Evolution and Demise

Interest groups can change over time. The National Rifle Association (NRA) started out as a sports organization in the late nineteenth century dedicated to improving its members’ marksmanship. It became an advocate for law and order in the 1960s, until its official support for the 1968 Gun Control Act brought dissension in its ranks. Since the election of new leaders in 1977, the NRA has focused on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, opposing legislation restricting the sale or distribution of guns and ammunition (Ainsworth, 2002).

Interest groups can also die. They may run out of funds. Their issues may lose popularity or become irrelevant. Slavery no longer exists in the United States and thus neither does the American Anti-Slavery Society.

How Interest Groups Are Organized

Interest groups have leaders and staff. They control the group, decide its policy objectives, and recruit and represent members.

Leaders and Staff

Leaders and top staff usually run the interest group. They do so because they command its resources and information flow and have the experience and expertise to deal with public policies that are often complex and technical. Almost a century ago, Robert Michels identified this control by an organization’s leaders and staff and called it “the iron law of oligarchy” (Michels, 1959).

This oligarchy, or rule by the few, applies to single-entity interest groups and to most associations. Their leaders are appointed or elected and select the staff. Even in many membership organizations, the people who belong do not elect the leaders and have little input when the leaders decide policy objectives (Ainsworth, 2002). Their participation is limited to sending in dues, expressing opinions and, if membership is voluntary, leaving when dissatisfied.

Voluntary Membership

People join membership interest groups voluntarily or because they have no choice.

When membership is voluntary, interest groups must recruit and try to retain members. Members help fund the group’s activities, legitimize its objectives, and add credibility with the media.

Some people may not realize or accept that they have shared interests with others on a particular issue. For example, many young adults download music from the Internet, but few of them have joined the Future of Music Coalition , which is developing ways to do this legally. Others may be unwilling to court conflict by joining a group representing oppressed minorities or espousing controversial or unpopular views even when they agree with the group’s views (Gartner & Segura, 1977).

People do not need to join an interest group voluntarily when they can benefit from its activities without becoming a member. This is the problem of collective goods. Laws successfully lobbied for by environmental organizations that lead to cleaner air and water benefit members and nonmembers alike. However, the latter get a free ride (Olson Jr., 1965).

There are three types of incentives that, alone or in combination, may overcome this free-rider problem . A purposive incentive leads people voluntarily to join and contribute money to a group because they want to help the group achieve its goals. Membership in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) increased by one hundred thousand in the eighteen months following the 9/11 attacks as the group raised concerns that the government’s antiterrorism campaign was harming civil liberties (Lichtblau, 2003). In addition, people may join groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists , because of a solidary incentive . The motivation to join the group stems from the pleasure of interacting with like-minded individuals and the gratification of publicly expressing one’s beliefs.

People may also join groups to obtain material incentives available only to members. AARP , formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, has around thirty-five million members. It obtains this huge number by charging a nominal annual membership fee and offering such material incentives as health insurance and reduced prices for prescription drugs. The group’s magazine is sent to members and includes tax advice, travel and vacation information, and discounts.

Recruitment

One way interest groups recruit members is through media coverage. The appealingly named Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a consumer organization that focuses on food and nutrition issues, produces quality research, and has media savvy. It is a valuable source of expertise and information for journalists. The frequent and favorable news coverage it receives brings the group and its activities to the public’s attention and encourages people to support and join it.

News coverage of an interest group does not always have to be favorable to attract members. Oftentimes, stories about the NRA in major newspapers are negative. Presenting this negative coverage as bias and hostility against and attacks on gun owners, the group’s leaders transform it into purposive and solidary incentives. They use e-mail “to power membership mobilization, fund raising, single-issue voting and the other actions-in-solidarity that contribute to [their] success” (Patrick, 2002).

Groups also make personalized appeals to recruit members and solicit financial contributions. Names of people who might be sympathetic to a group are obtained by purchasing mailing lists from magazines, other groups, and political parties. Recruitment letters and e-mails often feature scare statements, such as a claim that Social Security is in jeopardy.

Interest groups recruit members, publicize their activities, and pursue their policy objectives through the new media. The Save Our Environment Action Center consists of twenty national environmental groups pooling their databases of supporters and establishing a website. Through this network, people can receive informational newsletters via e-mail, sign petitions, and contact their representatives.

Required Membership

Employment in most automobile plants requires that workers are members of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Workers fought to establish unions to improve their wages, working conditions, and job opportunities. One way of achieving these objectives was to require all workers at a plant to be union members. But union membership has plummeted as the United States has moved from a manufacturing to a service economy and employers have effectively discouraged unionization. Many jobs do not have unions for workers to join whether they want to or not. Today only about 12 percent of workers belong to a union compared to a high of 35.5 percent in 1945. Only 7 percent of private sector workers belong to a union. A majority of union members now work for the government.

Media Depictions of Unions

One reason for the decline of unions is their mainly negative portrayal in the mass media (Puette, 1992). There are hardly any labor-beat reporters in the news media, so union officials are infrequently used as sources and are consequently unable to frame union news to their advantage.

Strikes are the union action most often shown in the news. These are usually framed not as legitimate collective tactics to improve wages and working conditions, but as hurting or inconveniencing consumers by disrupting services (e.g., suspending classes in elementary and high schools) and causing the cancellation of events (e.g., professional sporting games) (Kumar, 2007).

Unions are rare in movies. Norma Rae (1979), Matewan (1987), and the documentary Harlan County, USA (1977), favorably portray workers’ struggles to organize and strike for better working conditions, wages, and security, against exploiting employers. But in the classic union film, the Academy Award–winning On the Waterfront (1954), the union is corrupt, violent, and linked to organized crime; the union leaders exploit members to enrich themselves.

Representation

Groups claim to represent the interests of their members or constituents, but these interests may conflict. In an extensive study, Dara Z. Strolovitch found that civil rights organizations prioritized the interests of their middle-class members over the interests of the poor and working class. For example, they pushed for affirmative action rather than welfare and antipoverty policies. [2]

A problem for AARP is that, aside from being fifty or over, its members may have little in common. In 1988, AARP supported legislation setting up a catastrophic health insurance plan in Medicare to provide insurance for elderly people faced with huge medical bills for major illnesses. After the plan went into effect, many seniors objected to the increase in their Medicare premiums and an annual surtax of as high as $800. Their complaints were widely covered in the media. Congress repealed the program the next year.

Even when members share a group’s general goals they may reject some of its policy proposals or tactics. In 2009, Apple quit the US Chamber of Commerce because the chamber opposed global-warming legislation.

Interest Groups and Elections

Interest groups become involved in elections to influence policymakers. They may contribute funds, make independent expenditures, advocate issues, and mobilize voters. Wealthy groups help pay for the presidential nominating conventions and the presidential inauguration. They give funds to political parties because “by helping party leaders retain or regain control of the House or Senate, policymaking rewards…follow” (Franz, 2008).

Endorsing Candidates

Interest groups may endorse candidates for office and, if they have the resources, mobilize members and sympathizers to work and vote for them. President Bill Clinton blamed the NRA for Al Gore losing the 2000 presidential election because it influenced voters in several states, including Arkansas, West Virginia, and Gore’s home state of Tennessee. Had any of these states gone for Gore, he would have won the election.

Interest groups can promote candidates through television and radio advertisements. During the 2004 presidential election, the NRA ran a thirty-minute infomercial in battleground states favoring President George W. Bush and calling his opponent “the most anti-gun presidential nominee in United States history.” In 2008, the NRA issued ads endorsing Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.

Endorsements do carry risks. If the endorsed candidate loses, the unendorsed winner is likely to be unsympathetic to the group. Thus relatively few interest groups endorse presidential candidates and most endorsements are based on ideology.

Funding Candidates

Made possible by the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), political action committees (PACs) are a means for organizations, including interest groups, to raise funds and contribute to candidates in federal elections. Approximately one-third of the funds received by candidates for the House of Representatives and one-fifth of funds for Senate candidates come from PACs. The details of election funding are discussed further in Chapter 11 “Campaigns and Elections” .

However, in January 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The court majority justified the decision on the grounds of the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The dissenters argued that allowing unlimited spending by corporations on political advertising would corrupt democracy. [3]

Many interest groups value candidates’ power above their ideology or voting record. Most PAC funds, especially from corporations, go to incumbents. Chairs and members of congressional committees and subcommittees who make policies relevant to the group are particularly favored. The case of Enron, although extreme, graphically reveals such funding. Of the 248 members of Congress on committees that investigated the 2002 accounting scandals and collapse of the giant corporation, 212 had received campaign contributions from Enron or its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen (Natta Jr., 2011).

Some interest groups do fund candidates on the basis of ideology and policy preference. Ideological and public interest groups base support on candidates’ views even if their defeat is likely. Pro-life organizations mainly support Republicans; pro-choice organizations mainly support Democrats.

The interest group–candidate relationship is a two-way street. Many candidates actively solicit support from interest groups on the basis of an existing or the promise of a future relationship. Candidates obtain some of the funds necessary for their campaigns from interest groups; the groups who give them money get the opportunity to make their case to sympathetic legislators. A businessman defending his company’s PAC is quoted as saying, “Talking to politicians is fine, but with a little money they hear you better” (Green, 1982).

Much better. The Center for Responsive Politics shows correlations between campaign contributions and congressional voting. After the House of Representatives voted 220–215 in 2003 to pass the Medicare drug bill, the organization reported that “lawmakers who voted to approve the legislation have raised an average of roughly twice as much since 1999 from individuals and PACs associated with health insurers, HMOs [Health Maintenance Organizations] and pharmaceutical manufacturers as those who voted against the bill” (Center for Responsive Politics, 2003).

Key Takeaways

Interest groups are diverse in membership and purpose. They are created, may evolve in composition and goals, and sometimes die out. Interest group entrepreneurs may be integral to the creation of interest groups. Different types of incentives encourage interest group membership, and organizations use various methods to recruit new members. The media are particularly critical of labor unions. Interest groups try to influence elections in order to advance their policy objectives.

• Why do you think some interest groups have a bad reputation? What social purpose do interest groups serve?
• Do you support any interest groups? What made you decide to support them?
• What are the different ways interest groups can influence policies? Do you think interest groups should be allowed to contribute as much as they want to political campaigns?

Ainsworth, S. H., Analyzing Interest Groups: Group Influence on People and Policies (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002), 87–88.

Birnbaum, J. H., The Lobbyists: How Influence Peddlers Work Their Way in Washington (New York: Times Books, 1993), 36.

Brainard, J. and J. J. Hermes, “Colleges’ Earmarks Grow, Amid Criticism,” Chronicle of Higher Education , March 28, 2008.

