Focus groups - 5 papers

 Paper: The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants (Jenny Kitzinger - 1994)

(Kitzinger, 1994)

The group is 'focused' in the sense that it involves some kind of collective activity - such as viewing a film, examining a single health education message or simply debating a particular set of questions. Crucially, focus groups are distinguished from the broader category of group interviews by 'the explicit use of the group interaction' as research data (see Merton 1956 and Morgan 1988: 12). (Kitzinger, 1994; p.103). (SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION)

Group work is invaluable for 'grounded theory development – focusing on the generation of knowledge rather than the testing of theory and exploring the categories which the participants use to order their experience (Glaszer and Strauss 1967). (Kitzinger, 1994; p.108).

Group work ensures that priority is given to the respondents' hierarchy of importance', their language and concepts, their frameworks for understanding the world. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.108).

The fact that group participants provide an audience for each other encourages a greater variety of communication that is often evident within more traditional methods of data collection. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.108). (SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION)

However, it should not be assumed that groups, by definition, are inhibiting relative to the supposed 'privacy' of an interview situation. In fact, depending on their composition groups can sometimes actively facilitate the discussion of otherwise 'taboo' topics because the less inhibited members of the group 'break the ice' for shyer participants or one person's revelation of 'discrediting' information encourages others to disclose. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.111).

During the course of the group the facilitator can explore such differences of opinion and encourage the participants to theorise about why such diversity exists. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.113).

Had the data been collected by interviews the researcher might have been faced with 'armchair' theorising about the causes of such difference but in a focus group these can be explored 'in situ' with the help of the research participants. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.113). (FOCUS GROUP V INTERVIEWS)

In both questionnaires and in individual interviews it is easy to assume that someone is giving the 'right' answer for the right reason. However, diversity within a group ensures that people are forced to explain the reasoning behind their thinking just as much when they give the 'right' answer as when they give the wrong one. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.113). (FOCUS GROUP V INTERVIEWS)

People's different assumptions are thrown into relief by the way in which they challenge one another, the questions they ask, the evidence people bring to bear on an issue, the sources they cite, and what arguments seem to sway the opinion of other members of the group. When analysing the script of a group discussion it is well worth having special coding categories for certain types of interaction between participants such as 'question', 'cited sources', 'deferring to the opinion of others' and 'changes of mind'. (Kitzinger, 1994; p.114). (SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION)

Focus groups do not easily tap into individual biographies or the minutia of decision making during intimate moments, but they do examine how knowledge and, more importantly, ideas both develop, and operate, within a given cultural context. As such focus groups are perfect for 'filling in the gaps' so often exposed by KAP surveys and are ideal for inductive approaches aimed at generating concepts and hypotheses which, as Mullen and Reynolds point out, may have far more potential for health and education research, theory and practice than the dominant deductive models (Mullen and Reynolds cited in Basch 1987:435). (Kitzinger, 1994; p.116).

Paper: Focus Groups David L. Morgan (1996)
(Morgan, 1996)

This chapter defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. This definition has three essential components. First, it clearly states that focus groups are a research method devoted to data collection. Second, it locates the inter- action in a group discussion as the source of the data. Third, it acknowledges the researcher's active role in creating the group discussion for data collection purposes.  (Morgan, 1996; p.130). (INTRO)

 Focus groups are relatively widespread and are used across many disciplines including education (Brotherson & Goldstein 1992, Flores & Alonzo 1995, Lederman 1990). (Morgan, 1996; p.132).(INTRO)

Examination of the specific combinations of focus groups with other methods showed that the most frequent pairings were with either in-depth, individual interviews or surveys. (Morgan, 1996; p.133).

