Focus group books for notes

 Krueger book (Krueger, 1994)

Sequence questions to allow from maximum insight.

Systematic analysis has two dimensions. The first which is described in this section is the manner by which data are gathered and handled the second include specific processes used by the analyst and is presented in detail in chapter 8.

Occasionally moderators prematurely launch into key questions. A more systematic process is to allow participants to become familiar with the topic giving each individual a chance to recollect personal opinions and to listen to the opinions of others in the group. This is then followed up by key questions relating to the court topic of interest and then later followed with the opportunity for a final summary and questions by each participant.

Most often focus groups are electronically recorded with additional notes taken by the moderator and assistant moderator. Lack of notes or lack of electronic recordings greatly impede the ability to reconstruct critical parts of the focus group.

When coding data as the researcher comes across an idea of phenomenon and label is attached when the idea of phenomenon reappears the label is once again attached in focus group. This process consists of codes placed in the margin of a transcript or if on a computer the section of text is marked and assigned a designated code Later the researcher may want to selectively review and retrieve information pertaining to certain codes combinations of codes or related situations this information can then be assembled differently from the original version this process which is called axial coding allows for the researcher to fracture the data and to reassemble it in new ways (Strauss and Corbin, 1999; pp. 61-74, 96-115).

The debriefing between moderator and assistant moderator occurs immediately after the focus group interview. This debriefing captures the first impressions and then highlights and contrast findings from earlier focus groups.

An individual writing a report should share draft copies with other members of the research team for review verification and comment in some situations. The analyst shares the first draft with the research team and second draft with focus group participants as a means of members checking.

I training our background and our experiences influence what we notice and what we attend to when analysing focus group data.

Researchers must continually be careful to avoid the trap of selective perception verification and analysis is a critical safeguard in order for analysis to be verify. There must be sufficient data to constitute a trail of evidence. The data stream begins with field notes and recordings taken during the focus group continues with the oral summary verification of key points during the focus group and goes on into the debriefing with the moderator team immediately following the focus group and also includes the electronic recording with a possibility of a transcript of the interview

The challenge of the research is to place primary attention on questions that are at the foundation of the study focused analysis conserves resources but most importantly it enables the analyst to concentrate attention on areas of critical concern.

Key questions drive focus groups because they represent areas of primary concern for the sponsor. These are questions that are the backbone of the study.

Analysis delays tend to erode analysis quality. This is a particularly a problem in focus group research in which the overall analysis period may last for weeks or sometimes even months delay as a concern for several reasons although comments may have been captured electronically there are other types of input that affect analysis quality that cannot be captured by electronic means The sense of the group the mood of the discussion and the eagerness with which the participants talk to each other or other elements not included in the transcript overtime memories of these background factors fade and get confused with other focus groups as more focus groups are conducted. The recent discussions interfere with the recollection of earlier focus groups and critical information may be lost and that is why it is important to do a debriefing session as soon after the focus group as possible. 

Two focus groups per day is reasonable the moderator or more specifically assistant moderator should be charged with taking careful notes. Moderator notes tend to be sketchy at best because excessive time spent in capturing exact comments can limit the spontaneity of the discussion however the assistant moderator is able to devote full attention to catching both what I said and the environmental factors that shed additional light on the discussion Immediately after the focus group the moderator team should conduct a brief debriefing session and it is best to tape record this discussion both the moderator and assistant should share their perceptions of critical points notable quotes that emerge from the group. This task serves several purposes. It catches immediate reactions following the focus group and often provides helpful insights into later analysis steps furthermore for a number of moderators this is like a mental dump when memory of the past focus groups can be placed before going onto the next focus group the moderator Must begin each focus group refreshed and unfettered by the comments made in previous focus groups having committed impressions and thoughts to a tape recorder seems to free the moderator of memories that would interfere with later discussions.

