Michael Yeap...PhD Candidate

The Star Online: MCA chief: Each BN component party should have equal voice

2010-12-05T06:29:00.000-08:00

Comment from sender:
DSDr CSL was rather bold and direct with his speech at the BN Convention.

This article is from The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my)
URL: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/12/5/nation/20101205190957&sec=nation

__________________________________________________________________________

Speech of MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek at the 1 Barisan Nasional convention is below

KUALA LUMPUR: Each Barisan Nasional component party should have an equal voice in raising issues affecting the people in order for it to be a coalition of choice by the rakyat, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said.

He said the people always came first and Barisan had to articulate the hopes, fears, expectations and frustrations of the various communities in the country.

As such, he said each component party must accord full respect to this basis of power sharing.

"There should not be any big brother or small brother within the coalition. We are working towards the same cause and purpose. We are equal partners," said Dr Chua at the Barisan convention here Sunday.

Describing the convention as "most crucial" particularly with the buzz of an impending general election getting louder, Dr Chua also noted that the Barisan must not be seen as merely collaborating during elections but must be genuine about power sharing at all times.

He said there was a need for Barisan component parties to work as equal partners and that decisions pertaining to policies should not be announced at the Umno general assembly or at its supreme council meetings that did not have an equivalent status to the Cabinet.

Meanwhile, Dr Chua also expressed concern over the public delivery system that very often did not reflect the thinking of the Barisan government.

He urged the Government to seriously act on addressing such weaknesses.

"We have to accept the reality and weaknesses in our system and act accordingly so as to improve on it. We can no longer live in a denial mode," he stressed.

Apart from that, he said there should also be a clear-cut management mechanism made available to punish civil servants who acted against the 1Malaysia concept.

"There should be no compromise on this," he added.

Urging all Barisan comrades to take heed of the Prime Minister's initiative in taking the lead to "turun padang" to be with the people and feel the nation's pulse, Dr Chua said this was the way to get to know the people's grouses, anger and pain, gather feedback and suggestions and see whether the government policies were implemented in tandem with the expectations and aspirations of the people.

For the nation to flourish, he said the Barisan must draw strength from the humility of moderation and inter-racial harmony founded on justice, democracy, mutual consultation and diversity.

Dr Chua said Barisan had to change to reflect the 1Malaysia agenda, which was inclusive, multi-racial and put people first.

The young people in particular were not satisfied with mere development, he said, adding that they expected the Barisan to be fair and democratic in its decision making.

"They do not want the government to be all talk and no action. It must be accountable in what it preaches and not allow promises to turn out to be mere rhetoric."

Dr Chua also reiterated the party's commitment to achieving the Prime Minister's vision of 1Malaysia, and high income nation by 2020.

He said MCA believed that Barisan under Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's leadership gave hope to all Malaysians that a better and dynamic Malaysia could be realised.

Dr Chua also called on all Barisan component parties to join forces to make the coalition a choice of the rakyat, defend Putrajaya from the Pakatan Rakyat and turn the Pakatan Rakyat's march to Putrajaya an unrealised dream.

Speech of MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek at the 1 Barisan Nasional convention

5th December 2010

YAB Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abd Razak, Prime Minister Malaysia cum Chairman of BN

YAB Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Deputy Prime Minister Malaysia cum Deputy Chairman of BN

A very good morning everyone. It is an honour that the Barisan Nasional convention is held in Wisma MCA this time around.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome all of you to our beautiful party headquarters.

Ladies & Gentleman,

1. This convention is most crucial especially with the buzz of an impending general election getting louder. At the end of the convention, it is hoped that we can derive at how best we can synergise our resources and further enhance our coalition machinery to the fullest.

2. The March 2008 election has sent a clear signal that Barisan Nasional must change and revamp itself for it to win votes and public support to stay in government.

3. It can't be business as usual for Barisan Nasional.

4. We have to change to reflect the 1Malaysia agenda which is inclusive, multiracial and people first.

5. MCA fully supports the government's 1Malaysia policy of inclusiveness where the people come first. We are for a social contract to better serve the people in all fairness and in realising the wishes of the rakyat.

6. The rebranding process should take into account the mutli-racial framework of co-operation. It should not be just UMNO.

7. The basis of power sharing within the coalition should be fully respected with each component party enjoying equal voice in bringing up issues of the rakyat.

8. There should not be any big brother or small brother within the coalition. We are all working towards the same cause and purpose. We are equal partners.

9. On this note, Barisan National must pursue the middle path of moderation and at the same time we need to strengthen the public delivery system which is a sore point by the voters.

10. We have to accept the reality and weaknesses in our system and act accordingly so as to improve on it. We can no longer be living in denial mode.

11. Fellow comrades, today's young people are not satisfied with merely development. They expect Barisan Nasional to be fair and democratic in its decision making.

12. They do not want the government to be all talk but no action. It must be accountable with what it preaches and not allow promises to turn out to be rhetorics.

13. Barisan National must not be seen as merely collaborating during the elections but must be genuine in power sharing at all times.

14. We must work as equal partners, hence decisions pertaining to policies should not be announced at the Umno general assembly or at its supreme council meetings, which is not equivalent to Cabinet status.

15. Very often the public delivery system does not reflect on the thinking of the BN government. The government should therefore seriously act on addressing those weaknesses.

16. If there are perceptions that the system is deviating, then we certainly will be confronted with problems.

17. We can ill afford to be besieged with such problems and the Public Services Department (JPA) is responsible to ensure the smooth functioning of the civil service and its effectiveness as well.

18. However I believe that the JPA has been given too much power to hire and fire.

19. How can this be the situation? There should be a reward and punishment system in place so that action can be meted out against the wrong doers and incentives or rewards be given to those who excel in their work.

20 A clear cut management mechanism should be made available to punish civil servants who act against the concept of 1Malaysia. There should be no compromise on this.

21. There is an urgent need to review the JPA General Order/1933 on its powers to hire and fire. This is to check abuses and weaknesses, to ensure that the powers of Ministers would not be usurped.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

22. Distinguished comrades, we should also take heed from the Prime Minister's initiative in taking the lead to "turun padang" to be with the people and to feel the pulse of the nation.

23. When we "turun padang", we will be able to feel the people's pulse and get to know their grouses, anger, pain and at the same time gather feedback and suggestion.

24. Only then we will know whether government policies are implemented in tandem with the expectations and aspiration of the people.

25 And when we go down to the ground, we should in all humility be humble. Without humility, there can be no humanity. We must always be friendly and humble and not flaunt our wealth or power.

26. We should also do away with the unofficial protocol of sirens blaring away to signal the arrival of a VIP in some functions. There is no need for such unfounded ceremonial formality. We are supposed to serve the people, not to be served all the time.

27. While we have to address the concerns of the various communities, as leaders we should also be sensitive towards the choice of words used.

28. Certain words should be considered taboo. Some of the examples are Pendatang, Penumpang, terutang budi, kurang patriotic and ketuanan Melayu.

29. We should not shoot ourselves in the foot. Youngsters don't like to hear such remarks which are not only distasteful but considered outrageously derogatory.

30. Leaders must also be reminded that they are expected to not only say the right things but also in doing the right thing. Pledges must be translated into actions. We must practice what we preach.

31. And when it comes to organising Barisan Nasional events or functions, it must reflect that we are working as a team from the State and Federal level.

32. When putting up campaign posters, it must also have the multi-racial ingredients to reflect the 1Malaysia agenda. The posters should feature that of all BN leaders, other than the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister.

33. For instance, in the Galas by-election, the Pakatan Raykat put up posters of Nik Aziz, Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim.

34. On addressing outdated approaches, the "Undilah Barisan Nasional untuk Kestabilan" slogan has outlived its time and is timely that it be changed to Vote BN = 1Malaysia = High Income for All. Barisan National may not be perfect but we are the better choice.

35. Hence all the BN wakil rakyat should not only serve its own ethnic group but that of all races.

36. In the same way, the allocations given for resources such as publicity materials should also be distributed fairly and all activities organised by Barisan Nasional should involve all component parties as well.

37. Of equal importance are the food served at BN organised functions – it should be taken into consideration the sensitivity of the Hindus who do not eat beef and we should also cater to the vegetarians.

38. Such considerations, although may seem petty are important to the people. No one should be left out in our quest to reach out to the people.

39. Of concern by the people is the crime rate. Although statistics show that it has gone down, the perception of the man in the street has not changed. This is one area we should not neglect.

40. I would like to reinforce the need to make it clear that vernacular schools are part of the educational landscape. The existence of SJKC and SJKT should in no terms be considered as a "political compromise"

41. Vernacular schools should always co exist with other schools such as Sekolah Agama Rakyat, sekolah Arab, international schools and mission schools. Such a feature in our educational landscape is in line with our 1Malaysia agenda of promoting diversity.

42. Mandarin or Chinese education should not be viewed along the racial lines. The emergence of China as the second economic power in the world has made Mandarin language to be of great economic and significant value.

43. The PM decision to offer scholarship to all students regardless of race who scored 9As in the SPM Examination has gone down well. The government should continue with similar initiatives pertaining to education. There should be equal accessibility and fair treatment for all Malaysians.

44. Another area of concern is to ensure that we uphold our judiciary system in high esteem, one which is not tainted and impartial.

45. And when we give aid to the people, all those who deserved assistance shall not be deprived or overlooked. "Rakyat mesti di dahulukan".

46. For the nation to flourish, we must draw strength from the humility of moderation and inter-racial harmony founded on justice, democracy, mutual consultation and diversity.

47. I believe that all Malaysians will want a country that is fully developed with the realization of 2020 whereby all citizens would be a part of the process of nation building and high-income society.

48. Rakyat is the Nation stakeholder. If the country achieves respectable growth every year, the rakyat will benefit and they will trust the government and continue to support the government.

49.To be a party of choice by the rakyat, Barisan Nasional has to articulate the hopes, fears, expectations and frustrations of the various communities in Malaysia. It is always people first.

50. Hence, government must continue its liberalization and economic transformation program to achieve high income status.

51. Since the transformation program is private sector driven, it must inspire confidence in them. Hence, government policy must be transparent, fair and do not flip flop.

52. The way of doing business in Malaysia should also be simplified and be business friendly. We need to address the issue of the influx of foreign workers. No decisive action taken has not gone down well with the rakyat.

53. We support the government effort to reduce the budget deficit so that our debt rating is not affected. We have to maximize the utilization of our nation resources to reduce wastage and leakage.

54. MCA support affirmative action that is based on needs and merit. Needs and merits should be the basis and key fundamental of policy decision.

55. MCA is committed to achieve the PM's vision of 1 Malaysia and High Income Nation by 2020. MCA believe that Barisan Nasional under PM leadership will give hope to all Malaysian for a change towards a better Malaysia.

56. Let us work together to make Barisan National the party of choice by the rakyat. Barisan Nasional must work hand in hand to defend Putrajaya from Pakatan Rakyat. Pakatan Rakyat march to Putrajaya will then continue to be a dream.

__________________________________________________________________________
Your one-stop information portal:
The Star Online
http://thestar.com.my

Copyright © 1995-2010 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Star Publications is prohibited.

The Star Online: BN leaders unveil new charter to transform, take the party forward

2010-12-05T06:10:00.000-08:00

Comment from sender:
BN Charter based on 7 principles.
Extracts of speeches of BN component parties.

This article is from The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my)
URL: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/12/5/nation/20101205203740&sec=nation

__________________________________________________________________________

KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional is the nation's success story but further improvement in meeting the people's needs and aspiration is necessary to ensure the coalition continues to be supported by the rakyat, leaders told delegates to Sunday's Barisan Nasional Convention.