 Between these two, the use of focus groups with individual interviews is the more straightforward, since both are qualitative techniques. (Morgan, 1996; p.134).(FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW COMBINED)

 Investigators' reasons for combining individual and group interviews typically point to the greater depth of the former and the greater breadth of the latter (Crabtree et al 1993). For example, individual interview studies have used follow-up group interviews to check the conclusions from their analyses and to expand the study populations included in the research (Irwin 1970). (Morgan, 1996; p.134).(FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW COMBINED)

focus group studies have used follow-up interviews with individual participants to explore specific opinions and experiences in more depth, as well as to produce narratives that address the continuity of personal experiences over time (Duncan & Morgan 1994). This strategy has the advantage of first identifying a range of experiences and perspectives, and then drawing from that pool to add more depth where needed. Thus, depending on the varied needs that a qualitative study has for breadth and depth, there is little difficulty in combining individual and group interviews. (Morgan, 1996; p.134).(FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW)

While studies that bring together focus groups and surveys are one of the leading ways of combining qualitative and quantitative methods, such designs also raise a complex set of issues, since the two methods produce such different kinds of data. (Morgan, 1996; p.134). (FOCUS GROUP AND SURVEY)

Focus groups can be the primary method while surveys provide preliminary inputs that guide their application. 
Use surveys as the primary method, but the focus groups now act as a follow-up that assists in interpreting the survey.(Morgan, 1996; p.135).(FOCUS GROUP AND SURVEY)
The final combination of surveys and focus groups uses focus groups as the primary method and surveys as a source of follow-up data.(Morgan, 1996; p.135).
One such application would examine the prevalence of issues or themes from the focus groups. For example, Nichols-Casebolt & Spakes (1995:53) followed up their focus groups by locating secondary data from surveys that showed policy makers "the scope of the problems associated with the issues identified by the participants." (Morgan, 1996; p.135).(FOCUS GROUP AND SURVEY)

In many cases, the focus group interviews went beyond the information obtained in the survey, amplifying our understanding of the various facets of barriers to breast cancer screening and specifying more exactly how some of the barriers work in practice." (Morgan, 1996; p.137).(FOCUS GROUP AND SURVEY)

Fern (1982) compared focus groups to individual interviews and found that each focus group participant produced only 60% to 70% as many ideas as they would have in an individual interview. (INTERVIEW BENEFITS)

project. For example, Fern's results suggest that two eight-person focus groups would produce as many ideas as 10 individual interviews. (Morgan, 1996; p.138).

 The real strength of focus groups is not simply in exploring what people have to say, but in providing insights into the sources of complex behaviours and motivations (Morgan & Krueger 1993). (Morgan, 1996; p.139).(BENEFITS)

 What makes the discussion in focus groups more than the sum of separate individual interviews is the fact that the participants both query each other and explain themselves to each other. (Morgan, 1996; p.139). FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW - BENEFITS)

As Morgan & Krueger (1993) have also emphasized, such interaction offers valuable data on the extent of consensus and diversity among the participants. (Morgan, 1996; p.139) BENEFITS)

This ability to observe the extent and nature of interviewees' agreement and disagreement is a unique strength of focus groups.  (Morgan, 1996; p.139).(BENEFITS)

 But the issue of interviewer effects is hardly limited to focus groups, as is shown in work from both survey research (Fowler & Mangione 1990) and individual interviewing (Mischler 1986). (Morgan, 1996; p.140).

 The presence of a moderator is one of the most striking features of focus groups. (Morgan, 1996; p.144).

It can be more structured with regard to managing group dynamics, so that the moderator controls the way that the participants interact (e.g. trying to get everyone to participate equally in the discussion). (Morgan, 1996; p.145).

With regard to the moderator's involvement in asking questions, a less structured discussion means that the group can pursue its own interests, while a more structured approach means that the moderator imposes the researcher's interests, as embodied in the questions that guide the discussion. (Morgan, 1996; p.145).(FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS)

In general, marketing researchers, more than social science researchers, prefer research designs with high levels of moderator involvement that impose more structure with regard to both asking questions and managing group dynamics. (Morgan, 1996; p.145).(FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS AND STRUCTURE)

This conclusion-that approaches to moderating should be linked to research goals. (Morgan, 1996; p.146).