Center for Responsive Politics, “Money and Medicare: Campaign Contributions Correlate with Vote,” OpenSecrets Blog , November 24, 2003, http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=113 .

Franz, M. M., Choices and Changes: Interest Groups in the Electoral Process (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2008), 7.

Gartner, S. S. and Gary M. Segura, “Appearances Can Be Deceiving: Self Selection, Social Group Identification, and Political Mobilization,” Rationality and Society 9 (1977): 132–33.

Green, M., “Political PAC-Man,” New Republic 187, no. 24 (December 13, 1982): 18.

Kumar, D., Outside The Box: Corporate Media, Globalization, and the UPS Strike (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007).

Lichtblau, E., “F.B.I. Leader Wins a Few at Meeting of A.C.L.U.,” New York Times , June 14, 2003, accessed March 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/us/fbi-leader-wins-a-few-at-meeting-of-aclu.html?ref=ericlichtblau .

Michels, R., Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (New York: Dover Publications, 1959; first published 1915 by Free Press).

Natta Jr., D. V., “Enron’s Collapse: Campaign Finance; Enron or Andersen Made Donations to Almost All Their Congressional Investigators,” New York Times , January 25, 2002, accessed March 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/business/enron-s-collapse-campaign-finance-enron-andersen-made-donations-almost-all- their.html .

Olson Jr., M., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965).

Patrick, B. A., The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 9.

Puette, W. J., Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1992).

Savage, J. D., Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Schlozman, K. L. and John T. Tierney, Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 72–73.

• This is known as disturbance theory. It was developed by David B. Truman in The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion , 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), chap. 4; and it was amplified by Robert H. Salisbury in “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (1969): 1–32. ↵
• Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007). ↵
• The case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , No. 08–205. See also Adam Liptak, “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit,” New York Times , January 21, 2010, accessed March 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html . ↵

American Government and Politics in the Information Age Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Suffrage Day 01
• Suffrage Day 02
•  SPONSORS & CONTRIBUTORS
• Submit Feedback

Interest Groups

Main objective.

Students will be able to explain the role of interest groups in the electoral process.

Additional Objectives

• be able to research and analyze an interest group to determine its effectiveness.
• The State Legislature Raises the Minimum Age to Drive: How Can I Affect Change?
• A Lecture on Organizing and Interest Groups in the Electoral Process w/ Interactive Notes
• Group Research Activity

Homework: Finish Interest Group Research; Assignment Menu (Optional) ; Each student who is involved in a cause should take a picture of themselves demonstrating how they are participating. This is voluntary only.

• Download the 90-Minute Lesson Plan Here
• Interactive Notes
• Interest Groups Assignment Menu
• Optional: Internet for Student Research

Other Resources: References for Day 4

• Download the 60-Minute Lesson Plan Here 
• Download the 30-Minute Lesson Plan Here 

Contact Info

• School / Organization
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History

Political Science

• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Interest Groups in American Politics

Introduction, general overviews.

• Reference Works
• Textbooks on Lobbying
• Defining the Term “Interest Group”
• The Interest Group Universe
• Individual- and Group-Level Studies of the Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups
• Population-Level Studies of the Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups
• Lobbying and Lobbyists
• Interest Group Influence
• Local Politics
• New Information Technology

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Campaign Finance in the Era of Super-PACS
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industrialized Democracies
• Direct Democracy in the United States
• Interest Groups and Inequality in the United States
• Mechanisms of Representation

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Cross-National Surveys of Public Opinion
• Politics of School Reform
• Ratification of the Constitution
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Interest Groups in American Politics by Darren R. Halpin , Anthony J. Nownes LAST REVIEWED: 22 April 2013 LAST MODIFIED: 22 April 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0098

This article considers interest groups in American politics. Interest groups are variously defined. Traditionally, both textbooks and scholarly studies have used a definition like this one: “An interest group is an organized body of individuals who share some goals and who try to influence public policy” (Jeffrey M. Berry, The Interest Group Society . 2d ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1989, p. 4). In practice, much scholarship takes a looser view on what counts as an interest group. This is for several reasons. First, many interest groups (e.g., associations of business firms) do not comprise individuals. Second, many membership groups have members that do not share goals. For example, it is hard to argue that the tens of millions of members of the AARP—the Washington, DC, lobbying behemoth—share political goals. Rather, it appears that many join simply to get the variety of benefits the group offers. Finally, many groups do not try to affect public policy at all, but rather try to affect government procurement decisions (i.e., government decisions about which specific goods and services to purchase), government appointment decisions, and government land-use decisions (i.e., decisions about what a property owner can and cannot do with his/her/its land). In this broader usage the working definition would be something like: an interest group is any organization that attempts to affect government decisions . This very broad definition is expansive enough to include the numerous types of organizations that interface with government in the United States. These types of organizations include business firms, charities, churches, citizen groups (a.k.a. public interest groups), coalitions, labor unions, political action committees (PACs), professional associations, think tanks, trade associations, and others. It is important to note that interest groups are active at all three levels of American government—state, local, and federal. While this is undoubtedly the case, the research and scholarship on interest groups is heavily Washington-centric. Thus, this article lists more studies here concerning Washington interest group politics than either state or local interest group politics. Nonetheless, groups are active everywhere in the United States, and thus this article tries to include studies of subnational interest groups as well.

While interest groups invariably are covered in introductory American government texts, there are not very many dedicated works that review the field. This section has identified several works in particular that are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. Unfortunately, most mentioned here are a bit dated. Nonetheless, they are quite useful for the budding interest group scholar. Baumgartner and Leech 1998 provides an authoritative overview of the study of American interest groups. By contrast, Browne 1998 offers a case for why interest groups are important and valuable actors in American democracy. Cigler 1991 is a nice and accessible introduction to the study of US interest groups. Hrebenar and Thomas 1993 is an edited volume that will prove useful for the reader who wishes to know the current state of the literature on interest groups in American politics. Maisel and Berry 2010 contains several chapters encompassing the state of the art in US interest group research. Hrebenar and Thomas 1993 is a classic on groups in the US states. All works mentioned here say much more about the study of interest groups in the United States than about interest groups themselves. For a basic overview of the roles and activities of interest groups in American politics, it is best to start with the works discussed in the section Textbooks .

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

An expansive and historical overview of the study of interest groups in American politics. Provides an excellent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various research studies, and highlights important lacunae in the research on interest groups. Contains an invaluable bibliography for the interest group student or scholar.

Browne, William P. Groups, Interests, and US Public Policy . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998.

Begins with the premise that many Americans hate interest groups and believe they are evil forces that dominate and distort American politics. From here, mounts a spirited defense of interest groups and the work they do. While acknowledging and accepting some criticisms of groups, uses (then) contemporary research and the author’s own opinions to explain why interest groups “fit in” with contemporary American politics.

Cigler, Allan J. “Interest Groups: A Subfield in Search of an Identity.” In Political Science: Looking to the Future . Vol. 4, American Institutions . Edited by William Crotty, 9–136. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991.

An excellent primer on the study of interest groups in the United States. Contains an expansive overview of studies of interest groups. Is especially useful for its description of the various topics that interest group scholars study and its delineation of how the field of interest group studies is organized.

Hrebenar, Ronald J., and Clive S. Thomas, eds. Interest Group Politics in the Midwestern States . Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1993.

One in a series of four edited volumes on interest groups in the states. Each volume covers one region of the United States (the others are the Northeast, the South, and the West) and contains one chapter per state. Absolutely essential for the scholar of state interest group politics.

Maisel, L. Sandy, and Jeffrey M. Berry, eds. The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542628.001.0001

An accessible assessment of the current state of the literature on interest groups. Each of the chapters on interest groups examines the scholarly literature on the topic at hand (topics include interest group influence, interest group activities in elections, business interest groups, and urban interest groups), summarizing what scholars have learned about the topic. Contains several chapters on political parties.

Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis . 8th ed. Edited by Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson, 113–143. Washington, DC: CQ, 2004.