At the end of the convention, a new Barisan Nasional charter was unveiled by Prime Minister and Barisan chairman Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak aimed at guiding the coalition forward.

Najib penned the final signature on the seven-point charter, also signed by leaders from Barisan's 13 component parties after his winding up speech on Sunday.

The charter is based on these principles:

*To uphold the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law

*To strengthen racial relationship and multiracialism inline with the concept of 1Malaysia

*To pursue the improvement of the nation's economy by increasing competitiveness, and at the same time to bestow assurance towards fair economic distribution

*To assure quality education is given to all.

*To increase the quality of life and to continue giving priority to economic development and social welfare

*To strengthen the family institution

*To carry out the principle of positive management and reject corrupt practices

Delegates at the convention recited the charter, a new concept to reinvent Barisan in line with its agenda of political transformation.

Earlier, Barisan Nasional secretary Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the coalition could not be copied or destroyed by outside elements because of the strong bond and sincerity that had been established which reflected the closeness of the party to the people.

"The Barisan is also not one or two years old but has matured and endured numerous problems and crises in the country. It has never surrendered or given in to the challenges faced," he said in his welcoming speech at the third Barisan Nasional Convention at the Wisma MCA here on Sunday.

He said Barisan must also focus on strengthening its position as "pillar of the country".

He said Barisan must continue to pursue its objective to build a Bangsa Malaysia in a united and harmonious spirit.

"My hope is at the end of this convention, we will continue to strengthen Barisan's position without any presumptions, fix our weaknesses, and get rid of all negativitiy in the name of our shared goals," said Tengku Adnan who is also Umno secretary-general.

The convention, which was held for the first time in Wisma MCA's Dewan San Choon, was attended by 2,340 delegates including Barisan component party members, "Friends of Barisan", NGO members and individuals.

He noted that the selection of the venue for Barisan's third convention since the first in 1995 was itself part of the "transformation within Barisan".

"It's a transformation within Barisan Nasional to ensure that each component party has a role," he said. Tengku Adnan added all Barisan conventions would involve all component parties from now on.

The convention also observed a minute's silence for former Penang Chief Minister Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu who died last month.

Throughout the Barisan convention Sunday, the coalition leadership heard from 13 component parties and its women and youth movement on the need to reinvent and improve performance for Barisan to remain relevant.

Barisan deputy chairman Tan sri Muhyiddin Yassin said political understanding among races had enabled the coalition to manage differences well, adding Barisan was not just about power sharing but also a platform that allowed the people irrespective race and religion to be fairly represented.

"Our priority is to ensure that each citizen is able to advance himself and enjoy prosperity without sidelining other races. As a result, we have successfully maintained racial harmony, political stability and push the economy forward," he said when addressing the convention.

Muhyiddin, who spoke on behalf of Umno said the party fight for Malay and Bumiputra causes based on Barisan's principle which had been agreed upon by all.

Barisan wanita chief Datuk Seri Shahrizat Jalil called on component party presidents to "look out for the womenfolk" whose role in bringing the support and votes for the coalition was crucial.

"Please remember that women makes 50.3% of the voters. Please give them due recognition and give room to women in the political arena. If Barisan wants to win, the formula is to take care of women," she said.

MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said it was important for Barisan to change if it want to "remain in the hearts and mind of the people", adding it must ensure that people be given the same opportunity in development so no one would beleft behind.

"Barisan must lead the way in efforts to strengthen unity and to realise the 1Malaysia concept.

"At the same time, economic disparity need to be addressed and there must be an increased efforts to help improve the quality of life, particularly in rural areas," he said, adding the concept of putting the people first must be practiced.

Coalition youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said Barisan need to potray itself as a party that was "young people-friendly", adding the group would be a crucial element in the next general election.

"In previous by-elections such as in Bagan Pinang, Manik Urai, Galas, Hulu Selangor and Batu Sapi, records showed that support from youths has returned to Barisan," he said.

Khairy said the movement proposed promoting the Barisan brandname, such as the establishment of 1Malaysia BN scholarship to that the coalition would enjoy "dividens" from such branding efforts.

Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon said that Barisan should remember "who is the boss", adding it was important that rakyat be served efficiently at all times.

"Politicians must serve the people and not the other way around.The rakyat also demands that government service is efficient, be served with respect and their want be given attention," he said.

Dr Koh added Barisan need to be a "truly 1Malaysia" coalition that was fully committed in promoting unity in diversity, guided by the spirit and principle of the Constitution and Rukun Negara.

PPP president Datuk M. Kayveas said the Barisan government was responsible for ensuring that public safety not only meet but surpass all standards.

"No efforts should be spared in maintaining peace and security.

Increase in the type and nature of threats has created a greater awareness on the need to boost public safety,' he said, adding the government should build more police stations and beat base to enable police to respond effectively and fast.

__________________________________________________________________________
Your one-stop information portal:
The Star Online
http://thestar.com.my

Joined numerous yahoogroups incl mobile learning

2010-12-04T02:49:00.001-08:00

Today, Sat 4 Dec 2010, I have joined many yahoogroups by the keywords of:

"mobile learning";

e-learning;

usability e-learning; and

usability HCI.

This blog entry also appears in http://mikeyeap.prodigits.co.uk/blog36.htm

Progress reporting key-in

2010-12-04T02:42:00.001-08:00

Fri, 3 Dec 2010 - I have keyed in PhD progress reporting into ICEMS.

However, info on milestone, date planned and description of achievement could not be saved (bug).

This blog entry also appears in http://mikeyeap.prodigits.co.uk/blog35.htm

Mobile TWITTER pros & cons

2010-11-30T16:50:00.001-08:00

Pros:

1) simplistic user interface;

2) easy to read.

Cons:

1) limited tweets can be read, older tweets cannot be accessed;

2) numerous features available in web Twitter are not available in mobile Twitter.

This blog entry also appear in http://mikeyeap.prodigits.co.uk/blog34.htm

Mobile Phone is more convenient than Notebook Computer

2010-11-29T20:03:00.001-08:00

I arrived early at the client's place today and yesterday. After switching on my wifi modem, I took out my mobile phone to access the internet. It was convenient to make good use of this waiting time as I travelled early to avoid massive traffic congestion. I read news articles, chatted with friends via Yahoo Messenger. This was definitely more convenient than switching on my notebook computer which was in the car boot.

Mobile phone is light and small, and faster start-up as compared with notebook computer. The main downside of using mobile phone for internet access is the small screen size of mobile device.

This blog entry also appears in http://mikeyeap.prodigits.co.uk/blog33.htm

reading Bible on Mobile phone in church

2010-11-27T23:49:00.001-08:00

Today, Sunday 28 Nov 2010, is my first time using Biblegateway on my mobile phone in church. Instead of bringing my physical Bible to church, I brought my wifi modem and mobile phones.

When the Preacher quoted the bible verse, I read it from my mobile phone accessing m.Biblegateway. I found this to be practical as the font size (which is adjustable) in mobile phone is bigger than font size in my physical Bible. I brought both the touchscreen and touchscreen+keyboard. I found keyboard to be useful and fast for entering bible verse to be searched.

This blog entry also appears in http://mikeyeap.prodigits.co.uk/blog32.htm

Future: Will use mobile phone (accessing m.Biblegateway) instead of physical Bible in church and HF.

P.S.

I haven't been to church for a long time.

2 signals that I should start to go to church again.

a) Preacher today preached well using story-telling method. He drew my total attention throughout his sermon. (Downside: He quoted little from the Bible, only 2 verses.)

b) Suny (in black outfit) was playing keyboard. (Still like the colors white-gray-black??)

20101127 - Conceptual/Theoretical Framework (wikipedia)

2010-11-27T07:50:00.001-08:00

Conceptual Framework

Comments: also known as Theoretical Framework.

A conceptual framework is used in research to outline possible courses of action or to present a preferred approach to an idea or thought. For example, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin used the "hedgehogs" versus "foxes" approach;^[1] a "hedgehog" might approach the world in terms of a single organizing principle; a "fox" might pursue multiple conflicting goals simultaneously. Alternatively, an empiricist might approach a subject by direct examination, whereas an intuitionist might simply intuit what's next.^[2]

Conceptual frameworks (theoretical frameworks) are a type of intermediate theory that attempt to connect to all aspects of inquiry (e.g., problem definition, purpose, literature review, methodology, data collection and analysis). Conceptual frameworks can act like maps that give coherence to empirical inquiry. Because conceptual frameworks are potentially so close to empirical inquiry, they take different forms depending upon the research question or problem.

Several types of conceptual frameworks have been identified,^[3][4] such as

Working hypothesis
Descriptive categories
Practical ideal types
Models of operations research
Formal hypotheses

These are linked to particular research purposes such as:^[5]

Proponents claim that when purpose and framework are aligned, other aspects of empirical research such as methodological choices and statistical techniques become simpler to identify.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

Conceptual System

A conceptual system is a system that is composed of non-physical objects, i.e. ideas or concepts. In this context a system is taken to mean "an interrelated, interworking set of objects".

Overview

A conceptual system is simply a conceptual model. There are no limitations on this kind of model whatsoever except those of human imagination. If there is an experimentally verified correspondence between a conceptual system and a physical system then that conceptual system models the physical system. "values, ideas, and beliefs that make up every persons view of the world": that is a model of the world; a conceptual system that is a model of a physical system (the world). The person who has that model is a physical system.

In psychology and social work, when they talk about a conceptual system, they are referring to some person's model of the world, but if they try to understand that model, they end up making a model of that model, which is just a model of the person's behavior. In any case, this is exactly the purpose of the general term "conceptual systems".

Examples

Examples of conceptual systems are:

Entity-relationship model
Object-oriented programming: allows conceptual systems to be defined in a robust manner.
Metalogic
Unified Modeling Language

Concept Map

A concept map is a diagram showing the relationships among concepts. They are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge.

Concepts, usually represented as boxes or circles, are connected with labeled arrows in a downward-branching hierarchical structure. The relationship between concepts can be articulated in linking phrases such as "gives rise to", "results in", "is required by," or "contributes to".^[1]

The technique for visualizing these relationships among different concepts is called "Concept mapping".

An industry standard that implements formal rules for designing at least a subset of such diagrams is the Unified Modeling Language (UML).

Overview

A concept map is a way of representing relationships between ideas, images or words, in the same way that a sentence diagram represents the grammar of a sentence, a road map represents the locations of highways and towns, and a circuit diagram represents the workings of an electrical appliance. In a concept map, each word or phrase is connected to another and linked back to the original idea, word or phrase. Concept maps are a way to develop logical thinking and study skills, by revealing connections and helping students see how individual ideas form a larger whole.^[2]

Concept maps were developed to enhance meaningful learning in the sciences. A well-made concept map grows within a context frame defined by an explicit "focus question," while a mind map often has only branches radiating out from a central picture. There is research evidence that knowledge is stored in the brain in the form of productions (situation-response conditionals) that act on declarative memory content which is also referred to as chunks or propositions ^[3][4]. Because concept maps are constructed to reflect organization of the declarative memory system, they facilitate sense-making and meaningful learning on the part of individuals who make concept maps and those who use them.

Concept mapping versus topic maps and mind mapping

Concept maps are rather similar to topic maps (in that both allow to connect concepts or topics via graphs), while both can be contrasted with the similar idea of mind mapping, which is often restricted to radial hierarchies and tree structures. Among the various schema and techniques for visualizing ideas, processes, organizations, concept mapping, as developed by Joseph Novak is unique in philosophical basis, which "makes concepts, and propositions composed of concepts, the central elements in the structure of knowledge and construction of meaning."^[5] Another contrast between Concept mapping and Mind mapping is the speed and spontaneity when a Mind map is created. A Mind map reflects what you think about a single topic, which can focus group brainstorming. A Concept map can be a map, a system view, of a real (abstract) system or set of concepts. Concept maps are more free form, as multiple hubs and clusters can be created, unlike mind maps which fix on a single conceptual center.

