Focus Group Research

Martha Ann Carey, Jo-Ellen Asbury

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781611322552
• eBook ISBN: 9781315428352
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This volume provides a thorough introduction to creating and conducting focus group research projects. Carey and Asbury provide background on the history of focus groups then document the best practices in conducting a study using them. They also provide valuable advice on how to conduct a fair and accurate analysis of minorities and other vulnerable groups within the population at large. This book is an excellent introduction for any researcher looking to utilize focus groups in their next project.

1. What Is a Focus Group?

This chapter presents the basics of the focus group technique as a research method used in social science studies. Topics include the definition of focus group and a brief history, advantages of this approach, information about when not to use this method, recent developments involving computer technology, rigor, ethics, and common criticisms.

Key Questions

• 1.1 When and why would you use a focus group?
• 1.2 How would you address common criticisms, such as unwieldy sessions and the collection of only minimal information?

Definition

The purpose of using focus groups is to collectrich, detailed data. Descriptions of a focus group vary but usually include a semistructured session, an informal setting, moderation by a facilitator and possibly a cofacilitator, and the use of general guideline questions and/or other stimuli, such as photos (Krueger and Casey, 2009; Morgan, 2010; Stewart, Shadasani, and Rook, 2009). Although consensus development, emotional support, and/or education maybe part of a focus group session, these are generally not the purpose of a study that uses focus groups to collect data. Although in understanding the data one must take into account the context, a study of group process per se is not considered the goal of a focus group study. Data collection is focused on the topic selected, not on the process of the group interaction.

Focus groups generally consist of a one-time meeting of persons who do not know one another and who have a common experience, such as the death of a child or experience as a caregiver for an elderly parent. But it is becoming more common to use focus groups in settings where the members do know one another and expect to have continued contact. This situation presents some challenges for the quality of the data and is discussed in a later section.

Published articles using focus groups have become so popular that the term focus group is not generally used as a "keyword" in literature searches. Although this term is broadly used, and sometimes misused, this book focuses on social science studies.

What makes focus groups so popular? They are intuitively appealing. People like to be heard; they want to feel that someone is listening and understanding their concerns. Researchers with some "people skills" like to engage participants, especially persons from communities who often do not have a voice in matters that affect them. When sessions have been arranged so that participants feel comfortable and the facilitator is well prepared, the conversation is usually very engaging and leads to rich stories that likely would not be told in such detail in another type of study. We have often been surprised in our focus groups at the level of detail and the candidness of the experiences described.

The development of the focus group approach is mostly associated with the research programs of Paul Lazarsfeld, Robert Merton, and colleagues (Merton, Fiske, and Kendall, 1990). Although group interviews had been used before World War II, little attention was given to this approach until studies were done of the effectiveness of radio programs during the war in the 1940s (Morgan, 1993). Since then, marketing studies have extensively used this approach, and in the last twenty or so years politicians have been using data collected through focus groups to help shape their campaigns. In addition, the social sciences have increasingly used this approach in the fields of education, nursing, psychology, social work, and sociology.

Focus groups are best suited to environments and groups in which the members are knowledgeable, willing, and capable of communicating; the topic and the group setting are compatible to group interaction; and the group facilitator has adequate skills. Persons are able to participate when they share a common language and an important experience. Accommodations can be made to enhance the ability of the members in the group to participate, such as providing hearing-assistance devices for the hearing-impaired and arranging shorter sessions for certain elderly or ill people who may not be able to sit for long periods of time. In determining whether a focus group is an appropriate research method, keep in mind that the focus group is the method, a tool for achieving the task. As Heidegger stated, "it is not the hammer that the carpenter focuses on, but the nail and the table" (in Kvale, 1996, p. 107). In this analogy, the focus group approach is the hammer, and the research data involve the nail and the table.

Focus groups are planned to capitalize on the interaction among the group members to enhance the collection of deep, strongly held beliefs and perspectives. This approach, like most qualitative methods, is especially useful for exploring new topics and examining complex issues. Behavior and beliefs can be especially useful in situations in which there is little information to serve as a foundation for your research, when no instruments exist to study the question at hand, or when an explanation of the processes behind the action is needed. With appropriate guidance from the group facilitator, the group setting can enhance candor and spontaneity.

As with other qualitative methods, focus groups can be used in an integrated design (mixed methods) with quantitative data and also with data obtained with other qualitative methods. Each type of data can be integrated to inform various aspects of the overall research question. These issues are discussed in a later chapter.

