Doing Focus Groups. Rosaline Barbour

Doing Focus Groups

seen as causing rather than preventing illness. Focus groups excel at identifying and exploring such misconceptions and their consequences for behaviour.

Another challenge frequently issued to focus group researchers is that of demonstrating that participants are telling us ‘the truth’. Again, this concern relates to the practice in questionnaire design of including questions with the specific purpose of cross-checking responses in order to highlight any inconsistencies. Working within the qualitative tradition, however, it is these very inconsistencies that afford the richest potential for understanding the process through which participants form their views and how they weigh up and even accommodate apparently contradictory positions. All researchers have to face the possibility that respondents are simply telling us what they think we want to hear and, when taking part in focus groups, they may also fear the disapproval of their peer group (Smithson, 2000). However, this is good news for the researcher with a particular interest in studying the mechanisms through which the peer group manages the articulation, development and negotiation of views; moreover, this is where focus groups come into their own.

Views expressed in focus groups may also be different from those expressed outside of the research context. However, holding focus groups with pre-existing teams, support groups, or friendship groups may facilitate more rounded or reasoned responses, since group members have both the opportunity and the knowledge required in order to challenge others’ accounts and ask them to account for their comments. As Wilson (1997) argues:

We will never know what respondents might have revealed in the ‘privacy’ of an in-depth interview but we do know what they were prepared to elaborate and defend in the company of their peers. (1997, p. 218)

Some researchers have waxed lyrical about the potential of focus groups to empower participants. Johnson (1996), for example, who published a paper on focus groups entitled ‘It’s good to talk’, considers that focus groups can stimulate significant changes and can lead participants to redefine their problems in a more politicized way. Focus groups have been a key component of the ‘sociological intervention’ approach developed and advocated by the French sociologist Alain Touraine (1981). The role for the sociologist, as envisioned by Touraine, reflects the now somewhat outmoded Marxist notion of the intelligentsia as heralding social change – even revolution – through spearheading social movements. This approach involved bringing people together in groups over a considerable period of time and relied on an ‘epistemology of reception’ that stresses the importance of feedback from participants elicited by presentation of sociological theory to the relevant audience. Some commentators, such as Munday (2006), have criticized Touraine’s approach as privileging the perspective of the sociologist over those who are participating in the research. However, the interests of researcher and ‘researched’ are not necessarily all that different. Gómez et al. (2011) point out that action research fits well with what they call a ‘dialogic turn’ in current societies. They argue: ‘Today people expect to participate in the wider society and discuss the issues in their lives, from families and intimate relationships to their children’s schools, their workplaces, or their city’ (p. 236). Focus groups, if used critically ‘can contribute to challenging the prevailing orthodoxy and thereby overcome established regimes of truth in the Foucauldian tradition’ (Stahl et al., 2011, p. 378). (For further discussion of Foucauldian-influenced research, see the section on philosophical and methodological traditions in Chapter 3.)

The view that focus groups engender inherently more equal relationships between researchers and researched has also led some commentators to claim that they are a feminist method. A thoughtful discussion by Wilkinson (1999), however, concludes that although focus groups are suited to addressing feminist research topics, their use does not necessarily constitute ‘feminist research’. Moreover, as Brooks (2014) points out, there may well not be such a thing as a definitive feminist methodology and researchers should be mindful that all women – even those in similar situations – do not necessarily share the same experiences of oppression, discrimination and powerlessness. As Bloor et al. (2001, p. 15) conclude: focus groups are ‘not the authentic voice of the people’ and whether or not focus groups actually ‘empower’ anyone depends on what happens after the group discussion.

We have seen, then, that both proponents and detractors of focus groups as a method, can be prone to exaggeration. Some criticisms of focus groups and their capacity for generating data and affording insights can be traced back to a lingering attachment to quantitative research assumptions, which are inappropriate when evaluating the potential of qualitative methods. Even where focus groups are used appropriately, a lack of appreciation of their full capacity can lead to them being employed in an overly casual fashion, to carry out brainstorming exercises, for example, which, although potentially illuminating, are the very least of what focus group research can achieve. Lack of preparation, piloting and refinement of topic guides have the same consequences as lack of attention to developing instruments in the quantitative tradition – suboptimal research. (This is discussed in Chapter 6 in relation to planning focus groups.)

Focus groups are an inherently flexible method and offer a wide range of options, provided that the researcher gives careful consideration to what is the most appropriate approach for the project in hand. Notwithstanding their impressive pedigree, focus groups are not always the most appropriate method. Not only does inappropriate use of focus groups result in poorly designed research; as Krueger (1993) pointed out, overzealous and inappropriate use threatens to discredit the method itself.

Making a sharp distinction between applied and more theoretical usages, however, can also be unhelpful, as it is argued that there are also many illuminating similarities and that researchers operating at each end of this continuum have much to learn from each other – particularly with regard to designing studies and capitalizing on the rich data generated.

We saw in Chapter 1 that some of the problems experienced – particularly by novice focus group researchers – stem from inappropriate expectations, arising from a lack of awareness of the particular properties of qualitative, as opposed to quantitative research. Once focus groups are placed within the context of qualitative research – and when they are viewed as a way of addressing a rather different set of questions – many of the problems and frustrations encountered by focus group researchers and the perceived weaknesses of the method can actually be shown to be advantages. The following chapter aims to provide the reader with an enhanced appreciation of focus groups as an essentially qualitative method.

Key points

Focus groups can offer advantages in terms of accessing the ‘hard-to-reach’ and the ‘vulnerable’.

They can be useful in addressing ‘difficult’ or ‘sensitive’ topics.

Don’t use focus groups if you want to measure ‘attitudes’.

Give careful thought as to whether you are privileging research aims over participants’ concerns.

Consider the potential of using focus groups as part of an action-oriented approach.

Focus groups excel at providing insights into process rather than outcomes.

Fluidity of participants’ views should be seen – and used – as a resource rather than as a problem.

Be suitably cautious about making claims regarding the empowerment of focus group participants.