History

The technique of concept mapping was developed by Joseph D. Novak^[6] and his research team at Cornell University in the 1970s as a means of representing the emerging science knowledge of students. It has subsequently been used as a tool to increase meaningful learning in the sciences and other subjects as well as to represent the expert knowledge of individuals and teams in education, government and business. Concept maps have their origin in the learning movement called constructivism. In particular, constructivists hold that learners actively construct knowledge.

Novak's work is based on the cognitive theories of David Ausubel (assimilation theory), who stressed the importance of prior knowledge in being able to learn new concepts: "The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach accordingly."^[7] Novak taught students as young as six years old to make concept maps to represent their response to focus questions such as "What is water?" "What causes the seasons?" In his book Learning How to Learn, Novak states that "meaningful learning involves the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing cognitive structures."

Various attempts have been made to conceptualize the process of creating concept maps. Ray McAleese, in a series of articles, has suggested that mapping is a process of off-loading. In this 1998 paper, McAleese draws on the work of Sowa and a paper by Sweller & Chandler. In essence, McAleese suggests that the process of making knowledge explicit, using nodes and relationships, allows the individual to become aware of what they know and as a result to be able to modify what they know.^[8] Maria Birbili applies that same idea to helping young children learn to think about what they know.^[9]The concept of the Knowledge Arena is suggestive of a virtual space where learners etc. may explore what they know and what they do not know.

Use

Concept maps are used to stimulate the generation of ideas, and are believed to aid creativity. For example, concept mapping is sometimes used for brain-storming. Although they are often personalized and idiosyncratic, concept maps can be used to communicate complex ideas.

Formalized concept maps are used in software design, where a common usage is Unified Modeling Language diagramming amongst similar conventions and development methodologies.

Concept mapping can also be seen as a first step in ontology-building, and can also be used flexibly to represent formal argument.

Concept maps are widely used in education and business for:

Note taking and summarizing key concepts, their relationships and hierarchy from documents and source materials
New knowledge creation: e.g., transforming tacit knowledge into an organizational resource, mapping team knowledge
Institutional knowledge preservation (retention), e.g., eliciting and mapping expert knowledge of employees prior to retirement
Collaborative knowledge modeling and the transfer of expert knowledge
Facilitating the creation of shared vision and shared understanding within a team or organization
Instructional design: concept maps used as Ausubelian "advance organizers" which provide an initial conceptual frame for subsequent information and learning.
Training: concept maps used as Ausubelian "advanced organizers" to represent the training context and its relationship to their jobs, to the organization's strategic objectives, to training goals.
Increasing meaningful learning
Communicating complex ideas and arguments
Examining the symmetry of complex ideas and arguments and associated terminology
Detailing the entire structure of an idea, train of thought, or line of argument (with the specific goal of exposing faults, errors, or gaps in one's own reasoning) for the scrutiny of others.
Enhancing metacognition (learning to learn, and thinking about knowledge)
Improving language ability
Knowledge Elicitation
Assessing learner understanding of learning objectives, concepts, and the relationship among those concepts

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_mapping

Conceptual Schema

A conceptual schema or conceptual data model is a map of concepts and their relationships. This describes the semantics of an organization and represents a series of assertions about its nature. Specifically, it describes the things of significance to an organization (entity classes), about which it is inclined to collect information, and characteristics of (attributes) and associations between pairs of those things of significance (relationships).

Overview

Because a conceptual schema represents the semantics of an organization, and not a database design, it may exist on various levels of abstraction. The original ANSI four-schema architecture began with the set of external schemas that each represent one person's view of the world around him or her. These are consolidated into a single conceptual schema that is the superset of all of those external views. A data model can be as concrete as each person's perspective, but this tends to make it inflexible. If that person's world changes, the model must change. Conceptual data models take a more abstract perspective, identifying the fundamental things, of which the things an individual deals with are just examples.

The model does allow for what is called inheritance in object oriented terms. The set of instances of an entity class may be subdivided into entity classes in their own right. Thus, each instance of a sub-type entity class is also an instance of the entity class's super-type. Each instance of the super-type entity class, then is also an instance of one of the sub-type entity classes.

Super-type/sub-type relationships may be exclusive or not. A methodology may require that each instance of a super-type may only be an instance of one sub-type. Similarly, a super-type/sub-type relationship may be exhaustive or not. It is exhaustive if the methodology requires that each instance of a super-type must be an instance of a sub-type.

Example relationships

Each PERSON may be the vendor in one or more ORDERS.
Each ORDER must be from one and only one PERSON.
PERSON is a sub-type of PARTY. (Meaning that every instance of PERSON is also an instance of PARTY.)
Each Employee may have the supervisor within Employee.

Data structure diagram

A data structure diagram (DSD) is a data model or diagram used to describe conceptual data models by providing graphical notations which document entities and their relationships, and the constraints that binds them.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_schema

Conceptual Model

In the most general sense, a model is anything used in any way to represent anything else. Some models are physical objects, for instance, a toy model which may be assembled, and may even be made to work like the object it represents. However a conceptual model, may only be drawn on paper, described in words, or imagined in the mind. They are used to help us know and understand the subject matter they represent.

Type and scope of conceptual models

Conceptual models range in type from the more concrete, such as the mental image of a familiar physical object, to the formal generality and abstractness of mathematical models which do not appear to the mind as an image.

Conceptual models also range in terms of the scope of the subject matter that they are taken to represent. A model may, for instance, represent a single thing (e.g. the Statue of Liberty), whole classes of things (e.g. the electron), and even very vast domains of subject matter such as the physical universe. The variety and scope of conceptual models is due to the variety of purposes had by the people using them.

Metaphysical models

A metaphysical model is a type of conceptual model which is distinguished from other conceptual models by its proposed scope. A metaphysical model intends to represent reality in the broadest possible way. This is to say that it explains the answers to fundamental questions such as whether matter and mind are one or two substances; or whether or not humans have free will.

Epistemological models

An epistemological model is a type of conceptual model whose proposed scope is the known and the knowable.

Ethical models

Logical models

In logic, a model is a type of interpretation under which a particular statement is true. Logical models can be broadly divided into ones which only attempt to represent concepts, such as mathematical models; and ones which attempt to represent physical objects, and factual relationships, among which are scientific models.

Mathematical models

Main article: Mathematical model

Mathematical models can take many forms, including but not limited to dynamical systems, statistical models, differential equations, or game theoretic models. These and other types of models can overlap, with a given model involving a variety of abstract structures.

Scientific models

Main article: Scientific model

A scientific model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. A scientific model represents empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical way. Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation. The world is an interpretation (or model) of these sciences, only insofar as these sciences are true.^[1]

Data models

Domain Models

A domain model is a type of conceptual model used to depict the structural elements and their conceptual constraints within a domain of interest (sometimes called the problem domain). A domain model includes the various entities, their attributes and relationships, plus the constraints governing the conceptual integrity of the structural model elements comprising that problem domain. A domain model may also include a number of conceptual views, where each view is pertinent to a particular subject area of the domain or to a particular subset of the domain model which is of interest to a stakeholder of the domain model.

Social and political models

Economic models

Main article: Economic model

In economics, a model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques. Frequently, economic models use structural parameters. Structural parameters are underlying parameters in a model or class of models.[1] A model may have various parameters and those parameters may change to create various properties.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(abstract)

Usability Framework (Shackel)

2010-11-27T02:57:00.001-08:00

Human factors for informatics usability

By Brian Shackel, Simon J. Richardson

Chapter 2

Usability - Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation

Brian Shackel

http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KSHrPgLlMJIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=usability+framework&ots=ITWmRUSVB9&sig=5q50cAypuH-8I1LN4KPWtRRIoEs#v=onepage&q=usability%20framework&f=false

20101127 - concepts & defintions of Evaluation research (Stern)

2010-11-27T01:36:00.001-08:00

2. Can evaluation be defined?

Stern, E. (2004). Philosophies and types of evaluation research. In Descy, P.; Tessaring, M. (eds), The foundations of evaluation and impact research.

There are numerous definitions and types of evaluation. There are, for example, many definitions of evaluation put forward in handbooks, evaluation guidelines and administrative procedures, by bodies that commission and use evaluation. All of these definitions draw selectively on a wider debate as to the scope and focus of evaluation. A recent book identifies 22 foundation models for 21st century programme evaluation (Stufflebeam, 2000a), although the authors suggest that a smaller subset of nine are the strongest. Rather than begin with types and models, this chapter begins with an attempt to review and bring together the main ideas and orientations that underpin evaluation thinking.

Indicating potential problems with 'definition' by a question mark in the title of this section warns the reader not to expect straightforward or consistent statements. Evaluation has grown up through different historical periods in different policy environments, with inputs from many disciplines and methodologies, from diverse value positions and rooted in hard fought debates in philosophy of science and theories of knowledge.

While there is some agreement, there is also persistent difference: evaluation is contested terrain. Most of these sources are from North America where evaluation has been established – as a discipline and practice – and debated for 30 or more years.

2.1. Assessing or explaining outcomes

Among the most frequently quoted definitions is that of Scriven who has produced an evaluation Thesaurus, his own extensive handbook of evaluation terminology: '"evaluation" refers to the process of determining the merit, worth or value of something, or the product of that process […] The evaluation process normally involves some identification of relevant standards or merit, worth or value; some investigation of the performance of evaluands on these standards; and some integration or synthesis of the results to achieve an overall evaluation or set of associated evaluations.' (Scriven, 1991; p. 139).

This definition prepares the way for what has been called 'the logic of evaluation' (Scriven, 1991; Fournier, 1995). This logic is expressed in a sequence of four stages:
(a) establishing evaluation criteria and related dimensions;
(b) constructing standards of performance in relation to these criteria and dimensions;
(c) measuring performance in practice;
(d) reaching a conclusion about the worth of the object in question.

This logic is not without its critics (e.g. Schwandt, 1997) especially among those of a naturalistic or constructivist turn who cast doubt on the claims of evaluators to know, to judge and ultimately to control. Other stakeholders, it is argued, have a role and this changed relationship with stakeholders is discussed further below.

The most popular textbook definition of evaluation can be found in Rossi et. al.'s book Evaluation – a systematic approach: 'Program evaluation is the use of social research procedures to systematically investigate the effectiveness of social intervention programs. More specifically, evaluation researchers (evaluators) use social research methods to study, appraise, and help improve social programmes in all their important aspects, including the diagnosis of the social problems they address, their conceptualization and design, their implementation and administration, their outcomes, and their efficiency.' (Rossi et al., 1999; p. 4).

Using words such as effectiveness rather than Scriven's favoured 'merit worth or value' begins to shift the perspective of this definition towards the explanation of outcomes and impacts. This is partly because Rossi and his colleagues identify helping improve social programmes as one of the purposes of evaluation. Once there is an intention to make programmes more effective, the need to explain how they work becomes more important.

Yet, explanation is an important and intentionally absent element in Scriven's definitions of evaluation:

'By contrast with evaluation, which identifies the value of something, explanation involves answering a Why or How question about it or a call for some other type of understanding. Often, explanation involves identifying the cause of a phenomenon, rather than its effects (which is a major part of evaluation). When it is possible, without jeopardizing the main goals of an evaluation, a good evaluation design tries to uncover microexplanations (e.g. by identifying those components of the curriculum package that are producing the major part of the good or bad effects, and/or those that are having little effect).

The first priority, however, is to resolve the evaluation issues (is the package any good at all, the best available? etc.). Too often the research orientation and training of evaluators leads them to do a poor job on evaluation because they became interested in explanation.' (Scriven, 1991, p. 158).

