Focus groups book Krueger

 

(Krueger, 1994)

(Krueger, 1994) participants are selected because they have certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus group (p.6).

(Krueger, 1994) Careful and systematic and careful analysis of the discussions provide clues and insights as to how a product, service or opportunity is perceived (p.6).

(Krueger, 1994) Group members influence each other by responding to ideas and comments in the discussion (p.6).

(Krueger, 1994) Traditional interviews which use predetermined questions and often closed ended response choices means that respondents are either limited by the choices or questions offered and therefore the findings could be unintentionally influenced by the interviewer by oversight or omission (p.7).

(Krueger, 1994) Non-directive interviews use open ended questions that allow individuals to respond without setting boundaries or providing clues for potential response categories. The open-ended approaches allow the subject ample opportunity to comment, to explain and to share experiences and attitudes as opposed to the structured and directive interview that is lead by the interviewer (p.7).

Non-directive interviewing shifts attention from the interviewer to the respondent. (p.7).

Focus groups were first used in the marketing industry and were seen as having considerable value because they enabled the producers, manufacturers and sellers to understand the thinking of consumers (p.8).

The focus group technique is growing in popularity among other information seekers, such as social scientists. It is a particularly appropriate procedure to use when the goal is to explain how people regard an experience, idea or event (p.8).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups can provide information about perceptions, feelings and attitudes, allowing professionals to see reality from the client’s or audiences point of view (p.9).

(Krueger, 1994) The focus group interview works because it taps into human tendencies. Attitudes and perceptions relating to concepts, products, services or programs are developed in part by interaction with other people. We are a product of our environment and are influenced by people around us p.10).

##(Krueger, 1994) Evidence from focus group interviews suggests that people do influence each other with their comments, and in the course of a discussion the opinions of an individual might shift. The focus group analyst can thereby discover more about how that shift occurred and the nature of the influencing factors (p.11)##

(Krueger, 1994) When questions are asked in a group environment and nourished by skillful probing, the results are candid portraits of customer perceptions. The permissive group environment gives individuals license to divulge emotions that often do not emerge in other forms of questioning (p.11)

(Krueger, 1994) The intent of the focus group is to promote self-discovery disclosure among participants (p.11).

(Krueger, 1994) People have a greater tendency for self-disclosure when the environment is permissive and nonjudgmental (p.12).

(Krueger, 1994) Effort is made to produce this permissive environment in focus groups. This is achieved through selection of participants, the nature of questioning, and the establishment of focus group rules (p.13).

(Krueger, 1994) At the beginning of the discussion the interviewer purposefully sanctions and even encourages alternative explanations. For example, there is no right or wrong answers, but rather differing points of view. Please share your points of view even if it differs from what others have said. We are just as interested in negative comments as positive comments, and at times the negative comments are the most helpful (p.13).

Jourard (1964) found that subjects tended to disclose more about themselves to people who resembled them in various ways than to people who differ from them (p.15) (Krueger, 1994; p.13).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups are best conducted with participants who are similar to each other, and this homogeneity is reinforced in the introduction to the group discussion. The rule for selecting focus group participants is commonality, not diversity (p.14).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups provide an environment in which disclosures are encouraged and nurtured, but it falls to the interviewer to bring focus to those disclosures through open-ended questions within a permissive environment (p15).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups are useful in obtaining a particular kind of information, information that would be difficult, if not impossible to obtain using other methodological procedures (p.16).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups typically have six characteristics or features that relate to the ingredients of the focus group, they are: (1) people, (2) assembled in a series of groups, (3) possess certain characteristics, and (4) provide data (5) of a qualitative nature (6) in a focused discussion (p.16).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups are typically composed of 6 - 10 people, but the size can range from as few as 4 to as many as 12. The size is conditioned by two factors: it must be small enough for everyone to have opportunity to share insights and yet large enough to provide diversity of perceptions. (p.17).

If a focus group is too large groups can fragment or can prevent people from contributing because there is just not a sufficient pause in the conversation to do so (p.17).