The number of participants who are invited to a focus group is one element of the research design that is clearly under the researcher's control. Morgan (1992a) reviewed the bases for determining group size, concluding that smaller groups were more appropriate with emotionally charged topics that generated high levels of participant involvement, while larger groups worked better with more neutral topics that generated lower levels of involvement. (Morgan, 1996; p.146).(PARTICIPANTS)

Smaller groups give each participant more time to discuss her or his views and experiences on topics in which they all are highly involved. (SMALL GROUPS PARTICIPANTS)

involvement. In addition, small groups make it easier for moderators to manage the active discussions that often accompany high levels of involvement (Morgan, 1996; p.146).(SMALL GROUPS PARTICIPANTS)

Focus groups offer some special opportunities for the application of computer technologies in the analysis of qualitative data (Javidi et al 1991). (Morgan, 1996; p.149).(ANALYSIS)

Paper: Focus Groups: A New Tool for Qualitative Research - David L. Morgan (1984)
(Morgan and Spanish, 1984)

The data collected in focus group sessions typically consist of tape-recorded group discussions among four to ten participants who share their thoughts and experiences on a set of topics selected by the researcher. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.253).(TAPED ANALYSIS)

 The major advantage of focus groups is that they offer the chance to observe participants engaging in interaction that is concentrated on attitudes and experiences which are of interest to the researcher. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.259).(BENEFITS)

 As a qualitative method for gathering data, focus groups bring together several participants to discuss a topic of mutual interest to themselves and the researcher. Researchers can use the audio tapes and transcripts produced by focus groups either as a source of data in and of themselves or as an adjunct to other forms of data collection. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.253) (COMBINE METHODS - TAPING)

Focus groups provide an opportunity to encourage triangulation in research {Denzin, 1978; Webb et al., 1981). (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.253) (ANALYSIS)

 The advantages of triangulation are not, however, limited to studies that bridge the qualitative-quantitative boundary. Within the realm of qualitative methods, focus groups have much to offer as an adjunct to other qualitative techniques, such as informant interviewing and participant observation. (Morgan, 1984; p.254) (COMBINING MEHODS)

What we borrow from market research is a definition of the focus group as a video- or audio-taped small group discussion that explores topics selected by the researcher and is typically timed to last no more than two hours. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.254).

 Thinking about participant recruitment ##Our participants were recruited from lists of "returning students" in order to obtain an age range from 35-50. We felt that students in this age group would be likely to have more experience with informal discussions of our chosen topic.

 Upon arriving at the seminar room, each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire giving us some idea of their thoughts about heart attacks. Particularly important for their later discussions. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.257). (PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE)

 In introducing the actual focus group discussions to the participants, we emphasized that we were not interested in testing their knowledge or comparing it to what medical science knew about this topic. We also explained that very little was known about how people who had not had heart attacks thought about this topic, and that we were interested in learning from them by listening to them discuss their ideas and experiences. In this respect, our goals are similar to Calder's (1977} "phenomenological approach."…. To describe the actual topic of our sessions, we informed the participants that the discussion would be done in two parts, (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.257). (INFORMED FOR CONSENT)

 Based on what we had heard in the groups, we designed a substantive coding system for our transcripts, using mentions of risk factors related to heart attacks. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.258).(ANALYSIS)

 Nearly all observational research is constructed around some core setting, organization, or social group (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.258).(OBSERVATIONS)

 This advantage stands out in a comparison to informant interviewing and participant observation. In informant interviewing, one sacrifices the ability to observe participants interacting in exchange for the ability to pursue their attitudes and experiences in greater detail. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.259). (BENEFITS)

 In participant observation, the trade-off is between the greater ability to observe naturally occurring interaction and the lesser ability to pursue one's own topics of interest. Even when a broad range of interactions among participants can be observed, the researcher may still only rarely have access to

discussions of the attitudes and experiences that she or he is interested in. Of course, most qualitative research involves a combination of informant interviewing and participant observation tends to minimize the limitations present in either technique alone, it still may not substitute for the opportunity to observe concentrated sets of focused interactions. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.259).