One of the classic articles on interest groups in state politics, it presents a nice overview of the nature and extent of interest group politics in the states. This essay is updated every few years for the new edition of Politics in the American States . This is not the most recent, but it is one of the best.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Political Science »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Oceania, Gender, Indigenous and Ethnic Political Represent...
• Advanced Democracies, Electoral System Reform in
• Advanced Democracies, Public Opinion and Public Policy in
• Advertising and Election Campaigns in the United States
• Africa, Comparative Politics of
• Africa, Ethnic, Linguistic, Religious, and Regional Minori...
• Africa, Public Opinion in
• Africa, Women’s Political Representation in
• African Development, Politics of
• American Indian Politics
• Ancient Chinese Political Thought
• Arab Spring, The
• Arab-Israel Conflict, The
• Arendt, Hannah
• Argentine Government and Politics
• Aristotle's Political Thought
• Arms Race Modeling
• Asia, Environmental Politics in
• Asia, Water Politics in
• Asian American Mobilization and Political Identities
• Australia and New Zealand, Comparative Politics of
• Authoritarian Regimes, Lawyers in
• Authoritarianism in Russia
• Authoritarianism in the Public
• Authoritarianism in Turkey
• Bicameralism in Stable Democracies
• Big Data in Political Science Research
• Biopolitics and State Regulation of Human Life
• Birthright Citizenship
• Brazilian Foreign Policy
• Brazilian Political Development
• Brexit, British Politics, and European Integration
• Business-State Relations in Europe
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canadian Government and Politics
• Candidate Emergence and Recruitment
• Caribbean, Elections and Democracy in the
• Celebrities in US Politics
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industria...
• China, Political Economy of
• China's One-Child Policy
• China-Taiwan Relations
• Chinese Communist Party
• Chinese Economic Policy
• Chinese Nationalism
• Civil Society in South Asia
• Civil War in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Civil-Military Relations in Asia
• Class in American Politics
• Climate Change and Politics
• Collective Memory
• Colombian Politics and Government
• Comparative Capitalism Theory
• Comparative Industrial Relations in Europe
• Comparative Political Economy of Resource Extraction
• Comparative Politics of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bis...
• Comparative Politics of Chile and Uruguay
• Comparative Politics of Federalism
• Comparative Politics of the Middle East and North Africa
• Computational Social Science
• Congress, Defense, and Foreign Policy
• Congressional Reassertion of Authority
• Conservative Litigation Strategies and Groups in US Judici...
• Constitutional Politics in Asia
• Constitutionalism
• Corruption in China
• Cosmopolitan Political Thought
• Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspective, ...
• Critical Elections, Partisan Realignment, and Long-Term El...
• Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School
• Cuban Political Development
• Cycles of Protest
• Democracies, Political Clientelism in
• Democracy and Authoritarianism, Empirical Indicators of
• Democracy and Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Democracy and Dictatorship in Central Asia
• Democracy and Minority Language Recognition
• Democracy in Latin America
• Democratic Citizenship
• Democratic Consolidation
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Democratic Theory
• Democratization
• Democratization in Africa
• Democratization in Central America
• Democratization in Mexico
• Democratization in the Muslim World
• Development of Survey Research
• Diasporas and Politics
• Dual Citizenship
• East Africa, Politics of
• East and Southeast Asia, Political Party Systems in
• East and Southeast Asia, Women and Politics in
• East Asia, Civil Society and Social Movements in
• Economic Voting
• Effects of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Public O...
• Egalitarianism
• Election Forecasting
• Election Laws in Democracies
• Election Observation and the Detection of Fraud
• Electoral and Party System Development in Sub-Saharan Afri...
• Electoral Assistance
• Electoral Change in Latin America
• Electoral Institutions and Women’s Representation
• Electoral Reform and Voting in the United States
• Electoral Volatility in the New Democracies of Latin Ameri...
• Electronic Voting Systems
• Emotion and Racial Attitudes in Contemporary American Poli...
• Environmental Governance
• Environmental Politics among Advanced Industrial Democraci...
• Ethnic Diasporas and US Foreign Policy
• Ethnic Politics
• Eurasia, Comparative Politics of
• European Parliament, The
• European Social Democracy
• European Union, Politics of the
• Extension of Voting Rights to Emigrants
• Failed and Weak States in Theory and Practice
• Far-Right Parties in Europe
• Federalism in the United States
• Feminist Political Thought
• Field Experiments
• Filibuster, The
• Framing Effects in Political Communication
• Gender and Electoral Politics in the United States
• Gender and International Relations
• Gender and Political Violence
• Gender and Politics in South Asia
• Gender, Behavior, and Representation
• Gender Gap in US Public Opinion
• Gender Stereotypes in Politics
• Genetic Underpinnings of Political Attitudes and Behaviors
• German Politics and Government
• Global Inequality
• Globalization and the Welfare State
• Globalization, Health Crises, and Health Care
• Governance in Africa
• Governmental Responses to Political Corruption
• Gridlock and Divided Government in the U.S.
• Health-Care Politics in the United States
• Historiography of Twentieth-Century American Conservatism,...
• Hobbes’s Political Thought
• Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of
• Hume’s Political Thought
• Hybrid Regimes
• Ideal Point Estimation
• Identity and Political Behavior
• Ideological Reasoning in Politics
• Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding
• Immigrant Incorporation in Canada
• Immigrant Incorporation in Western Europe
• Immigration and European Politics
• Immigration and International Relations
• Immigration Politics and Policy in the United States
• Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior...
• Impact of C-SPAN on US Democracy
• Implicit Attitudes in Public Opinion
• Income Dynamics and Politics in North America and Europe
• Income Inequality and Advanced Democracies
• Income Inequality in the United States, The Politics of
• Independent Voters, The Study of
• Indian Democracy
• Indigenous Politics and Representation in Latin America
• Indigenous Rights and Governance in Canada, Australia, and...
• Indonesia, Politics of
• Informal Practices of Accountability in Urban Africa
• Institutional Change in Advanced Democracies
• Institutional Factors Affecting Women’s Political Engageme...
• Intellectual Property in International Relations
• Interest Groups in American Politics
• Interethnic Contact and Impact on Attitudes
• International Conflict Management
• International Criminal Justice
• International NGOs
• International Political Economy of Illegal Drugs
• Internet and Politics, The
• Intersectionality in Political Science
• Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific
• Iran, Political Development of
• Israeli Politics
• Italian Politics and Government
• Judicial Supremacy and National Judicial Review
• Judiciaries and Politics in East Asia
• Kant's Political Thought
• Labor Migration: Dynamics and Politics
• Labor Politics in East Asia
• Land Reform in Latin America
• Latin America, Democratic Transitions in
• Latin America, Electoral Reform in
• Latin America, Environmental Policy and Politics in
• Latin America, Guerrilla Insurgencies in
• Latin America, Social Movements in
• Legal Mobilization
• LGBT Politics in the United States
• Liberal Pluralism
• Libertarianism
• Local Governments in the United States
• Machiavelli’s Political Thought
• Malaysian Politics and Government
• Marx's Political Thought
• Mass Incarceration and US Politics
• Media Effects in Politics
• Media Politics in South Asia
• Mexican Political Development
• Mexican Politics and Government
• Military Government in Latin America, 1959–1990
• Minority Governments
• Minority Political Engagement and Representation in the Un...
• Mixed-Member Electoral Systems
• Modern Dynastic Rule
• Modern Elections and Voting Behavior in Europe
• Motivated Reasoning
• Narrative Analysis
• National Interbranch Politics in the United States
• Nationalism
• NATO, Politics of
• Negative Campaigning
• Neoclassical Realism
• New Institutionalism Revisited, The
• Nigerian Politics and Government
• North America, Comparative Politics of
• Oil, Politics of
• Online Public Opinion Polling
• Organized Criminal Syndicates and Governance in Mexico and...
• Origins and Impact of Proportional Representation, The
• Outcomes of Social Movements and Protest Activities
• Partisan and Nonpartisan Theories of Organization in the U...
• Partisan Polarization in the US Congress
• Partisan Polarization in the US Electorate
• Party Networks
• Party System Institutionalization in Democracies
• Peace Operations
• Personality and Politics
• Personalization of Politics
• Philippine Politics and Government
• Plato’s Political Thought
• Policy Feedback
• Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion
• Political Ambition
• Political Economy of Financial Regulation in Advanced Ind...
• Political Economy of India
• Political Economy of Taxation, The
• Political Geography in American Politics
• Political Humor and Its Effects
• Political Institutions and the Policymaking Process in Lat...
• Political Obligation
• Political Participation and Representation, Black
• Political Parties and Electoral Politics of Japan
• Political Roles and Activities of Former Presidents and Pr...
• Political Thought, Hegel's
• Political Thought of the American Founders, The
• Politics and Government, BeNeLux
• Politics and Policy in Contemporary Argentina
• Politics, Gender Quotas in
• Politics of Anti-Americanism
• Politics of Class Formation
• Politics of Disaster Prevention and Management
• Politics of Ethnic Identity in China
• Politics of Financial Crises
• Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia
• Politics of Higher Education in the U.S.
• Politics of Internal Conquest in the United States and Can...
• Politics of Japan
• Politics of Natural Disasters, The
• Politics of North Korea
• Politics of Science and Technology
• Politics of South Africa
• Politics of Southern Africa
• Politics of the American South
• Politics of the Philippines: From Rizal to Duterte
• Politics of the US-Mexico Border
• Populism in Latin America
• Positive and Negative Partisanship
• Postcolonial Political Theory
• Postcolonialism and International Relations
• Post-Communist Democratization
• Preferential Trade Agreements, Politics of
• Presidential Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspectiv...
• Presidential Persuasion and Public Opinion
• Presidential Primaries and Caucuses
• Private Governance
• Protest Participation
• Public Opinion in Affluent  Democracies
• Public Opinion in Europe toward the European Union
• Public Opinion in New Democracies and Developing Nations
• Public Opinion on Immigration
• Public Opinion toward the Environment and Climate Change i...
• Public Presidency, US Elections, and the Permanent Campaig...
• Qualitative Methods, The Renewal of
• Race in American Political Thought
• Racial and Ethnic Descriptive Representation in the United...
• Recruitment and Selection for Elected Office
• Redistricting and Electoral Competition in American Politi...
• Referendums and Direct Democracy
• Regime Transitions and Variation in Post-Communist Europe
• Regional Integration
• Regional Integration in Latin America
• Regional Security
• Regulating Food Production
• Religion and Politics in Latin America
• Religion in American Political Thought
• Religion in Contemporary Political Thought
• Religion, Politics, and Civic Engagement in the United Sta...
• Republicanism
• Rousseau’s Political Thought
• Rule of Law
• Russia and the West
• Science and Democracy
• Science and Social Movements
• Secession and Secessionist Movements
• Semi-Presidential Systems
• Social Networks, Mass Publics, and Democratic Politics
• Social Policy and Immigrant Integration
• South Asian Political Thought
• South Korea, Politics of
• Southeast Asia, International Relations in
• Southeast Asian Politics
• Spanish Politics and Government
• Spectacle, The
• Sport and Politics
• State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa
• State Formation
• State, The Nature of the
• State-Society Relations in South Asia
• Stereotypes in Political Reasoning
• Supreme Court and Public Opinion
• Supreme Court of the United States, The
• Systemic Theories of International Politics
• Taiwan, Politics of
• Tea Party, The
• Thailand, Politics of
• The Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspecti...
• The New Right in American Political Thought
• The Politics of Parenthood: Attitudes, Behavior, Policy, a...
• The Politics of Waste and Social Inequalities in Indian Ci...
• Third-Party Politics in the United States
• Tocqueville’s Political Thought
• Transboundary Pollution
• Transitional Justice
• Transnational Private Regulation
• Trust in Latin American Governing Institutions
• Turkey, Political Development of
• US Military Bases Abroad
• US Politics, Neoliberalism in
• US Presidency, The
• US Presidential Campaigns and Their Impact
• Venezuela, The Path Toward Authoritarianism in
• Voter Support for Women Candidates
• Voter Turnout
• Voter Turnout Field Experiments
• Voting Technology and Election Administration in the Unite...
• War, Factors Influencing Popular Support for
• Welfare State Development
• Welfare State Development in Latin America
• Welfare State Development in Western Europe
• West Africa, Politics of
• White Identity Politics
• Women and Conflict Studies
• Women’s Inclusion in Executive Cabinets
• Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights
• Women’s Political Activism and Civic Engagement in Latin A...
• Women’s Representation in Governmental Office in Latin Ame...
• Women’s Representation in the Middle East and North Africa
• Workers’ Politics in China
• Youth and Generational Differences in US Politics
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

studying interest groups: methodological challenges and tools

• Published: 18 September 2017
• Volume 16 , pages 291–305, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• rainer eising 1  

1690 Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

Research on interest groups has evolved from a focus on small- N studies to larger- N studies in the past 15 years. While both European and American research has become more sophisticated and aware of methodological aspects, there is yet no specialized literature on methods regarding how to study interest groups. Only few studies discuss the methodological implications of interest group studies, as well as the transferability of methods employed in other areas of political science to this research area. The contributions in this symposium focus on major problems and topics in interest group research and elaborate methods to deal with them: (1) the identification of the relevant interest group population, (2) the analysis of interest group strategies such as access, (3) the identification of interest groups positions and frames, and (4) the measurement of interest group success and influence. The introduction outlines these research problems and describes how the contributions to this symposium address them. The aim of the symposium is to increase awareness of the intricacies of these research problems, outline suitable practices to handle them, and stimulate debate on these methodological aspects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

what is access? a discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access

The intereuro project: logic and structure, old and new data sources and methods for interest group research.

