Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups

Focus groups, originally used in fields such as marketing and consumer research, are rapidly gaining popularity as a research methodology in the social sciences. It is interesting to note that most of the scholarly work on focus groups continues to come from business rather than the social sciences. Few researchers have discussed the differing purposes and goals in social science and consumer research (Ospina, 1994; Moore, 1996). Furthermore, the literature on focus group research rarely utilizes social work knowledge of group dynamics or group facilitation skills. Rather, the literature on focus groups tends to give guidelines for leading groups, telling focus group facilitators what to do and what not to do in leading such groups. We believe that these guidelines, while generally helpful, can lead to rigidity on the part of focus group leaders. We suggest that, in social work research, focus group facilitators should use their knowledge of group dynamics and the values of individualization and empathy to modify focus group rules where appropriate. This paper describes part of a qualitative study of client/worker relationships in residential mental health settings. During the course of this research, group work principles came into conflict, at times, with recommended guidelines for focus group leaders. The paper illustrates how insights gleaned from group work theory and practice can enable a researcher to break focus group rules responsibly, thus bringing greater depth to the data gathered and allowing the researcher to be more sensitive to the needs of focus group participants.

Focus groups – facilitated discussion of designated topics among a small, selected group of people – are still not widely used in the study of religion/s, though they have a long history of use within the social sciences and in marketing and opinion research. Focus groups can be used both as a standalone method and as a complementary research technique alongside other methods. This chapter suggests that focus groups do indeed offer ‘focus’ in two useful ways, first in bringing together focused categories of people (e.g. people belonging to the same minority group) and second in allowing them to focus on selected issues. In addition, they can be a useful method for researching the intersubjective, relational and often plural nature of people's identities and viewpoints. The chapter explores the underpinnings of focus group research and its advantages and limitations, ending with practical guidelines for conducting focus group research.

Focus group research in healthcare is a form of inquiry where small groups of people who share common experiences or interests are brought together by a researcher for the purpose of eliciting ideas and perspectives about a specific topic or area of concern. Focus group discussions generate rich data. Usually group members have face-to-face conversations in a chosen location, but this research can also be conducted online. The number of focus groups and group members depends on the requirements and aims of the researcher as well as the demands of the topic. The participants of these groups might be patients, health professionals, or social science researchers who are interested in exploring a specific topic about health and illness issues, professional education, or other areas in the health arena such as treatment or care. The researcher usually acts as facilitator of the discussion, but often the group has both researcher and facilitators. Facilitators need the skills of flexibility, diplomacy, and a nonjudgmental attitude. Focus group discussions are normally analysed by qualitative data analysis which takes into account content and interaction.

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted (“Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences,” 12 May, p. [829][1]). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems. Insights from the social sciences about the vulnerability, sustainability, and resilience of social and environmental systems have greatly increased our understanding of the complex interactions of the world on which we depend. The contributions of social and ecological science for data analyses associated with spatial relationships, transfer of goods and services, valuation, and decision-making processes have improved our understanding of how human activities are altering environmental systems worldwide. These findings have become the core of policy and development decisions used throughout the world. It is critical that the NSF support social science funding and that, as budget decisions are made, the social science allocation should move forward equally with increases as in other basic and applied research. Failure to do so will further hinder U.S. competitiveness in the future and will slow transfer of knowledge and usefulness to the public. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5775.829a