 When applying these dimensions, one finds that participant observation typically involves information that is volunteered in groups, while interviewing typically involves directed statements gathered in isolation. By comparison, focus groups fall somewhere between these two poles: they produce information which was directed by the researcher, but collected within groups of informants. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.260).

 In essence, the strengths of focus groups come from a compromise between the strengths found in other qualitative methods. Like participant observation, they allow access to a process that qualitative researchers are often centrally interested in: interaction. Like in-depth interviewing, they allow access to the content that we are often interested in: the attitudes and experiences of our informants. As a compromise,

focus groups are neither as strong as participant observation on the naturalistic observation of interaction, nor as strong as interviewing on the direct probing of informant knowledge, but they do a better job of combining these two goals than either of the other two techniques. We believe this is a useful combination, and one which, for some types of research questions, may represent the best of both worlds. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.260).

 If the major advantage of focus groups is the opportunity to observe interactions on a selected set of attitudes and experiences, then the data that such interaction can provide are worth reviewing in detail. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.260).(BENEFITS)

 Even a simple request for more information can imply that the person being questioned is unaware of the relevance of the omitted information. Questioning can also indicate large differences in the frames of reference that two participants are using, and replies can show surprisingly rapid shifts in frame of reference. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.261).

 Third, certain phenomena are almost entirely limited to interaction, including requesting or providing comparisons. In our heart attack study, we found that comparisons are especially important for moving discussions from exchanges of experience into a more explicit consideration of risk factors related to heart attacks. Because comparisons typically rely on differences or similarities in patterns of risk factors, they are particularly useful for uncovering the implicit theories that participants encounter in others' stories about heart attacks. This can be accomplished by using the comparison to highlight areas of agreement and/or disagreement; the result is a discussion of the relative importance of a risk factor or set of risk factors across any number of specific eases. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.261).(COMPARE AND CONTRAST)

 Finally, interaction can involve activities which do not exist at the individual level such as attempts to resolve incompatibilities or create shared models. Participants frequently spend the final portions of

their time in our groups discussing very broad issues and trying to gauge the amount of consensus on these issues. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.262).

 The two chief disadvantages of focus groups are the unnatural setting in which they are conducted and the researcher's relative lack of control over the course of the discussions. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.262).(DISADVANTAGES)

 Nor are focus groups a simple substitute for in-depth informant interviews. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.262).

 we suggest ways that focus groups could be used to increase the effectiveness of either of these techniques. In

particular, focus groups can be usefully conducted before interviewing and after participant observation. We wish to note at the onset however, that we do n o t see focus groups as compensating for inadequacies in either of these techniques. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.266).

 As a preliminary to interviewing, focus groups offer the researcher a chance to develop an interview schedule which is grounded in participant understanding of the topic. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.266).(INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP)

 The issue is not the superiority of one method or the other, but the potential advantages of a well-chosen combination of methods. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.266).

 Focus groups, however, require efforts in participant recruitment, transcript preparation, etc., that are already part of the research process in informant interviewing. Further, the same set of informants may participate in both the focus groups and in later individual interviews in which issues raised in the discussion can be pursued at greater length, one-to-one. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.266).(INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS)

 We thus see focus groups as one means of implementing the "constant comparative method of qualitative analysis" advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967). (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.266).

 The introduction of focus groups as an opportunity to advocate triangulation of methods in social science research, and more specifically the combination of several methods within a single research program. (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.267).(ANALYSIS COMBINED METHODS)

 Instead, we have emphasized the value of coming into direct contact with the points of view of the intended objects of the research, or as Calder (1977:360) puts it, "experiencing their experiences." We feel quite strongly that such insights do much to strengthen quantitative approaches to research, (Morgan and Spanish, 1984; p.268).