On the relation between power and luck, see Barry (1980a , 1980b ) and Dowding (1996) .

Barry, B. (1980a) ‘Is it better to be powerful or lucky? Part 1’, Political Studies 28(2): 183–94.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barry, B. (1980b) ‘Is it better to be powerful or lucky? Part 2’, Political Studies 28(3): 338–52.

Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Berkhout, J. and Lowery, D. (2008) ‘Counting organized interests in the European union: A comparison of data sources’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 489–213.

Beyers, J. (2004) ‘Voice and access. Political practices of European interest associations’, European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.

Beyers, J., Chaqués Bonafont, L., Dür, A., Eising, R., Fink-Hafner, D., Lowery, D., Mahoney, C., Maloney, W. and Naurin, D. (2014a) ‘The INTEREURO project: Logic and structure’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 126–40.

Beyers, J., Dür, A., Marshall, D. and Wonka, A. (2014b) ‘Policy-centred sampling in interest group research: Lessons from the INTEREURO project’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 160–73.

Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W. (2008a) ‘Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know?’ West European Politics 31(6): 1103–28.

Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W. (2008b) ‘Conclusion: Embedding interest groups research’, West European Politics 31(6): 1292–302.

Binderkrantz, A. (2005) ‘Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure’, Political Studies 53(4): 694–715.

Binderkrantz, A. and Pedersen, H. H. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.17.

Boräng, F., Eising, R., Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., Naurin, D., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2014) ‘Measuring frames: A comparison of methodological alternatives’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 188–201.

Bouwen, P. and McCown, M. (2007) ‘Lobbying versus litigation: Political and legal strategies of interest representation in the European union’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 422–43.

Bunea, A. and Baumgartner, F. (2014) ‘The state of the discipline: Authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(10): 1412–34.

Bunea, A. and Ibenskas, R. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Estimating interest groups’ policy positions through content analysis: A discussion of automated and human-coding text analysis techniques applied to studies of EU lobbying’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.15.

Chalmers, A.W. (2011) ‘Interests, information and influence: Comparing the influence of interests groups in the European union’, Journal of European Integration 33(4): 471–86.

de Figueiredo, J.M. and Richter, B.K. (2014) ‘Advancing the empirical research on lobbying’, Annual Review of Political Science 17: 163–85.

Dowding, K. (1996) Power, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Google Scholar  

Dür, A. (2008) ‘Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology’, European Union Politics 9(4): 559–76.

Dür, A., Bernhagen, P. and Marshall, D. (2015) ‘Interest group success in the European union: When (and Why) does business lose?’ Comparative Political Studies 48(8): 951–83.

Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2014) ‘The Europeanization of interest groups: Group type, resources and policy area’, European Union Politics 15(4): 572–94.

Eising, R. (2008) ‘Interest group in EU policymaking’, Living Reviews in European Governance 3(4): 7–32.

Eising, R. and Spohr, F. (2015) The more, the merrier? Interest groups and legislative change in the public hearings of the German parliamentary committees . Presentation at the 6th ECPR Standing Group Summer School on Interest Groups, 20–28 July, Hamburg.

Eising, R., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2015) ‘Institutions, policies, and arguments: Context and strategy in EU policy framing’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 516–533.

Gais, T.L. and Walker, J.L. (1991) ‘Pathways to Influence in American Politics’, in J.L. Walker (ed.) Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 103–22.

Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1996) The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B.M. (2013) ‘Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts’, Political Analysis 21(3): 267–97.

Halpin, D. and Jordan, G. (eds.) (2012) The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C., Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M. and Leech, B.L. (2012) ‘Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Re-examining interest groups research’, Annual Review of Political Science 15(9): 1–21.

Jordan, G., Darren, H. and Maloney, W. (2004) ‘Defining interests: Disambiguation and the need for new distinctions’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 195–212.

Kaplan, S. (2008) ‘Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty’, Organization Science 19(5): 729–52.

Klüver, H. (2009) ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–49.

Klüver, H., Braun, C. and Beyers, J. (2015) ‘Legislative lobbying in context: Towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European union’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 447–61.

Klüver, H., Mahoney, C. and Opper, M. (2015) ‘Framing in context: How interest groups employ framing to lobby the European Commission’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 481–98.

Kohler, B., Quittkat, C. and Kurczweska, U. (2013) ‘Interest intermediation in the European Union revisited: Report on a survey study’, Arbeitspapiere des Mannheimer Zentrums für Europäische Sozialforschung 151.

Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE Publications.

Latham, E. (1952) ‘The group basis of politics: Notes for a theory’, American Political Science Review 46(2): 376–97.

Laver, M., Benoit, K. and Garry, J. (2003) ‘Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data’, American Political Science Review 97(2): 311–31.

Lehmbruch, G. (1979) ‘Wandlungen der Interessenpolitik im liberalen Korporatismus’, in U. von Aleman and R.G. Heinze (eds.) Verbände und Staat, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 50–71.

Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

March, J. (1955) ‘An introduction to the theory and measurement of influence’, American Political Science Review 49(2): 431–51.

Salisbury, R.H. (1984) ‘Interest representation: The dominance of institutions’, American Political Science Review 78(1): 64–78.

Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, C. and Goodin, R.E. (2006) ‘It Depends’, in R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–32.

Vannoni, M. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying preference attainment using spatial models’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.13.

Varone, F., Ingold, K. and Jourdain, C. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying policy advocacy through social network analysis’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.16.

Voltolini, B. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process tracing methods’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.18.

Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F.R., Mahoney, C. and Berkhout, J. (2010) ‘Measuring the size and scope of the EU interest group population’, European Union Politics 11(3): 463–76.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Helene Helboe Pedersen and the contributors to this special issue for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Helene and the author are grateful to those colleagues who have taken on the task of peer reviewing the articles in this symposium. They would also like to express their gratitude to the authors and commentators who delivered their insightful draft articles impeccably. They are also thankful to the participants of the workshop on methodological aspects of interest group research at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops in Salamanca in April 2014, which was the starting point for this symposium issue. Last not least, they would like to thank the European Political Science editorial team for their continued support. Research for this article has been funded by the German Science Foundation (grant EI 461/6-1) and the European Science Foundation (grant 10-ECRP-008).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, University St. 150, GC 04/146, Bochum, D-44801, Germany

rainer eising

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

eising, r. studying interest groups: methodological challenges and tools. Eur Polit Sci 16 , 291–305 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.14

Download citation

Published : 18 September 2017

Issue Date : September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.14

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• interest groups
• research methods
• methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A group project is a cooperative learning assignment that requires students to work with peer group members to plan, discuss, and complete a specific project, often over the course of an entire semester. The project can be a research paper, an in-class oral presentation, an out-of-class study project, or research contributed as part of a larger class project involving multiple student groups . The purpose is to prepare students to work collaboratively in order to develop the intellectual and social skills needed to examine research problems from a variety of perspectives, to communicate effectively with their peers, and to evaluate and resolve issues on their own with support from other group members.

Burke, Alison. “Group Work: How to Use Groups Effectively.” The Journal of Effective Teaching 11 (2011): 87-95; Colbeck, Carol L., Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. “Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects.” The Journal of Higher Education 71 (January - February, 2000): 60-83; Using Group Projects Effectively. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University; Williams, Katherine. Group Work Benefits and Examples. Study.com.

Benefits of Group Work

As stressful as it can be, group work can actually be beneficial in the long run because it closely parallels the dynamics of serving on a committee, participating in a task force, or working on a collaborative project found in most professional workplace settings. Whatever form the group assignment takes in your course, the opportunity to work with others, rather than on your own, can provide distinct benefits. These include:

• Increased productivity and performance -- groups that work well together can achieve much more than individuals working on their own. A broader range of skills can be applied to practical activities and the process of sharing and discussing ideas can play a pivotal role in deepening your understanding of the research problem. This process also enhances opportunities for applying strategies of critical inquiry and creative or radical problem-solving to an issue.
• Skills development -- being part of a team will help you develop your interpersonal skills. This can include expressing your ideas clearly, listening carefully to others, participating effectively in group deliberations, and clearly articulating to group members t he results of your research . Group work can also help develop collaborative skills, such as, team-based leadership and effectively motivating others. These skills will be useful throughout your academic career and all are highly sought after by employers.
• Knowing more about yourself -- working with others will help identify your own strengths and weaknesses in a collaborative context. For example, you may be a better leader than listener, or, you might be good at coming up with the 'big idea' but not so good at developing a specific plan of action. Enhanced self-awareness about the challenges you may have in working with others will enhance overall learning experiences. Here again, this sense about yourself will be invaluable when you enter the workforce.

Colbeck, Carol L., Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. “Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects.” The Journal of Higher Education 71 (January - February, 2000): 60-83; Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Golde, Chris M. Tips for Successful Writing Groups. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Presented November, 1994; Updated November, 1996 at Association for the Study of Higher Education; Howard, Rebecca Moore. "Collaborative Pedagogy." In Composition Pedagogies: A Bibliographic Guide . Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 54-71; Thom, Michael. "Are Group Assignments Effective Pedagogy or a Waste of Time? A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice." Teaching Public Administration 38 (2020): 257-269;

Stages of Group Work

I.  Getting Started

To ensure that your group gets off to a good start, it may be beneficial to:

• Take time for all members to introduce themselves, including name, background, and stating specific strengths in contributing to the overall goals of the assignment.
• Nominate or vote to have someone act as the group leader or facilitator or scheduler. If the burden might be too great, consider deciding to rotate this responsibility among all group members.
• Exchange current contact information, such as, email addresses, social media information, and cell phone numbers.
• Consider creating an online workspace account to facilitate discussions, editing documents, sharing files, exchanging ideas, and to manage a group calendar. There are many free online platforms available for this type of work such as Google docs.

II.  Discussing Goals and Tasks

After you and the other members of the group agree about how to approach the assignment, take time to make sure everyone understands what it is they will need to achieve. Consider the following:

• What are the goals of the assignment? Develop a shared understanding of the assignment's expected learning outcomes to ensure that everyone knows what their role is supposed to be within the group.
• Note when the assignment is due [or when each part is due] so that everyone is on the same schedule and any potential conflicts with assignment due dates in other classes can be addressed ahead of time by each members of the group.
• Discuss how you are going to specifically meet the requirements of the assignment. For example, if the assignment is to write a sample research grant, what topic are you going to research and what organizations would you solicit funding from?
• If your professor allows considerable flexibility in pursuing the goals of the assignment, it often helps to brainstorm a number of ideas and then assess the merits of each one separately. As a group, reflect upon the following questions: How much do you know about this topic already? Is the topic interesting to everyone? If it is not interesting to some, they may not be motivated to work as hard as they might on a topic they found interesting. Can you do a good job on this topic in the available time? With the available people? With the available resources? How easy or hard would it be to obtain good information on the topic? [ NOTE:   Consult with a librarian before assuming that information may be too difficult to find!].