Scriven himself recognises that one pressure moving evaluation to pay greater attention to explanation is the emergence of programme theory, with its concern about how programmes operate so that they can be improved or better implemented. A parallel pressure comes from the uptake of impact assessment associated with the growth of performance management and other managerial reforms within public sector administrations.

The intellectual basis for this work was most consistently elaborated by Wholey and colleagues. They start from the position that evaluation should be concerned with the efficiency and effectiveness of the way governments deliver public services. A core concept within this approach is what is called 'evaluability assessment' (Wholey, 1981). The starting point for this assessment is a critical review of the logic of programmes and the assumptions that underpin them. This work constitutes the foundation for most of the thinking about programme theory and logical frameworks. It also prefigures a later generation of evaluation thinking rooted more in policy analysis that is concerned with the institutionalisation of evaluation within public agencies (Boyle and Lemaire, 1999), as discussed further below.

These management reforms generally link interventions with outcomes. As Rossi et al. recognise, this takes us to the heart of broader debates in the social sciences about causality: 'The problem of establishing a program's impact is identical to the problem of establishing that the program is a cause of some specified effect. Hence, establishing impact essentially amounts to establishing causality.' (Rossi et al., 1999).

The difficulties of establishing perfect, rather than good enough, impact assessments are recognised by Rossi and colleagues. This takes us into the territory of experimentation and causal inference associated with some of the most influential founders of North American evaluations such as Campbell, with his interest in experimental and quasi-experimental designs, but also his interest in later years in the explanatory potential of qualitative evaluation methods.

The debate about experimentation and causality in evaluation continues to be vigorously pursued in various guises. For example, in a recent authoritative text on experimentation and causal inference, (Shadish et al., 2002) the authors begin to take on board contemporary criticisms of experimental methods that have come from the philosophy of science and the social sciences more generally. In recent years, we have also seen a sustained realist critique on experimental methods led in Europe by Pawson and Tilley (1997). But, whatever their orientations to experimentation and causal inference, explanations remain at the heart of the concerns of an important constituency within evaluation.

2.2. Evaluation, change and values

Another important strand in evaluation thinking concerns the relationship between evaluation and action or change. One comparison is between 'summative' and 'formative' evaluation methods, terms also coined by Scriven. The former assesses or judges results and the latter seeks to influence or promote change.

Various authors have contributed to an understanding of the role of evaluation and change. For example, Cronbach (1982, 1989) rooted in policy analysis and education, sees an important if limited role for evaluation in shaping policy 'at the margins' through 'piecemeal adaptations'. The role of evaluation in Cronbach's framework is to inform policies and programmes through the generation of knowledge that feeds into the 'policy shaping community' of experts, administrators and policy-makers.

Stake (1996) on the other hand, with his notion of 'responsive evaluation', sees this as a 'service' to programme stakeholders and to participants. By working with those who are directly involved in a programme, Stake sees the evaluator as supporting their participation and possibilities for initiating change. This contrasts with Cronbach's position and even more strongly with that of Wholey (referred to earlier) given Stake's scepticism about the possibilities of change at the level of large scale national (or in the US context Federal and State) programmes and their management.

Similarly, Patton, (1997 and earlier editions) who has tended to eschew work at programme and national level, shares with Stake a commitment to working with stakeholders and (local) users. His concern is for 'intended use by intended users'.

Virtually everyone in the field recognises the political and value basis of much evaluation activity, albeit in different ways. While Stake, Cronbach and Wholey may recognise the importance of values within evaluation, the values that they recognise are variously those of stakeholders, participants and programme managers.

There is another strand within the general orientation towards evaluation and change which is decidedly normative. This category includes House, with his emphasis on evaluation for social justice and the emancipatory logic of Fetterman et al. (1996) and 'empowerment evaluation'. Within the view of Fetterman and his colleagues, evaluation itself is not undertaken by external experts but rather is a self-help activity in which – because people empower themselves – the role of any external input is to support self-help.

So, one of the main differences among those evaluators who explicitly address issues of programme and societal change is in terms of the role of evaluators, be they experts who act, facilitators and advocates, or enablers of self help.

Source: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/BgR1_Stern.pdf

Comments: Boring. Reading thru all these concepts and definitions on Evaluation Research.

20101127 - Evaluation research/method (Patton)

2010-11-27T00:14:00.001-08:00

Evaluation Research : an interview with Dr Patton

Interviewed by Lisa Waldick

Comments: Dr Michael Quinn Patton is well-known for Evaluation Research methods. So, this creates my interest to read this interview.

Many development programs are evaluated to determine how effective and useful they are. But how effective and useful are the evaluations themselves? Internationally renowned evaluator, Michael Quinn Patton, recently came to IDRC (International Development Research Centre) to discuss his approach for making sure evaluations are useful for decision-makers. Dr Patton is the head of an organizational development consulting business: Utilization-Focused Information and Training. Known for five influential books on evaluation, including Qualitative/Evaluation and Research Methods, he was the 1984 recipient of the Alva and Gunnar Myrdal Award from the Evaluation Research Society for "outstanding contributions to evaluation use and practice"

Why is it important to evaluate development programs? Don't people on the ground just intuitively understand what is going on in programs?

Our very processes of taking in information distort reality — all the evidence of social science indicates this. We have selective perception — some of us have rose-coloured glasses, some of us are gloom-and-doomers. We are not neutral; there is an emotional content to information. We need disciplined techniques to be able to stand back from that day-to-day world and really be able to see what is going on. We need approaches to help us stand back from our tendency to have biases, prejudices, and preconceptions.

Can you give an example of how a preconception can influence a project?

There are examples in development that are legendary. One agriculture project grew a bean that cooked faster so it would use less fuel — and therefore you would partly reduce deforestation. But there was a lot of resistance to adopting it. Part of the resistance was because one of the few times women in this culture were able to socialize with each other was when they were cooking. They didn't want a fast cooking bean. Those are the kinds of things evaluators see when they go in — they see the things that people can't see because they are too close to it. Evaluation is about standing back and being able to see things through somebody else's eyes.

What distinguishes your approach to evaluation?

One of the ways of you can distinguish different evaluation approaches is by what they take as their bottom line for the evaluation. For me, it is the pragmatic use of evaluation findings and the evaluation process. In other words, it is that the evaluation is designed and implemented in a way that really makes a difference to improving programs and improving decisions about programs. So the bottom line in my approach is use — that's the reason why my approach is called utilization focussed evaluation.

How do you think the usefulness of evaluations can be increased?

In the timing of the evaluation, for example, it means that you time the findings to match when decisions are really going to be made. A lot of evaluations take place at the end of a project. An evaluation report gets written and it's a very good piece of work. But all the decisions have already been made about the future of the project by the time the evaluation gets done. On paper, it appears to make sense to do an evaluation right at the end of the project to try to capture everything that's gone on. But it turns out not to be useful to do that. Everything that is going to be decided about the future of a program gets decided before the end of the program.

Comments: Evaluation at the end of program is summative evaluation. Formative evaluation should be done so that improvements could be made during the program, and findings could be used to support decision making for the future of the program.

How can evaluations inform decision-making?

By knowing what the questions are that the decision-makers bring to a project. So, for example, you have to know: is there consideration being given to expanding the project from one part of the world to another — to adapt the intervention to a new ecosystem or a new group of people? Or do decision-makers already know that resources are declining and the real question is: Can we do more with less? Knowing what the decision context is lets you gather data that is relevant. A lot of evaluations get designed generically. When decision-makers get them, the response is: Well that's interesting. But it doesn't help me with what my decision is. It doesn't answer my question.

What do you see as the difference between research and evaluation?

There's a whole continuum of different kinds of evaluation and different kinds of research. However, on the whole, the purpose of evaluation is to produce useful information for program improvements and decision making. And the purpose of research is to produce knowledge about how the world works.

Because research is driven by the agenda of knowledge production, the standards for evidence are higher, and the time lines for generating knowledge can be longer. In evaluation, there are very concrete deadlines for when decisions have to get made, for when program action has to be taken. It often means that the levels of evidence involve less certainty than they would under a research approach and that the time lines are much shorter.

If you don't have the highest possible levels of evidence in the evaluation, isn't there a risk of making bad decisions?

In the real world, you don't have perfect knowledge and decisions are going to get made anyway. When a program is coming to an end and a decision has to get made about it, the decision is going to get made whether or not you have perfect knowledge. If you are saying: "No, don't decide now. Wait until I have perfect knowledge", the train is going to pass. The reality is that it's better to have some information in a timely fashion than to have perfect information too late to get used.

What is participatory evaluation? What are its advantages?

Participatory evaluation means involving people in the evaluation — not only to make the findings more relevant and more meaningful to them through their participation, but also to build their capacity for engaging in future evaluations and to deepen their capacity for evaluative thinking.

So, let's say you want to do a serious evaluation and you are trying to decide whether or not to have an external person do it or to do it internally. The external person may do a very good job of generating findings for you. But all the things that they learn about how to do evaluation, they take away with them. If you do the evaluation with counterparts in the countries where you are working, then they get the opportunity not only to generate findings and know where those findings come from, but also to learn about evaluative thinking.

What is evaluative thinking?

Evaluative thinking includes a willingness to do reality testing, to ask the question: how do we know what we think that we know. To use data to inform decisions — not to make data the only basis of decisions — but to bring data to bear on decisions. Evaluative thinking is not just limited to evaluation projects, it's not even just limited to formal evaluation. It's an analytical way of thinking that infuses everything that goes on.

What is the hardest thing to teach about evaluation?

The hardest thing I find to teach is how to go from data to recommendations. When you are doing an evaluation, you are looking at what has gone on — a history. But when you write recommendations, you are a futurist. Evaluations can help you make forecasts, but future decisions are not just a function of data. Making good, contextually grounded, politically savvy and do-able recommendations is a sophisticated skill. A great evaluator can really show the strengths and weaknesses in a program and can gather good, credible data about what is working and not working. But that doesn't mean that they know how to turn that information into recommendations.

I actually prefer to involve the primary decision-makers who are going to use the evaluation in generating their own recommendations through a process of facilitation and collaboration. I encourage them to look at the data, consider the options, and then come up with their own recommendations in a context that includes their values, experience, and resources.

When is it good not to evaluate a project or program?

You can overdo evaluation just because people get sick of it. There are also times of crisis when you need to take action, rather than study the questions. I've seen projects go down the tubes while people were studying and evaluating when in fact they needed to take action.

What do you think is the most important key to evaluation?

It is being serious diligent and disciplined about asking the questions, over and over: "What are we really going to do with this? Why are we doing it? What purpose is it going to serve? How are we going to use this information?" This typically gets answered casually: "We are going to use the evaluation to improve the program" — without asking the more detailed questions: "What do we mean by improve the program? What aspects of the program are we trying to improve?" So a focus develops, driven by use.

Source: http://www.evaluationwiki.org/index.php/Michael_Quinn_Patton

20101127 - Evaluation Research (Wikipedia)

2010-11-26T23:19:00.001-08:00

Comments: Below is my reading on Evaluation Research, taken from Wikipedia on Sat, 27 Nov 2010.

Evaluation research is used to determine the impact of a social intervention. A social intervention is an action taken within a social context designed to produce an intended result. Evaluation research thus analyzes the impact of a particular program on a certain social problem the program is trying to solve.

Appropriate Topics

Appropriate topics for evaluation research are as diverse and extensive as any other social research. Many topics exist that are in need of evaluation; however, the ones selected for evaluation have a practical significance. Practical significance refers to a topic's application in the real-world. Evaluation research has to be conducted during real life situations, meaning researchers need real life participants who are willing to be cooperative.