Paper: Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2010). Focus Groups for Artifact Refinement and Evaluation in Design Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26 (27), p599-618
(Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010)

We propose two types of focus groups: exploratory focus groups (EFG), which are used for the design and refinement of an artifact; and confirmatory focus groups (CFG), which are used for the confirmatory proof of an artifact’s utility in the field. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.600). (EFG/ CFC)

The Focus Group technique has long been utilized in social research to study ideas in a group setting (Morgan, 1988). A focus group is defined as a moderated discussion among six to twelve people who discuss a topic under the direction of a moderator whose role is to promote interaction and keep the discussion on the topic of interest (Stewart et al., 2007). (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.600).

 The term focus in the title refers to the fact that the interview is limited to a small number of issues. INTRO. The questions in a focus group are open ended but are carefully predetermined. The set of questions or “questioning route” is meant to feel spontaneous but is carefully planned. Usually, the moderator encourages the sharing of ideas and careful attention is paid to understanding the feelings, comments, and thought processes of the participants as they discuss issues [Krueger and Casey, 2000]. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.600).

 A typical focus group lasts about two hours and covers a predetermined range of topics. (INTRO)

Focus groups have been effective both as a self-contained means of collecting data (as a primary research tool) or as a supplement to other methods of research (as a secondary research tool) [Krueger et al. 2000; Morgan 1988]. The focus group technique is particularly useful as an exploratory method when little is known about the phenomenon but also can be used as a confirmatory method to test hypotheses [Stewart et al., 2007]. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.600).(INTRO)

 Focus groups are now one of the most widely used research tools in the social sciences (Stewart et al., 2007). (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.600). (INTRO)

 There are several key reasons focus groups are an appropriate evaluation technique for design research projects [based on Stewart et al. (2007), p. 42]: 

1. Flexibility. Focus groups allow for an open format and are flexible enough to handle a wide range of design topics and domains. 

2. Direct Interaction with Respondents. The researcher is put into direct contact with domain experts and potential users of the design artifact. This allows for the researcher to clarify any questions about the design artifact as well as probing the respondents on certain key design issues. 

3. Large Amounts of Rich Data. The focus group interactions produce a large amount of information in the form of qualitative and quantitative feedback. This rich data set allows deeper understandings, not only on the respondents’ reactions and use of the artifact, but also on other issues that may be present in a business environment that would impact the design. 

4. Building on Other Respondent’s Comments. The group setting with its opportunities for interactions allows for the emergence of ideas or opinions that are not usually uncovered in individual interviews. 

(Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.601).

 Figure 1 summarizes the basic steps that would be applicable for any research-oriented use of focus groups as found in Krueger et al [2000], Bloor et al [2001], Stewart et al [2007], and Morgan [1988]. 

We analyze each step taking into consideration the two primary goals of design research: (1) refinement (EFG) and (2) evaluation (CFG) of a design artifact and outline some changes to the traditional focus group methodology that allow for the rigorous steps of building and evaluating an artifact. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.601).

 (1) exploratory focus groups (EFGs) achieve rapid incremental improvements in artifact design and (2) confirmatory focus groups (CFGs) demonstrate the utility of the design. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.602).

EFGs have two roles: (1) the provision of feedback to be utilized for design changes to both the artifact and to the focus group script and (2) the refinement of scripts and the identification of the constructs to be utilized in future focus groups. Feedback for improvement of the design of the artifact [Hevner et al., 2004; Hevner, 2007; Kuechler and Vaishnavi, 2008; Markus et al., 2002] is an essential component of design research. 

EFGs can be used to define and consequently refine the coding scheme that will be used for the analysis and interpretation of field testing in CFGs.  (CFG)

The CFGs are used to demonstrate the utility of the artifact design in the application field. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.602).

In our experience, at the minimum, one pilot focus group, two EFGs and least two CFGs should be run. The pilot is informal (one could use students) and is used to understand timing issues and any kinks in the questioning route. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.602).(DESIGN CYCLE)🔁 

A design researcher should allow for at least two design cycles and enough contrast for field test analysis. It would be difficult to make a compelling argument for the utility of the designed artifact with just one CFG. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.602).(DESIGN CYCLES)

 Smaller groups require greater participation from each member (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.603).(PARTICIPANTS)

 The identification of focus group participants is not a random selection, but rather is based on characteristics of the participants in relation to the artifact that is being discussed. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.603).

