Interpreting Outcomes: Using Focus Groups in Evaluation 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.

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 group discussions are now widely used for gathering data, in social science as well as in commercial marketing and public opinion research. One appeal of focus groups is that in some ways they seem like everyday talk, but their effectiveness depends on a tension between the moderator's constraints and participants' interaction. The moderator introduces and defines topics, but participants can shift, close, and interpret them. The moderator elicits disagreement in a way specific to focus groups, but participants manage their disagreement. Thus we see not simple control by the moderator, but a complex collaborative project operating under the shared assumption that the purpose of the discussion is to display opinions to the moderator. These findings extend the analysis of conversation in institutional settings and contribute to a methodological critique of the reification of attitudes and opinions in some social science research. (Focus group techniques, conversation, discourse analysis, interaction, agreement, topic, laughter, environment.)

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'.

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.

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 recent years, the prevalence of perinatal chemical dependency has become widespread, .crossing all ethnic and racial lines and every socioeconomic group (Chasnoff, Landress, & Barrett, 1990). Its potential effect on the health of women, children, families, and society has prompted support at the state and federal levels for comprehensive perinatal drug and alcohol treatment models (California Legislature, 1990; Doshan & Bursch, 1982; Graham & Timney, 1990; Jessup & Green, 1987; Novick, 1990; Reed, 1987; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990). In California, legislation was enacted that funded a novel interdepartmental partnership within the California Health and Welfare Agency. The four agencies involved in this collaborative effort, called Options for Recovery (OFR), were the departments of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Developmental Services, Health Services, and Social Services. The OFR program provided comprehensive perinatal services to more than 2,600 individual pregnant or parenting women at seven pilot sites in both urban and rural parts of the state. The primary OFR program services included case management, residential and intensive outpatient treatment, perinatal medical care, and foster care services. These services were provided in a women-focused, women-sensitive manner to an ethnically and culturally diverse client population. The OFR program also emphasized coordinated service linkages both to prevent service duplication and to ensure that potential service gaps were not left unfilled. A state interagency task force, composed of representatives from the four collaborating state agencies responsible for the OFR program, was established to develop a statewide strategy for addressing the substance abuse treatment needs of pregnant and parenting women and their children. At each of the seven pilot sites, a local lead agency, accountable to the state, was given primary responsibility for implementing the OFR program. The management teams of each pilot project, which at a minimum consisted of alcohol and drug treatment program representatives and case management staff, reported to the local lead agency. Line staff who had ongoing responsibility for providing services for clients included drug and alcohol counselors, case managers, child development specialists, child care workers, parent educators, foster parent recruiters and trainers, mental health workers, and any other service provider that was part of the pilot's OFR program. An evaluation of the OFR program was conducted from 1991 to 1993. On the basis of information obtained through interviews, surveys, and focus groups with OFR staff, clients, and foster parents at all seven pilot sites, as well as quantitative data, the author identified a number of similar treatment and service themes and variations across all seven sites. This article describes both the commonalities and the differences observed during the course of the three-year evaluation. METHODS Qualitative Staff Data In-person interviews were conducted with members of the OFR State Interagency Task Force, staff from both the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and alcohol and drug treatment programs at the local pilot project level, staff from each pilot's local lead agency, managerial and program staff at all pilot sites, foster parent recruiters and trainers, and county social services agency administrators. Interview questions focused on descriptive program information, program philosophy, indicators of success, service provision, staffing, interagency coordination, and program implementation. Program personnel at all seven pilot projects were also surveyed via self-administered, semi-structured survey questionnaires. The survey questions addressed the same issues as the interview as well as professional training and time management. Focus groups were conducted at 18 randomly selected provider sites from the pool of 73 treatment providers that participated in the OFR program. …

Social science research has been attacked by neoliberal thinkers who allege that such research lacks economic objectives. In the face of neoliberal and positivist criteria for evaluating the social impact of social science inquiry, social science researchers are developing qualitative evaluation methodologies through which we can have direct contact with citizens. These qualitative methodologies declare our social responsibility as social researchers in addressing relevant problems, especially those affecting the most vulnerable people. From these qualitative methodologies, the most vulnerable groups are included in the assessment of the social impacts of social research. Some examples of people who have participated in this qualitative evaluation include women, youth, immigrants, and Roma organizations. Participants perceived social science researchers as being far from their social reality, but in this research, they began to overcome their skepticism that social science research can help to solve those problems affecting their everyday lives.