The focus group technique is not primarily a consensus-building technique. For some purposes, it could be used to obtain agreement, but that could limit the richness and breadth of experiences shared. However, some members may understand the group's role to be consensus, and therefore they may believe that each guideline question needs to be resolved by mutual agreement. The group facilitator has the responsibility to help members to understand what is expected of them. Although people do use the opinions of others in forming their own opinions, the tendency toward consensus is particularly a problem when a member's opinion is not yet formed and therefore his or her participation or contributions could be affected by comments made in the group session. This effect, sometimes referred to as the bandwagon effect, lessens the meaningfulness of the data.

Advantages

Focus groups can provide insights into attitudes and beliefs that underlie behavior and by providing context and perspective that enable experiences to be understood more holistically. Members' descriptions of experiences can provide unique information on how members give meaning to and organize their experiences.

Focus groups can "give voice" to members of vulnerable populations who might not be heard as well with other approaches. For many studies, this method allows for complex issues to be explored with richer data than individual interviews would elicit. The synergy in the group interaction usually prompts greater breadth and depth of information, and comparison of views within a group leads to greater insight into experiences.

In community-based participatory research, focus groups are especially useful when the method of discussion is a natural fit with the local culture. Studying the concept of wellness from the perspective of elderly Native Hawaiians, Odell (2008) successfully used focus groups on the island of Hawai'i. The focus group discussions were very similar to the Hawaiian custom of "talk story," which is talking for long periods of time about daily life and concerns. The comfort of the members with the focus group technique certainly added to the rich, new data that were collected.

Situations Not Appropriate for Focus Groups

Focus groups are not always the most appropriate methodological choice. Similar to other qualitative techniques, focus groups are not the method of choice when the research question involves the magnitude of a problem, including how many individuals or how large a population is involved with a particular issue. In some instances, a taboo subject may be better captured in an individual interview or via a computer than in a group setting. However, there is some evidence that groups may facilitate the discussion of sensitive topics (Kitzinger, 1994; Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). However, when group rapport and trust cannot be established, the data collection will be too compromised to be of value. Trust involves both the group members and people outside the session. Being aware of ongoing relationships for members who expect to have continued contact after the focus group session is important. Issues of trust may arise owing to the sensitive nature of the topic, the vulnerability of the population, and/or concerns with the confidentiality of the data.

Other Purposes, Other Approaches

Other approaches to gathering qualitative information, not discussed in this book, include (Vande, Ven, and Delbecq, 1974):

• Nominal Group Technique, a process of reaching agreement by the anonymous generation of ideas in writing, round-robin recording of ideas, serial discussion to clarify ideas, and anonymous voting
• Delphi, a method that uses judgments of experts to obtain consensus on a topic by employing rounds of questionnaires for which experts provide anonymous opinions or by a multiple iteration survey technique that avoids the possible negative effects of group-dynamics brainstorming, which encourages creativity without regard for application
• Discussion groups, which can have various purposes, including education, consensus building, and support

These methods are distinct from the focus group approach, which is intended as a data-collection technique that utilizes the group interaction to enhance the quality of the data elicited.

Virtual Groups

Computers began to be used in a limited manner in the mid-1960s to analyze text data (Tesch, 1991). As technology advances, researchers continue to explore the possible advantages of using telephone-, Internet-, and computer approaches. There is agreement on the obvious advantages of these technologies, which include access to study participants in remote areas and to persons who may be reluctant to join a face-to-face meeting because of physical problems; possible reduced cost of arranging sessions; potentially increased disclosure as the result of perceived anonymity (this varies with topic and population); possibly more open responses; and realtime capture of data (Ayling and Mewse, 2009; Fox, Morris, and Rumsey, 2007; Franklin and Lowry, 2001; Frazier et al., 2010; Schneider et al., 2002; Stewart and Williams, 2005; Underhill and Olmsted, 2003; Valaitis and Sword, 2005; Walston and Lissitz, 2000).

The Internet is a medium that cannot be used in a simple manner by the researcher (James and Bushner, 2009); contexts need to be planned to take advantage of its potential. Because this medium is useful for people who are comfortable with online communication, its use will likely expand. Disadvantages of online sessions may include comment depth limited by lack of synchronicity in communication, absence of nonverbal cues, and/or level of typing ability. (Typing thoughts is more demanding than speaking them and may lead to a reduction in participation. However, using punctuation symbols and emoticons to express emotions can somewhat help participants to interpret text.)