Early findings and analysis can be incorporated into later focus group interviews for the purpose of confirmation or amplification. Typically the first focus group yield to considerable amount of new information and then each additional focus group produces decreasing amounts of new insight. This phenomenon provides an advantage in analysis the analyst can limit time spent on questions in which there is situation e.g. where there’s no new information presented And use this time to seek reactions to emerging theory is an insights. Some questions might be eliminated altogether and others are asked but the moderator carefully monitor discussion and briskly moves onto the topics for example let me share this with you some topics that have merged from other groups… Tell me your reactions or in other groups we’ve been hearing about… What do you think about it? Or we’ve been hearing some comments about… And we are not sure what to make of this what do you think? Carers needed to avoid the bandwagon mentality e.g. everyone is telling us this… But rather to invite their insights into the research process to help understand or explain how findings are working? 

At times focus groups point out what decisionmakers or research sponsors don’t already know but in other situations they confirm early suspicions and hunches the analyst should ponder what new information is provided by the focus group in my interviews with heavy consumers of focus groups a consistent trend emerges.

A useful procedure to seek answers is using these questions such as what was known and then confirmed or challenged by the study of focus group what was suspected and then confirmed or challenged by it and what was new that wasn’t previously suspected?

Analysis benefits from multiple insights and perspectives corrective feedback is available from four sources group participants co-researchers experts who were not present in the focus group and decision makers.

Analysis benefits from multiple insights and perspectives corrective feedback is available from four sources group participants co-researchers experts who were not present in the focus group and decision makers.

Focus group participants can provide feedback at several times but the analyst must make efforts to seek out the most immediate and most often beneficial feedback occurs at the end of the focus group itself at the end of the focus group in the moderator or assistant moderator might offer a brief summary of critical points covered and participants will be invited to amend or change this oral summary of what of what happenedand if suggestions are offered the group is asked to confirm or correct the new ideas this provide us to sync three minute summary of a 90 minute discussion and it’s challenging but it’s well worth the effort.

 And if suggestions are offered the group is asked to confirm or correct the new ideas this provide us to sync three minute summary of a 90 minute discussion and it’s challenging but it’s well worth the effort.

Participants can also be invited to provide feedback by drafting reports the summarise the focus group they participated in this can be accommodated by mailing out the draft summary and then inviting comment by phone or in writing.

In some situations where it is important for participants to be aware of the total scope of the project the analyst may choose to send participants the draft summary or even the full report for all focus groups in this situation although participants are more limited in their ability to see the larger picture, but nevertheless should be able to see their part of group discussion within the larger report. 

Feedback from the assistant moderator is particularly beneficial being in focus group and listening and observing without the pressure to ask questions or keep the discussion rolling allows the assistant to place complete attention on the conversation as a result the assistant moderator has proven to be an invaluable source of information during the analysis process.

Focus group analysis is guided by certain principles about the nature of analysis what it is and how it’s conducted. These principles differ from the positivistic paradigm that is always held swaying much social sciences.

Analysis begins by going back to the intent of the study indeed throughout the analysis process the researchers should remember the purpose of the study. A key principle is that the depth or intensity of analysis is determined by the purpose of the study.

Difficulties emerge in both qualitative and quantitive analysis when there is a Mitch mismatch between analysis resources and the problem this can result in a elaborate analysis of trivial data or inadequate analysis in a complex problem with major concern. The researcher must remember the intent of the study and regularly way choices and options against two factors available voices and the value of the new information. 

Consideration analysis and implications of focus group questions. The challenge to the researcher is not only to ask questions that are relevant to the study but to ask those questions in a sequence with a level of abstractions and use of cues that maximise the quality of analysis

Consideration analysis and implications of focus group questions. The challenge to the researcher is not only to ask questions that are relevant to the study but to ask those questions in a sequence with a level of abstractions and use of cues that maximise the quality of analysis

Note based analysis relies primarily on field notes a debriefing session and a summary comments at the conclusion of the focus group. The focus group is taped but the tape is used primarily to verify specific quotes and to transcribe the oral summary at the conclusion of the focus group if more vigourous analysis is needed later, the tape is available for transcriptionagain for the same series of three or four focus groups the analysis my allocate it to 12 hours which include preparation of the first draft of the report.

 Again for the same series of three or four focus groups the analysis my allocate it to 12 hours which include preparation of the first draft of the report.

Conduct several focus groups. Once the initial analysis strategy has been determined the researchers should conduct several focus groups. Several focus groups often needed to gain a sense of how the questions are working if they need to be revised and the degree of convergence or divergence of the participants comments with this early information the research you can make The revised decision on analysis strategies.