Types of Evaluation Research Studies

In the field, there are three main types of studies:

1 Needs assessment studies

Particular studies directed to determine the existence and extent of problems, usually pertaining to a specific population.

2 Cost-benefit studies

Studies that decide whether the results of a program justify the expense. The cost could have been financial or non-financial.

3 Monitoring studies

Studies that provide a steady flow of information about a topic of interest. These studies are usually conducted over an extended period of time. In some cases, monitoring studies require incremental interventions, meaning the results may change slightly as monitoring methods alter and changes within the topic being studied are made. Common monitoring studies focus on crime rates or epidemic outbreaks.

Issues of Measurement

While executing evaluation research, a researcher may encounter issues that limit the overall quality and validity of their findings. With all evaluation research , researchers must be able to operationalize, observe, and recognize the presence or absence of what is under study. A common problem is the attempt to measure a variable that is simply unmeasurable. Also, researchers must be fully aware of outside factors that may influence the variables they are studying. Researchers must also note not just the presence or absence of a variable, but they must analyze the extent to which the variable is present and the amount of its involvement.

New vs. existing measures

When designing an evaluation research study, a researcher must decide whether to create his or her own measures or to make use of existing ones. One consideration is that existing measures may not necessarily meet a researcher's goals; however, they do allow for comparison.

Types of Research Design

1 Experimental design

One evaluation research design type is experimental design. An experimental design for a study whose aim is to evaluate a new medical treatment would likely adhere to the following steps:

Step 1: identify the population; identify used definitions (operationalizations) and pre-test information on patients used in the treatment

Step 2: divide patients into experimental and control groups; consider ethical issues: in particular, is it ethically sound to deny treatment of the control group?

Step 3: determine the length of the measurement

Step 4: determine the details of measurement, context, interventions, etc.

Step 5: wait for the treatment to run its course, measure what's needed, and determine how the response variable was changed (if at all)

2 Quasi-experimental design

Another evaluation research design type is quasi-experimental design. Quasi-experimental designs are non-rigorous inquiries that somewhat resemble controlled experiments; however, they lack key elements that are indicative of experiments, including pre- and post-testing and/or control groups.

3 Time-series design

Time-series design is an additional evaluation research design type. This design type entails measurements made over a fixed time period, such as the study of traffic accident rates before and after the lowering of the speed limit in an area.

4 Multiple time-series design

Multiple time-series designs utilize more than one set of data collected over a period of time, such as accident rates over time in several states or cities. This design type allows comparisons to be made.

5 Social indicators research

Social indicators research is a popular avenue that combines evaluation research with the analysis of existing data. Social indicators are measurements that are reflective of the quality or nature of social life. Social indicators are frequently monitored in order to determine the nature of social change within a society. Some commonly used social indicators include crime rates, infant mortality rates, and the number of physicians per 100,000 population.

6 Nonequivalent control groups

Nonequivalent control groups share similarities with the experimental group, but they are not selected based on random assignment. For example, two comparable schools might be used; one as a nonequivalent control group, one as the experimental group.

Common Problems

Researchers who utilize evaluation research must contend with numerous problems. They may experience difficulty ensuring subjects' full cooperation. Additionally, they may have trouble finding willing participants, as research and participation in it is a priority for few.

Ethics

Like other forms of social research, evaluation research must take into account ethical considerations. As mentioned earlier, sometimes evaluation research studies may require the split of subjects into experimental and control groups. When considering controversial topics, such as sex education programs, it can be the evaluation research itself that raises ethical problems. In this case, the following question might be raised: is it ethically sound to expose only the experimental group to sex education programs?

Results and Interpretation

Results from evaluation research are not always put into practice.

One reason for this is that implications may not be presented in such a manner that is understandable to non-researchers.

Additionally, results may contrast with researchers' beliefs.

Researchers may have a vested interest in the results. They may also be pressured to come up with certain results, such as positive findings for a pharmaceutical company. In this case, ethical concerns regarding the researchers' objectivity must be raised.

When laypersons interpret research findings, they must always be aware of the highly political aspect of research. Political agendas can be difficult to identify, and they often cause research to be biased. This involves not just party politics, but also politics that are at play within the scientific and academic communities.

Comments: I concur that the research community may tend to be biased, e.g. toward their norms, beliefs and practices. I have been advised by 2 R&D key persons to redirect (is that bias?) my research in certain manner. Do I want my PhD in easier manner? If yes, it is best to follow the advice of the University Research Community. I am in dilemma.

Source: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_Research_Methods/Evaluation_Research

20101127 - Evaluation Research (Powell)

2010-11-26T22:31:00.000-08:00

Evaluation Research: an overview

Comments: This is preview of a paper.

Library Trends

June 22, 2006 Powell, Ronald R.

ABSTRACT

Evaluation research can be defined as a type of study that uses standard social research methods for evaluative purposes, as a specific research methodology, and as an assessment process that employs special techniques unique to the evaluation of social programs.

After the reasons for conducting evaluation research are discussed, the general principles and types are reviewed. Several evaluation methods are then presented, including input measurement, output/ performance measurement, impact/outcomes assessment, service quality assessment, process evaluation, benchmarking, standards, quantitative methods, qualitative methods, cost analysis, organizational effectiveness, program evaluation methods, and LIS-centered methods.

Other aspects of evaluation research considered are the steps of planning and conducting an evaluation study and the measurement process, including the gathering of statistics and the use of data collection techniques. The process of data analysis and the evaluation report are also given attention. It is concluded that evaluation research should be a rigorous, systematic process that involves collecting data about organizations, processes, programs, services, and/or resources. Evaluation research should enhance knowledge and decision making and lead to practical applications.

WHAT IS EVALUATION RESEARCH?

Evaluation research is not easily defined. There is not even unanimity regarding its name; it is referred to as evaluation research and evaluative research. Some individuals consider evaluation research to be a specific research method; others focus on special techniques unique, more often than not, to program evaluation; and yet others view it as a research activity that employs standard research methods for evaluative purposes. Consistent with the last perspective, Childers concludes, "The differences between evaluative research and other research center on the orientation of the research and not on the methods employed" (1989, p. 251). When evaluation research is treated as a research method, it is likely to be seen as a type of applied or action research, not as basic or theoretical research.

Weiss, in her standard textbook, defines evaluation as "the systematic assessment of the operation and/or the outcomes of a program or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program or policy" (1998, p. 4; emphasis in original). While certainly not incorrect, this definition, at least within a library and information (LIS) context, is too narrow or limited. Wallace and Van Fleet, for example, point out that "evaluation has to do with understanding library systems" (2001, p. 1). As will be noted later in this article, evaluative methods are used for everything from evaluating library collections to reference transactions.

WHY EVALUATE?

But before examining the specific techniques and methods used in LIS evaluation research, let us first briefly consider the question of why evaluation is important and then identify the desirable characteristics of evaluation, the steps involved in planning an evaluation study, and the general approaches to evaluation.

With regard to the initial question, Wallace and Van Fleet (2001, pp. xx-xxi) and others have noted that there are a growing number of reasons why it is important for librarians and other information professionals to evaluate their organizations' operations, resources, and services.

Among those reasons are the need for organizations to

1. account for how they use their limited resources

2. explain what they do

3. enhance their visibility

4. describe their impact

5. increase efficiency

6. avoid errors

7. support planning activities

8. express concern for their public

9. support decision making

10. strengthen their political position.

In addition to some of the reasons listed above, Weiss (1998, pp. 20-28) identifies several other purposes for evaluating programs and policies. They include the following:

1. Determining how clients are faring

2. Providing legitimacy for decisions

3. Fulfilling grant requirements

4. Making midcourse corrections in programs

5. Making decisions to continue or culminate programs

6. Testing new ideas

7. Choosing the best alternatives

8. Recording program history

9. Providing feedback to staff

10. Highlighting goals

"Over the past decade, both academics and practitioners in the field of library and information science (LIS) have increasingly recognized the significance of assessing library services" (Shi & Levy, 2005, p. 266). In August 2004 the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science announced three strategic goals to guide its work in the immediate future. Among those three goals was the appraising and assessing of library and information services.

CHARACTERISTICS AND PRINCIPLES OF EVALUATION

Childers (1989, p. 250), in an article emphasizing the evaluation of programs, notes that evaluation research
(1) is usually employed for decision making;
(2) deals with research questions about a program;
(3) takes place in the real world of the program; and
(4) usually represents a compromise between pure and applied research.

Wallace and Van Fleet (2001) comment that evaluation should be carefully planned, not occur by accident; have a purpose that is usually goal oriented; focus on determining the quality of a product or service; go beyond measurement; not be any larger than necessary; and reflect the situation in which it will occur. Similarly, evaluation should contribute to an organization's planning efforts; be built into existing programs; provide useful, systematically collected data; employ an outside evaluator/consultant when possible; involve the staff; not be any fancier than necessary; and target multiple audiences and purposes (Some Practical Lessons on Evaluation, 2000).

In an earlier work on the evaluation of special libraries, Griffiths and King (1991, p. 3) identify some principles for good evaluation that still bear repeating:

1. Evaluation must have a purpose; it must not be an end in itself

2. Without the potential for some action, there is no need to evaluate

3. Evaluation must be more than descriptive; it must take into account relationships among operational performance, users, and organizations

4. Evaluation should be a communication tool involving staff and users

5. Evaluation should not be sporadic but be ongoing and provide a means for continual monitoring, diagnosis, and change

6. Ongoing evaluation should provide a means for continual monitoring, diagnosis and change

7. Ongoing evaluation should be dynamic in nature, reflecting new knowledge and changes in the environment

As has been implied, but not explicitly stated above, evaluation often attempts to assess the effectiveness of a program or service. On a more specific level, evaluation can be used to support accreditation reviews, needs assessments, new projects, personnel reviews, conflict resolution, and professional compliance reports.

Source: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-151440807/evaluation-research-overview.html

Action: to download the entire paper at Univ.

20101127 - Evaluative Research (Winsett, NATCO)

2010-11-26T21:48:00.001-08:00

Evaluative Research

Rebecca P. Winsett, PhD, Associate Professor, University of ennessee-Memphis, Memphis, TN; Professor, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN, NATCO Research Committee Co-Chair

Introduction

Evaluation of the impact of a new program is an important aspect of many organizations. Finding that implementing a new way to evaluate donors or whether or not adding a return to work program is successful may be examples of program evaluation.

There is a design methodology called evaluative research that can help guide you as you design studies for future publication. As stated in Weiss (Weiss, 1998), evaluation is the "systematic assessment of the operation and/or the outcomes of a program or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program or policy" (pg 4).

Elements of Evaluation

Two questions that you may ask about a program may include if the program has the intended effect (What are the outcomes?) or is the program being delivered as it was originally constructed (What services are being delivered?). In these two questions, you may have several ways to evaluate the impact (the outcomes) and its effectiveness (process).

Outcomes refer to the results of the program. Were the services successful? Did those in a smoking cessation program stop smoking? Did those who attended an education program increase knowledge? Was attitude about organ donor awareness changed as a result of your program? Methods to measure outcomes are not too distant from those you would find in traditional research methodology. Measuring group differences or pre/post-testing are examples of ways to measure outcomes.

Process refers to the internal working of the program itself. Understanding the operations of the program and how it can be improved. Designing the evaluation of the process of the program requires thoughtful planning of what you want to examine. Examples may include monitoring staff time during the program to show cost savings or collecting surveys from different levels of staff to tease out problems with work efficiency. Qualitative studies can also be included.

Each type of evaluation, whether outcome or process must be systematically developed to ensure the effects of the program are truly effects rather than opinion.