This article presents a number of obstacles to conducting program evaluations which include: the "word" evaluation itself, the politics of evaluation, inadequate resources, the tendency of organizations to resist change, and a lack of understanding of the context of program evaluations. Underpinning these obstacles is the longstanding definitional dilemma between program evaluation and social science research. Although the article's implications are directed toward public health evaluators, they are generalizable to other evaluators in other disciplines. These obstacles highlight the fact that a major role of any evaluator is to confront and negotiate successfully around them.

Previous research has consistently highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in identifying and developing solutions to ethical challenges in genomic research, especially in Africa where such research is relatively new. In this paper, we examine what constitutes good ethical practice in research, from the perspectives of genomic research participants in Uganda. Our study was part of a multi-site qualitative study exploring these issues in Uganda, Ghana and Zambia. We purposively sampled various stakeholders including genomic research participants, researchers, research ethics committee members, policy makers and community members. This paper presents the findings from in-depth interviews with 27 people with diabetes who had participated in a diabetes genomic study. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Manual thematic content analysis was conducted using a framework approach. Findings indicate three key requirements that research participants see as vital for genomic research to be more responsive to research participants’ needs and contextual realities: (1) de-emphasising the role of experts and institutions in the consenting process, (2) clarity about the timing and nature of feedback both of findings relevant to the health of individuals and about the broad progress of the study, and (3) more effective support for research participants during and after the study.

What is a focus group and how can one of these be used in research into the health and well-being of individuals? Providing answers to this question form the content of this chapter. We start by discussing the characteristics and components of a focus group in a general sense and also in specific relation to research into health and well-being. How a researcher who has decided to use a focus group in their healthcare related research can prepare for the session is then discussed. We then move on to consider who to recruit to take part in a focus group and how to develop a focus group discussion guide, the clarity and veracity of which is of central importance in the running of a successful group. Having considered these preliminary requirements, we then consider some of the things a moderator should keep in mind and offer suggestions on how to run the session. The materials that are needed in a focus group are then presented, and we conclude the chapter by suggesting some things that a researcher should do at the end of the focus group session. Throughout the chapter, our writing is within the context of using focus group in research into topics associated with health and well-being, and we provide copious contemporary references to the literature of the use of focus groups in a wide variety of these instances.

The goal of this study was to create a guide for programs considering transition from Lead Poisoning Prevention to Healthy Homes. Healthy Homes programs are comprehensive, focusing on multiple residential housing hazards. This study focused on the Baltimore City Healthy Homes Division, which was selected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to pilot the transition process. For this qualitative study, data were collected through interviews with program staff from the Baltimore City Healthy Homes Division and followed up by focus groups with community members who received its services. Grounded theory procedures were used for data analysis. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in Baltimore City near the Health Department. Seventeen interviews were conducted with Baltimore City Healthy Homes Division staff. Three focus groups were held with 3 to 6 community participants in each group. Findings for the study are arranged around an organizational framework for which transition from Lead Poisoning Prevention to Healthy Homes is the central phenomenon. Three general themes emerged: (1) programmatic changes; (2) policy changes; and (3) partnerships. Quotations from participating staff and community members provide supporting evidence for the results. Findings provide insight into the strengths and challenges of transition for 1 program. The study has implications for change on a national level as programs around the country transition to provide families with comprehensive Healthy Homes services.

Focus groups are a form of group interview used widely in social science research. It is a methodology that has also been applied in a number of areas of healthcare study, particularly in health promotion and consumer satisfaction. First described by Bogardus in 1926 ( 1 ). focus groups fuse the principles of qualitative research and group process theory. Morgan ( 2 ) suggested that: 'The explicit use of group interaction is to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group.'

It is generally recognized that for any evaluation to be successful there needs to be a significant amount of involvement from program staff and other stakeholders who are invested in the program. Ideally, these individuals would be highly engaged in the evaluation process; however, in practice this ideal is rarely met. Two research studies were undertaken to explore different stakeholder motives for involvement in program evaluations and their relative importance in involvement decisions. In Study 1, stakeholder views of their own involvement (or lack thereof) in recent program evaluations were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic analysis approach. The findings revealed diverse stakeholder motives for evaluation involvement that include personal/human factors (e.g., opportunity for personal advancement), evaluation factors (e.g., clarity of evaluation goals) and organizational factors (e.g., funding implications). A second study looked more closely at these motives to determine their relative importance to evaluation involvement decision-making. Using the Q-sort method, three involvement profiles were identified which revealed different pathways to involvement based on individual concerns for program funding, learning opportunities, and evaluation quality. A preliminary model of stakeholder involvement motives is proposed in which the value and relevance of the evaluation are determined by expected outcomes of the evaluation.

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