.Despite having this blog in which I sometimes say what I think about research, especially qualitative inquiry, I still experience a little hesitation as I presume to be an expert. After all, there are many people who have spent a great many years in study and conduct of qualitative inquiry (although sometimes I think we all do a lot more qualitative inquiry throughout our livew- even when not calling it that - than we are aware of). But lately I have heard a lot about focus group research so I am going to offer some of my own thoughts about this data collection method. I offer these thoughts with the awareness that I am most likely repeating some or all of prior posts because, after all, I have been writing and ranting on this space for nearly five years now! First, in my view and based on my own experience, a focus group interview, or focussed group interview, or group interview, or focus group (without the word 'interview') is a method of collecting qualitative data. There is no standardized set of directions associated with the process, nor are there assumptions that are so conveniently available (although often overlooked) for people who are running statistical models. If people accept this premise - that the group interview is a method of collecting data, I think the next thing to consider is "what distinguishes this from other data collection methods?" Or "what can you expect to get from these data that is unique when compared to some typical alternatives, notably survey or highly structured interviews, or less structured individual interviews?"
It is at this point that I think a lot of the confusion arises. Despite the references to the focus group as the "gold standard" of qualitative inquiry - something I very much disagree with - it is not the case that having more people in a room creates more powerful data, using power in the sense of statistical power. If twelve people in a group all say 'yes,' to something I do not think you can say "aha - there is 100% agreement on this issue." In contrast, one very emotional argument from a single individual might be more "powerful" in the sense of having the power to engage, persuade and move audiences. In fact, this happens all of the time and we sometimes consider it "charisma" but it still tends to reflect a single person's opinion. So what are group interviews good for? My understanding is that Merton developed the focussed group interview to get opinions about wartime propaganda. It is no wonder that focus groups were then embraced by advertisers and marketers. Based on this I tend to have a preference for groups that are "focused" on something - a story, a video, a premise, an object. Photo and video elicitation methods ("photovoice") are examples of this. But I do not think this is a requirement. I also suggest you check out this information. Ms. Hall has a bit more of an extreme view than I am expressing but I have to say I agree with a lot of what she says, especially as regards ethnography for user information. If using a focus group, I do think it is necessary to have some uniting topic or attribute. I do not think having a varied sample in your group (variation of ages) or varied samples in a study (one group of younger adults; one group of older adults) makes a particular difference because I have asserted and continue to argue that one should not attempt to do sub group analysis of qualitative data. That said, I know that softer versions of this occur regularly, and actually have no particular problem with statements like: "younger people who were interviewed tended to focus more on X while older people began the conversation by talking about Y..." It is the suggestions of correlations or (gasp!) causation that disturb me, not to mention those people who report frequencies and percentages in their qualitative data analysis. But before going on any longer about the misuses of focus groups, I will say that what I think group interviews are good for are: Offering a convenient way to speak with multiple busy people. People working in health care, or public school teachers and administrators are examples of this. Giving people a forum to speak about matters of importance with people - the researchers or moderators - who care and, ideally, have some influence, or the ear of influential people. Allowing the power of group conversation to yield rich data; encouraging people to share disparite views and ideas, which might lead to changes or just improvements in understanding. Providing participants a sense of security they might not have in an individual interview - groups with immigrants and refugees are examples of this. The negatives include (but are not limited to): Assertive and persuasive people take over. People are afraid to express minority views. People are uncomfortable in the setting and never get over being uncomfortable. People are not informed or not invested but tell you things anyway. People tell you what they think you want to hear (but this happens in all research). They came for the food (or the gift card). Lastly, one thing that a lot of people overlook in using this "gold standard" research is that it is difficult, time consuming and resource intensive. Transcribing focus groups is very difficult, especially when done properly (I think that it is best to distinguish among participants in a transcript - not so you can follow someone's thought process through the entire session, but so you can identify "meaning units" that sometimes get interrupted by other speakers). For all of the time and effort, sometimes a lot of the data is not great - going around a room and getting a "yes" or head nod from multiple participants does not contribute a lot to an interpretive qualitative analysis, and, in my view, it is difficult to instill much of a design on a group interview other than descriptive or case study (which can also be pretty descriptive) or maybe grounded theory (to get more info about how a process works). The intense explorations of lived experience suggested by phenomenological methodologies can be uncomfortable to manage in a group setting. Narratives probably turn competitive pretty easily - I have seen some of this: "You think you had it hard growing up, let me tell you about my experiences..." Along with these complexities are needing comfortable and properly set up rooms, technology that can capture a group of people who might not be still, scheduling - especially if multiple groups are necessary, and no shows, that tend to be worse for group than individual interviews. All of these things aside, there are potentially some appropriate uses for this approach. But I am not certain if some of the people planning focus groups have considered those and weighed the benefits (and relative simplicity) of conducting a series of individual rather than group interviews, or even use of a fixed response survey/structured interview, depending on the end goal of the research.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|