focus groups in case study research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on December 10, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest.

Table of contents

What is a focus group, step 1: choose your topic of interest, step 2: define your research scope and hypotheses, step 3: determine your focus group questions, step 4: select a moderator or co-moderator, step 5: recruit your participants, step 6: set up your focus group, step 7: host your focus group, step 8: analyze your data and report your results, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about focus groups.

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research . Observations of the group’s dynamic, their answers to focus group questions, and even their body language can guide future research on consumer decisions, products and services, or controversial topics.

Focus groups are often used in marketing, library science, social science, and user research disciplines. They can provide more nuanced and natural feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large-scale surveys .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Focus groups are primarily considered a confirmatory research technique . In other words, their discussion-heavy setting is most useful for confirming or refuting preexisting beliefs. For this reason, they are great for conducting explanatory research , where you explore why something occurs when limited information is available.

A focus group may be a good choice for you if:

• You’re interested in real-time, unfiltered responses on a given topic or in the dynamics of a discussion between participants
• Your questions are rooted in feelings or perceptions , and cannot easily be answered with “yes” or “no”
• You’re confident that a relatively small number of responses will answer your question
• You’re seeking directional information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas
• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

Differences between types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Topics favorable to focus groups

As a rule of thumb, research topics related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. If you are seeking direction, explanation, or in-depth dialogue, a focus group could be a good fit.

However, if your questions are dichotomous or if you need to reach a large audience quickly, a survey may be a better option. If your question hinges upon behavior but you are worried about influencing responses, consider an observational study .

• If you want to determine whether the student body would regularly consume vegan food, a survey would be a great way to gauge student preferences.

However, food is much more than just consumption and nourishment and can have emotional, cultural, and other implications on individuals.

• If you’re interested in something less concrete, such as students’ perceptions of vegan food or the interplay between their choices at the dining hall and their feelings of homesickness or loneliness, perhaps a focus group would be best.

Once you have determined that a focus group is the right choice for your topic, you can start thinking about what you expect the group discussion to yield.

Perhaps literature already exists on your subject or a sufficiently similar topic that you can use as a starting point. If the topic isn’t well studied, use your instincts to determine what you think is most worthy of study.

Setting your scope will help you formulate intriguing hypotheses , set clear questions, and recruit the right participants.

• Are you interested in a particular sector of the population, such as vegans or non-vegans?
• Are you interested in including vegetarians in your analysis?
• Perhaps not all students eat at the dining hall. Will your study exclude those who don’t?
• Are you only interested in students who have strong opinions on the subject?

A benefit of focus groups is that your hypotheses can be open-ended. You can be open to a wide variety of opinions, which can lead to unexpected conclusions.

The questions that you ask your focus group are crucially important to your analysis. Take your time formulating them, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can affect your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

If you are discussing a controversial topic, be careful that your questions do not cause social desirability bias . Here, your respondents may lie about their true beliefs to mask any socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions. This and other demand characteristics can hurt your analysis and lead to several types of reseach bias in your results, particularly if your participants react in a different way once knowing they’re being observed. These include self-selection bias , the Hawthorne effect , the Pygmalion effect , and recall bias .

• Engagement questions make your participants feel comfortable and at ease: “What is your favorite food at the dining hall?”
• Exploration questions drill down to the focus of your analysis: “What pros and cons of offering vegan options do you see?”
• Exit questions pick up on anything you may have previously missed in your discussion: “Is there anything you’d like to mention about vegan options in the dining hall that we haven’t discussed?”

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

It is important to have more than one moderator in the room. If you would like to take the lead asking questions, select a co-moderator who can coordinate the technology, take notes, and observe the behavior of the participants.

If your hypotheses have behavioral aspects, consider asking someone else to be lead moderator so that you are free to take a more observational role.

Depending on your topic, there are a few types of moderator roles that you can choose from.

• The most common is the dual-moderator , introduced above.
• Another common option is the dueling-moderator style . Here, you and your co-moderator take opposing sides on an issue to allow participants to see different perspectives and respond accordingly.

Depending on your research topic, there are a few sampling methods you can choose from to help you recruit and select participants.

• Voluntary response sampling , such as posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
• Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
• Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
• Judgment sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Beware of sampling bias and selection bias , which can occur when some members of the population are more likely to be included than others.

Number of participants

In most cases, one focus group will not be sufficient to answer your research question. It is likely that you will need to schedule three to four groups. A good rule of thumb is to stop when you’ve reached a saturation point (i.e., when you aren’t receiving new responses to your questions).

Most focus groups have 6–10 participants. It’s a good idea to over-recruit just in case someone doesn’t show up. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn’t have fewer than 6 or more than 12 participants, in order to get the most reliable results.

Lastly, it’s preferable for your participants not to know you or each other, as this can bias your results.

A focus group is not just a group of people coming together to discuss their opinions. While well-run focus groups have an enjoyable and relaxed atmosphere, they are backed up by rigorous methods to provide robust observations.

Confirm a time and date

Be sure to confirm a time and date with your participants well in advance. Focus groups usually meet for 45–90 minutes, but some can last longer. However, beware of the possibility of wandering attention spans. If you really think your session needs to last longer than 90 minutes, schedule a few breaks.

Confirm whether it will take place in person or online

You will also need to decide whether the group will meet in person or online. If you are hosting it in person, be sure to pick an appropriate location.

• An uncomfortable or awkward location may affect the mood or level of participation of your group members.
• Online sessions are convenient, as participants can join from home, but they can also lessen the connection between participants.

As a general rule, make sure you are in a noise-free environment that minimizes distractions and interruptions to your participants.

Consent and ethical considerations

It’s important to take into account ethical considerations and informed consent when conducting your research. Informed consent means that participants possess all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate in the research before it starts. This includes information about benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

Participants should also sign a release form that states that they are comfortable with being audio- or video-recorded. While verbal consent may be sufficient, it is best to ask participants to sign a form.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are too small to provide true anonymity to participants. Make sure that your participants know this prior to participating.

There are a few things you can do to commit to keeping information private. You can secure confidentiality by removing all identifying information from your report or offer to pseudonymize the data later. Data pseudonymization entails replacing any identifying information about participants with pseudonymous or false identifiers.

Preparation prior to participation

If there is something you would like participants to read, study, or prepare beforehand, be sure to let them know well in advance. It’s also a good idea to call them the day before to ensure they will still be participating.

Consider conducting a tech check prior to the arrival of your participants, and note any environmental or external factors that could affect the mood of the group that day. Be sure that you are organized and ready, as a stressful atmosphere can be distracting and counterproductive.

Starting the focus group

Welcome individuals to the focus group by introducing the topic, yourself, and your co-moderator, and go over any ground rules or suggestions for a successful discussion. It’s important to make your participants feel at ease and forthcoming with their responses.

Consider starting out with an icebreaker, which will allow participants to relax and settle into the space a bit. Your icebreaker can be related to your study topic or not; it’s just an exercise to get participants talking.

Leading the discussion

Once you start asking your questions, try to keep response times equal between participants. Take note of the most and least talkative members of the group, as well as any participants with particularly strong or dominant personalities.

You can ask less talkative members questions directly to encourage them to participate or ask participants questions by name to even the playing field. Feel free to ask participants to elaborate on their answers or to give an example.

As a moderator, strive to remain neutral . Refrain from reacting to responses, and be aware of your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows) and the possibility for observer bias . Active listening skills, such as parroting back answers or asking for clarification, are good methods to encourage participation and signal that you’re listening.

Many focus groups offer a monetary incentive for participants. Depending on your research budget, this is a nice way to show appreciation for their time and commitment. To keep everyone feeling fresh, consider offering snacks or drinks as well.

After concluding your focus group, you and your co-moderator should debrief, recording initial impressions of the discussion as well as any highlights, issues, or immediate conclusions you’ve drawn.

The next step is to transcribe and clean your data . Assign each participant a number or pseudonym for organizational purposes. Transcribe the recordings and conduct content analysis to look for themes or categories of responses. The categories you choose can then form the basis for reporting your results.

Just like other research methods, focus groups come with advantages and disadvantages.

• They are fairly straightforward to organize and results have strong face validity .
• They are usually inexpensive, even if you compensate participant.
• A focus group is much less time-consuming than a survey or experiment , and you get immediate results.
• Focus group results are often more comprehensible and intuitive than raw data.

Disadvantages

• It can be difficult to assemble a truly representative sample. Focus groups are generally not considered externally valid due to their small sample sizes.
• Due to the small sample size, you cannot ensure the anonymity of respondents, which may influence their desire to speak freely.
• Depth of analysis can be a concern, as it can be challenging to get honest opinions on controversial topics.
• There is a lot of room for error in the data analysis and high potential for observer dependency in drawing conclusions. You have to be careful not to cherry-pick responses to fit a prior conclusion.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

It’s impossible to completely avoid observer bias in studies where data collection is done or recorded manually, but you can take steps to reduce this type of bias in your research .

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/focus-group/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, explanatory research | definition, guide, & examples, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Glob Qual Nurs Res
• v.3; Jan-Dec 2016

Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research

Anja p. tausch.

1 GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany

Natalja Menold

Although focus groups are commonly used in health research to explore the perspectives of patients or health care professionals, few studies consider methodological aspects in this specific context. For this reason, we interviewed nine researchers who had conducted focus groups in the context of a project devoted to the development of an electronic personal health record. We performed qualitative content analysis on the interview data relating to recruitment, communication between the focus group participants, and appraisal of the focus group method. The interview data revealed aspects of the focus group method that are particularly relevant for health research and that should be considered in that context. They include, for example, the preferability of face-to-face recruitment, the necessity to allow participants in patient groups sufficient time to introduce themselves, and the use of methods such as participant-generated cards and prioritization.

Focus groups have been widely used in health research in recent years to explore the perspectives of patients and other groups in the health care system (e.g., Carr et al., 2003 ; Côté-Arsenault & Morrison-Beedy, 2005 ; Kitzinger, 2006 ). They are often included in mixed-methods studies to gain more information on how to construct questionnaires or interpret results ( Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007 ; Kroll, Neri, & Miller, 2005 ).

