20101126 - Focus Group research method (Iowa State Univ)

Focus Group Fundamentals Focus group methodology is one of several tools that educators can use to generate valid information important to the advancement of programs, communities, and organizations. This bulletin describes fundamental aspects of focus groups by distinguishing them from familiar research tools. Focus groups compared to survey methods How Focus Groups Differ from Survey Methods Insight not rules Social not individual Homogeneous not diverse Flexible not standardized Warm not hot Words not numbers Purposes 1 Insight not Rules Focus groups arguably provide researchers with more surprises than other types of research. Individuals who participate in focus group sessions aren't restricted by the "A, B, C" choices provided by the typical survey researcher. Participants generally are allowed to say anything they'd like in focus groups sessions. Focus groups therefore are considered to be naturalistic (Krueger and Casey, 2000). The researcher listens not only for the content of focus group discussions, but for emotions, ironies, contradictions, and tensions. This enables the researcher to learn or confirm not just the facts (as in survey method), but the meaning behind the facts. This is simplistic, but conveys a major advantage of focus group method: the production of insight. Survey research, on the other hand, enables researchers to make predictions about the occurrence of a phenomenon on a large scale. Survey research can predict, from a relatively small sample of responses, how many people in the nation are likely to vote for a particular presidential candidate. In this way, survey research generalizes. Generalizations that are confirmed over and over lead to the development of theories regarding human behavior. Focus groups can provide trustworthy naturalistic data that also lead to important insights about human behavior, but they aren't set up to generalize in the same way as survey research (Fern, 2001). Comment: Hence, it would be a good idea to employ both focus group and questionnaire survey methods for a study (or a pair of studies). 2 Social not Individual The focus group is a type of group interview. If there's no group, there is no focus group. The social, semi-public nature of the methodology shapes the data and the purposes that it serves. In a focus group session, conversation among participants results in data that are "talk." In this way, focus groups elicit information that paints a portrait of combined local perspectives. The researcher can see how it "all fi ts together" (for example, Duncan and Marotz-Baden, 1999). However, focus group methodology is not a reliable technique for determining an individual's authentic point of view. Social norms get in the way. For example, during a focus group, a participant may affirm another participant by saying, "Right! Couldn't have said it better." However, the analyst must not assume that the individual has provided their final opinion on the matter. It is plausible that the individual was being supportive rather than honest. The noisy social environment of focus groups also makes it an inappropriate setting in which to assess an individual's knowledge of content (Krueger and Casey, 2000). It is possible to gauge a groups' overall reaction to educational materials (see for example, Nordstrom et al., 2000), but not on an individual basis. To assess an individual's understanding of content matter, assess their knowledge in a quiet setting on an individual basis. Comments: Silence is not consent. Focus group is good for the group's overall opinions. One-to-one interview is good for to gauge the individual's opinion. Procedures 1 Homogenous not Diverse It makes good sense, when developing programs, to elicit as many points of view as possible. Focus groups do this well. However, one might assume that focus groups accomplish this by inviting a highly diverse group of people to participate in the same session. Regrettably, this doesn't work very well. Instead, focus group researchers select and invite 20-25 people with similar characteristics to a single session. The goal is to fill the room with a minimum of 10-12 participants that are similar (Krueger and Casey, 2000). Even when incentives are provided, such as refreshments, child care, or stipends, no-shows are common, so don't get caught short. Composing a group with highly different characteristics will decrease the quality of the data. Individuals will tend to censor their ideas in the presence of people who differ greatly from them in power, status, job, income, education, or personal characteristics. To get a cross section of views from a diverse population using focus group method, it is necessary to conduct multiple sessions. To understand the perspectives of a different group of people, compose multiple focus groups on the same topic. For the next group, also invite people who are alike; however, they will be 'similar' according to a different criterion. This procedure explains why professional researchers typically report results from a series of sessions rather than from a single focus group session. Although it is common practice to conduct a single focus group session, the data may not be reliable. For example, in an evaluation report of a retreat for environmental educators, the moderator conducted separate focus groups for first time attendees and for participants who had attended for many years (Eells, 2002). The key to deciding which features are important to keep the same or vary depends on the type of community and the topic of the focus group. 2 Flexible not Standardized Focus group method strives to produce good conversation on a given topic. Good conversation ebbs and flows. Individuals laugh, tell personal stories, revisit an earlier question, disagree, contradict themselves, and interrupt. However, the researcher must balance the needs of participants to 'have their say' against the need to stay focused. A focus group moderator wants both natural features of conversation as well as focused discussion in the course of a two-hour session. The moderator accomplishes this balancing act by using an interview guide (Morgan and Krueger, 1998). A well-designed guide assists group members to relax, open up, think deeply, and consider alternatives. A good design also allows for synergy to occur, which produces greater insight due to the fact that participants work together during the session. Questions in an interview guide fl ow from general to specific. They invite openness and avoid bias. However, it is a mistake to apply the guide as if it were a multiple choice test or phone interview. The prize does not go to the swift or the efficient. Avoid sounding mechanical and list-like. The result of a focus group should not be a series of short burst responses. A final difference from normal conversation is the fact that focus group sessions are typically audio taped and transcribed. 3 Warm not Hot Focus groups produce conversations that border on intimacy. One might assume that focus groups therefore can be used to investigate private topics or subjects that people feel deeply about. The rule of thumb is that the topic can be warm but not hot. Consider that conversation in many cultures avoids conflict. Consider also that individuals are adept at changing the subject away from overtly private matters, like sex and salaries. In general, people strive to be polite. Therefore, focus groups do not produce reliable data on topics that produce extremely strong feelings (Krueger and Casey, 2000). Whereas a focus group about weight loss programming might succeed if participants are carefully chosen and purposefully invited, it would likely not work to convene focus groups with victims of domestic violence and expect them to discuss their individual experiences. Source: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/pm1969b.pdf Iowa State University (2004). Focus Group Fundamentals: Methodology Brief. Iowa State University. University Extension, Iowa State University, May 2004.