The revised decision on analysis strategies.

Listen for inconsistent comments and probe for understanding. One distinctive feature about focus groups is that participants occasionally change their opinion during discussions after listening to other points of view on hearing others explain their logic. Some participants may also even reverse their views. This phenomenon is rarely seen in other forms of data acquisition but does occur with focus groups. This present is some concern about analysis. Some have considered this a deficiency of focus group research but it’s only a weakness if we assume that people don’t change opinions in real life that we develop opinions that remain constant because this is hardly the case it seems that opinions changeis more of a testimony that people in the focus group are functioning in a normal natural manner the challenge to the research is to discover what is influencing the change.

 is more of a testimony that people in the focus group are functioning in a normal natural manner the challenge to the research is to discover what is influencing the change.

Participants may have changed their views after listening to new evidence presented by participant or different logic that was considered convincing in some circumstances. Participants have been influenced by the forcefulness of another person in the group the analysis task is to 1st identify that a change has taken place and then to determine if the participant agrees that he or she has changed and finally to determine what prompted that change.

The challenge to the moderate is to id .

The challenge to the moderate is to identify these inconsistencies while the participants are still in the focus group this permits the moderator to inquire about the different points of view for example earlier you said… And now you’ve indicated… There seems to be some difference here help me understand how you feel about this issue.

One of the benefits of assistant moderators is that they can devote their primary attention to taking field notes and capturing important aspects of the discussion.

Consider a final preference question or brief personal summary like an ending question called the all things considered question this question has proven helpful and nailing down the final positions of participants especially when their comments may seemingly have supported divergent points of view. 

Obtain background information on participants the researcher can use several ways to obtain this data. One way is to note and record observation observable characteristics such as gender age race and the like another is to ask participants to complete a registration form containing data prior to the research group of the focus groupinformation relating to status or influence is dangerous to ask in the focus group.

 Once participants have left, the moderator team should use the next 30 minutes in a productive manner.

Once participants have left the moderator team should use the next 30 minutes in a productive manner.

Conduct moderator and assistant moderator debriefing typically researchers want to discuss the focus group and this can be the most productive if it is recorded for you since subsequent analysis first impressions are forgotten and the researcher can lose sight of these initial reactions unless they are documented in the briefing. The moderated team might discuss the following points. Bullet point list most important themes or ideas expressed most Noteworthy quotes, unexpected unanticipated findings, comparison and contrast of this focus group with other focus groups or what they expected, usefulness of questions and the need for revision or adjustment.

Noteworthy quotes, unexpected unanticipated findings, comparison and contrast of this focus group with other focus groups or what they expected, usefulness of questions and the need for revision or adjustment.

In a series of focus groups a considerable amount of data will be collected lack of labels on field notes or misplaced tapes can cause enormous frustration to spend time on housekeeping before leaving the site to avoid major frustrations later.

Participant responses are triggered by a stimulus a question asked by the moderator or a comment from another participant. The research should examine the context by finding the trigger stimulus and then interpret the comment in light of the environment. For example when the moderator asks an open end question the first participant begins recounting a specific experience these comments then provide a stimulus for the second respondent who may overlook the larger issue but respond to the narrow aspect of the original question and so on. 

Participants in focus groups change and sometimes even reverse their positions after interaction with others. This phenomenon rarely occurs in individual interviews because of the lack of interaction from other participants when there is a shift in opinion the researcher typically traces the flow of the conversation to determine the clues that might explain the changethe shift is noted and may take on some importance in the final report if opinion shifts are relevant to the purpose of the study.

 The shift is noted and may take on some importance in the final report if opinion shifts are relevant to the purpose of the study.

Responses that are specific and based on experiences should be given more weight than responses that are vague and impersonal.

The analysis process is like detective work one looks for clues but in this case the clues are trends and patterns that reappear among various focus groups. The research task is to prepare a statement about what was found and a statement that emerges from and is supported by evidence in preparing this statement research seeks primarily to identify evidence that repeats and is common to several participants.

The moderator should be a neutral force in the focus group the moderators history or role should not influence participant comments and if the potential exists it’s better to seek a replacement or different moderator.