(Krueger, 1994) Small groups of 4 or 5 participants afford more opportunity to share ideas, but the restricted size can also result in a smaller pool of ideas. Smaller groups are sometimes called mini focus groups have a distinct advantage in logistics because groups of 4 or 5 can be easily accommodated in restaurants, private homes and other environments where space is at a premium (p.17).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups work best when planned in a series because sometimes you can get a cold focus group where participants are quiet and reluctant to participate (p17).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups are composed of people who are similar to each other. The nature of this homogeneity is determined by the purpose of the study and is a basis for recruitment (p.17).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups have traditionally been composed of people who do not know each other. For years it was considered ideal if participants were complete strangers. More recently, however, researchers have questioned the necessity and practicality of this, especially in community based studies (p.18).

(Krueger, 1994) People who regularly interact, either socially or at work, present special difficulties for the focus group discussion because they may respond more on past experiences, events or discussions than on the immediate topic (p.18).

If there is a controversial issue in that community, the quality of results could be jeopardised (p.18).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups produce data of interest to researchers. Delphic processes and nominal groups differ from focus groups in that they attempt to identify consensus and agreeable solutions, an important objective but considerably different from the purpose of a focus group. Brainstorming techniques resemble the freedom and spontaneity of focus groups but once again differ in that brainstorming is often directed to solve particular problems. Brainstorming nominal groups, and Delphic processes are all used primarily with people who are experts or are knowledgeable in finding potential solutions. Focus groups, however, pay attention to the perceptions of the users and consumers of solutions, products and services. Focus groups are not intended to develop consensus, to arrive at an agreeable plan, or to make decisions about which course of action to take (p.19).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups produce qualitative data that provide insights into the attitudes, perceptions and opinions of participants. These results are solicited through open-ended questions and a procedure in which respondents are able to choose the manner in which they respond and also from observations of those respondents in a group discussion. The focus group presents a more natural environment than that of an individual interview because participants are influencing and influenced by others, just as they are in real life (p.19).

(Krueger, 1994) The researcher serves several functions in the focus group: moderating, listening, observing and eventually analysing, using an inductive process (p.19).

The inductive researcher derives understanding based on the discussion as opposed to testing or confirming a preconceived hypothesis or theory (p19-20).

(Krueger, 1994) The topics of discussion in focus groups are carefully predetermined and sequenced, based on an analysis of the situation. This analysis includes an in-depth study of the event, experience and the ingredients or components of the experience. The questions are placed in an environment that is understandable and logical to the participant. The moderator uses pre-determined, open ended questions. These questions appear to be spontaneous but are carefully developed after considerable reflection. These questions known as the questioning route or interview guide are arranged in a national, logical sequence. In traditional focus groups there is no pressure by the moderator to have the group reach consensus. Instead, attention is placed on understanding the thought processes used by participants as they consider the issues of discussion (p.20).

There is value in careful and selective modification of focus group procedures and this maybe preferred for some applications of the method (Krueger, 1994).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups can be used before an experience such as planning (including strategic planning), needs assessment, assets analysis, program design or market research (p.21).

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups can be conducted during a program or experience such as in customer surveys, formative evaluations or recruiting new clientele for existing programs (p.24)

(Krueger, 1994) Focus groups can be helpful after a program or experience has been conducted. This might occur in assessments of programs, summative evaluations, or program postmortems to discover what worked and what went wrong (p.25).

(Krueger, 1994) Offers an example of the benefits of using quantitative versus qualitative data. 

The quantitative approach grows out of a strong academic tradition that places considerable trust in numbers that represent opinions or concepts. However (Krueger, 1994) describes an example comparing the use of quantitative verses qualitative findings. He describes a survey that aimed to determine whether or not volunteers were satisfied with their position. A quantitative survey using a likert scale found an average score of 4.1, and when broken down further into work responsibilities that who had served for over 3 years had a lower level of satisfaction. The second qualitative approach asked participants in a focus group how they felt about their position. In this way respondents used their own words and expressed their opinions in various ways to respond rather than questions designed by the researcher. This revealed the critical factor was access to printed materials that the organisation had cut in the past year and those who now found themselves with fewer materials and therefore fewer educational tools to work with which resulted in their dissatisfaction (p.28).

The difference was that there was no numerical data, but the researcher obtained an explanation of why there was dissatisfaction. The numerical data was helpful to indicate a problem, but the qualitative results provided decision makers with the critical information and underlying cause to address the problem (p.28).

