More focus groups info

 Parker and Tritter

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01406720500537304

Semi‐structured ‘one‐to‐one’ and ‘group interview’ techniques have long since featured as fundamental components of qualitative research in educational settings.

Focus groups have become established and accepted part of the range of methodological tools available to academic research (Parker and Trritter, 2006). They are also a useful way for promoting an empowering, action-oriented form of research in education (Williams and Katz, 2001).

From early investigations of classroom interaction and educational attainment (Hargreaves, Citation1967; Lacey, Citation1970; Ball, Citation1980; Burgess, 1983) to more contemporary accounts of pupil subjectivity and identity (Mac an Ghaill, Citation1994; Sewell, Citation1997; Skeggs, Citation1997), these methods have constituted the basis upon which researchers have traditionally sought to uncover the processes and practices of educational life.

In group interviews the researcher adopts an ‘investigative’ role: asking questions, controlling the dynamics of group discussion, often engaging in dialogue with specific participants. This is premised on the mechanics of one‐to‐one, qualitative, in‐depth interviews being replicated on a broader (collective) scale. A relatively straightforward scenario ensues: the researcher asks questions, the respondents relay their ‘answers’ back to the researcher. In focus groups the dynamics are different. Here, the researcher plays the role of ‘facilitator’ or ‘moderator’; that is, facilitator/moderator of group discussion between participants, not between her/himself and the participants. 

Hence, where focus groups are concerned, the researcher takes a peripheral, rather than a centre‐stage role for the simple reason that it is the inter‐relational dynamics of the participants that are important, not the relationship between researcher and researched (see Kitzinger, Citation1994a; Johnson, Citation1996).

If group dynamics work as they should via these processes of facilitation (and very often this takes time to achieve), what emerges is what Kitzinger (Citation1994a) refers to as a ‘synergy’ between participants whereby all those present contribute in some way to the discussion. In turn, a kind of momentum is generated which allows underlying opinions, meanings, feelings, attitudes and beliefs to emerge alongside descriptions of individual experiences. Thus, a central element of data analysis is an examination not only of the substantive content of discussion but also the interaction betweenrespondents themselves (Carey & Smith, Citation1994; Wainwright, Citation1994; Kitzinger, Citation1995; Johnson, Citation1996).

Semi-structured one to one and group interview techniques have long featured as fundamental components of qualitative research in educational settings (Parker and Tritter, 2006).

Williams and Katz (2001) The use of focus group methodology in education: Some theoretical and practical considerations 5(3).

As Barbour and Kitzinger (1998) stress, focus groups are becoming an established part of the methodological tool kit within the social sciences.

The purpose of a focus group is to promote a comfortable atmosphere of disclosure where people can share ideas, experiences and attitudes about a topic. Participants influence and are influenced, while the researcher plays various roles, including that of the moderator, listener, observer and eventually inductive analyst (Krueger and Casey, 2000).

Focus groups originally found their place in the realm of market research (Morgan, 1988).

It is the ability of focus groups to access the knowledge, ideas, story telling, self-presentation and linguistic exchanges within a given cultural context (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1998; p.5).

Quantitative data collection methods through a process of measurement turns the original voices of its research subjects into statistical data which leaves little understanding of the context in which social practices occur (Schratz, 1993). Whereas qualitative methods such as observations, case studies, individual interviews and focus groups pay more attention to the original voices of actors in the everyday lives (). Focus groups specifically allow the exploration of and present a broader view of social reality and help to capture those experiences that cannot be meaningfully expressed by numbers (Berg, 1995).

In a focus group they allow for the snowballing of spontaneous conversation which may encourage a train of thought within the group and people may develop new ideas by connecting their personal stories and experiences to specific situations, meaning that the research participants are the ones guiding the flow of questioning, the direction of the conversations and the findings and insights that emerge (Glitz, 1998). Due to this, it is suggested that research participants are empowered as part of the research process (Byron, 1995).

Cyr (2016) The pitfalls and promise of focus groups as a data collection method.

Focus groups can simultaneously generate three different types of data for analysis, namely the individual, the group and the interaction (Cyr, 2016).

New technologies make collecting focus groups or interview data less costly and more feasible (Gaiser, 2008).

The primary objective of focus groups is to generate conversations that uncover individual opinions regarding a particular issue, they also help to reveal group consensus (Cyr, 2016; Morgan, 1996).

Focus groups are an accepted norm in social science (Liamputtong, 2011).

Focus groups can elicit individual level feedback. 

At the group unit of analysis, focus groups can inform the researcher of the group consensus, or lack of, regarding the phenomena of interest (p.235).

Participants can work together to tackle complicated ideas and concepts or validate ideas (Cyr, 2016).

Focus groups have also been used as pre-tests to inform future processes in the research. Researchers may use conclusions from focus groups to initially assess how people understand and speak about the phenomena (Cyr, 2016).