Morgan book (Morgan, 1997)

When a project using focus groups fits the typical goals for qualitative research in social sciences then the general procedures for analysing qualitative data in the social sciences will apply (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

If the goal of the focus group is to provide input into the design of an intervention program or to generate content for a survey questionnaire then the analysis and reporting are likely to target the specific information needs of the larger project. Furthermore because the report from preliminary focus groups will often be an oral briefing session or brief technical document. The analysis is seldom as extensive as in a set of self-contained focus groups.

Knodel (1993) describes The analysis of such data in a focus group could be done through a grid the systematically summarises what each group said in response to each question. This approach is particularly useful when the research design separates the composition of the groups into segments because the use of a grid facilitates making and reporting comparisons across the different segments easier.

Analysis considerations will influence the original decisions about the researcher design if the research lacks the analytic resources to make a systematic comparison of many groups across multiple segments then it would be foolish and even unethical to collect unanalysable data.

As with other research methods in the social sciences focus groups can benefit from the classic advice that decisions about how to collect the data will depend on decisions about how to analyse and report the data.

One unique issue that group interviews present for qualitative analysis concerns the unit of analysis encoding needing all discussions of analysis issues in focus groups assert that the group not the individual must be the fundamental unit of analysis in point of fact most assess that the group must be the unit of analysis that actually warnings about the dangers of just using individuals as a unit of analysis although the influence of the group on individual participants is undeniable this is a far cry from demonstrating that the group should then be the unit of analysis in focus group research alone Indeed we must recognise that not only what individuals do in a group depends on the group context but also what happens in any group depends on the individuals who make up that group in other words neither the individual nor the group constitutes a separate unit of analysis instead of analytic efforts of balance that acknowledges the interplay between these two levels of analysis. 

The most common ways of coding focus group transcripts are to note a or mentions of a given code B whether each individual participant mentioned to give code or see whether each group each group‘s discussion contained contained a code given in practice these three strategies are nested within each other because coding or mentions of the topic will determine whether the topic was mentioned by a specific individual or in a particular group.

Other coding concerns are more familiar. As with other forms of qualitative data the nature of coding and focus groups different differs between approaches that apply a priority template to the coding versus those that produce the codes through a more emergent encounter with the data of themselves (Crabtree and Miller 1992). Whether the goal is to find tune in existing coding template or to create a new set of codes it helps to begin with the detailed examination of one or two groups before replying the resulting codes to the remainder of the groups. A useful variant on this strategy is to have one person examine one set of transcripts while another does a similar preliminary analysis on a different set of discussions and this allows for two processes of discovery within the material.

A useful variant on this strategy is to have one person examine one set of transcripts while another does a similar preliminary analysis on a different set of discussions and this allows for two processes of discovery within the material.

Quantitative uses of coding are both obvious and useful in analysing transcripts from focus groups (Morgan 1993C).

The most basic method for determining what the participant thinks is important is to ask them many interview guides. This anticipate the ultimate analysis and interpretation of the study by asking a final question that has the participant state what they think are the most important elements of this discussion have been in projects in which the central goal is to determine the importance of different topics. These topics may be sorted into a list that the participants may rate or rank. 

The best evidence that a topic is worth emphasising and analysis comes from a combination of all three of the factors known as group to group validation for any specific topic group to group validation means that whatever a topic or whenever a topic comes up it generates a consistent level of energy amongst a consistent portion of the participants across nearly all of the focus groups that have taken part.

Notes and thoughts 

Anticipate the analysis in the design of the research and planning for analysis with the right resources.

Use a ‘priori’ or templates to structure the focus groups- the questions and the worksheets I am using - this will help to give comparison data and an extra source of analysis. - question framework, template from LS.

Structure of questions and content generated from participants e.g.:

• Individual responses
• interactions that shape agreement
• consensus of the group

Differences in data:

• Question and an answer 
• Answers that assign and articulate meaning- attribute and relate
• Offer unpredicted insights 

Moderator and assistant moderator:

• The debriefing sessions 
• Vital in analysis to form a balance of interpretation and opinion - reading and noting findings 
• Helps to code and compare