III.  Planning and Preparation

This is the stage when your group should plan exactly what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and determine who should do what. Pay attention to the following:

• Work together to break the project up into separate tasks and decide on the tasks or sub-tasks each member is responsible for. Make sure that work is equally distributed among each member of the group.
• Agree on the due-dates for completing each task, keeping in mind that members will need time to review any draft documents and the group must have time at the end to pull everything together.
• Develop mechanisms for keeping in touch, meeting periodically, and the preferred methods for sharing information. Discuss and identify any potential stumbling blocks that may arise that could hinder your work [e.g., mid-terms].

NOTE:   Try to achieve steps 1, 2, and 3 in a group meeting that is scheduled as soon as possible after you have received the assignment and your group has been formed. The sooner these preliminary tasks are agreed upon, the sooner each group member can focus on their particular responsibilities.

IV.  Implementation

While each member carries out their individual tasks, it is important to preserve your group's focus and sense of purpose. Effective communication is vital, particularly when your group activity extends over an extended period of time. Here are some tips to promote good communication:

• Keep in touch with each other frequently, reporting progress regularly. When the group meets for the first time, think about about setting up a regular day and time for people to report on their progress [either in-person or online].
• If someone is having trouble completing his or her area of responsibility, work with that person to figure out how to solve the problem. Be supportive and helpful, but don't offer to do other people's work.
• At the same time, make it clear that the group is depending on everyone to do their part; all group members should agree that it is detrimental to everyone in the group for one person to show up at the last minute without his or her work done.

V.  Finishing Up

Be sure to leave enough time to put all the pieces together before the group project is due and to make sure nothing has been forgotten [e.g., someone forgot to correct a chart or a page is missing]. Synthesizing each group member's work usually requires some negotiation and, collectively, overcoming any existing obstacles towards completion. Technically, this can be done online, but it is better to meet in person to ensure that everyone is actively involved in the process.

If your group has to give a presentation about the results of their research, go through the same process--decide who is going to do what and give everyone enough time to prepare and practice ahead of time [preferably together]. At this point before the assignment is due, it is vital to ensure that you pay particular attention to detail, tie up any loose ends, and review the research project together as a team rather than just looking over individual contributions.

VI.  Writing Up Your Project

Writing the group report can be challenging; it is critical that you leave enough time for this final stage. If your group decided to divide responsibility for drafting sections, you will need to nominate a member of the group [if not done so already] to bring everything together so that the narrative flows well and isn't disjointed. Make it their assignment rather than assigning that person to also write a section of the report. It is best to choose whomever in your group is the best writer because careful copy editing at this stage is essential to ensure that the final document is well organized and logically structured.

Focus on the following:

• Have all the writers in your group use the same writing style [e.g., verb tense, diction or word choice, tone, voice, etc.]?
• Are there smooth transitions between individual sections?
• Are the citations to sources, abbreviations, and non-textual elements [charts, graphs, tables, etc.] consistent?

Barkley, Elizabeth F., Claire Howell Major, and K. Patricia Cross. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty . 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014; Boud, David, Ruth Cohen, and Jane Sampson, editors. Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2001; Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Espey, Molly. "Enhancing Critical Thinking using Team-Based Learning." Higher Education Research and Development 37 (2018): 15-29; Howard, Rebecca Moore. "Collaborative Pedagogy." In Composition Pedagogies: A Bibliographic Guide . Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 54-71; INDOT Group Work and Report Planning Handout. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Working in Groups. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra; Working in Groups. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Group Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Golde, Chris M. Tips for Successful Writing Groups. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Presented November, 1994; Updated November, 1996 at Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Meeting Places

Where Your Group Meets Matters!

Choosing where to you meet can have as much of an impact on your group's overall success as how well you communicate and work together. When your group is first formed, be sure to set aside some time to discuss and come to an agreement about where to meet in the future. Obviously, convenience has a lot to do with your possible choices. However, discussions of where to meet should also focus on identifying a space that's comfortable, easily accessible to everyone, and does not have any distractions, such as, the smell of food from nearby, heavy foot traffic, or constant noise,

Places that meet all of these conditions are the collaborative workrooms in the East Asian Library of Doheny or the group study spaces in the Lower Computer Commons of Leavey Library or on the second floor of Leavey Library. These rooms can seat anywhere from 4 to 10 people and all have dry erase boards and power and network connectivity. Most rooms also have large monitors with laptop connections that your group can use to display a presentation, document, spreadsheet, or other information that is the focus of your collaborative work. Note that these rooms are very popular, especially towards the end of the semester, so schedule early and be courteous in promptly cancelling your reservation so others may use the room. Finally, if everyone agrees that meeting in person is not crucial, a meeting to discuss the group's activities can be conducted over Zoom or other video conferencing platform.

Bilandzic, Mark and Marcus Foth. "Libraries as Coworking Spaces: Understanding User Motivations and Perceived Barriers to Social Learning," Library Hi Tech 31 (2013): 254-273.

• << Previous: Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Next: Types of Structured Group Activities >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Interest Groups

Lesson plan.

The role of interest groups in politics and government is a hot topic in the media today. This lesson uses the battle over school lunch ingredients to illustrate how interest groups and lobbying affect public policy. Take a side in the battle, create an interest group, and try to influence public policy. 

iCivics en español! Student and class materials for this lesson are available in Spanish.

Pedagogy Tags

Teacher Resources

Get access to lesson plans, teacher guides, student handouts, and other teaching materials.

• Interest Groups_Student Docs.pdf
• Interest Groups_Teacher Guide.pdf
• Spanish_Interest Groups Student Docs.pdf
• Spanish_Interest Groups Teacher Docs.pdf

I find the materials so engaging, relevant, and easy to understand – I now use iCivics as a central resource, and use the textbook as a supplemental tool. The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. My seniors LOVE iCivics.

Lynna Landry , AP US History & Government / Economics Teacher and Department Chair, California

Related Resources

Ethel payne: first lady of the black press.

NewsFeed Defenders

NewsFeed Defenders Extension Pack

Propaganda: What's the Message?

Rachel Carson’s Fight for the Environment

The public sphere, the role of media.

See how it all fits together!

Interest Group Research Project - Government Project - Civics Project

• Google Apps™

What educators are saying

Also included in.

Description

⭐Make sure to take a sneak peek at this amazing resource⭐

Teaching interest groups quickly became a student favorite with these hands-on research projects! The Interest Group Research Projects are an easy-to-use resource and are standard aligned. You get two fun and creative projects for students to complete.

With the Interest Group Tissue Box Project students will be in charge of researching and advertising an interest group of their choice using a tissue box! Students will follow the step-by-step assignment sheet to complete their project, and you can use the grading rubric for quick and simple grading.

With the Interest Group Speed Dating Project students will pretend to be a leader of an American interest group. They will research their interest group and create a resume based on their research. Then, they will go around the room "speed dating" with their peers, sharing their resumes, and seeking out other interest groups with whom they have similar goals.

This three-page printable resource is a wonderful project to enhance any civics or government course.

What’s Included in the Interest Group Research Projects:

⭐ Interest Group Tissue Box Assignment

⭐ Interest Group Tissue Box Grading Rubric

⭐ Interest Group Speed Dating Student Guide

⭐ Interest Group Resume Assignment Sheet

You may also like:

⭐ AP US Government and Politics Course

⭐ Regular US Government Lessons Bundle

⭐ Government Game Show Bundle

⭐ AP US Government Tests Bundle

How can I access the lessons?

1) Google Drive

⚠️ Still , need some convincing? ⚠️

As a secondary Social Studies teacher, I truly understand the lack of resources provided to us, along with the many preps assigned to each teacher. I know the feeling of having to plan for several advanced classes each day, which can be very draining. I understand the hesitance to spend your money on anything.

How this resource will save your sanity:

✅Cut down on your prep time

✅Lesson plans are already created and ready to go

✅Pre-organized

✅Comprehensive and driven by proven results

✅Free updates and added lesson plans

✅ Google Drive - Slides and Google Docs ready!

Let's Connect!

Mailing List - Subscribe to get freebies and history-teaching tips!

Website - Catch up on the blog and get the latest information on my store!

Follow me on TpT to receive updates on new products!

Please use the Q&A section or email me at [email protected]

Questions & Answers

Passion for social studies.

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in educational systems. There is strong scientific support for the benefits of having students learning and working in groups. Nevertheless, studies about what occurs in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking. Similarly, the question of why some group work is successful and other group work results in the opposite is still unsolved. The aim of this article is to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education. This research is focused on the students’ experiences of group work and learning in groups, which is an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work prior to the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work ends up being a positive experience resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the reverse, are of interest. Data were collected through a study-specific questionnaire, with multiple choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed to students in different study programs at two universities in Sweden. The present result is based on a reanalysis and qualitative analysis formed a key part of the study. The results indicate that most of the students’ experiences involved group work that facilitated learning, especially in the area of academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that served as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions facilitate or hamper students’ learning, as well as impact their experiences with group work.

INTRODUCTION

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems, from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in research about students’ cooperation in the classroom ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and problem solving in groups ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative learning and collaborative learning . There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes ( Johnson and Johnson, 1975 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ), whereas collaboration is a more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept cooperation ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Cooperative learning may describe group work without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ), while collaborative learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s competences ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes both academic achievement and collaborative abilities ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011) , the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies (2003a , b ) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Similarly, the question of why some group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved. In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the opposite.

GROUP WORK IN EDUCATION

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive experiences and enhanced learning ( Galton et al., 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

GROUP WORK AS OBJECTIVE OR MEANS

Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.” Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement) or both ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for students’ knowledge acquisition ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and learning in a group within an educational setting.

WORKING IN A GROUP OR AS A GROUP

Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,” ( Blatchford et al., 2003 , p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just one activity, but several activities with different conditions ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and vice versa ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). It is also important to differentiate between how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group . This is not an uncommon situation within an educational setting ( Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ). Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions together into a joint product ( Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2010 , 2011a ). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group, cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) and are not caused by cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or “meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According to Granström (2006) , working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably ( Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’ perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). To put this study in a context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may be relevant in other levels in educational systems.