The fact that the group process helps people to identify and clarify their views is considered to be an important advantage of focus groups compared with individual interviews ( Kitzinger, 1995 ). The group functions as a promoter of synergy and spontaneity by encouraging the participants to comment, explain, disagree, and share their views. Thus, experiences are shared and opinions voiced that might not surface during individual interviews ( Carey, 1994 ; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007 ). Although focus groups allow participants to respond in their own words and to choose discussion topics themselves, they are not completely unstructured. Questions relating to the research topic are designed by the researchers and are used to guide the discussion ( Stewart et al., 2007 ). The degree of structure of the focus group depends on the openness of the research question(s). Hence, although it takes more time and effort to organize focus groups, and they cause greater logistical problems than individual interviews do, they might generate more ideas about, and yield deeper insights into, the problem under investigation ( Coenen, Stamm, Stucki, & Cieza, 2012 ; Kingry, Tiedje, & Friedman, 1990 ; Morgan, 2009 ).

Historically, focus groups were used mainly for market research before the method was adopted for application in qualitative research in the social sciences ( Morgan, 1996 ). The use of focus groups in health care research is even more recent. For this reason, methodological recommendations on using focus groups in the health care context are quite rare, and researchers rely mainly on general advice from the social sciences (e.g., Krueger, 1988 ; Morgan, 1993 ; Morgan & Krueger, 1998 ; Stewart et al., 2007 ). Even though focus groups have been used in a great variety of health research fields, such as patients’ treatments and perceptions in the context of specific illnesses (rheumatoid arthritis: for example, Feldthusen, Björk, Forsblad-d’Elia, & Mannerkorpi, 2013 ; cancer: for example, Gerber, Hamann, Rasco, Woodruff, & Lee, 2012 ; diabetes: for example, Nafees, Lloyd, Kennedy-Martin, & Hynd, 2006 ; heart failure: for example, Rasmusson et al., 2014 ), community health research (e.g., Daley et al., 2010 ; Rhodes, Hergenrather, Wilkin, Alegría-Ortega, & Montaño, 2006 ), or invention of new diagnostic or therapeutic methods (e.g., Vincent, Clark, Marquez Zimmer, & Sanchez, 2006 ), the method and its particular use in health research is rarely reflected. Methodological articles about the focus group method in health care journals mainly summarize general advice from the social sciences (e.g., Kingry et al., 1990 ; Kitzinger, 1995 , 2006 ), while field-specific aspects of the target groups (patients, doctors, other medical staff) and the research questions (not only sociological but often also medical or technical) are seldom addressed. Reports on participant recruitment and methods of conducting the focus groups are primarily episodic in nature (e.g., Coenen et al., 2012 ; Côté-Arsenault & Morrison-Beedy, 2005 ) and often focus on very specific aspects of the method (communication: for example, Lehoux, Poland, & Daudelin, 2006 ; activating methods: for example, Colucci, 2007 ) or aim at a comparison between face-to-face focus groups and other methods (individual interviews: for example, Coenen et al., 2012 ; telephone groups: for example, Frazier et al., 2010 ; Internet groups: for example, Nicholas et al., 2010 ). Thus, systematic reviews of factors influencing the results of focus groups as well as advantages, disadvantages, and pitfalls are missing. One consequence is that researchers might find it difficult to recruit enough participants or might be surprised by the communication styles of the target groups. Furthermore, in the tradition of classical clinical research, the group discussions might result in a question-and-answer situation or “resemble individual interviews done in group settings” ( Colucci, 2007 , p. 1,424), thereby missing out on the opportunity to use the group setting to activate all participants and to encourage a deeper elaboration of their ideas. Colucci, for example, proposed the use of exercises (e.g., activity-oriented questions) to focus the attention of the group on the core topic and to facilitate subsequent analyses.

Recommendations from the social sciences on using the focus group method can be subsumed under the following headings: subjects (target groups, composition of groups, recruitment), communication in the groups (discussion guide, moderator, moderating techniques), and analysis of focus groups (e.g., Morgan, 1993 ; Morgan & Krueger, 1998 ; Stewart et al., 2007 ). Specific requirements for health research can be identified in all three thematic fields: Recruitment might be facilitated by using registers of quality circles to recruit physicians or pharmacists, or by recruiting patients in outpatients departments. It might be hampered by heavy burdens on target groups—be they time burdens (e.g., clinical schedules, time-consuming therapy) or health constraints (e.g., physical fitness). With regard to communication in focus groups, finding suitable locations, identifying optimal group sizes, planning a good time line, as well as selecting suitable moderators (e.g., persons who are capable of translating medical terms into everyday language) might pose a challenge. The analysis of focus groups in health care research might also require special procedures because the focus group method is used to answer not only sociological research questions (e.g., related to the reconstruction of the perspectives of target groups) but also more specific research questions, such as user requirements with regard to written information or technical innovations.

The aim of our study was to gather more systematic methodological information for conducting focus groups in the context of health research in general and in the more specific context of the implementation of a technical innovation. To this end, we conducted interviews with focus group moderators about their experiences when planning and moderating focus groups. The groups in question were part of a research program aimed at developing and evaluating an electronic personal health record. We chose this program for several reasons: First, because it consisted of several subprojects devoted to different research topics related to the development of a personal electronic health record, it offered a variety of research content (cf. next section). Second, the focus groups were conducted to answer research questions of varying breadth, which can be regarded as typical of research in health care. Third, the focus groups comprised a variety of target groups—not only patients but also different types of health care professionals (general practitioners, independent specialists with different areas of specialization, hospital doctors, pharmacists, medical assistants, nursing staff).

In this article, we report the findings of these interviews in relation to the following questions: (a) What challenges associated with the characteristics of the target groups of health research (patients, physicians, other health care professionals) might be considered during the recruitment process? How should the specific research question relating to a technical innovation be taken into account during the recruitment process? (b) Should specific aspects of the communication styles of target groups be taken into account when planning and moderating focus groups in health care? Can additional challenges be identified in relation to the technical research question? and (c) How was the method appraised by the interviewees in their own research context?

Research Program and Description of Focus Groups

The “Information Technology for Patient-Centered Health Care” (INFOPAT) research program ( www.infopat.eu ) addresses the fact that, because patients with chronic conditions (e.g., colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes) have complex health care needs, many personal health data are collected in different health care settings. The aim of the program is to develop and evaluate an electronic personal health record aimed at improving regional health care for chronically ill people and strengthening patients’ participation in their health care process. Subprojects are devoted, for example, to developing the personal electronic health record (Project Cluster 1), a medication platform (Project Cluster 2), and a case management system for chronically ill patients (Project Cluster 3). In the first, qualitative, phase, the researchers explored patients’ and health care professionals’ experiences with cross-sectoral health care and patient self-management, and their expectations regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a personal electronic health record. The information gathered in this phase of the program served as a basis for constructing a personal electronic health record prototype. This prototype was implemented as an intervention in a second, quantitative, phase dedicated to investigating the impact of such a record on a range of health care variables (e.g., self-management, health status, patient–doctor relationship, compliance). The University Hospital Heidelberg Ethics Committee approved the studies of the INFOPAT research program. All participants gave their written informed consent, and the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the studies according to the ethical standards of German Sociological Association. 1

Twenty-one focus groups were conducted during the qualitative phase of the program. Three groups consisted of colorectal cancer patients, four comprised type 2 diabetes patients, four were made up of physicians, three comprised physicians and pharmacists, four consisted of physicians and other health care professionals, and three consisted of other health care professionals (for more detailed information, see Tausch & Menold, 2015 ). Participants were recruited from urban and rural districts of the Rhine-Neckar region in Germany. Patients were approached in clinics, by their local general practitioners, or in self-help groups. Health care professionals were recruited in clinics, cooperating medical practices, and professional networks.

The focus groups took place at several locations at the National Center of Tumor Diseases (NCT) in Heidelberg, Germany, and the University of Heidelberg. The groups consisted of between four and seven participants and lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours. All focus groups were conducted by two researchers—a moderator and a co-moderator; a third researcher took notes. Semistructured discussion guides were used, and the groups were video- and audio recorded (cf., for example, Baudendistel et al., 2015 ; Kamradt et al., 2015 ). The researchers performed content analysis on the transcripts; the schema of categories was oriented toward the research questions. The focus groups addressed research questions of varying breadth, including, for example, individual health care experiences (comparatively broad), the expected impact of the record on the patient–doctor relationship (medium breadth), and technical requirements for such a personal health record (comparatively narrow). The variety of the research questions was important for our study because it proved to be of relevance for the interviewees’ appraisal of the usefulness of the focus group method.

Interviews With the Focus Group Moderators

We conducted qualitative interviews with nine of the 10 focus group moderators in the INFOPAT program (one moderator moved to a different department shortly after the completion of data collection and was not available for interview). The interviewees were aged between 30 and 54 years ( M age = 36 years; SD = 8.3 years). Their professions were health scientist, pharmacist, general practitioner, or medical ethicist. Their professional experience ranged from one to 23 years ( M = 7.1 years, SD = 7.7 years), and they had little or no previous experience of organizing and conducting focus groups. The moderators were interviewed in groups of one to three persons according to their project assignment (cf. Table 1 ).

Overview of Interviews and Interviewees.

The interviews lasted approximately 1 hour, and the interview questions were guided by the chronological order in which a focus group is organized and conducted (recruitment, preparation, moderation, methods) and by the utilization and usefulness of the results. We tape recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, and performed qualitative content analysis on the transcripts ( Elo & Kyngäs, 2008 ; Mayring, 2015 ) with the help of the program MAXQDA 10.0.

The final system of categories 2 ( Tausch & Menold, 2015 ) consisted of two types of codes: All relevant text passages were coded with respect to the content of the statement. In addition, a second type of code was required if the statement related to a specific group of participants (e.g., patients, hospital doctors, men, women).

On the basis of the research questions, the contents of interview statements were classified into the three superordinate thematic categories: recruitment, communication in the focus groups, and appraisal of the focus group method. Consequently, the reporting of the results is structured according to three main topics.

Recruitment

Statements relating to the recruitment of the participants were sorted into the main categories “factors promoting participation”, “factors preventing participation”, and “general appraisal of the recruitment process”. Figure 1 shows the subcategories that were identified under these main categories. Because many of the statements referred only to patients or only to health care professionals (physicians, other health care professionals), the subcodes shown in Figure 1 are sorted by these two types of participants.

