Draft Industry Standard for Focus Group Research

This paper discusses how to conduct focus groups in family planning and reproductive research and follows a four-part series outlining the general principles of qualitative research. Originating in market research...

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 groups are increasingly popular in nursing research. However, proper care and attention are critical to their planning and conduct, particularly those involving nursing staff. This article uses data gleaned from prior research to address the complexities present in clinical settings when conducting focus groups with nurses. Applying their combined experiences of conducting studies with nursing staff, the authors present a data-derived approach to thorough preparation and successful implementation of focus group research, offering a unique contribution to the literature regarding this research strategy.

The paper addresses the relationship between the democratic potential for participation and equality in focus group research (Johnson, 1996) in relation to the investigation of patterns of distinctions of taste and social position that generate social exclusion, as revealed in the ongoing Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion (CCSE) research project . The original theory of Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984) provides the backdrop of the investigation which utilizes and develops the methodological bourdieusian approach. The deployment of focus groups is an innovative aspect of this development. In the context of this project the focus group method is a constitutive element of the investigation, in which the experience of the research process is as relevant as the data itself. This was not an intended purpose from the outset, but rather an outcome of the practice of data generation. The paper reflects about this process by addressing the theoretical assumptions of the project, the setting up of the procedure of generating data through focus group discussions, and some crucial elements of tension between the method and the theory. In particular, the focus groups generated distinctions, as well as deliberately concealed them. There were indications of unease with the concept of culture and a reluctance and anxiety on the part of researchers and participants to bring upfront issues of social distinction, the manifestation of exclusion, and re-assertion of distinctions. The conclusion raises some important questions for a broader discussion concerning focus group methodology in relation to theoretical explorations.

Conducting focus groups via computers is becoming an increasingly popular method for collecting data. The main benefits of Internet-based focus groups include lower cost, no travel expenses, automatic capture of the discussion data, and the ability to reach remote populations for participation. Although Internet-based focus groups are popular, little research has been done to compare the quantity and quality of the information obtained from traditional face-to-face focus groups and computer-based focus groups. This study compared the quantity and quality of information gained from face-to-face and two computer-based focus group conditions. Results indicated conducting focus groups using a computer produces similar amounts of information. Most important, the quality of the information obtained from computer-based focus groups is not significantly different from information obtained from face-to-face groups. Varying the levels of social interaction to cause different levels of perceived social presence did not produce differences in the quality or quantity of information.

This paper uses focus group data about women’s work experiences gathered in five Canadian east coast communities to examine some of the strengths and weakness associated with focus group research. I explore the case made against the use of focus group methods and the basis for some of the critiques aimed at focus group research. By examining the evolving discussions between focus group members, it is possible to understand some of the benefits of group-talk, including the creation of a unique opportunity for interaction, joint meaning creation and contradiction.

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.

Providing a general introduction to focus group research, Morgan includes the appropriate reasons for using focus groups and what you can expect to accomplish with them. He provides a brief history of focus groups, a discussion of when to use focus groups and why, and several brief case studies illustrating different uses of focus groups. The author covers the timeline and costs associated with focus groups, including a discussion of the ethical issues involved in focus group research. Thoroughly covering all the information to help you start your focus group project, this guidebook is appropriate for anybody beginning a focus group, as well as managers or clients who will be using focus groups.

Interaction between group participants is considered the distinct advantage and hallmark of focus group research. It is therefore necessary to include the social interaction dynamics in analysing focus group data. Little information is however available on analysis of the social interaction in the group and the analytical outcome for the content of the data. This paper contributes to the discussion of the value of participant interaction in focus group research by analysing sequences of interaction collected recently during a research project. This project utilized focus groups to investigate the perceptions and meanings of alcohol use in Denmark. As a frame for analysing group interaction, elements of conversation analysis were used. The aim of this paper is to illustrate group interaction and its impact on the content of focus group data, and highlight the role and some of the challenges posed by group interaction for moderating the focus group discussion. The interaction analyses led to the construction of four interactional events: Negotiating and constructing normality in interaction, disagreement and/or consensus, homogeneity and the impact on interaction and content, and coming to and making sense of a dead-end (including the risk of hierarchical issues). The interactional events are followed by considerations on the impact they may have on the role of the moderator.

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.

This essay explores lessons learned when conducting focus group interviews with participants exposed to novel health-risk messages. Focus group participants exposed to new health-risk information might be defensive, affecting the quality of the data collected. Hence, accounting for potential participant defensiveness is of great importance for researchers who are developing and testing these health-risk messages. In this essay, I identify two forms of defensiveness that emerged in my focus group study evaluating cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages: (1) actively counterarguing the health-risk message and (2) repeatedly modifying the health-risk message. I also offer four "lessons learned" to improve health-risk message testing in qualitative research practice: (a) communicate with empathy, (b) use personal stories, (c) forewarn participants, and (d) offer a self-affirmation opportunity. Overall, this essay contributes to the development of a typology of defensive strategies that focus group participants may use when exposed to novel health-risk messages. Additionally, it provides a methodological framework for guarding the integrity of the data and climate of the focus groups. These insights are valuable for health communication researchers and practitioners interested in conducting focus groups to assess health-risk messages.

The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents

There is an increasing divergence of focus group practice between social researchers and commercial market researchers. This book addresses the key issues and practical requirements of the social researcher, namely: the kinds of social research issues for which focus groups are most and least suitable; optimum group size and composition; and the designing of focusing exercises, facilitation and appropriate analysis. The authors use examples, drawn from their own focus groups research experience, and provide exercises for further study. They address the three main components of composition, conduct and analysis in focus group research and also acknowledge the increasing impact the Internet has had on social research by covering the role and conduct of `virtual focus groups'.

Background: Focus group discussions are becoming an increasingly popular methodology in primary healthcare research. They can be used to understand people's beliefs, opinions and attitudes about the topic of interest. With the increasing emphasis on critical appraisal of scientific research, it is obvious that reporting qualitative research has to be transparent. Not only should the methodology itself be easy to understand and evaluate, but also the question whether focus group methodology is the most appropriate way to serve the research question should be answered. Focus group discussions are relatively new to biomedical journals, often resulting in misunderstanding and frustration for authors, reviewers and editors.Objectives: To develop a reliable and valid checklist for the critical appraisal of focus group research articles for the information of referees and editors of medical journals, commissioners of research, but most of all to help authors to report transparently.Methods: A review of the literature in different databases from 1990 to 2000 using the keywords “qualitative research”, “focus groups”, “methodology” and “standards” resulted in a checklist being issued. This checklist was submitted to an expert panel, its feasibility was addressed and the inter-rater agreement was assessed by members of the European General Practice Research Workshop.Results: A critical appraisal checklist for focus group research articles.Conclusions: The checklist does not replace training in the research method but it can act as a tool for authors, reviewers, editors and commissioners of research.