Source: http://www.natco1.org/research/files/EvaluativeResearch_000.pdf

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20101127 - The Planning-Evaluation Cycle (SocialResearchMethods.net)

2010-11-26T18:18:00.001-08:00

Often, evaluation is construed as part of a larger managerial or administrative process. Sometimes this is referred to as the planning-evaluation cycle. The distinctions between planning and evaluation are not always clear; this cycle is described in many different ways with various phases claimed by both planners and evaluators.
Usually, the first stage of such a cycle -- the planning phase -- is designed to elaborate a set of potential actions, programs, or technologies, and select the best for implementation.

Depending on the organization and the problem being addressed, a planning process could involve any or all of these stages:
the formulation of the problem, issue, or concern;
the broad conceptualization of the major alternatives that might be considered;
the detailing of these alternatives and their potential implications;
the evaluation of the alternatives and the selection of the best one; and
the implementation of the selected alternative.

Although these stages are traditionally considered planning, there is a lot of evaluation work involved. Evaluators are trained in needs assessment, they use methodologies -- like the concept mapping one presented later -- that help in conceptualization and detailing, and they have the skills to help assess alternatives and make a choice of the best one.

The evaluation phase also involves a sequence of stages that typically includes:
the formulation of the major objectives, goals, and hypotheses of the program or technology;
the conceptualization and operationalization of the major components of the evaluation -- the program, participants, setting, and measures;
the design of the evaluation,
detailing how these components will be coordinated;
the analysis of the information, both qualitative and quantitative; and
the utilization of the evaluation results.

Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/pecycle.php

20101127 - Evaluation Research (SocialResearchMethods.net)

2010-11-26T17:53:00.001-08:00

One specific form of social research -- evaluation research -- is of particular interest here. The Introduction to Evaluation Research presents an overview of what evaluation is and how it differs from social research generally. We also introduce several evaluation models to give you some perspective on the evaluation endeavor. Evaluation should not be considered in a vacuum. Here, we consider evaluation as embedded within a larger Planning-Evaluation Cycle.
Evaluation can be a threatening activity. Many groups and organizations struggle with how to build a good evaluation capability into their everyday activities and procedures. This is essentially an organizational culture issue. Here we consider some of the issues a group or organization needs to address in order to develop an evaluation culture that works in their context.

Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/evaluation.php

Introduction to Evaluation

Evaluation is a methodological area that is closely related to, but distinguishable from more traditional social research. Evaluation utilizes many of the same methodologies used in traditional social research, but because evaluation takes place within a political and organizational context, it requires group skills, management ability, political dexterity, sensitivity to multiple stakeholders and other skills that social research in general does not rely on as much. Here we introduce the idea of evaluation and some of the major terms and issues in the field.

Definitions of Evaluation

Probably the most frequently given definition is:

Evaluation is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object

This definition is hardly perfect. There are many types of evaluations that do not necessarily result in an assessment of worth or merit -- descriptive studies, implementation analyses, and formative evaluations, to name a few. Better perhaps is a definition that emphasizes the information-processing and feedback functions of evaluation. For instance, one might say:

Evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object

Both definitions agree that evaluation is a systematic endeavor and both use the deliberately ambiguous term 'object' which could refer to a program, policy, technology, person, need, activity, and so on. The latter definition emphasizes acquiring and assessing information rather than assessing worth or merit because all evaluation work involves collecting and sifting through data, making judgements about the validity of the information and of inferences we derive from it, whether or not an assessment of worth or merit results.

The Goals of Evaluation

The generic goal of most evaluations is to provide "useful feedback" to a variety of audiences including sponsors, donors, client-groups, administrators, staff, and other relevant constituencies. Most often, feedback is perceived as "useful" if it aids in decision-making. But the relationship between an evaluation and its impact is not a simple one -- studies that seem critical sometimes fail to influence short-term decisions, and studies that initially seem to have no influence can have a delayed impact when more congenial conditions arise. Despite this, there is broad consensus that the major goal of evaluation should be to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback.

Evaluation Strategies

'Evaluation strategies' means broad, overarching perspectives on evaluation. They encompass the most general groups or "camps" of evaluators; although, at its best, evaluation work borrows eclectically from the perspectives of all these camps. Four major groups of evaluation strategies are discussed here.

Scientific-experimental models are probably the most historically dominant evaluation strategies. Taking their values and methods from the sciences -- especially the social sciences -- they prioritize on the desirability of impartiality, accuracy, objectivity and the validity of the information generated. Included under scientific-experimental models would be: the tradition of experimental and quasi-experimental designs; objectives-based research that comes from education; econometrically-oriented perspectives including cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis; and the recent articulation of theory-driven evaluation.

The second class of strategies are management-oriented systems models. Two of the most common of these are PERT, the Program Evaluation and Review Technique, and CPM, the Critical Path Method. Both have been widely used in business and government in this country. It would also be legitimate to include the Logical Framework or "Logframe" model developed at U.S. Agency for International Development and general systems theory and operations research approaches in this category. Two management-oriented systems models were originated by evaluators: the UTOS model where U stands for Units, T for Treatments, O for Observing Observations and S for Settings; and the CIPP model where the C stands for Context, the I for Input, the first P for Process and the second P for Product. These management-oriented systems models emphasize comprehensiveness in evaluation, placing evaluation within a larger framework of organizational activities.

The third class of strategies are the qualitative/anthropological models. They emphasize the importance of observation, the need to retain the phenomenological quality of the evaluation context, and the value of subjective human interpretation in the evaluation process. Included in this category are the approaches known in evaluation as naturalistic or 'Fourth Generation' evaluation; the various qualitative schools; critical theory and art criticism approaches; and, the 'grounded theory' approach of Glaser and Strauss among others.

Finally, a fourth class of strategies is termed participant-oriented models. As the term suggests, they emphasize the central importance of the evaluation participants, especially clients and users of the program or technology. Client-centered and stakeholder approaches are examples of participant-oriented models, as are consumer-oriented evaluation systems.
With all of these strategies to choose from, how to decide? Debates that rage within the evaluation profession -- and they do rage -- are generally battles between these different strategists, with each claiming the superiority of their position. In reality, most good evaluators are familiar with all four categories and borrow from each as the need arises. There is no inherent incompatibility between these broad strategies -- each of them brings something valuable to the evaluation table. In fact, in recent years attention has increasingly turned to how one might integrate results from evaluations that use different strategies, carried out from different perspectives, and using different methods. Clearly, there are no simple answers here. The problems are complex and the methodologies needed will and should be varied.

Types of Evaluation

There are many different types of evaluations depending on the object being evaluated and the purpose of the evaluation. Perhaps the most important basic distinction in evaluation types is that between formative and summative evaluation.
Formative evaluations strengthen or improve the object being evaluated -- they help form it by examining the delivery of the program or technology, the quality of its implementation, and the assessment of the organizational context, personnel, procedures, inputs, and so on.
Summative evaluations, in contrast, examine the effects or outcomes of some object -- they summarize it by describing what happens subsequent to delivery of the program or technology; assessing whether the object can be said to have caused the outcome; determining the overall impact of the causal factor beyond only the immediate target outcomes; and, estimating the relative costs associated with the object.

Formative evaluation includes several evaluation types:

needs assessment determines who needs the program, how great the need is, and what might work to meet the need
evaluability assessment determines whether an evaluation is feasible and how stakeholders can help shape its usefulness
structured conceptualization helps stakeholders define the program or technology, the target population, and the possible outcomes
implementation evaluation monitors the fidelity of the program or technology delivery
process evaluation investigates the process of delivering the program or technology, including alternative delivery procedures

Summative evaluation can also be subdivided:

outcome evaluations investigate whether the program or technology caused demonstrable effects on specifically defined target outcomes
impact evaluation is broader and assesses the overall or net effects -- intended or unintended -- of the program or technology as a whole
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis address questions of efficiency by standardizing outcomes in terms of their dollar costs and values
secondary analysis reexamines existing data to address new questions or use methods not previously employed
meta-analysis integrates the outcome estimates from multiple studies to arrive at an overall or summary judgement on an evaluation question

Evaluation Questions and Methods

Evaluators ask many different kinds of questions and use a variety of methods to address them. These are considered within the framework of formative and summative evaluation as presented above.

In formative research the major questions and methodologies are:

What is the definition and scope of the problem or issue, or what's the question?

Formulating and conceptualizing methods might be used including brainstorming, focus groups, nominal group techniques, Delphi methods, brainwriting, stakeholder analysis, synectics, lateral thinking, input-output analysis, and concept mapping.

Where is the problem and how big or serious is it?

The most common method used here is "needs assessment" which can include: analysis of existing data sources, and the use of sample surveys, interviews of constituent populations, qualitative research, expert testimony, and focus groups.

How should the program or technology be delivered to address the problem?

Some of the methods already listed apply here, as do detailing methodologies like simulation techniques, or multivariate methods like multiattribute utility theory or exploratory causal modeling; decision-making methods; and project planning and implementation methods like flow charting, PERT/CPM, and project scheduling.

How well is the program or technology delivered?

Qualitative and quantitative monitoring techniques, the use of management information systems, and implementation assessment would be appropriate methodologies here.

The questions and methods addressed under summative evaluation include:

What type of evaluation is feasible?

Evaluability assessment can be used here, as well as standard approaches for selecting an appropriate evaluation design.

What was the effectiveness of the program or technology?

One would choose from observational and correlational methods for demonstrating whether desired effects occurred, and quasi-experimental and experimental designs for determining whether observed effects can reasonably be attributed to the intervention and not to other sources.

What is the net impact of the program?

Econometric methods for assessing cost effectiveness and cost/benefits would apply here, along with qualitative methods that enable us to summarize the full range of intended and unintended impacts.

Clearly, this introduction is not meant to be exhaustive. Each of these methods, and the many not mentioned, are supported by an extensive methodological research literature. This is a formidable set of tools. But the need to improve, update and adapt these methods to changing circumstances means that methodological research and development needs to have a major place in evaluation work.

Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.php

20101126 - Diagram - Focus Group as a Qualitative research method

2010-11-26T06:38:00.001-08:00

Focus Group is one of the Qualitative research methods.

Source: http://www.powerdecisions.com/qualitative-market-research.cfm

20101126 - Peek & Fothergill, Using Focus Groups for Qualitative Research

2010-11-26T06:20:00.001-08:00

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to examine focus groups as a qualitative research method. We describe and evaluate the use of focus groups based on three separate research projects:

* a study of teachers, parents, and children at two urban daycare centers,

* a study of the responses of second-generation Muslim Americans to the events of September 11, and

* a collaborative project on the experiences of children and youth following Hurricane Katrina.

By examining three diverse projects, we are able to illustrate some of the strengths and challenges of the focus group as a sociological research method.

In addition, in this article we provide practical advice regarding the design and implementation of focus groups, including information on participant recruitment, the most effective group size, group composition and issues of segmentation, how to carry out focus groups, and the ideal number of groups to conduct.

Peek, Lori. and Fothergill, Alice. "Using Focus Groups for Qualitative Research" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007 <Not Available>. 2010-10-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p183125_index.html>

Peek, L. and Fothergill, A. , 2007-08-11 "Using Focus Groups for Qualitative Research" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2010-10-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p183125_index.html

Source: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/3/1/2/p183125_index.html

Full document in HTML: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/3/1/2/pages183125/p183125-1.php

20101126 - Focus Group research method (Gibbs)

2010-11-26T05:34:00.000-08:00

Focus Groups

Anita Gibbs

Dr Anita Gibbs is a Research Officer at the Probation Studies Unit, Centre for Criminological Research, Oxford University. This article arises out of a review of focus group methodology conducted for the Department of Social Medicine at Bristol University in March 1997.

· Focus group research involves organised discussion with a selected group of individuals to gain information about their views and experiences of a topic.