Factors relating to the recruitment process.

Factors relevant for all target groups

As the following interviewee statement shows, addressing potential participants face-to-face (rather than in writing) proved crucial for the success of recruitment in all target groups:

Well, a really good tip when recruiting patients is . . . to address the people yourself. Not to get someone else to do it who . . . has nothing to do with [the project], because ultimately you really do have to explain a lot of things, also directly to the patient. And then it’s always good if the person [who does the recruiting] is actually involved in the project. 3

In the case of the clinicians, being addressed by a superior was even more effective for their willingness to participate: “And then top down. If the nursing director asks me, then it’s not so easy to say no.”

Furthermore, a positive response was more often achieved if the groups were scheduled at convenient times for the addressees, and they only had to choose between several alternatives. Patients welcomed times contiguous with their therapies: “And many [of the patients] said: ‘Yes, maybe we can do it after my chemotherapy, on that day when I’m in the clinic anyway?’” Whereas medical assistants were given the opportunity to take part in the groups during working hours, general practitioners preferred evening appointments on less busy weekdays (e.g., Wednesdays and Fridays):

Well, what I found quite good was to suggest a day and a time. And we concentrated on the fact that practices are often closed on Wednesday afternoons. So that’s a relatively convenient day. And then evenings for the pharmacists from seven-thirty onwards.

Interest in the topic of the discussion, or at least in research in general, was an important variable for participation. Together with lack of time, it turned out to be the main reason why sampling plans could not be realized. Among patients, men were much more interested in discussing a technical innovation such as an electronic personal health record, while women—besides their lesser interest—often declined because of family responsibilities: “Well, I’d say a higher proportion of women said: ‘I have a lot to do at home, housework and with the children, therefore I can’t do it.’”

Family physicians, physicians from cooperating medical practices, and hospital doctors showed more interest in discussing an electronic personal health record than did medical specialists in private practice, who often saw no personal gain in such an innovation. For example, one interviewee stated,

Family physicians generally have a greater willingness [to engage with] this [health] record topic. They see . . . also a personal benefit for themselves. . . . or they simply think it might be of relevance to them or they are interested in the topic for other reasons. Some of them even approached us themselves and said, “Oh, that interests me and I’d like to take part.”

In addition, because of heavy workload, private practitioners were difficult to reach (e.g., by telephone). This also lowered the participation of this target group on the focus groups.

Factors relevant only for patients

Two other variables that influenced patients’ willingness to participate were mentioned in the interviews. First, because this target group consisted of cancer patients and diabetes patients with multimorbidity, poor physical fitness also prevented several addressees from participating in the groups. The inability to climb stairs, or the general inability to leave the house, made it impossible for them to reach the location where the groups took place: “[They] immediately replied: ‘Well, no, . . . that’s really too much for me,’ and unfortunately they could not, therefore, be included in the groups.” Furthermore, unstable physical fitness often led to high drop-out rates. The moderators of the focus groups therefore proposed that up to twice as many participants as required should be recruited: “And depending on the severity of the illness, you have to expect a drop-out rate of up to fifty percent. So, if you want to have four people, you should invite eight.”

Second, moderators reported that patients’ liking for, or dislike of, talking and discussing influenced their tendency to join the groups. Participating patients were generally described as talkative. For example: “And with patients, all in all, I had the feeling that those who agreed [to participate] were all people who liked talking, because those who did not like talking refused out of hand.” Patients who refused to participate often argued that they felt uncomfortable speaking in front of a group: “And the men, when they declined they often said: ‘No, group discussion is not for me! I don’t like talking in front of a group.’”

The researchers eventually succeeded in recruiting sufficient participants. However, they were not able to realize the sampling plans according to a certain proportion of male and female patients or types of physicians. “Well, we finally managed to fill up our groups, but only as many [participants] as necessary.” Comparing the different target groups, recruiting patients was described as easier than recruiting physicians: “And that was much easier insofar as you just had to go to the clinic and each day there were five or six patients whom you could address.” However, only 10% of the patients who were addressed agreed to participate. In the health care professional group, the recruitment rates ranged between 0% and 30%, depending on the subgroup. This can be demonstrated by the following interviewee utterance:

And in the private practitioner sector it was rather . . . . Well, we tried to recruit specialists in private practice, in other words internists, gastroenterologists, and oncologists. The success [rate proved to be] extremely poor. . . . Well, on the whole, the willingness to take part, the interest, is not there. Or, well they don’t give the reasons, but they say they don’t want to take part. So that was difficult and, yes, it didn’t go too well.

Communication in the Focus Groups

With regard to the communication in the focus groups, the moderators identified factors that influenced communication in a positive or negative way. In addition, we discussed a number of factors with them that are often described in the social science literature as problematic when conducting focus groups. However, the interviewees considered that some of these factors had not influenced communication in the focus groups conducted within the framework of the INFOPAT program. In our system of categories, we also coded whether the factors in question were related to (a) the setting or (b) the moderation of the focus groups (cf. Figure 2 ).

Influences on and characteristics of the focus group discussion.

Factors relating to the setting

As Figure 2 shows, communication was reported to be positively influenced by small group size, location, provision of food and beverages, and conducting the focus group without a break. In contrast to general recommendations on focus groups in the context of sociological research, the moderators in the INFOPAT program considered a smaller group size of between four and six participants to be ideal. With regard to location, the interviewees reported that, depending on the target group, different places were perceived as positive. Patients preferred locations inside the clinic because they were easy to reach and caused no additional effort. Furthermore, because these locations were familiar to them, they facilitated an atmosphere of security and ease, which was seen as an important prerequisite for an open and honest discussion. This is clear from the following quotation:

Well, the patient focus groups were all located at the clinic. We chose this location on purpose to make it easier for them, because they come to the clinic anyway for their therapy. And they know the place and they feel comfortable and in good hands.

By contrast, the clinician groups benefited from being located outside the clinic. In contrast to other common addressees of focus groups, these professionals were not only accustomed to participating in groups outside their familiar surroundings but also this location helped them to distance themselves from their professional duties and to engage more deeply in the discussion, as shown by the following quotation:

Yes, one was located at the O-Center. We chose this location on purpose so that the clinicians had to leave the hospital. It’s not too far, only a few yards away. But we wanted them to leave the clinic, and not to run back to the ward when they were called. And, well, I liked this location.

Food and beverages were welcome in all the groups and also helped to create a positive and trusting atmosphere. And finally, the interviewees found that it was better to omit the break, thereby avoiding the interruption of the ongoing discussion. This is reasonable considering the comparatively short duration of the focus group session (between 1.5 and 2 hours). Statements relating to a break might have been different in the case of longer focus group durations.

The interviewees reported that the size and temperature of the room and time pressure on the participants or the moderator had a negative impact on communication. Some of the focus groups in the project took place in midsummer and had to be held in rooms without blinds or air conditioning. The moderators of these groups had to work hard to maintain the participants’ (and their own) attention and concentration. Time pressure on the participants (e.g., the clinicians) led to an unwillingness to engage in active discussion and created a question-and-answer situation, as shown by the following statement:

And in one group of physicians . . . we never reached the point where they joined in fully. During the whole discussion they never completely arrived. And they had already cut the time short in advance. They were under so much time pressure that they were not able to discuss in an open manner.

Moderators reported that they, too, had experienced time pressure—namely, in situations where they did not have enough time to prepare the room and the recording devices. This had caused them to be nervous and stressed at the beginning of the discussion, which had negatively affected the mood of the participants, thereby rendering an honest and open discussion particularly difficult.

Factors relating to the moderation

Many of the positive factors reported by the interviewees have already been described for focus groups in general—for example, using open questions, directly addressing quiet participants, and handling the discussion guide in a flexible way. Furthermore, by showing interest in every statement, and by generating a feeling of security in every participant, moderators fostered a fruitful discussion:

I believe that another important point is that you are calm yourself. That you give the people the feeling “you can feel safe with me, you don’t have to worry that I will make fun of you . . . or that I won’t take you seriously.”

Interviewees also considered that building a bridge between the technical innovation under discussion (a web-based electronic personal health record) and everyday life (e.g., online banking) was an important factor in getting all participants to contribute to the discussion. As one interviewee noted,

We tried to anchor it in their everyday lives. And . . . the example that always worked was when we said: “Think of it as if it were a kind of online banking.” Everyone understands what online banking is. It’s about important data on the internet; they’re safe there somehow. I have my password. And people understood that. Well, it’s important to anchor it in their reality . . . because otherwise the topic is simply far too abstract.

In this context, the fact that the groups were moderated by the researchers themselves proved very helpful because they were able to answer all questions relating to the research topic. As the following quote shows, this was an important prerequisite for opinion formation on the part of participants:

Well, I think that a really important quality criterion . . . is that you have completely penetrated [the topic]. If you only know the process from the outside . . . and you then conduct the focus group about it. . . . Somewhere, at some stage, [one discussion] narrowly missed the point. . . . You simply have to be totally immersed in the topic, well, I believe that [someone who is totally immersed in the topic] is the ideal person for the job. And in our case the thinking was, okay, so I’m a doctor, but on balance it’s more important that both [moderators] are absolutely well informed because it’s a complex topic.

The more specific the research question was, the more useful the moderating strategy of inviting one participant after the other to express their opinion appeared to be. By using this strategy, the moderators ensured that every participant contributed to the discussion.

A point that was strongly emphasized by the interviewees was the duration of the round of introductions at the beginning of the focus group session. In the patient groups, introductions took much more time than the researchers had expected. Patients had a high need to express themselves and to tell the others about their illness and their experiences with the health system. Although this left less time to work through the topics in the discussion guide, the researchers came to realize that there were several good reasons not to limit these contributions: First, the introductions round proved important for helping the participants to “arrive” at the focus group, for creating a basis of trust, and for building up a sense of community among the participants. Second, the interviewees reported that, because many topics in the discussion guide (e.g., participants’ experiences with coordinating visits to different medical specialists) had already been brought up in the round of introductions, they did not have to be discussed further at a later stage:

And that is the crux of this general exchange of experiences at the beginning. Sure, it costs you a lot of time, but I almost think that if you don’t give them that time, you won’t get what you want from them, in the sense that you say: “I want to hear your frank opinion or attitude.” You don’t want them to simply answer you because they think that’s what you want to hear. You have to create an atmosphere in which they really forget where they are. I’m relatively convinced that you wouldn’t achieve that without such [a round of introductions].