 A diversity of participants will potentially produce more creative ideas (and perhaps more conflict depending on topic), but segregation of participants based on skills and knowledge may provide more in-depth trade-offs in values and success measures. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.603).

 In fact, research shows that bringing together groups which are too diverse in relationship to the topic of interests could result in data of insufficient depth [Bloor et al., 2001]. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.603).

 For design research, the participants should be from a population familiar with the application environment for which the artifact is designed so they can adequately inform the refinement and evaluation of the artifact.(Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604). (PARTICIPANTS)

 A design researcher must consider membership of the focus groups and how it aligns with the research objective early in the participant selection process. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604).

Design researchers should strive to recruit participants that are familiar with the application environment and would be potential users of the proposed artifact. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604).(PARTICIPANTS)

 The questioning route is the agenda for the focus group. In the questioning route you are setting the direction for a group discussion [Stewart et al., 2007] and it should closely align with your research objectives. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604).(QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUPS)

 For a designed artifact, this means beginning with an explanation of the motivation behind the design of this artifact, followed by a broad explanation of different scenarios on where and how the artifact could be utilized (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604).

 Depending on your research protocols, focus groups may be video and/or audio taped. Generally, the participants are told they are being recorded and most institutional review boards require written consent. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.604).

 Additional guidelines for running focus groups can be found in many excellent texts, such as: Kruger and Casey [2000], Stewart et al. [2007], Bloor et al. [2001], and Morgan [1988].

 While the objectives of the two group types are very different, the methods of analyzing the focus group data from both EFG and CFG can be similar. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.605).

 Several approaches are available to analyze qualitative data, including grounded theory [Corbin and Strauss, 1990] or interpretive phenomenological analysis [Smith, 1996]. For our study, we selected template analysis as outlined in the references [King, 1998; King, 2004]. Template analysis is flexible, has fewer defined procedures than its more formal alternatives, and is adaptable to our requirements. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.609).(ANALYSIS 

 According to King (2004), ―a code is a label attached to a section of text to index it as relating to a theme or issue in the data which the researcher has identified as important to his or her interpretation. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.610).

(King, N. (2004) "Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text" in Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. xviii, 388.)

 Using QSR NVivo

 We showed that focus groups can be effectively applied to achieve two of the fundamental goals of design research: refinement of a proposed artifact and evaluation of its utility. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.611).

 For the evaluation of an artifact design, exploratory focus groups (EFGs) study the artifact to propose improvements in the design, continuing the cycle of build and evaluate until the artifact is released for field test in the application environment. Then, the field test of the design artifact may employ confirmatory focus groups (CFGs) to establish the utility of the artifact in field use.(Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.611).

 Unlike traditional interviews and one-on-one prototyping, focus groups generated interactive conversations among the participants. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.612).

 A very important aspect of conducting focus groups is an effective moderator who is skilled in drawing information from the participants, encourages interaction between participants, and is nonauthoritarian and nonjudgmental (Stewart et al., 2007). (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.612).

The moderator has to be careful to not bias the results during the focus groups. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.612).

 We believe that focus groups are a highly relevant and rigorous approach for refining and evaluating design artifacts. A key insight was the adaptation of traditional focus group methods to the goals of design science research projects in the forms of Exploratory Focus Groups and Confirmatory Focus Groups. (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; p.612).

 (Stewart, D.W., P.N. Shamdasani, and D.W. Rook (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 20, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications)

Then, K.L., Rankin, J.A. & Ali, E. (2014). Focus Group Research: What Is It and How Can It Be Used? Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 24(1), 16–22. 
(Then et al, 2014)

Focus groups are generally used to gather in-depth knowledge about attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and opinions of individuals regarding a specific topic. (Then et al, 2014, p.16).

 In understanding what people think about a topic, their views and experience help inform service providers in general but, more specifically, can inform practice. Focus groups can also be used to generate constructs and hypotheses; in-depth understanding of phenomena of interest and clarifying the meaning of certain behaviours. (Then et al, 2014, p.16).

