Doing Focus Groups. Rosaline Barbour
transcription (and requirements relating to this decision). It also provides some hints as to how to deal with potentially problematic group dynamics. Effective sampling is key to the success of focus groups and to determining their comparative potential, and Chapter 5 is devoted to this topic. It begins by providing advice as to how to identify and capitalize on potential sampling pools. The principles of qualitative sampling are outlined and the chapter considers group composition, number and size of groups, second-stage sampling and the potential for comparison. Examples are provided from a range of research projects and the role of serendipity is also acknowledged. The advantages and disadvantages of using pre-existing groups are debated, as are ethical issues involved in making and operationalizing sampling decisions. In Chapter 6 advice is provided with regard to developing effective topic guides and selecting appropriate stimulus materials and exercises, in order to ensure that rich data can be generated that are germane to the topic in hand. The role of visual materials and the creation of project-specific materials (either by the researcher or participants) is explored. Moderators’ skills are emphasized and some guidance is provided with regard to clarifying and exploring new lines of enquiry or concepts. Following on from the recommendation in Chapter 5 in terms of carrying out second-stage sampling, some guidance is provided with respect to using focus groups in order to develop stimulus material that can be used when ‘returning to the field’. Finally, this chapter emphasizes the need to think comparatively and to anticipate analysis – even as you are generating data. Extensive examples are provided throughout the chapter.
While ethical issues are inextricably bound up with practical issues all through the research process, this topic merits separate attention and Chapter 7 is concerned with ethics and engagement. It looks at the reciprocities involved in the research endeavour, the impact of participation and the importance of debriefing. Particular attention is given to the issues involved in engaging with vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly and the disabled, and to the challenges of cross-cultural research. The final two chapters (Chapters 8 and 9) address the complex processes involved in analyzing focus group data. Chapter 8 sets the scene by providing guidance on how to develop and refine a provisional coding frame. Some examples of coding frames are presented, together with suggestions as to how to ensure that participants’ insights are reflected in codes, and how to capitalize on distinctions to produce a richer, more analytically informed coding frame. The focus group researcher is encouraged to systematically make both inter- and intra-group comparisons (see Flick, 2018b; Gibbs, 2018). The importance of identifying and interrogating similarities between groups is also stressed, as are the use of personal and professional backgrounds as resources in analysis. Chapter 9 addresses further analytical challenges, including how to use interaction between participants and group dynamics to analytic advantage. It considers how to harness the insights of focus group participants and discusses their potential role as ‘co-moderators/analysts’. Reflecting on how to realize the full potential of focus groups, this chapter also provides guidance on how to engage effectively with theory. It re-visits the question of disciplinary concerns and methodological preferences that shape both the research questions and the way in which focus groups are employed, and examples are provided of markedly different usages. Engaging with theory, ideally, should involve the researcher not only in bringing theoretical frameworks to bear in understanding what is being said in focus groups, but, also, in using data in order to interrogate existing theories and models, and in identifying where these need to be revised, expanded, or, indeed, combined. This openness can be extended to approaches to analysis, and the potential of hybrid, or even, composite approaches, is explored – again with examples. The chapter underscores the potential of focus group data analysis to move beyond the purely descriptive in order to produce theorized accounts. Issues involved in presenting (and publishing) focus group findings are then outlined and the transferability of focus group findings is discussed. Again, the strength of the comparative perspective is emphasized, as this allows for findings to be suitably contextualized. Finally, the potential for new developments is explored and it is recommended that focus group researchers remain alert to new possibilities and the potential for fresh applications and new collaborations. However, alongside such pioneering approaches, the importance is also stressed of remaining mindful of the potential need to develop new skills and to re-think established practice and conventions.
Community development and participatory approaches have influenced the use of focus groups in other contexts (including research into professional practice) and have fuelled important debates about the relationship between researcher and researched and the ultimate use to which focus group findings are put. Along the way, some extravagant claims have been made about the capacity of focus groups to empower people and to provide more authentic data – all of which need to be subjected to critical examination.
The vast array of focus group studies in a large number of social-science-based disciplinary journals presents something of a challenge in terms of singling out specific studies for comment, and the examples chosen, inevitably, also reflect my own idiosyncratic interests, both enduring and fleeting. However, in order to give a flavour of the spread of substantive topics addressed by sociologists, criminologists and psychologists, I have concentrated (in terms of providing detailed examples) on a few studies that are used in later chapters to illustrate particular issues – whether these relate to innovative sampling, imaginative research design, considered approaches to generating data, thoughtful and theoretically informed data analysis, or studies which engage with practitioners, the public or policy makers to effect change. Examples include:
de Oliveira (2011) on the understanding of sexual risk, with regard to HIV/AIDS, of working-class adolescent girls in Southern Brazil.
Felt et al. (2014), working within science and technology studies, who developed a card-based exercise in order to research citizens’ perspectives on emerging technologies.
Demant and Ravn (2010) who built on and extended more traditional approaches to generating data to study the drug risk perceptions of Danish youths – and who produced a highly nuanced account by paying close attention to what was happening throughout the interaction.
Espinoza and Piper (2014) who took an innovative approach to studying collective memory sites in Chile.
Lindgren and Nelson (2014) who developed apparently simple, but analytically rich coding categories in order to make sense of accounts of inter-country adoptees living in Sweden.
Demant and Järvinen (2011) who carried out a theoretically informed study that looked at the operation of social capital within peer groups of Danish adolescents discussing alcohol and how these mechanisms influenced norms.
Wood and Beierschmitt (2014) who took a participatory action research approach to studying the policing of mental-health-related and behavioural incidents in Philadelphia.
Antecedents and their lasting influence
Researchers, however, may be unaware of the antecedents of what they have come to accept as orthodoxies of focus group usage within their field and how these can operate both to provide opportunities and place limitations around the development of the method. This is the topic of the second part of this introductory chapter. When focus groups are unquestioningly adopted, the development of innovative practices may be constrained, whereas an historical appreciation may allow researchers, instead, to draw selectively and constructively on the rich legacy of focus group usage, enabling them to critically assess the assumptions that underpin different approaches to research design, formulating research questions, planning and running focus groups, generating and analyzing data, and presenting and using findings.