· Focus group interviewing is particularly suited for obtaining several perspectives about the same topic.

· The benefits of focus group research include gaining insights into people's shared understandings of everyday life and the ways in which individuals are influenced by others in a group situation.

· Problems arise when attempting to identify the individual view from the group view, as well as in the practical arrangements for conducting focus groups.

· The role of the moderator is very significant. Good levels of group leadership and interpersonal skill are required to moderate a group successfully.

Focus groups are under-used in social research, although they have a long history in market research (Morgan 1988), and more recently in medical research (Powell & Single 1996). This Update examines the value of focus groups as a tool for social researchers and considers their potential and their limitations.

What are focus groups?

There are many definitions of a focus group in the literature, but features like organised discussion (Kitzinger 1994), collective activity (Powell et al 1996), social events (Goss & Leinbach 1996) and interaction (Kitzinger 1995) identify the contribution that focus groups make to social research.

Powell et al define a focus group as

a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research. (1996: 499)

Focus groups are a form of group interviewing but it is important to distinguish between the two. Group interviewing involves interviewing a number of people at the same time, the emphasis being on questions and responses between the researcher and participants. Focus groups however rely on interaction within the group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher. (Morgan 1997: 12)

Hence the key characteristic which distinguishes focus groups is the insight and data produced by the interaction between participants.

Merton and Kendall's (1946) influential article on the focused interview set the parameters for focus group development. This was in terms of ensuring that participants have a specific experience of or opinion about the topic under investigation; that an explicit interview guide is used; and that the subjective experiences of participants are explored in relation to predetermined research questions.

Why use focus groups and not other methods?

The main purpose of focus group research is to draw upon respondents' attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions in a way in which would not be feasible using other methods, for example observation, one-to-one interviewing, or questionnaire surveys. These attitudes, feelings and beliefs may be partially independent of a group or its social setting, but are more likely to be revealed via the social gathering and the interaction which being in a focus group entails.

Compared to individual interviews, which aim to obtain individual attitudes, beliefs and feelings, focus groups elicit a multiplicity of views and emotional processes within a group context. The individual interview is easier for the researcher to control than a focus group in which participants may take the initiative.

Compared to observation, a focus group enables the researcher to gain a larger amount of information in a shorter period of time. Observational methods tend to depend on waiting for things to happen, whereas the researcher follows an interview guide in a focus group. In this sense focus groups are not natural but organised events.

Focus groups are particularly useful when there are power differences between the participants and decision-makers or professionals, when the everyday use of language and culture of particular groups is of interest, and when one wants to explore the degree of consensus on a given topic (Morgan & Kreuger 1993).

The role of focus groups

Focus groups can be used at the preliminary or exploratory stages of a study (Kreuger 1988); during a study, perhaps to evaluate or develop a particular programme of activities (Race et al 1994); or after a programme has been completed, to assess its impact or to generate further avenues of research. They can be used either as a method in their own right or as a complement to other methods, especially for triangulation (Morgan 1988) and validity checking.

Focus groups can help to explore or generate hypotheses (Powell & Single 1996) and develop questions or concepts for questionnaires and interview guides (Hoppe et al 1995; Lankshear 1993). They are however limited in terms of their ability to generalise findings to a whole population, mainly because of the small numbers of people participating and the likelihood that the participants will not be a representative sample. Examples of research in which focus groups have been employed include developing HIV education in Zimbabwe (Munodawafa et al 1995), understanding how media messages are processed (Kitzinger 1994 & 1995), exploring people's fear of woodlands (Burgess 1996) and distance interviewing of family doctors (White & Thomson 1995).

Potential and Limitations

Kitzinger (1994, 1995) argues that interaction is the crucial feature of focus groups because the interaction between participants highlights their view of the world, the language they use about an issue and their values and beliefs about a situation. Interaction also enables participants to ask questions of each other, as well as to re-evaluate and reconsider their own understandings of their specific experiences.

Another benefit is that focus groups elicit information in a way which allows researchers to find out why an issue is salient, as well as what is salient about it (Morgan 1988). As a result, the gap between what people say and what they do can be better understood (Lankshear 1993). If multiple understandings and meanings are revealed by participants, multiple explanations of their behaviour and attitudes will be more readily articulated.

The benefits to participants of focus group research should not be underestimated. The opportunity to be involved in decision making processes (Race et al 1994), to be valued as experts, and to be given the chance to work collaboratively with researchers (Goss & Leinbach 1996) can be empowering for many participants. If a group works well, trust develops and the group may explore solutions to a particular problem as a unit (Kitzinger 1995), rather than as individuals. Not everyone will experience these benefits, as focus groups can also be intimidating at times, especially for inarticulate or shy members. Hence focus groups are not empowering for all participants and other methods may offer more opportunities for participants. However if participants are actively involved in something which they feel will make a difference, and focus group research is often of an applied nature, empowerment can realistically be achieved.

Another advantage of focus groups to clients, users, participants or consumers is that they can become a forum for change (Race et al 1994), both during the focus group meeting itself and afterwards. For example, in research conducted by Goss & Leinbach (1996), the participants in the research experienced a sense of emancipation through speaking in public and by developing reciprocal relationships with the researchers. In another study (Smith et al 1995), patients in hospital were invited to give their views about services and to provide ideas about improvements. In this instance change occurred at the management level as a direct result of patients' input.

Although focus group research has many advantages, as with all research methods there are limitations. Some can be overcome by careful planning and moderating, but others are unavoidable and peculiar to this approach. The researcher, or moderator, for example, has less control over the data produced (Morgan 1988) than in either quantitative studies or one-to-one interviewing. The moderator has to allow participants to talk to each other, ask questions and express doubts and opinions, while having very little control over the interaction other than generally keeping participants focused on the topic. By its nature focus group research is open ended and cannot be entirely predetermined.

It should not be assumed that the individuals in a focus group are expressing their own definitive individual view. They are speaking in a specific context, within a specific culture, and so sometimes it may be difficult for the researcher to clearly identify an individual message. This too is a potential limitation of focus groups.

On a practical note, focus groups can be difficult to assemble. It may not be easy to get a representative sample and focus groups may discourage certain people from participating, for example those who are not very articulate or confident, and those who have communication problems or special needs. The method of focus group discussion may also discourage some people from trusting others with sensitive or personal information. In such cases personal interviews or the use of workbooks alongside focus groups may be a more suitable approach. Finally, focus groups are not fully confidential or anonymous, because the material is shared with the others in the group.

The practical organisation of focus groups

Organising focus group interviews usually requires more planning than other types of interviewing as getting people to group gatherings can be difficult and setting up appropriate venues with adequate recording facilities requires a lot of time.

The recommended number of people per group is usually six to ten (MacIntosh 1993), but some researchers have used up to fifteen people (Goss & Leinbach 1996) or as few as four (Kitzinger 1995). Numbers of groups vary, some studies using only one meeting with each of several focus groups (Burgess 1996), others meeting the same group several times. Focus group sessions usually last from one to two hours. Neutral locations can be helpful for avoiding either negative or positive associations with a particular site or building (Powell & Single 1996). Otherwise the focus group meetings can be held in a variety of places, for example, people's homes, in rented facilities, or where the participants hold their regular meetings if they are a pre-existing group.

It is not always easy to identify the most appropriate participants for a focus group. If a group is too heterogeneous, whether in terms of gender or class, or in terms of professional and 'lay' perspectives, the differences between participants can make a considerable impact on their contributions. Alternatively, if a group is homogenous with regard to specific characteristics, diverse opinions and experiences may not be revealed. Participants need to feel comfortable with each other. Meeting with others whom they think of as possessing similar characteristics or levels of understanding about a given topic, will be more appealing than meeting with those who are perceived to be different (Morgan 1988).

Once the types of participant have been decided, locating them is the next challenge. Recruitment of participants can be time consuming, especially if the topic under consideration has no immediate benefits or attractions to participants. It is likely that people with specific interests will have to be recruited by word of mouth (Burgess 1996), through the use of key informants, by advertising or poster campaigns (Holbrook & Jackson 1996), or through existing social networks. Incentives, whether expenses, gift vouchers or presents, will usually need to be offered.

The role of moderator

Once a meeting has been arranged, the role of moderator or group facilitator becomes critical, especially in terms of providing clear explanations of the purpose of the group, helping people feel at ease, and facilitating interaction between group members.

During the meeting moderators will need to promote debate, perhaps by asking open questions. They may also need to challenge participants, especially to draw out people's differences, and tease out a diverse range of meanings on the topic under discussion. Sometimes moderators will need to probe for details, or move things forward when the conversation is drifting or has reached a minor conclusion. Moderators also have to keep the session focused and so sometimes they may deliberately have to steer the conversation back on course. Moderators also have to ensure everyone participates and gets a chance to speak. At the same time moderators are encouraged not to show too much approval (Kreuger 1988), so as to avoid favouring particular participants. They must avoid giving personal opinions so as not to influence participants towards any particular position or opinion.

The role of the moderator is a demanding and challenging one, and moderators will need to possess good interpersonal skills and personal qualities, being good listeners, non-judgmental and adaptable. These qualities will promote the participants' trust in the moderator and increase the likelihood of open, interactive dialogue.

Finally, the degree of control and direction imposed by moderators will depend upon the goals of the research as well as on their preferred style. If two or more moderators are involved in the facilitation of a focus group, agreement needs to be reached as to how much input or direction each will give. It is recommended that one moderator facilitates and the other takes notes and checks the recording equipment during the meeting. There also needs to be consistency across focus groups, so careful preparation with regard to role and responsibilities is required.

Ethical issues

Ethical considerations for focus groups are the same as for most other methods of social research (Homan 1991). For example, when selecting and involving participants, researchers must ensure that full information about the purpose and uses of participants' contributions is given. Being honest and keeping participants informed about the expectations of the group and topic, and not pressurising participants to speak is good practice. A particular ethical issue to consider in the case of focus groups is the handling of sensitive material and confidentiality given that there will always be more than one participant in the group. At the outset moderators will need to clarify that each participant's contributions will be shared with the others in the group as well as with the moderator. Participants need to be encouraged to keep confidential what they hear during the meeting and researchers have the responsibility to anonymise data from the group.

Source: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html

20101126 - Focus Group reporting (Iowa State Univ)

2010-11-26T04:07:00.001-08:00

Reporting

Words not Numbers

In the analysis stage, survey research requires transformation of numbers with statistics (at minimum, it requires the calculation of percentages). The end result is a report featuring graphs and tables.

Focus groups, on the other hand, rely upon words spoken by participants. The focus on language earns focus group methodology the label, qualitative (Creswell, 1998). A report based on focus groups will feature patterns formed by words, called themes or perspectives. Researchers must use specific methods to analyze patterns in spoken language (Creswell, 1998). Numerical analysis is not a preferred technique.

In fact, it is inappropriate to report the results of focus groups by percentage (e.g., Among the five focus groups, an average of 56 percent of participants mentioned their frustration with the procedures for applying for public assistance).

Instead, a focus group result might read like this:

Another theme noted in focus groups on housing was the value of the (community) housing market to the participant's current home. Participants frequently mentioned the cost they had paid for their last home…and used this home's cost and amenities as a yardstick against which they measured… housing (in the community under discussion). (Larson and Hegland, 2003).

The focus group data in the previous example enable the researcher to determine residents' logic in addition to their judgments.

A report of results from focus groups should not present major findings via frequencies or statistics because 'counting' leads readers to believe that percentages or frequencies are true for a much wider population (which they are not).

Quantitative survey researchers go to great lengths to design a study so that numerical data generalize to a wider population with mathematical precision. Focus groups method isn't meant to create generalizations of this type and its procedures offer none of the protections that would permit them to do so (Fern, 2001).