 The focus is on the individuals in the group, to see how they interact, to allow them to develop their own ideas and questions and to do so using their words within the context of the event, situation or incident they have experienced (Liamputtong, 2011). (Then et al, 2014, p.17).

 Discussion among the group members allows for observation about individual views, as the views relate to others in the group. It is important for the observer to note what changes occur as the group progresses and what remains the same. It is as important to note whether the opinions of some participants change the opinions of others, as it is to note the opinions themselves (Then, 2000). (Then et al, 2014, p.17).

 When focus group research is well planned it has many advantages over individual interviews and other methods. Focus group research can be used as a stand-alone method or can be an instrument used within other qualitative methods (e.g., ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory) or part of a mixed method study including both qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g., focus groups and survey research) (Doody, Slevin, & Taggart, 2013a; Then, 2000). The focus group method differs from individual interviews in that it can facilitate greater anonymity and help individuals disclose more freely (Beck, Trombetta, & Share, 1986) allowing for much richer and fuller data (Lederman, 1990). The focus group method may also decrease the bias of individual interviews, as subjects may try to impress the interviewer or say what they believe is the socially acceptable response (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). (Then et al, 2014, p.17).

 Some of the benefits of the focus group method include having the opportunity to have direct, intensive contact with individuals; collect rich, in-depth data, ability of the moderator to encourage interaction with other participants; less-intense environment; group promotes security and a “safe” environment for individuals to express opinions and beliefs and beliefs can be validated and clarified during the discussion, which, in turn, provides a rich understanding of the issue and it is relatively cost effective. (Then et al, 2014, p.17).

 Individuals are influenced by events and people and live in a social environment. Focus groups encourage a range of opinions (Byers & Wilcox, 1988) and exchange of different perceptions that may either strengthen individuals’ previous convictions or challenge them to form new opinions (Hillebrandt, 1979; Krueger, 1994). Individual interviews provide for direct responses to the interviewer; focus groups allow for direct responses, foster discussion and allow individuals to adjust their opinions (Krueger, 1994; Then, 1996). (Then et al, 2014, p.17).

 Focus groups are semi-structured interviews. Therefore, it is essential for the research team to establish a moderator’s guide. This guide serves as a “map” for the group interview and should include a clear outline of what needs to be achieved from the beginning to the end of the session. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 Each focus group should begin with basic introductions, clarification of terms, completion of consent forms, issues of confidentiality, clearly defining the topic to be discussed and the process that will occur in the group. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 Prior to beginning each interview, the moderator needs to request permission to tape the session to ensure that parts of the conversation are not missed (Morgan & Krueger, 1998). (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

Participants are provided information on maintenance of confidentiality, storage of the tapes and how the recordings will be used. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

Focus group sessions should be transcribed verbatim to facilitate analysis. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 Both the moderator and observer also need to ensure that they are available for questions or comments from the participants. This time often brings valuable data that needs to be included into field notes. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 The size of each of the ideal focus groups recommended in the literature varies from four to 14. Dilorio et al. (1994) suggest that there should be between four and 12 participants in each focus group, while Morgan (1997) and Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, and Robson (2001) suggest between six and 10. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 The sample size is not determined based on power calculations; rather, it is determined based on the specific characteristics, age of the participants and the complexity of the question that is being asked. The aim is not to generalize or infer to the population, as is the case in quantitative research, but to understand and gain insight and perceptions (Krueger, 1994). The number of participants required should be based on the topic under investigation. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 Rigour in qualitative research is based on the criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

Greenbaum (1988) suggests that smaller group sizes may encourage individuals who would normally be reluctant to share in larger settings, regardless of the topic. (Then et al, 2014, p.18).