To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’ experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive, as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning, group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation, conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group, as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004) , the students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-riders in the group ( Peterson and Miller, 2004 ). To accomplish a favorable attitude toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work. Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e) assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c) the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’ conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups , an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To capture university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, an inductive qualitative approach, which emphasizes content and meaning rather than quantification, was used ( Breakwell et al., 2006 ; Bryman, 2012 ). The empirical data were collected through a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire and a qualitative content analysis was performed ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

PARTICIPANTS

All participating students attended traditional university programs where group work was a central and frequently used pedagogical method in the educational design. In addition, the participants’ programs allowed the students to be allocated to the same groups for a longer period of time, in some cases during a whole semester. University programs using specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning or case method, were not included in this study.

The participants consisted of a total of 210 students, 172 female and 38 male, from two universities in two different cities (approximately division: 75 and 25%). The students came from six different populations in four university programs: (a) The Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology, (b) The Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program, (c) Social Work Program, and (d) The Bachelor’s Programs in Biology. The informants were studying in their first through eighth terms, but the majority had previous experiences from working in other group settings. Only 2% of the students had just started their first term when the study was conducted, while the vast majority (96%) was participating in university studies in their second to sixth semester.

The teacher most frequently arranged the group composition and only a few students stated that they have had any influence on the group formation. There were, with a few exceptions, between 6 and 10 groups in each of the programs included in this study. The groups consisted of between four to eight members and the differences in sizes were almost proportionally distributed among the research group. The groups were foremost heterogeneous concerning gender, but irrespective of group size, there seems to have been a bias toward more women than men in most of the groups. When there was an underrepresented sex in the group, the minority mostly included two students of the same gender. More than 50% of the students answered that in this particularly group, they worked solely with new group members, i.e., students they had not worked with in previous group work during the program.

To collect data about students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire approached the students’ experiences regarding the specific group work they were working in at the time of the data collection (spring 2006), not their experiences of group work in general. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions, including both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The multiple choice questions concerned background variables and information about the present group. The seven open-ended questions were designed to gather data about the students’ experiences and perceptions of group work in higher education. The questionnaires were distributed to the different populations of students (some populations studied at the same program) at two universities in Sweden. During the time the questionnaires were completed, the researcher or an assistant was present to answer possible questions. In all, 210 students answered the questionnaire.

The previous analysis

As described above (Section Previous Research of Students’ Experiences) a previous analysis based on the same data corpus revealed that most of the students included in the study found group work to be an enjoyable and stimulating working method ( Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ). The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis based on three different research questions. There were two main criticisms of the previous study presented from other researchers. The criticism conveyed applied mostly to the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group and second to the fact that the results were mostly descriptive. To counter this criticism and to elaborate on the analysis, a further analysis was conducted.

The present analysis

The present analysis (or reanalysis) was conducted by using an inductive qualitative content analysis based on three open-ended research questions:

(1) In what ways does group work contribute to your learning?

(2) What positive experiences have you had while working in your present group?

(3) What negative experiences have you had while working in your present group?

Each question corresponds to one aspect of the research’s objective, but together, they might support and enrich each other and unravel new information based on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work. Research question 1, listed above, was not included in the first analysis and is being investigated for the first time in this study, while the other two questions are being reanalyzed. An inductive, qualitative content analysis is applicable when the aim of the research is a description of the meaning or of a phenomenon in conceptual form ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

The analysis was carried out over several steps, following the basic principles of an inductive, qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). The steps included three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Each question was treated as a unit of analysis and was thus analyzed separately. In the preparation phase, the researcher tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data corpus. In the current study, this included transcription and thorough reading of the answers. An open coding system composed of marginal notes and headings began the second phase, which included organizing the data. This second phase, in turn, included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction. The notes and the headings from the open coding were transferred to coding sheets and then grouped into categories. Categories were formed through the interpretation of the codes that described the same meaning or phenomenon. Finally, an abstraction process began, where a general description of the grouped categories formed an abstraction (see Table ​ Table1 1 ). An abstraction was denominated using the content-characteristic words for this paper: learning, study-social function, and organization . The third phase, reporting , addressed the presentation of the process of analysis and the results.

Examples from the organization phase of the coding process.

The final aim of this study is to present the phenomenon studied in a model or conceptual map of the categories ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). In following these procedures, we aim to expand our understanding of the existing work and to counter the second part of the criticisms, which included criticisms stating that the results were mostly descriptive in nature. To counter the criticisms regarding the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group, the qualitative abstraction that emerged from the qualitative content analysis was compared to background information by using SPSS. Three background variables were used: gender, cities, and programs.

ETHICS AND QUALITY

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychology Society have formed a guideline [ British Psychology Society (BPS), 2006 ] for the present study. The ethical principles, which emphasize the concern for participants’ interest, have been applied throughout the study [ American Psychological Association (APA), 2002 ; British Psychology Society (BPS), 2004 ; Barett, 2007 ]. To facilitate trustworthiness, a thorough description of the analysis process has been presented ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Translated citations are also included to increase trustworthiness.

As described above, the analysis resulted in three abstraction emerging: learning, study-social function , and organization . Each abstraction includes both a positive variant (i.e., facilitating learning, study-social function, and/or organization) as well as a negative alternative (i.e., hampering learning, study-social function, and/or organization). The results will be presented in three different sections, with each section corresponding to one abstraction. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that one fifth (20%, including missing value 8%) of the students included in this study did not perceive and/or mention any negative experiences at all in their present group. From a general point of view, there is no difference with respect to gender or city regarding the distribution of positive and negative experiences concerning the abstractions, neither concerning different programs nor the distribution of negative experiences (all p > 0.05). In contrast, there is a difference between the various programs and the distribution of positive experiences (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). The students from the social work program display a higher amount of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with the other programs.

The majority of the students (97%) responded that working in group somehow facilitated learning, academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both. They learned more or different things when working in groups than they would have if working alone. By discussing and questioning each other’s points of view and listening to their fellow students’ contributions, thus obtaining different perspectives, the participants experienced an enhanced academic learning, compared to working alone. “I learn much more by working in groups than working individually. I obtain more through interaction with the other group members.” Academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gain advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work in group courses strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus learning about groups by working in groups. “Through practical knowledge demonstrate several of the phenomena we read about in theory (group psychology and sociology).”

The results show no difference when considering either gender or city. However, when comparing the four programs included in the study and the types of learning, a difference occurs (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). A division into two parts seems to generate the difference. On the one hand, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program emphasize academic knowledge. On the other hand, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities single handed, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning.

Even though the participants did not expressly report that group work hampered learning, they often mentioned that they perceived group work as being ineffective due to loss of focus and the presence of conflicts, thereby hampering conceivable learning. One respondent stated, “that you sometimes are out of focus in the discussion and get side-tracked instead of considering the task.” Another offered the following perspective: “Occasionally, it is too little task related and feels unnecessary sometimes. Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable.” Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, “The time aspect, everything is time consuming.” The absence or presence of conflicts in the group affects students’ experiences, and conflicts not handled may influence learning in a negative way. The students perceived that it was difficult to come to an agreement and experience those conflicts and the need to compromise hampered individual learning. Accordingly, the absence of conflicts seemed to be an important incitement for learning. However, fear of conflicts can lead to reduced learning and cause negative experiences, but to a considerably lesser extent than does the presence of actual conflicts. “A great fear of conflicts sometimes raises an oppressive atmosphere.” “Fear of conflicts leads to much not made known.”

A STUDY-SOCIAL FUNCTION

Group work also has an important study - social function according to the students. They describe their membership in groups as an important aspect of affiliation. In general, the total number of students at a program is approximately 60–80 or more. In contexts with a large population of students, the smaller group gives the participants an opportunity to feel affiliated with the group and to each other. “Feels safe to have a certain group to prepare oneself together with before, for instance, an upcoming seminar.” The group gives the individual student a platform of belonging, which might serve as an important arena for learning ( facilitate ) and finding friends to spend leisure time with. Many of the participants also reported feeling a positive atmosphere in the group, which is important for the satisfaction of being in the group together with the fellow students.

To be a member of a group may also serve as a function of relief, both academically and socially, for the individual student. The participants reported that many of the tasks assigned by the university teachers are difficult to handle on their own. “The others explain to me. We help one another.” However, the students reported that they helped and supported each other, even if the task did not demand cooperation. “As a student, you get more active. You help one another to extract the groups’ common knowledge. Forward info if somebody is missing.” Being a member of a group also affects students’ motivation to study. They prepare themselves by reading texts and other material before the next group session. Group work may also have positive effects on achievement. Students’ total amount of time and effort on their work may also increase. Through group work, the participants also get confirmation of who they are and what their capacities are.

Being a member of a group also has its downside, which often has to do with the group climate and/or group processes, both of which have multiple and complex features. Many students reported that both the group climate and group processes might be the source of negative conceptions of the group and hamper learning. “Process losses.” The respondents described negative conceptions based on the feeling of not having enough time to get to know each other in the group or being in situations where no cooperation occurred. Other students referred to the fact that the group’s life is too long, which may lead to group members not only wearing each other out, but also having a negative effect on each other’s mood. “Influenced by each other’s mood.” Examples of negative experiences are process losses in general, including insufficient communication, unclear roles, and problems with one group member. As mentioned above, the students from the Social Work Program display a higher number of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with students from the other programs.

ORGANIZATION

O rganization concerns the structure of group work and includes different aspects, all describing group work from different angles. The aspects are relevant no matter how the participants perceive the group work, whether as positive or negative. Unlike the other two abstractions (learning and study-social function), organization includes the same aspects no matter what the experiences are, namely group composition , group structure , way of working and contributions.

Whether the group is composed in a homogeneous or heterogeneous way seems to be experienced in both a positive and negative sense. A well-thought-out group composition , including both group size and mix of members, is essential. A just large-enough group for the task, consisting of a population of members that is not too heterogeneous, facilitates a joyful experience and learning. A homogeneous mix of members might be perceived as positive, as the students feel that they have similar life situations, opinions, and skills, thereby causing positive conditions for collaboration within the group. Conversely, in a group with a heterogeneous mix, different members contribute with different knowledge and/or prior experiences, which can be used in the group for collective and collaborative learning. “Good group composition, distribution of age groups that leads to fruitful discussions.”

An additional facilitating prerequisite is that the group develops adequate ways of working together, which includes a well-organized group structure . Well-working groups are characterized as having developed adequate ways of working together, while groups that work less well together lack a developed way of cooperation. “Well-organized working group with clear and distinct rules and structure.” Preparation and attendance for group work are aspects mentioned as facilitating (and hampering) incitements. Group work in educational settings sometimes entails that you, as a student, are forced to read and learn within a certain period of time that is beyond your control. Some participants find the pressure positive, hence “increase the pressure to read chapters in time.” The members’ contribution to the group is also a central factor for the students’ apprehension of how the group works. This is, in short, about how much each member ought to contribute to the group and to the work. Groups considered to be well-working are ones where all members contribute to the group’s work, but the content of the contribution may vary according to the single member’s qualifications. “We work well together (most of us). Everybody participates in different ways and seems committed.” “Good, everybody participates the same amount. We complement each other well.”