The moderators’ experience in the physician groups was different. These groups benefited from having a rather short round of introductions. Giving participants too much time to introduce themselves meant that they presented their expertise rather than reporting their experiences. In contrast to the patient groups, this did not substantially contribute to the discussion of the research topics.

Depending on the context, status differences between the moderators and the participants, or among the participants, were appraised differently by interviewees. In one group comprising physicians and medical assistants, the moderators observed that status differences had a negative influence on communication. Very young female medical assistants, in particular, did not feel free to express their opinions in the presence of their superiors. By contrast, presumed differences in status between family doctors, hospital doctors, and medical specialists in private practice did not have any negative impact on communication. Nor did different forms of address (some participants in these groups were addressed by their first name and some by their last name, depending on the relationship between the moderator and the participants). Status differences between moderators (if medical doctors) and participants (patients) had an impact on communication when patients regarded doctors as an important source of information (e.g., about the meaning of their blood values) or as representatives of the health care system to whom complaints about the system should be addressed. The latter case was the subject of the following interview statement by a moderator who is a physician by profession:

And a lot [was said about] the kind of experiences they had had here at the NCT. And of course, when the patients have been treated here for many years—or even for not so many [years], but they have had many experiences—they sometimes reported at length. And I had the feeling that this had a bit of a feedback function, quite generally, for the NCT. Also the somehow frustrating experiences they had had, or a lot of things that had not gone that well in conversational exchanges [with the staff]. There was a relatively large amount of feedback that didn’t have a lot to do with the topic because I was, of course, involved as a senior physician and I am not an external researcher, but rather someone who is also seen as being jointly responsible, or at least as someone who can channel criticism.

Finally, because most of the moderators were not medical professionals, they did not experience the translation of medical or technical terms into everyday language as problematic. Rather, they automatically used terms that were also familiar to the participants.

Characteristics of the discussion

The factors described above resulted in focus group discussions that might be interpreted as characteristic of health research. The patient focus groups were characterized by a strong need to talk and a high need for information. In the health care professional focus groups, researchers experienced a greater variety of communication styles. Because of a lack of time, or because they falsely expected a question-and-answer situation, some groups demonstrated a low degree of willingness to engage in discussion:

Although, I believe that was partly due . . . well there was one [woman] who was very demanding; she wanted to know straight away: “Yes, what’s the issue here? What do I have to say to you?” Well, the three who came from the one practice, I think they really had the feeling that we would ask them questions and they would bravely answer them and then they could go home again. So, for them this principle that they were supposed to engage in a discussion, for them that was somehow a bit, I don’t know . . . disconcerting. . . . They really thought: “Okay, well we want to know now what this is all about. And they’ll ask us the questions and then we’ll say yes, no, don’t know, maybe. And then we’ll go home again.” Well, at least that was my impression.

Other groups, especially those consisting of different types of health care professionals (e.g., physicians with different areas of specialization, or physicians and pharmacists), were characterized by lively discussion and a great variety of opinions.

Appraisal of the Focus Group Method

We classified moderators’ statements relating to the appraisal of the focus group method into four main categories: “advantages of the method”, “disadvantages of the method”, “recommendations for other researchers in related research areas”, and “statements on how they used the results” (cf. Figure 3 ).

Appraisal of the focus group method.

The researchers reported that the focus group method yielded a rich blend of perspectives and opinions, brought forth, in particular, by the interaction between the participants:

But for this question and the topic, and for our lack of knowledge, that was . . . a lot of new information . . . and very many good ideas and critical remarks that you naturally read in the literature from time to time. But, let’s say, because of the complexity of the participants’ reactions and the weight they attached to things, it’s different than reading in a literature review that [this or that] could be taken into account.

The results of the focus groups further enriched the researchers’ work by relating it to everyday life: “Well, what was nice was that the topic was related to the participants’ lives. That people said: ‘Now the topic is important for me.’” Furthermore, the method yielded information about which aspects were most important and how the variety of opinions should be prioritized. This was achieved, in particular, by using participant-generated cards:

And with regard to prioritization, we incorporated it using participant-generated cards. We said: “Look: If you could develop this record now, what would be the three most important things that must absolutely be taken into consideration, from your point of view, no matter what they relate to.” And they wrote them down on the cards. And after that they were asked to carry out their own prioritization—that is, what was most important to them personally. One person wrote “data protection” first, while another [wrote] “sharing with my wife.” . . . That was good. . . . That helped a lot because it was simply clear once again what things were important to them.

In cases where concrete questions had to be answered or decisions had to be made, the interviewees also welcomed the opportunity to use structuring methods such as presentations, flip-charts, and participant-generated cards to obtain the relevant information:

. . . Well, the aim was that at the end we [would] have a set of requirements for the engineering [people]. And the engineering [people] don’t so much want to know about experiences and desires and barriers, but rather they want to know should the button be green or red and can you click on it. And that’s why I thought at the beginning it will be difficult with a focus group and an open discussion. Now, if you say that one can also interpret a focus group the way we did, partly with very specific questions and these participant-generated cards, then I think it is indeed possible to answer such questions as well.

Disadvantages

The main disadvantages of the focus group method were seen in the considerable organizational effort and expenditure of time involved. A question raised by some of the interviewees was whether comparable results could have been achieved using less time-consuming and organizationally demanding methods.

It’s true to say that you lose time. Well, you could implement [the innovation] straight away and see whether it’s better. Maybe, in this case you’re wrong and you just think it’s better or in any case not worse than before. You basically lose a year on this whole focus groups thing.

Moreover, in some cases, the discussion went in an unwanted direction and the moderators never fully succeeded in bringing the group back to the intended topics.

Furthermore, like many other medical research projects, INFOPAT included quite specific research questions. In this connection, the moderators emphasized that open focus group discussions would not have succeeded in answering those questions. Only by using methods such as participant-generated cards and prioritization was it possible to answer at least some of them. Nonetheless, some interviewees did not consider the focus group method to be really suitable for this type of research questions:

Of course we also have our engineers as counterparts who . . . need very specific requirements at some point. The question is whether such a focus group . . . . [It] can’t answer that in detail in this first stage. It’s simply not practicable.

Recommendations

As described under the “Communication in the Focus Groups” section above, the round of introductions in the patient groups lasted much longer than planned, thereby shortening the time available for other topics in the discussion guide. As a result, the moderators decided to choose a different thematic focus in each group so that every topic was discussed more deeply in at least one group.

What we usually did was to consider what hadn’t been addressed that much in the previous focus group. That [topic] was given more room in the next focus group because the guide, well it was quite a lot. You could have easily gone on discussing for another hour or two.

Using the results

On the whole, the researchers were satisfied with the number of groups that were conducted and the results that they yielded. They did not agree that more groups would have led to better, or different, results—with one possible exception, namely, in the case of specific target groups (e.g., migrants). Only one group had been composed of patients with a migrant background, and, as one interviewee stated, “I just thought, the patients with a migrant background . . . now that was [only] one group, it by no means covers the whole range.”

In cases where the results of the focus groups were perceived as not being concrete enough to proceed to the next research step (e.g., formulating a specification sheet for the construction of the electronic personal health record), the researchers planned to bring experts together in a roundtable format to make decisions on the basis of the priorities, agreements, and disagreements that had emerged from the focus groups. Following the construction of a prototype, they intended to conduct further focus groups to validate or adapt the usability of the electronic personal health record system.

Our analysis of interviews with focus group moderators yielded considerable insights into methodological aspects of conducting focus groups in health research. Our first research question related to characteristics of the target groups that should be considered during the recruitment process. We identified face-to-face contact as an important factor promoting focus group participation. The interviewees considered this type of contact to be better suited to answering target persons’ questions and explaining the method and aims of the focus groups. Moreover, they felt that addressees might find it more difficult to decline a face-to-face invitation than a written one. With regard to health care professionals, an invitation issued by a hierarchically higher person was most effective, even though ethical aspects should be considered in this case, and voluntary participation should nevertheless be ensured. Otherwise, the order to participate might prevent an atmosphere of open communication and might lead to a lower quantity or to more negative statements.

Furthermore, whereas physicians are usually accustomed to discussing topics with others, an important characteristic that influenced willingness to participate on the part of members of other target groups (other health care professionals, patients) was a liking for, or a dislike of, talking. Researchers might take account of this fact by explaining the method in more detail, by developing arguments to overcome fears, or, as suggested, for example, by Colucci (2007) , by convincing the addressees with other activities implemented in the focus groups. Other relevant personal characteristics—be they related to the research topic (e.g., technical interest in the case of an electronic innovation) or to the specific target group (e.g., physical fitness on the part of patients or lack of time on the part of health care professionals)—should be anticipated when planning recruitment. These characteristics might be taken into account by preparing arguments, providing incentives, giving thought to favorable dates and times, and choosing easily accessible locations. An interesting finding was that, depending on the target group, different locations were considered to have a positive influence on the discussion. Whereas locations inside the clinic were preferred in the case of the patient focus groups because of familiarity and easy accessibility, hospital doctors were more engaged in the discussion when the focus group site was located at least some yards away from their workplace.

Finally, the experience of our researchers that up to 50% of the patients had to cancel at short notice because of health problems does not appear to be uncommon in this research context. That overrecruitment is an effective strategy—particularly in health care research—has been reported by other authors (e.g., Coenen et al., 2012 ).