Transaction Data: Commercial Transaction Surveys and Test Market Data

BackgroundNovel, technology-based methods are rapidly increasing in popularity across multiple facets of quantitative research. Qualitative research, however, has been slower to integrate technology into research methodology. One method, computer-mediated communication (CMC), has been utilized to a limited extent for focus group discussions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess feasibility of an online video conferencing system to further adapt CMC to facilitate synchronous focus group discussions among transgender women living in six cities in eastern and southern United States.MethodsBetween August 2017 and January 2018, focus group discussions with adult transgender women were conducted in English and Spanish by research teams based in Boston, MA, and Baltimore, MD. Participants were sampled from six cities: Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; New York, NY; Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; and Miami, FL. This was formative research to inform a technology-enhanced cohort study to assess HIV acquisition among transgender women. This analysis focused on the methodologic use of CMC focus groups conducted synchronously using online software that enabled video or phone discussion. Findings were based on qualitative observations of attendance and study team debriefing on topics of individual, social, technical, and logistical challenges encountered.ResultsA total of 41 transgender women from all six cities participated in seven online focus group discussions—five English and two Spanish. There was equal racial distribution of black/African American (14/41, 34%) and white (14/41, 34%) attendees, with 29% (12/41) identifying as Hispanic/Latina ethnicity. Overall, 29 of 70 (41%) eligible and scheduled transgender women failed to attend the focus group discussions. The most common reason for nonattendance was forgetting or having a scheduling conflict (16/29, 55%). A total of 14% (4/29) reported technical challenges associated with accessing the CMC focus group discussion. CMC focus group discussions were found to facilitate geographic diversity; allow participants to control anonymity and privacy (eg, use of pseudonyms and option to use video); ease scheduling by eliminating challenges related to travel to a data collection site; and offer flexibility to join via a variety of devices. Challenges encountered were related to overlapping conversations; variable audio quality in cases where Internet or cellular connection was poor; and distribution of incentives (eg, cash versus gift cards). As with all focus group discussions, establishment of ground rules and employing both a skilled facilitator and a notetaker who could troubleshoot technology issues were critical to the success of CMC focus group discussions.ConclusionsSynchronous CMC focus group discussions provide a secure opportunity to convene participants across geographic space with minimal time burden and without losing the standardized approach that is expected of focus group discussions. This method may provide an optimal alternative to engaging hard-to-reach participants in focus group discussions. Participants with limited technological literacy or inconsistent access to a phone and/or cellular data or service, as well as circumstances necessitating immediate cash incentives may, however, require additional support and accommodation when participating in CMC focus group discussions.

Focus group discussions have been in the toolkit of social scientists for some time now. In more recent decades the use of focus group discussions has increased amongst the health and social sciences as a tool to inform policy and practice. For example, focus group discussions have been used in health and behavioural research, strategic planning, health promotion, policy development and programme evaluation. The increased use of focus group discussions is partly due to a broader acceptability of qualitative methods in these disciplines, but also due to a greater emphasis on the inclusion of qualitative methods in mixed-method research designs, to respond to research issues not accessible by quantitative approaches. This more recent emphasis on integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches has been encouraged by research funding bodies and has led to a renewed focus on training in mixed-method research design for post-graduates in academic institutions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss a few principal and crucial steps of “antecedents” and “postcedents” in relation to structural equation modeling (SEM) in social science research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based upon a conceptual and reflective discussion of SEM in social sciences research.FindingsSEM is not science per se, but just a tool that is used to extract meaning from the previous steps of research processes in terms of a research phenomenon in focus.Research limitations/implicationsBased upon the steps of validity and reliability discussed in relation to predetermined measurement and structural models in SEM, application implications are provided.Practical implicationsLike many statistical tools, SEM can be misused to manipulate findings and fit of measurement and structural models. Researchers may become more interested in the tool than in the subject matter.Originality/valueUsing SEM does not elevate research to be science or make the researcher a scientist! An area of concern for further debate is whether the widespread and variable applications of SEM in social science (in particular, marketing) research are all science.

In this poster we describe a pilot study of searching social science literature for legacy corpora to evaluate text mining algorithms. The new emerging field of computational social science demands large amount of social science data to train and evaluate computational models. We argue that the legacy corpora that were annotated by social science researchers through traditional Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) are ideal data sets to evaluate text mining methods, such as text categorization and clustering. As a pilot study, we searched articles that involve content analysis and discourse analysis in leading communication journals, and then contacted the authors regarding the availability of the annotated texts. Regretfully, nearly all of the corpora that we found were not adequately maintained, and many were no longer available, even though they were less than ten years old. This situation calls for more effort to better maintain and use legacy social science data for future computational social science research purpose.