The same prerequisites can lead to the reverse result, i.e., hampering learning and stirring up negative experiences. If the group members are too identical (a homogeneous group composition ), it might lead to a lack of opinions, which several participants perceived as being negative. “That we do not get a male perspective about the subject. We are all girls, at the age of 20, which also means that we have pretty much the same experiences that may be seen as both positive and negative. The negative is the lack of opinion.” If the group is considered to be too small, students seems to find it troublesome, as the relationships are few, but there are also few people who are available to handle the workload allotted to the group. Nevertheless, a group that is too large could also lead to negative experiences. “It is far too large a group.”

A lack of group structure might lead to a lower degree of satisfaction with the group’s way of working . A commonly expressed point of view seen in the students’ answers involved the occurrences of when all members did not attend the meetings (absence). In these cases, it was also viewed that the work in the group often was characterized as unstructured. “Sometimes a bit unclear structures, some students have difficulties with coming in time.” Not attending or coming unprepared or badly prepared to the group work is other aspect that is commented on. “Low degree of fellowship, punctuality is a problem, an insecure group.” Some students find it frustrating to prepare for a certain time decided that is beyond their control. “A necessity to read certain chapters within a specific period of time is never stimulating.”

One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. Some members are active and do much of the work, while others barely contribute at all. “Some don’t do anything while others pull the heaviest burden. Two out of three prepare before the meeting, the rest think that they are able to read during the group work and do not supply the group with anything else other than delays and frustration.” A common answer seen in the questionnaires that concerns negative experiences of group work as they relate to contribution is: “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.”

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

The results are summarized in a model illustrating the relationship between abstractions (i.e., learning, study-social function, and organization) and result (i.e., enhanced or reduced learning), as well as positive or negative experiences (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

A model illustrating the relationship between abstractions and result .

The figure shows that all three abstractions may facilitate or hamper learning as well as the experiences of group work. To piece together, the difficult and extensive jigsaw puzzle concerning why some group work result in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases the result is the reverse is still not solved. In this article, we propose that the prerequisites learning, study-social function, and organization influence learning and experiences of working in group, thus, providing additional pieces of information to the jigsaw puzzle ( Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Pieces of jigsaw puzzle influence learning and experiences .

The current study focuses on university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view, as well as how the students’ assess learning when working in groups. The analysis resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations. Each abstraction also included a positive and a negative variant. In other words, all three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work.

LEARNING IN GROUP WORK

The result shows that the majority of the students (97%) experience that working in group facilitated learning, either academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both, accordingly confirming previous research ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to the students, they learn more or different things when working in groups compared with working individually. Academic knowledge was not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gained advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work might strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus the students were learning about groups by working in groups. This implies that group work, from a learning perspective, serves several functions for the students ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Group work also seems to have an important study-social function for the university students, hence confirming that group work serves more functions than just being a pedagogical mode.

Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare seem to be highly important, and may even be essential prerequisites for learning. Accordingly, group work functions as both as an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities), and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement), or both, for the students ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Program for Human Resources seem to use group work more as means for obtaining academic knowledge. In contrast, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities alone, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning, thus using group work as an objective, as a means, or as a combination of both. One interpretation might be that the type of task assigned to the students differs in various programs. This can be valid both concerning the purpose of group work (group work as objective or as the means), but also arrangement (working in a group or as a group; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Another possible explanation might be that the main emphasis in the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the Program for Human Resources is on product and academic knowledge, while in the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program, the process is more articulated and demanded. However, this is only speculation and further research is needed.

Even though the participants did not explicitly state that group work hampered learning, they mentioned that they perceived group work to be ineffective due to the loss of focus and/or the presence of conflicts with other group members, thereby hampering conceivable learning. This may also be an effect of the purpose or arrangement of the group work ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

EXPERIENCES OF GROUP WORK

The results revealed that several aspects of group work are important incentives for learning. In addition, this study revealed students’ experiences of group work (i.e., facilitating or hampering positive/negative experiences), which is in line with the previous studies on students’ experiences of working in groups ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Group composition, group structure, ways of working, and participants’ contributions are aspects put forward by the university students as either facilitating or hampering the positive experience of group work ( Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Several of the aspects bear reference to whether the group members work in a group or as a group ( Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, utilization of the group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). According to the results, not all groups are working as a group but rather working in a group, which, according to Granström (2006) , is common in an educational setting.

Due to problems with group composition, members’ contributions, and group structure, including rules and ways of cooperation, some students end up with negative experiences of group work. Additionally, the university students allude to the fact that a well-functioning supportive study-social context is an essential prerequisite not only for positive experiences of group work, but also for learning ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Both working in a group and working as group might be useful in different parts of the group work ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ) and cause learning. Hence working in a group causes cooperative learning based on social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) while working as group causes learning benefits through collaboration with other group members. Although both approaches might cause positive or negative experiences, a conceivable interpretation is that working as a group has a greater potential to enhance positive experiences. The findings suggest a need for further research to fully understand why some group work causes positive experiences and other instances of group work cause negative experiences.

The findings in the current study develop the findings from Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) . First, it shows that it is possible to assemble all groups in to a joint research group (see below). Second, a thorough reanalysis, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations as either facilitating or hampering learning, and experiences.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are some limitations in the current study and most of them have to do with the construction of the study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire. First, the questions do not discriminate between (a) the type of group work, (b) the purpose with the group work, (c) the structure of the group work (i.e., extent and/or time); or (d) ways of working in the group (i.e., cooperation or collaboration). Second, the design of the questionnaire does not facilitate comparison between the populations included in the group. The questionnaire treated group work as one activity and did not acknowledge that group work can serve different functions and include various activities ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). This simplification of the phenomena group work causes criticism concerning whether or not it is possible to assemble these populations into a joint research group. An elaborated description of the analysis process and the comparison to three background variables has been used to counter this criticism. The thin results from the comparison, indicate that based on the question used in the study-specific questionnaire, it is possible to assemble the results into a corpus of joint results.

CONCLUSION/CONCLUDING REMARKS

The results indicate that most of the students’ experienced that group work facilitated learning, especially concerning academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that serve as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work. By listening to the university students’ voices and elucidating their experiences and conceptions, we have been able to add new knowledge and understanding of what the essence is behind successful group work in higher education. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, can be of use for further development of group work as a pedagogical practice.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Ph.D. Faculty Program Director, Charlotta Einarsson, for her contribution to the design of this study and contribution to early stages of the data analysis and manuscript.

• American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Baines E., Blatchford P., Chowne A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33 663–680 10.1080/01411920701582231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barett M. (2007). “Practical and ethical issues in planning research,” in Research Methods in Psychology eds Breakell G., Hammond S., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (London: Sage Publications) 24–48 [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19 1–40 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennet N., Dunne E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups . Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education [ Google Scholar ]
• Blatchford P., Kutnick P., Baines E., Galton M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 153–172 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breakwell G. M, Hammond F., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (eds) (2006). Research Methods in Psychology . London: Sage Publications [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2004). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download.cfm?file_uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2006). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. (2012). Social Research Methods . Oxford: University Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantwell R. H., Andrews B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feeling towards group work. Educ. Psychol. 22 75–91 10.1080/01443410120101260 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 107–115 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M., Williamson J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom . London: Routledge [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M. J., Hargreaves L., Pell T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14-years-old compared. Cambridge J. Educ . 39 119–147 10.1080/03057640802701994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003a). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95 137–147 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 35–49 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 933–940 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): a two-year follow-up. Teach. Educ. 1 63–78 10.1080/10476210.2010.538045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graneheim U. H., Lundman B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24 105–112 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granström K. (2006). “Group phenomena and classroom management in Sweden,” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues eds Evertson C. M., Weinstein C. S. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) 1141–1160 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. High. Educ. 55 505–518 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2010). “Group work is not one, but a great many processes – understanding group work dynamics,” in Group Theory: Classes, Representation and Connections, and Applications ed. Danellis C. W. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 153–166 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011a). Research on Group Work in Education . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011b). “Research on group work in education,” in Emerging Issues in Compulsory Education [Progress in Education. Volume 20] ed Nata R. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 25–44 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Einarsson C. (2007). “Is the grass greener in the other group? Students’ experiences of group-work” [“är gräset grönare i den andra gruppen? Studenters erfarenheter av grupparbete”] [Published in Swedish], in Interaction on the Edge 2. Proceedings from the 5th GRASP Conference ed. Näslund J. (Linköping: Linköping University) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E, Granström K. (2012). Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 3 345–363 10.1080/13540602.2012.629842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (2013), Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] . Lund: Studentlitteratur [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82 11–19 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1975). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability . Thousand Oaks: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutnick P., Beredondini L. (2009). Can the enhancement of group work in classrooms provide a basis for effective communication in support of school-based cognitive achievement in classrooms of young learners? Cambridge J. Educ . 39 71–94 10.1080/03057640902836880 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y., Abrami P. C., Spence J. C., Poulsen C., Chambers B, d’Apllonia S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 423–458 10.3102/00346543066004423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:2 . Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm_140309 [ Google Scholar ]
• Näslund J. (2013). “Pupils’ and students’ view on group work” [Published in Swedish: Elevers och studenters syn på grupparbete] in Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] eds Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (Lund: Studentlitteratur) 233–242 [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson S, Miller J. A. (2004). Quality of college students’ experiences during cooperative learning. Soc. Psychol. Learn. 7 161–183 [ Google Scholar ]
• Underwood J. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. Br. J. Psychol. 94 319–337 10.1348/000712603767876253 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uziel L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Person. 41 579–601 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb N. M., Palincsar A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology eds Berliner D. C., Calfee R. C. (New York: Macmillan) 841–873 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zajonc R. B. (1980). “Compresence,” in Psychology of Group Influence ed. Paulus P. B. (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum) 35–60 [ Google Scholar ]

Homework and Assignment of American University – Great Collection

Tutorsof Homework & Assignments

C08 american government – interest groups.

For this assignment you'll research at least two interest groups.

Pick one (1) interest group whose agenda you like and one (1) you disagree with to research. Start by finding the homepage for each interest group on the internet. Conduct further web-based research to see what news sources have reported about the two interest groups, what some of their recent activities have been, which politicians they support, which politicians they oppose, and so on.

Assignment Instructions

With this project you’ll answer some essential questions as you organize your findings.

Respond to the items below:

• What’s the main agenda of the two (2) groups you researched?
• What role has each interest group played in American politics? Provide two (2) examples for each group.
• How influential are these interest groups? Support your response with one (1) supporting fact for each group.
• Why do you like or dislike them? Provide three (3) reasons why you like or dislike each group.
• Was there anything in your findings that surprised you? Provide one (1) finding that either surprised you or that may surprise other individuals.