With our second research question, we focused on aspects of communication in the focus groups. The interviews revealed several factors specific to research topics and addressees of health care studies that influenced the discussions. Consequently, in addition to considering general recommendations regarding the organization and moderation of focus groups (e.g., choosing adequate rooms with a pleasant atmosphere, serving food and beverages, using open questions, showing interest in all contributions, and directly addressing quiet participants), these health care specific aspects should be taken into account. Relevant factors that should be addressed when moderating focus groups in this context are (a) the strong need to talk and the high need for information in the patient groups, (b) status differences between the participants or between the moderators and the participants, (c) the size of the focus group, and (d) the specificity of the topic of discussion. The interview data revealed that these factors influenced the discussions and thus the results achieved with the groups. In addition, the following four possibilities of addressing these factors were identified:

First, the moderators had to devote more time to the round of introductions in the patient groups, which served as a warm-up, created an atmosphere of fellowship and openness, and accommodated this target group’s strong need to talk. Second, with respect to status differences between the moderator and the participants, no definite recommendations can be derived from the interviews. The interviewees found that it was less favorable when the moderator was perceived not only in that role but also in other roles (e.g., physician), because this might hamper a goal-oriented discussion. However, they considered deep insight into the research topic on the part of the moderators to be beneficial, at least for certain research topics. Thus, one should carefully weigh up whether it is more advantageous or more disadvantageous when the group moderator is a physician. Interviewees considered status differences between participants to be disadvantageous only in one case, where—because of organizational constraints—medical assistants and their superiors joined the same focus group, which gave rise to some reticence on the part of the young assistants. Similar problems have been reported by other authors, for example, Côté-Arsenault and Morrison-Beedy (2005 ; see also Hollander, 2004 ). However, interviewees did not experience as problematic status differences between physicians with different areas of specialization.

Third, with respect to group size, interviewees found comparatively small focus groups appropriate to give all participants enough time to tell their stories. In contrast to social science research, where groups of between eight and 20 participants are recommended, our interviewees considered groups of between four and six persons to be optimal. This is in line with Côté-Arsenault and Morrison-Beedy (2005) , who recommended small groups for health research, especially when sensitive topics are discussed. Our interview data revealed that this recommendation might also be useful for other health research topics.

Fourth, with regard to the topic of the discussion, interviewees found it helpful to structure different phases of the discussion in different ways, depending on the specificity of the research questions. In contrast to social science research, certain types of research questions in health research require comparatively specific answers. Some of the focus groups in our study were aimed at collecting participants’ expectations regarding an electronic personal health record or—even more specifically—at developing a product specifications document. Conducting focus groups during the development of a technical innovation is a method that is being increasingly used in health care research. Hence, the experiences of the interviewees with regard to these aspects of their research might be relevant for many other research programs. For this type of research questions, it proved useful to include more structured parts in the discussion, for example, having certain questions answered by each participant in turn, or using methods such as participant-generated cards and prioritization. This made it easier to obtain the opinion of each participant and to cover as many concerns and expectations as possible. This finding is in line with recommendations by Colucci (2007) , who proposed the use of activity-oriented questions for health research topics as an enrichment of data collection and a means of making it easier to talk about sensitive and complex topics.

All the moderators found that their discussion guides contained too many questions and too many topics. This might have been due, at least partly, to a desire to determine all relevant aspects in advance—a tendency that might be typical of health research. However, Morgan (1995) also addressed this phenomenon in relation to social research in general: “A common error in focus group question guidelines is too much emphasis on what is of interest to the researcher and not enough emphasis on what is of interest to the participants” (p. 520).

With our third research question, we addressed the appraisal of the focus group method in the interviewees’ research context. Our results show that one should think carefully before using focus groups in the field of health research. The impression that they are quick and easy to conduct might be a misconception, especially in this research context. In fact, the appraisal of the method by the moderators revealed both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantages were the rich blend of perspectives and opinions obtained and the opportunity to have them prioritized by the target groups. For their research topics, the interviewees saw a further important advantage in the fact that they were able to relate their scientific research to everyday life, a point that might be of general importance for a number of research questions in health research, especially those that refer to new medical diagnostics or technical innovations.

The interviewees considered that the main disadvantages of focus groups were the substantial organizational effort and expenditure of time they required. They raised the question whether comparable results could have been achieved using less costly methods. Fortunately, we conducted our interviews with researchers from a research program aimed at answering research questions of different degrees of specificity. As a result, the moderators were able to compare the usefulness of focus groups for different types of research questions. Their statements revealed that they were satisfied with the results relating to more open research questions such as experiences with cross-sectoral health care. For more specific research questions, the interviewees valued the possibility of organizing the discussions in a more structured way and using methods that activated all participants (e.g., participant-generated cards, prioritizations). Nonetheless, they considered meetings of experts to be a necessary intermediate step, for example, on the way to a product specifications document. We recommend that, depending on the specificity of the results that are projected, consideration should be given to including such intermediate steps in the planning stage.

Limitations of the Study

Our analysis of the interviews with the focus group moderators revealed a number of methodological problems that typically occur when focus groups are used in a health research context and yielded recommendations on using such groups in this context. However, some limitations of the present study should also be discussed: First, we conducted our research with focus group moderators, all of whom worked in the same research program. Even though the INFOPAT program consists of several subprojects, they all deal to a greater or lesser extent with the advantages and disadvantages of an electronic support system (electronic personal health record). Furthermore, the moderators were mainly health scientists and had little or no experience with conducting focus groups. This might also have been specific for the research program in which our study was conducted. In other health care programs, focus groups might be moderated mainly by physicists or lay persons (e.g., in participatory health research). Consequently, had we also conducted interviews with focus group moderators from other research areas or included moderators with other professions or more focus group experience, this might have led to different results. However, our research project is rather typical for applied qualitative research in medical science when developing new technologies. Here, focus groups are used by the researchers to find out the potential requirements for the new technology. The researchers are often experts in a specific scientific topic and have no or only limited experience in conducting qualitative research in terms of focus groups. Therefore, our findings are of a particular importance for the researchers with little experiences in conducting focus groups, which can apply to every research, conducted first time. In addition, the little experience of our focus group moderators was a special advantage and strength of the study. More experienced moderators would have prevented some of the problems our moderators—as other unexperienced moderators—faced. As a result, the moderators would not have named these potential problems in the interviews and given no advice for preventing them.

Second, the study was conducted in Germany and thus represents problems and challenges of the German health care system. In other countries, physicians might have different work-shifts or there might be different possibilities in the health care system to reach the target groups. Therefore, more research on the methodology of focus groups in the context of the development of new technologies in health care in other countries and cultures with a consideration of additional relevant groups is needed.

Third, in our interviews, we focused mainly on the organization and conducting of focus groups. For two reasons, we did not address the aspect of data analysis: First, we conducted the interviews shortly after the focus groups had been completed, at a time when data analysis was still in progress. Second, analysis of qualitative data can be carried out in many different ways, depending on research questions and preferences of researchers, and some of the recommended methods are very complex. Had we discussed them in detail, it would have been too time-consuming in the interviews.

Concluding Remarks

Our results revealed a number of methodological challenges that might be typical of conducting focus groups in health research. We hope that our findings will be of use to researchers in similar research fields. Furthermore, we encourage other researchers who are interested in health research topics to gather more information about methodological aspects specific to this research field. Our results were achieved in the context of the development of a technical innovation. It might be interesting to endeavor to replicate them in other health care research projects dealing with technical innovations. Moreover, we would encourage researchers of other topics in health research to interview focus group moderators about their experiences in their specific research context. We hope that our results will serve as a useful basis for comparing results in different areas of health research.

Acknowledgments

We thank the focus group moderators in the INFOPAT program for their great willingness to share their experiences and for their openness during the interviews.

Author Biographies

Anja P. Tausch , PhD, is senior researcher at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.

Natalja Menold , PhD, is senior researcher and head of the Survey Instruments Unit at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.

1. http://www.soziologie.de/en/gsa/ethik-kommission/code-of-ethics.html , retrieved on 05/10/2015.

2. The language of the research project, focus groups, and interviews was German. The scheme was developed in German on the basis of the German text material from the transcribed interviews. The scheme and the citations were translated for the purpose of international publication by an experienced, qualified, and fully bilingual translator, whose mother tongue is English and who also has an MA in sociology from a German university. A German version of the full categorial system can be found in Tausch and Menold (2015) .

3. All citations included in this publication were translated from German.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; FKZ 01KQ1003D).

• Baudendistel I., Winkler E., Kamradt M., Brophy S., Längst G., Eckrich F., . . .Ose D. (2015). The patients’ active role in managing a personal electronic health record: A qualitative analysis . Supportive Care in Cancer , 23 , 2613-2621. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2620-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research . In Morse J. M. (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 225–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr A., Hewlett S., Hughes R., Mitchell H., Ryan S., Carr M., Kirwan J. (2003). Rheumatology outcomes: The patient’s perspective . The Journal of Rheumatology , 30 , 880–883. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coenen M., Stamm T., Stucki G., Cieza A. (2012). Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison of two qualitative methods . Quality of Life Research , 21 , 359–370. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colucci E. (2007). “Focus groups can be fun”: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions . Qualitative Health Research , 17 , 1422–1433. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Côté-Arsenault D., Morrison-Beedy D. (2005). Maintaining your focus in focus groups: Avoiding common mistakes . Research in Nursing & Health , 28 , 172–179. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W., Plano Clark V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daley C. M., James A. S., Ulrey E., Joseph S., Talawyma A., Choi W. S., . . .Coe M. K. (2010). Using focus groups in community-based participatory research: Challenges and resolutions . Qualitative Health Research , 20 , 697–706. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S., Kyngäs H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 62 , 107–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldthusen C., Björk M., Forsblad-d’Elia H., Mannerkorpi K. (2013). Perception, consequences, communication, and strategies for handling fatigue in persons with rheumatoid arthritis of working age—A focus group study . Clinical Rheumatology , 32 , 557–566. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frazier L. M., Miller V. A., Horbelt D. V., Delmore J. E., Miller B. E., Paschal A. M. (2010). Comparison of focus groups on cancer and employment conducted face to face or by telephone . Qualitative Health Research , 20 , 617–627. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerber D. E., Hamann H. A., Rasco D. W., Woodruff S., Lee S. J. C. (2012). Patient comprehension and attitudes toward maintenance chemotherapy for lung cancer . Patient Education and Counseling , 89 , 102–108. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollander J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups . Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 33 , 602–637. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamradt M., Baudendistel I., Längst G., Kiel M., Eckrich F., Winkler E., Ose D. (2015). Collaboration and communication in colorectal cancer care: A qualitative study of the challenges experienced by patients and health care professionals . Family Practice , 32 , 686-696. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmv069 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingry M. J., Tiedje L. B., Friedman L. L. (1990). Focus groups: A research technique for nursing . Nursing Research , 39 , 124–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups . British Medical Journal , 311 , 299–302. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitzinger J. (2006). Chapter 3: Focus groups . In Pope C., Mays N. (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (3rd ed., pp. 21–31). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroll T., Neri M. T., Miller K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research . Rehabilitation Nursing , 30 , 106–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lehoux P., Poland B. D., Daudelin G. (2006). Focus group research and “the patient’s view.” Social Science & Medicine , 63 , 2091–2104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis] (12th ed.). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1995). Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups . Qualitative Health Research , 5 , 516–523. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1996). Focus groups . Annual review of sociology , 22 , 129–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (2009). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L., Krueger R. A. (Eds.). (1998). Focus group kit . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nafees B., Lloyd A., Kennedy-Martin T., Hynd S. (2006). How diabetes and insulin therapy affects the lives of people with type 1 diabetes . European Diabetes Nursing , 3 , 92–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicholas D. B., Lach L., King G., Scott M., Boydell K., Sawatzky B. J., . . .Young N. L. (2010). Contrasting internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 9 , 105–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasmusson K., Lappe D., Roberts C., Croasdell S., Meegan S., Budge D. (2014). Heart failure patient perspectives: Learning from focus groups to improve care . Heart & Lung , 43 , 382–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhodes S. D., Hergenrather K. C., Wilkin A., Alegría-Ortega J., Montaño J. (2006). Preventing HIV infection among young immigrant Latino men: Results from focus groups using community-based participatory research . Journal of the National Medical Association , 98 , 564–573. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart D. W., Shamdasani P. N., Rook D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tausch A., Menold N. (2015). Methodische Aspekte der Durchführung von Fokusgruppen in der Gesundheitsforschung - Welche Anforderungen ergeben sich aufgrund der besonderen Zielgruppen und Fragestellungen? [Methodological aspects of conducting focus groups in health research - which requirements result from the particular target groups and research questions?]. GESIS Papers , 2015 ( 12 ). Retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/gesis_reihen/gesis_papers/GESIS-Papers_2015-12.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent D., Clark L., Marquez Zimmer L., Sanchez J. (2006). Using focus groups to develop a culturally competent diabetes self-management program for Mexican Americans . The Diabetes Educator , 32 , 89–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Privacy Policy