 Clearly determining the actual size of the focus groups and the composition should be determined by the question that is being asked and the characteristics specific to the group participating. Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1997) suggest that generally it is better to over-recruit participants up to approximately 20%, as time commitments, last-minute changes, withdrawal and other issues may leave the group with inadequate numbers in which to conduct the session, resulting in cancellation of the session. (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

 The time allotted for focus groups can vary, but should never be greater than two hours in total (Doody, Slevin & Taggart, 2013b; Morgan & Krueger, 1993; Plummer-D’Amato, 2008). If time is limited to just an hour, there is often insufficient time for discussion, as the beginning of the focus group tends to be on developing rapport and discussing the role and other issues pertaining to the focus group procedure itself (Plummer-D’Amato, 2008). (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

 The first and the last 10 minutes of the session should be used for introduction and summarization/conclusions respectively. (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

The environment must be seen to be a “safe” place in which opinions and views can be expressed without fear of retribution (Dilorio et al., 1994; Smith, 1995). (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

A group of chairs placed in a circle will allow full observation of group members and will discourage individuals from “hiding” in the back rows. (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

The moderator (also known as the facilitator) in focus group research plays a key role in developing a rapport with participants and setting the stage for collecting rich and valid beliefs, experiences, and perceptions from the group participants (Doody et al., 2013b; Krueger & Casey, 2000). The moderator can be the researcher. (Then et al, 2014, p.19).

Four specific types of responses used in reflective listening include clarifying, paraphrasing, reflecting feelings and summarizing. Throughout the focus group session, the moderator is continually trying to use these responses in order to gather the most rich and in-depth understanding from each of the participants. (Then et al, 2014, p.20). 

In the literature there have been conflicting reports regarding whether or not incentives are ethical when dealing with human science research (Grant & Sugarman, 2004). In addressing whether or not incentives are considered ethical, one must ask whether any of the guiding principles of beneficence, respect for persons and justice are violated. Incentives are used in focus groups to demonstrate to individuals that their opinions and willingness to share their time are valued. (Then et al, 2014, p.20).

 The provision of small incentives should not be used to coerce participants; similarly, the denial of incentives should not be used to be punitive to less enthusiastic participants. (Then et al, 2014, p.20).

Informed consent should be obtained from all participants and parental/legal guardianship consent should be sought for under-age individuals. Even following parental consent, the under-age participants should also be asked for consent. (Then et al, 2014, p.20).

At the beginning of any focus group interaction a discussion around confidentiality is essential. Participants need to know that they can say what they believe and feel without repercussions from bosses, teachers or anyone else. Acknowledging the confidentiality of what is said during the discussion is not only between the moderator and the group, but among the group members themselves. This open sharing approach will often alleviate fears and apprehensions that individuals have regarding what they might want to state (Greenbaum, 1988; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Smith, 1995). (Then et al, 2014, p.21).

The process of analysis is complex and time consuming. There are many layers to data analysis and each provides greater depth and understanding to the phenomenon of interest (Doody, Slevin & Taggart, 2013c). (Then et al, 2014, p.21).

Analysis of the audiotapes and the field notes should include, but not be limited to the following criteria: the words, context, internal consistency (changing of individual’s ideas within the focus group session), frequency or extensiveness of the comments, intensity of the comments, specificity of the comments (for example, experience of an event often carries more weight than no experience), and the three most important or “big” ideas or findings (Krueger, 1994; Morgan & Krueger 1998). (Then et al, 2014, p.21).

The analysis of the focus group data is done in relation to the questions being asked in the study. Several data analysis techniques may be used, such as constant comparison analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), discourse analysis (Cowan & McLeod, 2004) and content analysis (Morgan, 1997). (Then et al, 2014, p.21).

As words, phrases and broad clusters emerge, it is essential that common themes are identified using the ideas, language, and vocabulary from the focus group sessions (Dilorio et al., 1994; Kingry et al., 1990), as this keeps the data authentic and related to the focus group participants themselves. (Then et al, 2014, p.21).

The focus group research method is a valuable way to increase knowledge and in-depth understanding of the topic being investigated. If used appropriately, focus group research can add tremendous value and uncover meaningful understanding of issues, beliefs, opinions and perceptions. Focus group research can be used as a stand-alone method or in mixed method research. (Then et al, 2014, p.21).