You should use research to form your opinions and support your arguments. The paper should address the central question and include the topics provided to help you organize and present the information. This project will be four to six pages in total.

Review your research and use supporting arguments to justify your position.

Share this:

• C08 American Government

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

A framework for expressing and combining preferences

The advent of the World Wide Web has created an explosion in the available on-line information. As the range of potential choices expand, the time and effort required to sort through them also expands. We propose a formal framework for expressing and combining user preferences to address this problem. Preferences can be used to focus search queries and to order the search results. A preference is expressed by the user for an entity which is described by a set of named fields; each field can take on values from a certain type. The * symbol may be used to match any element of that type. A set of preferences can be combined using a generic combine operator which is instantiated with a value function, thus providing a great deal of flexibility. Same preferences can be combined in more than one way and a combination of preferences yields another preference thus providing the closure property. We demonstrate the power of our framework by illustrating how a currently popular personalization system and a real-life application can be realized as special cases of our framework. We also discuss implementation of the framework in a relational setting.

Publication

• Rakesh Agrawal
• Edward L. Wimmers

On integrating catalogs

Extending relational database systems to automatically enforce privacy policies, completeness of rewrite rules and rewrite strategies for fp.

Court rejects parents’ attempt to opt kids out of LGBTQ-inclusive reading assignments

( The Hill ) — A federal appeals court rejected a bid from a group of Maryland parents to require Montgomery County Public Schools to allow them to opt their children out of lessons that involve LGBTQ-inclusive material.

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a  lower court decision  denying a preliminary injunction on the basis that the parents had not yet demonstrated how the country’s board of education book policy would infringe on their right to free expression of religion.

Three sets of parents – who are Muslim, Jewish and Christian – along with a parental rights organization, sued the Maryland school district after it said it would no longer allow parents to opt their children out of lessons that used a slate of newly approved LGBTQ-inclusive books.

The parents argued that the books “contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, human sexuality, and gender” and that the lack of an opt-out policy violates their children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, writing for the majority in the opinion, said there was not enough evidence on the record to assess how the books were being used in the classroom and, therefore, to assess the likelihood of the case succeeding.

“We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools,” Agee, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote.

“At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction,” he continued, in the opinion, which was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, an appointee of President Biden’s.

U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., an appointee of former President Trump’s, dissented, arguing the board violated parents’ right to influence their children’s religious upbringing.

Eric Baxter – vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the parents – pledged to appeal the ruling on Wednesday, in an emailed statement to The Hill.

“The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,” Baxter said in his statement. “That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency.”

“Parents should have the right to receive notice and opt their children out of classroom material that violates their faith. We will appeal this ruling,” he added.

Get daily updates on local news, weather and sports by signing up for the  WTAJ Newsletter .

In August 2023, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman found that the parents were unlikely to succeed on the merits and denied their request to keep the policy in place while the case proceeds. She found that they failed to show that the lack of an opt-out policy would result in the “indoctrination of their children” or “coerce their children to violate or change their religious beliefs.”

“The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context,” Boardman wrote in the order last year.

“No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish,” she added.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WTAJ - www.wtaj.com.

Clinical Research Coord Assoc/Tech/Asst

The University of Michigans Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is seeking a motivated and organized Clinical Research Assistant to join our team. This position offers the opportunity to work under the guidance of Principal Investigators Dr. Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Jeffrey Berinstein, both of whom are early-career clinical researchers specializing in inflammatory bowel diseases. The successful candidate will play a crucial role in the management and operational success of both clinical trials and observational studies.

Mission Statement

Michigan Medicine improves the health of patients, populations and communities through excellence in education, patient care, community service, research and technology development, and through leadership activities in Michigan, nationally and internationally.  Our mission is guided by our Strategic Principles and has three critical components; patient care, education and research that together enhance our contribution to society.

Why Join Michigan Medicine?

Michigan Medicine is one of the largest health care complexes in the world and has been the site of many groundbreaking medical and technological advancements since the opening of the U-M Medical School in 1850. Michigan Medicine is comprised of over 30,000 employees and our vision is to attract, inspire, and develop outstanding people in medicine, sciences, and healthcare to become one of the world’s most distinguished academic health systems.  In some way, great or small, every person here helps to advance this world-class institution. Work at Michigan Medicine and become a victor for the greater good.

What Benefits can you Look Forward to?

• Excellent medical, dental and vision coverage effective on your very first day
• 2:1 Match on retirement savings

Responsibilities*

Independent knowledge, skills, and abilities within all 8 competency domains is expected:

1. Scientific Concepts and Research Design 2. Ethical Participant Safety Considerations 3. Investigational Products Development and Regulation 4. Clinical Study Operations (GCPs) 5. Study and Site Management 6. Data Management and Informatics 7. Leadership and Professionalism 8. Communication and Teamwork

• Assist in the coordination and management of clinical research projects.
• Collect and manage patient and laboratory data.
• Develop and maintain research databases.
• Recruit and retain study subjects.
• Manage regulatory documentation and ensure compliance with all institutional and federal regulations related to clinical research.
• Support the Principal Investigators and research team in administrative tasks related to the research.

Supervision Received: This position reports directly to the Principal Investigators.

Supervision exercised: None

Required Qualifications*

Associate Level:

• Bachelors degree in Health Science or an equivalent combination of related education and experience is necessary. 
• Certification is required through Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) as a Certified Clinical Research Coordinator (CCRC) or Society of Clinical Research Association (SOCRA) as a Certified Clinical Research Professionals (CCRP) or equivalent. Candidates must be eligible to register or take the exam at date of hire and the certification must be completed or passed etc. within six months of date of hire. (Please review eligibility criteria from SoCRA or ACRP prior to applying)
• Minimum 2 years of directly related experience in clinical research and clinical trials is necessary. (Please review SOCRAs definition of a Clinical Research Professional for qualifying experience prior to applying.)

Technician Level:

• Associate degree in Health Science or an equivalent combination of related education and experience is necessary. 
• Minimum 1 year of directly related experience in clinical research and clinical trials is necessary. (Please review SoCRAs Definition of a Clinical Research Professional for qualifying experience prior to applying.) or An advanced degree in a health-related areas such as: Health Sciences, Behavioral Sciences, Public Health, Health Care Administration, Clinical Research Administration, Social Work, Psychology, Epidemiology, Foreign MD. or Minimum 3 years of human subject experience (clinical, lab or health regulations) such as related patient care, related community health and wellness, related clinical information, and research.  

Assistant Level:

• High school diploma or GED is necessary. 
• Strong organizational and project management skills.
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills, capable of working effectively with team members, patients, and other stakeholders.

Desired Qualifications*

• 4+ years of direct related experience in a clinical research or healthcare setting is highly preferred
• Proficiency in database management and data analysis software is desirable 
• An understanding of medical terminology, experience in a large complex health care setting, ability to effectively communicate with staff and faculty of all levels, and knowledge of university policies and procedures is desirable. 
• Bachelors degree in Health Science or an equivalent combination of related education and experience is desirable.  An understanding of medical terminology, experience in a large complex health care setting, ability to effectively communicate with staff and faculty of all levels, and knowledge of university policies and procedures is desirable. 
• Associate Degree in Health Science or an equivalent combination of related education and experience is desirable.  

How You'll Grow

The selected candidate will receive comprehensive training directly from the Principal Investigators, enhancing their understanding of clinical research methodologies and operational procedures. This role provides an invaluable opportunity to gain translatable skills and experience in the field of medical research, particularly in inflammatory bowel diseases.

Work Schedule

This is a Monday- Friday, full time position. 

Underfill Statement

This position may be underfilled at the CRC-Technician/Assistant title based on selected candidates qualifications.

Additional Information

Michigan Medicine is firmly committed to advancing inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility, and belonging, which are core to the culture and values of the Medical School Office of Research. Our community supports recruiting and cultivating a diverse workforce as a reflection of our commitment to serve the diverse people of Michigan and the world. We strive to create a work culture where each team member feels respected, valued, and safe. 

Background Screening

Michigan Medicine conducts background screening and pre-employment drug testing on job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent job offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background screenings.  Background screenings are performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Report Act. Pre-employment drug testing applies to all selected candidates, including new or additional faculty and staff appointments, as well as transfers from other U-M campuses.

Application Deadline

Job openings are posted for a minimum of seven calendar days.  The review and selection process may begin as early as the eighth day after posting. This opening may be removed from posting boards and filled anytime after the minimum posting period has ended.

U-M EEO/AA Statement

The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

Prevalence of ABO and Rhesus blood groups in Blood donors: A retrospective study from a tertiary care blood bank in Pondicherry.

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Introduction: The ABO blood group system was the first human blood group system discovered by Austrian scientist Karl Landsteiner in 1901. The ABO blood group system is divided into four blood types on the basis of presence or absence of A and B surface antigens A and B antibodies presence in the plasma. Positive and Negative of the blood group determines by presence or absence of the D antigen.. Objectives: This study was carried out to determine the distribution pattern of blood groups among blood donors at a tertiary care hospital of Puducherry Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective study done a period of 5 years from May 2017 to May 2022 that includes the 9062 blood donors. Blood group done as per the standard operative procedure. Data on the ABO and Rh blood group type of all blood donors was collected and analysed. Result: The most common ABO blood group type was Group O (38%) followed by group B (33.5%), group A (21.6%) and group AB (6.9%) and one Bombay blood group. The distribution of Rh(D) blood group type revealed 92.5% as Rh-positive and 7.5% as Rh-negative. Conclusion: The most common ABO blood group type in our region (Puducherry) is Group O followed by B and A while, AB and Bombay groups are the least common type. Knowledge of the blood group distribution pattern is essential for the effective delivery of blood banking services.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Author declarations.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

PIMS Institute Ethics Committee(IEC) gave approval for this work.(REF NO: IEC: RC/18/107)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (627)
• Anesthesia (163)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2371)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (206)
• Emergency Medicine (379)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (836)
• Epidemiology (11768)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (702)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3736)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (633)
• Health Informatics (2395)
• Health Policy (932)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (896)
• Hematology (341)
• HIV/AIDS (782)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13308)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (767)
• Medical Education (365)
• Medical Ethics (104)
• Nephrology (398)
• Neurology (3501)
• Nursing (198)
• Nutrition (524)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (674)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (663)
• Oncology (1823)
• Ophthalmology (537)
• Orthopedics (218)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (232)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (446)
• Pediatrics (1033)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (420)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3175)
• Public and Global Health (6138)
• Radiology and Imaging (1280)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (747)
• Respiratory Medicine (826)
• Rheumatology (379)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (372)
• Sports Medicine (323)
• Surgery (402)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (145)