All of these can be factors in the degree of content richness that participants can provide. Online communication limits the opportunity for the session facilitator to guide the discussion and follow up on questions. There is increased complexity of the issue of data security as well as possible misunderstanding of comments because of difficulty of establishing trust and rapport. In a synchronous session, a delay between responses may lead to reduced interaction and less synergy. Thus technology may, but not necessarily will, somewhat limit free communication (Morgan, Fellows, and Guevara, 2008).

Phone sessions have fewer disadvantages because of the perception of increased social cohesion—participants are able to use information from the real-time voice—but they still lack behavioral nonverbal cues.

Published articles that compare face-to-face and online groups by counting the number of utterances or words (Schneider et al., 2002; Underhill and Olmsted, 2003; Wutich et al., 2010), as contrasted with exploring meanings, are excluded from discussion here, because we focus on the collection of rich data, not the number of occurrences. If the purpose is to study how much interaction has occurred, a counting approach could be reasonable.

In general, online data collection maybe somewhat constrained: group interaction will be less, and data will be less rich and deep. However, adaptations could be made to enhance online group interaction, such as small group size, previous face-to-face contact to establish rapport, and extra effort to describe the study and how data will be stored. And a sensitive or moderately sensitive topic may be more openly discussed online owing to a possibly increased comfort level resulting from some degree of anonymity. If the study's purpose can be met, the online approach might be preferred.

Mixed/Integrated Methods

The complexities of some topics in social science research and the limitations of some approaches may call for a combination of methods. Focus groups, as well as other qualitative approaches, have often been used to identify and explore the major concerns (domains of interest) in a topic that is new or not well understood. The natural vocabulary of participants can be used in the development of items for a questionnaire. In addition, when a researcher is using a well-established questionnaire in a population different from the population where it was developed, the meaning of items may need to be explored. The earlier somewhat adversarial relationship (Datta, 1994) between qualitative and quantitative approaches has generally dissipated. Planning and research design can balance the strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Morse and Niehaus (2009) present a very useful framework that can be used in designing multimethod projects.

Qualitative approaches have been used in combination with quantitative approaches in sequence or concurrently to reinforce, explain, or expand the data. Reinforcement is defined as using concurrent findings from two methods or two sources to support confidence in research findings, a process referred to as triangulation. To help explain quantitative results, focus groups have been used to understand the unanticipated or unexpected results of quantitative studies when well-established psychosocial instruments were used with a new population (Carey and Smith, 1992). Qualitative methods have also been used to explore the processes that underlie quantitative outcomes and to further develop the knowledge domain.

Rigor

Preparation must include strategies for ensuring rigor, which is usually understood as using the appropriate tools to address the stated objectives. As Morse and associates (2002) state, "without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility." Although some stories appear persuasive and tug at the heart strings and might affect policy decisions, stories alone are not research. Rather than being a good source of credible information, they may instead be excellent theater. Although a vivid example drawn from solid research can be an excellent format to communicate results, decisions informed by the results must be based on solid information, not emotional responses. Because research influences policy decisions and resource allocations, it must be more than merely moving; to be useful, it must be rigorous and credible.

Focus group research designs must include strategies to evaluate the trustworthiness of the information gathered and the findings generated. Each stage of the research process must follow strategies for implementing rigor. These may include verification strategies that combine qualitative and quantitative methods or use various qualitative methods. Adequate documentation of the steps in the process of moving from data to findings is necessary to allow the reader to evaluate the credibility and usefulness of the findings. (Later chapters include some guidance in this area.)

Ethics

Although there are no published studies on the stress involved in being in a focus group, the literature on stress in other qualitative methods is informative. Corbin and Morse (2003) have found that the level of distress in interviews is no greater than in everyday life. In addition, there are many reports of therapeutic effects of being interviewed (Corbin and Morse, 2003; Kvale, 1996). However, for very sensitive topics and for some studies with people with special needs, the focus group facilitator needs skills to monitor the level of discomfort or distress. In addition, arrangements for referral for readily available support services may need to be established.

Payment and other incentives to participate need to be planned with the target population in mind. What is appealing to some could be coercive to others, especially for vulnerable populations.

Criticisms

Criticisms common to many qualitative studies include the topics of limited representativeness of sample, questionable validi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Foreword by Martin Tolich
• Preface
• Chapter 1: What Is a Focus Group?
• Chapter 2: Psychosocial Foundations
• Chapter 3: Planning
• Chapter 4: Implementing the Plan
• Chapter 5: Special Populations
• Chapter 6: Analysis
• Chapter 7: Communication of Research Findings
• Chapter 8: Concluding Thoughts
• Glossary
• References
• Index
• About the Authors