Home » Focus Groups – Steps, Examples and Guide

Focus Groups – Steps, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Focus Group

Definition:

A focus group is a qualitative research method used to gather in-depth insights and opinions from a group of individuals about a particular product, service, concept, or idea.

The focus group typically consists of 6-10 participants who are selected based on shared characteristics such as demographics, interests, or experiences. The discussion is moderated by a trained facilitator who asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes towards the topic.

Focus groups are an effective way to gather detailed information about consumer behavior, attitudes, and perceptions, and can provide valuable insights to inform decision-making in a range of fields including marketing, product development, and public policy.

Types of Focus Group

The following are some types or methods of Focus Groups:

Traditional Focus Group

This is the most common type of focus group, where a small group of people is brought together to discuss a particular topic. The discussion is typically led by a skilled facilitator who asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions.

Mini Focus Group

A mini-focus group involves a smaller group of participants, typically 3 to 5 people. This type of focus group is useful when the topic being discussed is particularly sensitive or when the participants are difficult to recruit.

Dual Moderator Focus Group

In a dual-moderator focus group, two facilitators are used to manage the discussion. This can help to ensure that the discussion stays on track and that all participants have an opportunity to share their opinions.

Teleconference or Online Focus Group

Teleconferences or online focus groups are conducted using video conferencing technology or online discussion forums. This allows participants to join the discussion from anywhere in the world, making it easier to recruit participants and reducing the cost of conducting the focus group.

Client-led Focus Group

In a client-led focus group, the client who is commissioning the research takes an active role in the discussion. This type of focus group is useful when the client has specific questions they want to ask or when they want to gain a deeper understanding of their customers.

The following Table can explain Focus Group types more clearly

How To Conduct a Focus Group

To conduct a focus group, follow these general steps:

Define the Research Question

Identify the key research question or objective that you want to explore through the focus group. Develop a discussion guide that outlines the topics and questions you want to cover during the session.

Recruit Participants

Identify the target audience for the focus group and recruit participants who meet the eligibility criteria. You can use various recruitment methods such as social media, online panels, or referrals from existing customers.

Select a Venue

Choose a location that is convenient for the participants and has the necessary facilities such as audio-visual equipment, seating, and refreshments.

Conduct the Session

During the focus group session, introduce the topic, and review the objectives of the research. Encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions by asking open-ended questions and probing deeper into their responses. Ensure that the discussion remains on topic and that all participants have an opportunity to contribute.

Record the Session

Use audio or video recording equipment to capture the discussion. Note-taking is also essential to ensure that you capture all key points and insights.

Analyze the data

Once the focus group is complete, transcribe and analyze the data. Look for common themes, patterns, and insights that emerge from the discussion. Use this information to generate insights and recommendations that can be applied to the research question.

When to use Focus Group Method

The focus group method is typically used in the following situations:

Exploratory Research

When a researcher wants to explore a new or complex topic in-depth, focus groups can be used to generate ideas, opinions, and insights.

Product Development

Focus groups are often used to gather feedback from consumers about new products or product features to help identify potential areas for improvement.

Marketing Research

Focus groups can be used to test marketing concepts, messaging, or advertising campaigns to determine their effectiveness and appeal to different target audiences.

Customer Feedback

Focus groups can be used to gather feedback from customers about their experiences with a particular product or service, helping companies improve customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Public Policy Research

Focus groups can be used to gather public opinions and attitudes on social or political issues, helping policymakers make more informed decisions.

Examples of Focus Group

Here are some real-time examples of focus groups:

• A tech company wants to improve the user experience of their mobile app. They conduct a focus group with a diverse group of users to gather feedback on the app’s design, functionality, and features. The focus group consists of 8 participants who are selected based on their age, gender, ethnicity, and level of experience with the app. During the session, a trained facilitator asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions on the app. The facilitator also observes the participants’ behavior and reactions to the app’s features. After the focus group, the data is analyzed to identify common themes and issues raised by the participants. The insights gathered from the focus group are used to inform improvements to the app’s design and functionality, with the goal of creating a more user-friendly and engaging experience for all users.
• A car manufacturer wants to develop a new electric vehicle that appeals to a younger demographic. They conduct a focus group with millennials to gather their opinions on the design, features, and pricing of the vehicle.
• A political campaign team wants to develop effective messaging for their candidate’s campaign. They conduct a focus group with voters to gather their opinions on key issues and identify the most persuasive arguments and messages.
• A restaurant chain wants to develop a new menu that appeals to health-conscious customers. They conduct a focus group with fitness enthusiasts to gather their opinions on the types of food and drinks that they would like to see on the menu.
• A healthcare organization wants to develop a new wellness program for their employees. They conduct a focus group with employees to gather their opinions on the types of programs, incentives, and support that would be most effective in promoting healthy behaviors.
• A clothing retailer wants to develop a new line of sustainable and eco-friendly clothing. They conduct a focus group with environmentally conscious consumers to gather their opinions on the design, materials, and pricing of the clothing.

Purpose of Focus Group

The key objectives of a focus group include:

Generating New Ideas and insights

Focus groups are used to explore new or complex topics in-depth, generating new ideas and insights that may not have been previously considered.

Understanding Consumer Behavior

Focus groups can be used to gather information on consumer behavior, attitudes, and perceptions to inform marketing and product development strategies.

Testing Concepts and Ideas

Focus groups can be used to test marketing concepts, messaging, or product prototypes to determine their effectiveness and appeal to different target audiences.

Gathering Customer Feedback

Informing decision-making.

Focus groups can provide valuable insights to inform decision-making in a range of fields including marketing, product development, and public policy.

Advantages of Focus Group

The advantages of using focus groups are:

• In-depth insights: Focus groups provide in-depth insights into the attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of a target audience on a specific topic, allowing researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the issues being explored.
• Group dynamics: The group dynamics of focus groups can provide additional insights, as participants may build on each other’s ideas, share experiences, and debate different perspectives.
• Efficient data collection: Focus groups are an efficient way to collect data from multiple individuals at the same time, making them a cost-effective method of research.
• Flexibility : Focus groups can be adapted to suit a range of research objectives, from exploratory research to concept testing and customer feedback.
• Real-time feedback: Focus groups provide real-time feedback on new products or concepts, allowing researchers to make immediate adjustments and improvements based on participant feedback.
• Participant engagement: Focus groups can be a more engaging and interactive research method than surveys or other quantitative methods, as participants have the opportunity to express their opinions and interact with other participants.

Limitations of Focus Groups

While focus groups can provide valuable insights, there are also some limitations to using them.

• Small sample size: Focus groups typically involve a small number of participants, which may not be representative of the broader population being studied.
• Group dynamics : While group dynamics can be an advantage of focus groups, they can also be a limitation, as dominant personalities may sway the discussion or participants may not feel comfortable expressing their true opinions.
• Limited generalizability : Because focus groups involve a small sample size, the results may not be generalizable to the broader population.
• Limited depth of responses: Because focus groups are time-limited, participants may not have the opportunity to fully explore or elaborate on their opinions or experiences.
• Potential for bias: The facilitator of a focus group may inadvertently influence the discussion or the selection of participants may not be representative, leading to potential bias in the results.
• Difficulty in analysis : The qualitative data collected in focus groups can be difficult to analyze, as it is often subjective and requires a skilled researcher to interpret and identify themes.

Characteristics of Focus Group

• Small group size: Focus groups typically involve a small number of participants, ranging from 6 to 12 people. This allows for a more in-depth and focused discussion.
• Targeted participants: Participants in focus groups are selected based on specific criteria, such as age, gender, or experience with a particular product or service.
• Facilitated discussion: A skilled facilitator leads the discussion, asking open-ended questions and encouraging participants to share their thoughts and experiences.
• I nteractive and conversational: Focus groups are interactive and conversational, with participants building on each other’s ideas and responding to one another’s opinions.
• Qualitative data: The data collected in focus groups is qualitative, providing detailed insights into participants’ attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.
• Non-threatening environment: Participants are encouraged to share their thoughts and experiences in a non-threatening and supportive environment.
• Limited time frame: Focus groups are typically time-limited, lasting between 1 and 2 hours, to ensure that the discussion stays focused and productive.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Qualitative Research Methods

Basic Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types...