Foot pain can be a significant burden for patients. Custom foot orthoses (CFOs) have been a mainstay in podiatry treatment for foot pain management and improving foot function. However, little is known about podiatrists' experience of prescribing CFOs or patient experience of using foot orthoses (FOs), including CFOs, for foot pain. A focus group (FG) discussion with three FOs users (Female=2 and Male=1) was conducted in November 2022 within a private podiatry practice. This group represented non-experts from the general local population of individuals with existing or previous foot pain who have personally experienced using either over-the-counter FOs or CFOs. An online FG discussion with five musculoskeletal (MSK) specialist podiatrists (Female=2 and Male=3) was also conducted in December 2022. This group represented podiatrists with specialist knowledge in foot biomechanics and clinical experience in CFO provision. The FG discussions were recorded and lasted 49 and 57min respectively. Transcribed data was manually coded, and a thematic analysis was undertaken to identify patterns within the collected data. The participants in the patient FG detailed mixed experiences of the prescription process and CFOs received, with reports of limited involvement/input in their prescription, the need for frequent adjustments and high costs. The impact on footwear choices, replicability and transferability of CFOs into different types of shoes and technologies to aid design were also highlighted. In the podiatrist FG, lack of confidence in design and manufacture processes, prescription form language, relationship and communication building with manufacturers, variability in the CFOs issued and the need for better student education in CFO provision emerged as key themes. Patients and podiatrists shared similar views on CFO provision, namely poorcommunication with manufacturers leading to dissatisfaction with the CFOs prescribed causing negative impacts on patient experiences. Podiatrists called for greater education at registration level to increase new graduate podiatrist knowledge in CFO design and manufacture and better collaboration with manufacturing companies.

This paper presents provisional results from research into the uses and usefulness of electronic bibliographic databases in academic contexts. The research has been carried out as part of a British Library funded research project using ethnographic, focus group and conversation analytic techniques. Here we address the question: What can different varieties of ethnography and discourse analysis contribute to our understanding of organizational and institutional settings? Online and distributed bibliographic services (such as BIDS - Bath Information Data Services- and locally networked CD-ROMs) have now been available for some years in most universities and are thought to be a positive development. Many questions arise; some of which we hope may be answered by our results: What are they being used for? How are they being used? Are they as useful as central and local providers believe? Why do some researchers not use them? The research discussed here is based upon ethnographic interviews with 93 academics, researchers and postgraduates, ongoing observation as well as four focus group interviews with members of three departments (from different faculties) and with library staff at the University of Kent. We shall examine the cultural construction and negotiation of order and self-evidence. It is by the construction of cultural networks in which routine modes of questioning and criteria of relevance achieve the status of self-evidence that normal academic research communities establish themselves. Nevertheless the failure of this self-evidence to sustain itself sheds light on what ethnomethodologists find most interesting in any institutionalized discourse; its contingent dependence upon negotiations over interpretation and meaning.

This article sets out to report our first-hand experience with using focus groups as a method of data collection in higher education research. We were interested in shedding light on how university lecturers coped with remote teaching during the Covid pandemic and how the unusual circumstances affected their teaching. The analysis of the resulting data is still ongoing. In this study, we summarise our experiences of using the focus group methodology in our research. By discussing and evaluating our research experiences, we aim to demonstrate the usability and the potential risks of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in a higher education context by identifying further areas of application, such as for supporting the development of the education system. We argue that the main characteristic of FGD is its interactive nature, and we back this claim by providing a detailed presentation of the focus group methodology, as well as by describing and analysing the experiences of group discussions conducted with the involvement of university lecturers. Due to their interactive nature, focus group discussions are particularly suitable for research on educational methodology, specifically within the training system for public officials operated by the Ludovika University of Public Service (LUPS) in Budapest, Hungary since 2013. The focus group research method can be used either as a tool for quality assurance or as a tool for assessing training needs. Our study is highly relevant for those who are planning to conduct focus group research in a higher education context or in related fields such as adult education programmes, by providing practical recommendations.