Typically, qualitative research can provide in-depth information into fewer cases whereas quantitative procedures will allow for breadth of information across a large number of cases (p.28)

In some situations, quantitative data can be carefully obtained using well-designed questionnaires and can incorporate elaborate analysis to identify key features, but still not get to the heart of causes.

Increasingly researchers are recognising the benefits of combining quantitative and qualitative procedures, resulting in greater methodological mixes that strengthen the research design (p.29)

Focus groups can be used in four different ways in relation to quantitative methods. (p.29)

 First, focus groups can precede quantitative procedures. Both interviews and focus groups enable the researcher to get in tune with respondents. In this way the focus group can help the researcher learn the vocabulary and discover thinking patterns of target audiences and provide clues to develop the quantitative phase. (p.29).

Second, focus groups can be used at the same time as quantitative procedures. At times researchers may wish to use triangulation to address the same issue several ways to obtain both breadth of response and depth with a selection of participants. (p.30).

Thirdly, focus groups can follow quantitative procedures. Questionnaires can typically yield a sizeable amount of data and then focus groups or interviews can provide insights about the meaning and interpretation of that data. In addition these follow up focus groups or interviews can suggest action strategies for problems addressed in the questionnaire (p.30)

Fourth, focus groups or interviews can be used alone, this is useful when insights, perceptions and explanations are more important to the study than numbers or statistics (p.30)

Focus groups can be used before a quantitative study, during a quantitative study, after a quantitative study or used independently of other methodological procedures (p.30).

Researchers may consider incorporating quantitative study after conducting focus group interviews, especially in situations in which focus groups have revealed unexpected results that need further confirmation (p.30).

The nub of qualitative research and its claims to validity lies in the involvement between researcher and subject. Because the moderator can challenge and probe for the most truthful responses, supporters claim that qualitative research can yield more in-depth analysis than that produced by formal quantitative methods (Mariampolski, 1984; p.21).

Focus groups are valid if they are used carefully for a problem that is suitable for focus group enquiry (p.31).

Focus groups like many social science measurement procedures in which validity depends not only on the procedures used but also on context (p.31)

People open up in focus groups and share insights that may not be available from individual interviews, questionnaires, and other data sources (p.32).

As researchers we regularly make assumptions about the questions we ask. We assume that the respondents understand the questions or interprets the questions in the same way the researcher does, and then provide honest answers. The researcher also assumes that he or she knows enough about the reality of the respondent and their context to construct meaningful questions. Then depending on the type of analysis researchers can make assumptions about the nature of the results and those responding. A lot of things can influence the degree of confidence about questions in surveys and interviews (p.33).

There is a risk in using focus group data to generalise to a population because the sample is not necessarily intended to be reflective of the entire population, it’s contextual.

The focus group interview offers several advantages. First it is a socially oriented procedure. People are social creatures who interact with others. They are influenced by the comments of others and often make decisions after listening to advice and counsel of people around them. Focus groups place people in natural, real life situations as opposed to the controlled experimental situations typical of quantitative studies. Also the one to one interviews are not able to capture the dynamic nature of a group interaction. Inhibitions are often more relaxed in group situations, and the more natural environment prompts increased candor by respondents (p.34).

Focus group discussions allow the moderator to probe. This flexibility to explore unanticipated issues is not possible within the more structured questioning sequences of typical surveys (p.35).

The results of focus groups are not presented in complicated statistical charts but rather in lay terminology embellished with quotations from group participants (p.35).

Focus groups can be relatively low cost and cost the time and cost of individual interviews and provide speedy results. They can also enable increasing the sample size without increasing the time required.

One disadvantage of the focus group is that the researcher may have less control compared to an interview. Participants are able to dominate or influence the course of the discussions and the data can also be more complex and timely to analyse.

One difficulty with focus groups is that they can be difficult to assemble and organise because they require that people take time to come to a designated place at a prescribed time to share their perceptions with others. This often presents logistical problems or may require incentives to participate (p.37). 

By contrast, an individual interview can be held in a location and at a time most convenient to the interviewee (p.37).

The process of conducting focus groups consists of three phases: planning the study, conducting the interviews, and analysing and reporting the data. Within each of these phases there are steps that require consideration and action. (p.39).

The planning phase is critical for successful focus group interviews. In this phase, the researcher gives consideration to the purpose of the study as well as the users of that information. The researcher then develops a plan that will guide the remainder of the research process (p.39).