Descriptive Research Design – Types, Methods and...

Quasi-Experimental Research Design – Types...

Qualitative study design: Focus groups

• Qualitative study design
• Phenomenology
• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Narrative inquiry
• Action research
• Case Studies
• Field research
• Focus groups
• Observation
• Surveys & questionnaires
• Study Designs Home

Focus Groups

Focus groups bring individuals from the study population together in a specific setting in order to discuss an issue as a group. The discussion generates research data.

Focus groups typically have these features:

• Four to ten participants meeting for up to two hours
• A facilitator or facilitators to guide discussion using open-ended questions
• An emphasis on the group talking among itself rather than to the facilitator
• Discussion is recorded and then transcribed for analysis by researchers

Researchers conduct several individual focus group meetings to produce a series. The number of focus groups in the series depends on the study’s aim, methods and resources.

Focus groups use a group setting to generate data different to that obtained in a one-to-one interview. The group context may allow for better examination of beliefs, attitudes, values, perspectives, knowledge and ideas.

Focus groups can be useful in action research methodology and other study designs which seek to empower research participants. Focus groups are also useful in multimethod studies utilising different forms of data collection.

• Quick way to collect data from several people 
• Produces data unique to group setting (e.g. teasing, arguing and non-verbal behaviour) due to the interaction between participants. This is a unique feature of focus groups. 
• Unlike written questionnaires, focus groups don’t rely on participant literacy to generate data 
• Can encourage participation from marginalised groups 
• Can facilitate discussion of stigmatised or counter-cultural topics due to feeling of mutual support among focus group participants 
• Can generate more critical comments than individual interviews. This is valuable for research aimed at improving products or services. 
• Can be used to validate findings from quantitative research methods by providing a deeper understanding that statistics cannot.

Limitations

• Individual perspectives that dissent from the focus group’s majority may remain hidden due to overriding behavioural or cultural norms, or a desire to be seen as conforming. 
• Confidentiality of individual responses is compromised due to the existence of the group 
• Only applicable when the population of interest has shared social and cultural experience or share common areas of concern. 
• Group discussion does not provide enough depth for researchers to understand experiences, especially in comparison to in-depth interviews. 
• Data is representative of the range of views in a population, not the prevalence of such views. 
• The facilitator has a strong effect on the focus groups behaviour and can therefore influence the extent to which issues or views are explored. 
• Data analysis is usually very time consuming due to the quantity produced.

Example questions

• What are the experiences, needs and wishes of mothers who received midwifery care at tertiary hospitals in Victoria, Australia?
• How useful is the patient perspective for the creation of an information information booklet for patients with liver cancer?
• What factors influence nursing students' development of end-of-life communication skills?

Example studies

Harrison, M., Ryan, T., Gardiner, C., & Jones, A. (2017). Psychological and emotional needs, assessment, and support post-stroke: a multi-perspective qualitative study . Top Stroke Rehabil, 24 (2), 119-125. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2016.1196908

Shilubane, H. N., Ruiter, R. A., Bos, A. E., Reddy, P. S., & van den Borne, B. (2014). High school students' knowledge and experience with a peer who committed or attempted suicide: a focus group study . BMC Public Health, 14 , 1081. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1081

Wiles, J. L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R. E. (2012). The meaning of "aging in place" to older people . Gerontologist , 52(3), 357-366. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr098 

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups . BMJ, 311 (7000), 299. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 

Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus . South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.  

• << Previous: Methods
• Next: Observation >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 11:46 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14: Focus groups

Tess Tsindos

Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Assess when to use focus groups in qualitative research.
• Develop questions for a focus group guide.
• Understand how to conduct a focus group.

What are focus groups?

Focus groups are convened to discuss an issue of mutual concern. The purpose of a focus group is to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions or motivations of research participants. 1 While individual interviews explore the experiences of (usually) one participant (see Chapter 13 ), focus groups are conducted with three or more people who share an experience or concern. The conversation between participants in a focus group is mediated and facilitated by the researcher. Focus groups can be used when little is known about the participants or a topic (an exploratory process), when testing new ideas (e.g. acceptability of a program or intervention) or when undertaking an evaluation of a service or product.

The focus of the discussion is on the interaction between participants in the group; some participants may have similar experiences or views, while others have different experiences. The group dynamic is important and therefore it is important that participants lead the discussion and are encouraged to talk through their similarities and differences, so that the researcher might gain a well-rounded perspective and account of the topic. A group might be homogeneous, get along well and share similar experiences. Or the group might be heterogeneous and have differing opinions and experiences. Participants might know each other because they have been recruited from the same program or community, or they could be total strangers. All these elements contribute to the focus of discussion, and to the group dynamic; that is, the interactivity of the focus group.

How many focus group members should there be?

Ideally, a focus group should include 6–10 participants 2 and the conversation should be moderated by the researcher, using a focus group discussion guide. However, the number of participants may vary according to the topic and the number of participants able to be recruited. The data collected from focus groups tends to differ from interview data because people respond and compare their own experiences with those of others in the group. Therefore, the number and composition of group members influence the data gathered.

Having too many people in a group means that discussion can become chaotic and it is unlikely that everyone in the group will have a say. Having too few people means that there may not be sufficient interaction to enable to capture a group perspective. Focus groups have been conducted with as few as two people: in a focus group conducted by one of the authors of this chapter, several participants had been invited, but only two attended. Since participants were difficult to recruit from the target population, it was not feasible to cancel the focus group. The topic was recovery after percutaneous coronary intervention (a cardiac procedure). The focus group discussion developed into an intimate conversation between two older men about their challenges in physical recovery and the psychological effects of not being able to fulfil a traditional male role. The small group size was serendipitous, in that the researcher may not have been able to collect such rich data had the group been larger. 3

The researcher (s)

It is common to have two researchers present in a focus group. One facilitates the group, while the other observes and records the session, and takes notes about who said what, body language and other observable information that contributes to the context of the data being collected. The observer should be as unobtrusive as possible and not participate in the group discussion. Similar to interviews, focus groups are audio-recorded so the conversation can be transcribed for analysis.  The researcher is encouraged to build rapport with focus group participants, which is aided by having a friendly and approachable manner. The focus group method enables the facilitator to probe ideas as they arise and to check their understanding of participants’ responses. This active facilitation enhances the robustness of the data collected. The quality of the data collected will depend greatly on how effective the researcher is at facilitating the group, and thus good interpersonal skills are essential. Conducting effective focus group discussions comes with practice and experience.

How long should a focus group be?

There are no strict rules about how long a focus group should be. Different groups will likely run for different amounts of time because this depends on the research question/s and the types of group members. For example, a group of people who know each other and have a common experience may need no longer than 45 minutes, whereas a group of strangers with different experiences may need up to 2 hours. Additionally, the number of people in the focus group will affect the amount of time needed. A focus group discussion with 6 participants may likely be shorter than a focus group with 12 participants.

Designing the focus group guide

Before the commencement of a focus group, the researchers need to develop a focus group discussion guide, which is similar to an interview guide. Both aim to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions and motivations of participants. If the study’s research methods include interviews and focus groups, the questions will be very similar. T he difference is that the focus group discussion guide do es not typically ask questions to elicit individual storytelling, but rather to ask questions to invite discussion of shared experiences , in which participants confirm or contrast each others ’ views . If focus groups are the sole data collection method, the researcher may consult existing literature, speak to experts, including people with lived experience about the focus of the research, and draw on their knowledge so that the topics and questions can be mapped to the research question/s.

The focus group guide should be developed well in advance of commencing data collection. This provides time for the facilitator and the observer to explore together the language and clarity of questions, the order and flow of the guide, and whether the instructions for participants are clear and comprehensive. To facilitate free-flowing responses, it is important to use open-ended questions that encourage participants to be expansive in their responses. Examples of open-ended question formats include those that start with ‘who’, ‘how’ ‘tell me more about’ and ‘where’.

Pilot interview/s enable the researchers to test the interview guide. However, they are often not conducted because it can be difficult to recruit enough relevant participants. Instead, focus group questions might be reviewed by other members of the research team for clarity and comprehensiveness. The study design will determine the number of questions asked and the extent of the focus group guide. The target population may also determine the extent of the focus group guide; for example, clinicians who are time-poor may need shorter focus groups while patient populations may be interested in exploring their experiences in detail and at length.

Following is a template that can be adapted for the introduction of a focus group. Table 14.1 offers example questions for a focus group discussion guide.

Focus group introduction

‘Hi everyone. My name is [insert name] and I’m from [insert organisation]. I am conducting [describe study]. Thank you for agreeing to be part of this focus group today. You were invited to participate in this focus group because [include reason]. Today we would like to discuss [outline topics]. We anticipate that the session will go for approximately [insert expected time]. Before we get started, I’d like to explain how we would like to structure the discussion. 1. We would like to hear from everyone present. This may mean that I will call on you by name to respond to a question. I may also indicate to you when it’s time to wrap up your thoughts so we can move on to another person or topic. 2. Feel free to respond directly to each other. I’m here to facilitate the discussion, but you are encouraged to respond to the other participants in this group. 3. We are recording the session today. This will ensure that we capture everything discussed. Your names will not be used in the reporting of this data and we will be using pseudonyms or codes instead when writing up results. 4. Please be respectful of what other participants share. Due to the nature of focus groups, we cannot ensure confidentiality, but we do ask that you do not repeat what is discussed in this group to people who were not present. You should feel free to not answer a question if you don’t feel comfortable answering. Do you have any questions before we begin?”

Table 14.1. Focus group guide: Example questions for a descriptive study

An earlier variation of this table has appeared in the Supplementary material for the article Why do students plagiarise? Informing higher education teaching and learning policy and practice . 4

Setting up the f ocus group

In the past, most focus groups were conducted in person. Emerging technologies have enabled the conduct of focus groups online, using teleconferencing and videoconferencing platforms. While it is more challenging to conduct a focus group online – primarily because participants’ body language is often not seen – it can be a very useful method of collecting data. The benefits include low cost, greater access to participants in different locations and time efficiencies. 5 Participants who are less inclined to participate verbally are able to use ‘chat’ functions to contribute their comments. Whether the focus group is face-to-face or online, the facilitator will need to help participants feel as comfortable as possible and encourage discussion.