The objective of this review was to locate and assess the evidence obtained from articles reporting empirical research that volunteers improve mealtime care of adults in institutional settings. Malnutrition in adult patients or residents in institutional care settings is common. Poor standards of mealtime care have been suggested to contribute to the development of malnutrition. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Key words were identified and used separately and in combination to search the electronic databases MEDLINE, CINHAL, BNI and EMBASE and the internet for relevant articles. Searches were undertaken in August 2008, April 2009 and July 1010. Ten studies fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The methodologies of five of the 10 studies were unclear due to the brevity of the reports. The validity of the design of the other five studies varied. Generally the results suggested the use of volunteers in mealtime care increased satisfaction of patients, relatives, volunteers and staff concerning meal-time assistance (assessed using methods such as questionnaires and focus groups) and three studies found increased nutritional intake in groups assisted by volunteers. However, few well designed and reported studies were identified. There is some evidence that volunteers can improve mealtime care of adult patients or residents in institutional settings, however few well designed studies are reported. Relevance to clinical practice. This review demonstrates that there is limited evidence that the use of volunteers improves mealtime care of adult patients or relatives in institutional settings.

Although focus groups continue to gain popularity in marketing and social science research, their use in program evaluation has been limited. Here we demonstrate how focus groups can benefit evaluators, program staff, policy makers and administrators by providing an in‐depth understanding of program effectiveness from the perspective of participants as stakeholders in program outcomes. Using data from the Youth Action Program, a prevention program funded by the United States Air Force for military dependent adolescents at risk, our methodology included a narrative approach to data analysis, combining theme analysis with a systematic interpretive approach centering on how group members experienced the program within the contexts of their daily lives. We show that the parents benefited from the program beyond youth outcomes, and this was useful information for program improvement and expansion.

People Nice Evidence from the National Survey of Black Americans. Social Forces 71:411-30. Groves, Robert M. and Lars E. Lyberg. 1988. An Overview of Nonresponse Issues in Telephone Surveys. Pp. 191-211 in Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. Wakesberg. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hadaway, C. Kirk, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves. 1993. What the Polls Don't Show: Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance. American Sociological Review 58:741-52. Hertel, Bradley R. 1995. Family, and Faith. Pp. 81-121 in Work, Family, and Religion in Contemporary Society, edited by N. T. Ammerman and W. C. Roof. New York: Routledge. Kosmin, Barry A. 1991. The National Survey of Religious Identification: 1989-90 [MRDF]. New York: The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York [producer, distriburtor]. Kosmin, Barry A. and Seymour P. Lachman. 1993. One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society. New York: Harmony Books. Massey, James T. and Steven L Botman. 1988. Weighting Adjustments for Random Digit Dialed Surveys. Pp. 143-60 in Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. Wakesberg. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Miller, Warren E. and the National Election Studies (NES). 1995. American National Election Studies Cumulative Data File, 1952-1994 [MRDF]. 8th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Morgan, S. Philip. 1983. A Research Note on Religion and Morality: Are Religious People Nice People? Social Forces 61:683-92. Smith, Tom W. 1991. Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since World War II. GSS Social Change Report. No. 26, revised January 1991. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. University of North Carolina. 1996. Southern Focus Poll [MRDF]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science [producer and distributor]. Woodberry, Robert D. 1997a. How Then Shall We Measure?: Adjusting Survey Methodology to Remove the Gap between Head-Counts and Survey Estimates of Church Attendance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 15-18, Norfolk, VA. Woodberry, Robert D. 1997b. 'The Missing Fifty-Percent: Accounting for the Gap between Survey Estimates and Head-Counts of Church Attendance. Master's thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.