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.

20101126 - Focus Group research method (Iowa State Univ)

2010-11-26T02:55:00.001-08:00

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.

20101126 - Focus Group - a qualitative research (Kitzinger)

2010-11-26T01:28:00.001-08:00

Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups

Jenny Kitzinger, research fellow

Glasgow University Media Group, Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8LF

This paper introduces focus group methodology, gives advice on group composition, running the groups, and analysing the results. Focus groups have advantages for researchers in the field of health and medicine: they do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or who feel they have nothing to say.

Rationale and uses of focus groups

Focus groups are a form of group interview that capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data.

Although group interviews are often used simply as a quick and convenient way to collect data from several people simultaneously, focus groups explicitly use group interaction as part of the method. This means that instead of the researcher asking each person to respond to a question in turn, people are encouraged to talk to one another: asking questions, exchanging anecdotes and commenting on each other's experiences and points of view.1 The method is particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how they think and why they think that way.

The idea behind the focus group method is that group processes can help people to explore and …

Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7000/299.extract

20101126 – Focus Group research methodology (UpFront Consulting)

2010-11-26T01:15:00.001-08:00

A research method

Focus group research is a qualitative research method. It seeks to gather information that is beyond the scope of quantitative research !mail and telephone surveys and the like".

The term "focus group" is often used to describe many types of group discussions. Focus group research, however, is a true research method. As such, it uses a fairly standard methodology.

Our methodology draws heavily on the work of Richard Krueger, from the University of Minnesota.

The purpose of the methodology is to make sure that the information that is collected is not biased by the researcher, is a true representation of participants' feelings and beliefs, and is reproducible! in other words, if another researcher conducted the same focus group, he or she would obtain similar results.

Question design

The question path is open-ended, designed to gather ideas and opinions that are outside the scope of prepared questions, in addition to testing a series of prepared hypotheses.

Participant selection

Since focus group results are not quantifiable, rigid random selection is not always necessary. The best results are usually obtained when the group has some homogenous aspects, such as a common profession or interest.

Group size

Traditionally, focus groups of eight to ten participants were considered ideal & giving a variety of viewpoints while making sure that everyone has a chance to participate. A number of researchers are now working with 5 to 7-person groups, especially if the topic is complex, or if there is a lot of ground to cover.

Facility

The group should be held at a neutral site, so participants feel comfortable discussing sensitive issues. A focus group facility with observation area can be used if available, and if budget allows. Otherwise, any conference-style room can be used. An oval table is preferable, because it allows all participants to see and interact with each other. Refreshments of some type are usually served, to create an informal, comfortable atmosphere.

Group length

Most groups last from one and one-half to two hours. Groups with adolescents should be shorter, generally no more than one hour.

Facilitator and observer

The methodology we use includes the use of both a facilitator and an observer.

The role of the facilitator is to keep the group on task, while making sure that divergent viewpoints and ideas are heard. The facilitator is also responsible for making sure that less vocal and less assertive group members have a chance to participate.

The observer's role is to record the focus group, taking notes to supplement the audio and/or video record. The observer pays special attention to non-verbal cues that indicate agreement or disagreement, interest or disinterest, and the like.

Reporting

Shortly after the sessions, the facilitator and the observer prepare a narrative report. For some groups, where the information is needed quickly, a debriefing session is held immediately following the group, with facilitator, observer and client participating. Transcripts of the groups are sometimes produced as part of the record.

Audio taping is standard, used by the researchers in writing the report and often reviewed by clients. Videotaping is also common; audio or video clips can be useful for sharing results when confidentiality is not an issue.

Source: http://www.upfrontconsultingmn.com/assets/newsletters/Focus_group_research.pdf

20101126 - Focus Group research methodology (Wikipedia, Usability.gov, Edmunds)

2010-11-26T00:51:00.001-08:00

Focus Group

A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging.^[1] Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. The first focus groups were created at the Bureau of Applied Social Research by associate director, sociologist Robert K. Merton.^[2] The term itself was coined by psychologist and marketing expert Ernest Dichter.^[3]

In the social sciences and urban planning, focus groups allow interviewers to study people in a more natural setting than a one-to-one interview. In combination with participant observation, they can be used for gaining access to various cultural and social groups, selecting sites to study, sampling of such sites, and raising unexpected issues for exploration. Focus groups have a high apparent validity - since the idea is easy to understand, the results are believable. Also, they are low in cost, one can get results relatively quickly, and they can increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once.^[4]

In the Usability engineering, focus group is a survey method to collect the views of users on a software or website. This marketing method can be applied to computer products to better understand the motivations of users and their perception of the product. Unlike other methods of ergonomics, focus group implies several participants: users or future users of the application. The focus group can only collect subjective data, not objective data on the use of the application as the usability test for example^[5].

In the world of marketing, focus groups are seen as an important tool for acquiring feedback regarding new products, as well as various topics. In particular, focus groups allow companies wishing to develop, package, name, or test market a new product, to discuss, view, and/or test the new product before it is made available to the public. This can provide invaluable information about the potential market acceptance of the product.

Focus Group is an interview, conducted by a trained moderator among a small group of respondents. The interview is conducted in an unstructured and natural way where respondents are free to give views from any aspect.

Variants of focus groups include:

Two-way focus group - one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusion
Dual moderator focus group - one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered
Dueling moderator focus group - two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion
Respondent moderator focus group - one and only one of the respondents are asked to act as the moderator temporarily
Client participant focus groups - one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly
Mini focus groups - groups are composed of four or five members rather than 6 to 12
Teleconference focus groups - telephone network is used
Online focus groups - computers connected via the internet are used

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group

Focus Group

Focus group is a moderated discussion among eight to 12 users or potential users of your site. A typical focus group lasts about two hours and covers a range of topics that you decide on beforehand.

Focus groups are a traditional market research technique, so marketing departments are often more familiar with focus groups than with usability testing or contextual interviews. However, the techniques produce different kinds of information. In a typical focus group, participants talk; you hear them tell you about their work. In a typical usability test or contextual interview, users act; you watch (and listen to) them doing their work.

You will learn about user's attitudes, beliefs, desires, and their reactions to ideas or to prototypes. What you do not learn is how users really work with Web sites and what problems users really have with those sites.

Conducting Focus Groups

You will need to select representative participants who match the users you want to come to your Web site. You will need to decide what you want to learn and write a 'script' for the moderator to follow.

Hiring a skill moderator to facilitate the discussion will help insure that everyone participates and the group stays on track. The script gives the moderator questions to ask and topics to cover. Allowing the moderator flexibility will allow him to change the order of questions and topics to keep the discussion flowing smoothly.

Tape the sessions and have one or more note takers.

Source: http://www.usability.gov/methods/analyze_current/learn/focus.html

Focus Group Principles

By Holly Edmunds

Holly Edmunds is Managing Partner of RS Consulting USA, LLC. Prior to joining the RS team, Ms. Edmunds was Market Research Manager for Xerox Engineering Systems and as Primary Research Specialist for Hewlett-Packard.

What is a focus group?

Focus groups are a form of qualitative research; a loosely structured means of obtaining opinions related to a specific topic. Groups usually consist of eight to ten people recruited and brought together based on pre-specified qualifications.
Focus groups are typically conducted in-person at a research facility, but more recently telefocus groups (via telephone conferencing) and Internet focus groups have become more popular. Generally two or more focus groups are conducted as part of a given study in order to provide comparisons between groups for greater detail in the research analysis.

When to Use Focus Groups

There are a wide variety of uses for focus groups. The most common uses are:

Testing advertising copy or marketing promotions
Positioning products or services
Testing new concepts
Testing usability of a product

Focus groups also can be used to generate ideas in a group brainstorming session. They are frequently utilized in developing questionnaires. By getting feedback in advance from people representative of those you hope to target with a survey, you can better word your questions and design clearer explanations of your concepts.

When to Avoid Focus Groups

While there are many instances where focus group research is helpful, there are equally as many situations where you should not use this methodology. Above all, it is important to remember that focus groups should not be used to make a final decision.
Results of focus groups are not statistically valid and should be used more as a thermometer to test the temperature of the market rather than as a ruler to provide precise measurements.
Likewise, the following represent good examples of when to avoid using focus groups:

When you need a numerical response to questions like "what percentage…?" or "how many…?"
Focus groups do not provide quantitative results.
When you need to explore issues that are very personal or sensitive in nature.
People are not really comfortable discussing personal topics in a group situation.
When you want to set prices for your products or your services.
Again, these results are not quantitative in nature hence it is not advisable to make final pricing decisions based on small group responses.
When you cannot afford a survey.
Focus groups are not a replacement for a survey. If what you really need are statistically valid results, consider a shorter survey or slightly reduced sample size, but do not rely on qualitative to give you the detail you require.
When you want to validate internal decisions that cannot (or will not) be changed based on the results of the focus groups.
If you will not be able to incorporate the results of the focus groups into product development, advertising design, etc., then there is no sense in conducting the groups in the first place.

Finally, before you opt to conduct focus groups, be certain that your audience (those people who will review and use the results of the study) are completely familiar with the type of results focus groups produce. If they expect to receive detailed graphs and tables, it may be very difficult to explain how to use qualitative data that will seem more vague in comparison.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20041026140011/http://www.marketingpower.com/content1293.php

Michael Yeap...PhD Candidate

The Star Online: MCA chief: Each BN component party should have equal voice

The Star Online: BN leaders unveil new charter to transform, take the party forward

Joined numerous yahoogroups incl mobile learning

Progress reporting key-in

Mobile TWITTER pros & cons

Mobile Phone is more convenient than Notebook Computer

reading Bible on Mobile phone in church

20101127 - Conceptual/Theoretical Framework (wikipedia)

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual System

Overview

Examples

Related topics

Concept

Conceptual schema

Conceptual framework

Concept Map

Overview

Concept mapping versus topic maps and mind mapping

History

Use

Conceptual Schema

Overview

Example relationships

Data structure diagram

Conceptual Model

Type and scope of conceptual models

Metaphysical models

Epistemological models

Ethical models

Logical models

Mathematical models

Scientific models

Data models

Domain Models

Social and political models

Economic models

Usability Framework (Shackel)

Human factors for informatics usability

20101127 - concepts & defintions of Evaluation research (Stern)

20101127 - Evaluation research/method (Patton)

20101127 - Evaluation Research (Wikipedia)

Appropriate Topics

Types of Evaluation Research Studies

1 Needs assessment studies

2 Cost-benefit studies

3 Monitoring studies

Issues of Measurement

New vs. existing measures

Types of Research Design

1 Experimental design

2 Quasi-experimental design

3 Time-series design

4 Multiple time-series design

5 Social indicators research

6 Nonequivalent control groups

Ethics

Results and Interpretation

20101127 - Evaluation Research (Powell)

Evaluation Research: an overview

Comments: This is preview of a paper.

Library Trends

20101127 - Evaluative Research (Winsett, NATCO)

20101127 - The Planning-Evaluation Cycle (SocialResearchMethods.net)

20101127 - Evaluation Research (SocialResearchMethods.net)

Introduction to Evaluation

Definitions of Evaluation

The Goals of Evaluation

Evaluation Strategies

Types of Evaluation

Evaluation Questions and Methods

In formative research the major questions and methodologies are:

The questions and methods addressed under summative evaluation include:

20101126 - Diagram - Focus Group as a Qualitative research method

20101126 - Peek & Fothergill, Using Focus Groups for Qualitative Research

20101126 - Focus Group research method (Gibbs)

20101126 - Focus Group reporting (Iowa State Univ)

20101126 - Focus Group research method (Iowa State Univ)

20101126 - Focus Group - a qualitative research (Kitzinger)