Focus group activities

Focus groups may incorporate activities in addition to, or to aid discussion; for example, sorting and ranking activities to prioritise topics for discussion in the focus group; or a River of Life 6 activity (see Chapter 18 ).

C onsiderations for the conduct of focus groups

C onfidentiality should be addressed explicitly; for example, using the Chatham House rule, which sets out expectations about repeating what is said in a meeting without revealing the identities of who said it or other participants. 7  It is advisable to provide each participant with an explanatory statement to read, which states that confidentiality is essential to the focus group discussions.

Expectations need to be communicated in advance. Many of the tips for interviews in Chapter 13 apply also to focus groups, but it is important to communicate the researchers’ and the group’s expectations upfront. Some, but not all, of the expectations of focus groups are included in Table 14.2. The facilitator should explain these expectations before the focus group starts. Table 14.3 provides examples of studies using focus groups for data collection.

Table 14.2. Dos and don’ts of conducting focus groups

Power imbalances. When setting up a focus group, the facilitator should pay strict attention to how homogenous the group needs to be concerning the topic, and how possible power imbalances might affect the data collection. For example, if the research question seeks to understand why drug administration errors occur in hospitals, it would not be a good idea to have doctors, nurses and pharmacists in the same group. Why? Because they might not feel comfortable expressing views in front of the very people they have seen make errors. Instead, you could run three separate groups: one with doctors, one with nurses and another with pharmacists. Conducting separate group discussions helps to avoid the chance that a powerful group might dominate the discussion and enables each group member to express their views openly.

Participant identity. The facilitator should invite participants to introduce themselves to other group members, to encourage familiarity; name tags can help participants remember each other’s names. The researchers will need to maintain a list of participants and any necessary demographic details.

Risk. The possibility of distress or harm occurring must always be considered in a focus group. Participants may become distressed because sensitive topics are being discussed, and there is always a risk that some participants might overshare their experiences. The facilitator will need to judge when to stop the discussion if it becomes clear that one or more participants are distressed. 8 Researchers should have a clear protocol developed that provides advice about how to handle distress.

After the f ocus g roup

Once the discussion is concluded, participants should be thanked for their time and contributions. Explain how participants might contact the researcher if they have any questions or would like to provide the facilitator with follow-up information. If the focus group has covered sensitive topics or any participants have become distressed during the discussion, make sure that you spend some time privately with the participant to provide appropriate referrals and follow-up (see Section 6 ). Referrals and follow-up are usually described in the protocol addressing distress.

Data analysis is discussed in Section 4 , but it is important to know what to do immediately after each focus group is completed. Download (or upload) the recording from the audio-recording device to ensure it is saved in a secure location that can only be accessed by people on the research team (see Chapter 34). The recording should be transcribed; that is, reproduced verbatim, for data coding and analysis. The transcription of data is an important step in the analysis process, and it is important to note that this is a highly time-consuming task. Transcribing a 60-minute focus group discussion can take up to 10 hours.

Table 14.3. Examples of focus groups

Focus groups and (individual interviews) are the most common data collection techniques in qualitative research. The success of a focus group depends on the group composition and the effectiveness of the facilitator. It is important to formulate open-ended focus group questions that are understandable and easy for participants to engage with. Setting up the focus group discussion guide, rules and other considerations will enhance the experience of the focus group for the participant and the researchers, as well as the quality of the data collected.

• Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E et al . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J . 2008;204(6):291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
• Gill, P, Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J . 2018;225:668-672. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815
• Soh S-E, Barker AL, Ayton DR et al. What matters most to patients following percutaneous coronary interventions? A new patient-reported outcome measure developed using Rasch analysis. PLoS ONE . 2019;14(9):e0222185. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222185
• Ayton D, Hillman C, Hatzikiriakidis K, et al. Why do students plagiarise? Informing higher education teaching and learning policy and practice. Stud High Educ . Sep 2 2022;47(9):1921-1934. doi:10.1080/03075079.2021.1985103
• Abrams K, Gaiser T. Online focus groups. In: Field N, Lee R, Blank G, eds. The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . Sage Publications, 2016;435–450.
• Moussa Z. Rivers of life. Participatory Learning and Action. Community-based adaptation to climate change, 2009. The International Institute for Environment and Development. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.iied.org/g02828
• The Chatham House rule. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule#:~:text=The%20Rule%20reads%20as%20follows,other%20participant%2C%20may%20be%20revealed .
• Sim J, Waterfield J. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant. 2019;53:3003-3022. doi/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5
• van der Spek N, Vos J, van Uden-Kraan CF et al. Meaning making in cancer survivors: a focus group study. P LoS ONE . 2013;8(9):e76089. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076089
• Visser E, Den Oudsten BL, Traa MJ et al . Patients’ experiences and wellbeing after injury: a focus group study. PLoS ONE . 2021;1 6(1):e0245198. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245198
• Moynihan R, Sims R, Hersch J et al . Communicating about overdiagnosis: learning from community focus groups on osteoporosis. PLoS ONE . 2017;12(2):e0170142. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170142
• Sabet Sarvestani A, Bufumbo L, Geiger JD et al. . Traditional male circumcision in Uganda: a qualitative focus group discussion analysis. PLoS ONE . 2012;7(10):e45316. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045316

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Tess Tsindos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 05 October 2018

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

• P. Gill 1 &
• J. Baillie 2  

British Dental Journal volume  225 ,  pages 668–672 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

31k Accesses

61 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Highlights that qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry. Interviews and focus groups remain the most common qualitative methods of data collection.

Suggests the advent of digital technologies has transformed how qualitative research can now be undertaken.

Suggests interviews and focus groups can offer significant, meaningful insight into participants' experiences, beliefs and perspectives, which can help to inform developments in dental practice.

Qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry, due to its potential to provide meaningful, in-depth insights into participants' experiences, perspectives, beliefs and behaviours. These insights can subsequently help to inform developments in dental practice and further related research. The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and focus groups in detail, outlines how they can be used in practice, how digital technologies can further inform the data collection process, and what these methods can offer dentistry.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research, introduction.

Traditionally, research in dentistry has primarily been quantitative in nature. 1 However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research within the profession, due to its potential to further inform developments in practice, policy, education and training. Consequently, in 2008, the British Dental Journal (BDJ) published a four paper qualitative research series, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 to help increase awareness and understanding of this particular methodological approach.

Since the papers were originally published, two scoping reviews have demonstrated the ongoing proliferation in the use of qualitative research within the field of oral healthcare. 1 , 6 To date, the original four paper series continue to be well cited and two of the main papers remain widely accessed among the BDJ readership. 2 , 3 The potential value of well-conducted qualitative research to evidence-based practice is now also widely recognised by service providers, policy makers, funding bodies and those who commission, support and use healthcare research.

Besides increasing standalone use, qualitative methods are now also routinely incorporated into larger mixed method study designs, such as clinical trials, as they can offer additional, meaningful insights into complex problems that simply could not be provided by quantitative methods alone. Qualitative methods can also be used to further facilitate in-depth understanding of important aspects of clinical trial processes, such as recruitment. For example, Ellis et al . investigated why edentulous older patients, dissatisfied with conventional dentures, decline implant treatment, despite its established efficacy, and frequently refuse to participate in related randomised clinical trials, even when financial constraints are removed. 7 Through the use of focus groups in Canada and the UK, the authors found that fears of pain and potential complications, along with perceived embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are common reasons why older patients typically refuse dental implants. 7

The last decade has also seen further developments in qualitative research, due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. These developments have transformed how researchers can access and share information, communicate and collaborate, recruit and engage participants, collect and analyse data and disseminate and translate research findings. 8 Where appropriate, such technologies are therefore capable of extending and enhancing how qualitative research is undertaken. 9 For example, it is now possible to collect qualitative data via instant messaging, email or online/video chat, using appropriate online platforms.

These innovative approaches to research are therefore cost-effective, convenient, reduce geographical constraints and are often useful for accessing 'hard to reach' participants (for example, those who are immobile or socially isolated). 8 , 9 However, digital technologies are still relatively new and constantly evolving and therefore present a variety of pragmatic and methodological challenges. Furthermore, given their very nature, their use in many qualitative studies and/or with certain participant groups may be inappropriate and should therefore always be carefully considered. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed explication regarding the use of digital technologies in qualitative research, insight is provided into how such technologies can be used to facilitate the data collection process in interviews and focus groups.

In light of such developments, it is perhaps therefore timely to update the main paper 3 of the original BDJ series. As with the previous publications, this paper has been purposely written in an accessible style, to enhance readability, particularly for those who are new to qualitative research. While the focus remains on the most common qualitative methods of data collection – interviews and focus groups – appropriate revisions have been made to provide a novel perspective, and should therefore be helpful to those who would like to know more about qualitative research. This paper specifically focuses on undertaking qualitative research with adult participants only.

Overview of qualitative research

Qualitative research is an approach that focuses on people and their experiences, behaviours and opinions. 10 , 11 The qualitative researcher seeks to answer questions of 'how' and 'why', providing detailed insight and understanding, 11 which quantitative methods cannot reach. 12 Within qualitative research, there are distinct methodologies influencing how the researcher approaches the research question, data collection and data analysis. 13 For example, phenomenological studies focus on the lived experience of individuals, explored through their description of the phenomenon. Ethnographic studies explore the culture of a group and typically involve the use of multiple methods to uncover the issues. 14

While methodology is the 'thinking tool', the methods are the 'doing tools'; 13 the ways in which data are collected and analysed. There are multiple qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, documentary analysis, participant diaries, photography and videography. Two of the most commonly used qualitative methods are interviews and focus groups, which are explored in this article. The data generated through these methods can be analysed in one of many ways, according to the methodological approach chosen. A common approach is thematic data analysis, involving the identification of themes and subthemes across the data set. Further information on approaches to qualitative data analysis has been discussed elsewhere. 1

Qualitative research is an evolving and adaptable approach, used by different disciplines for different purposes. Traditionally, qualitative data, specifically interviews, focus groups and observations, have been collected face-to-face with participants. In more recent years, digital technologies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of qualitative research. Digital technologies offer researchers different ways of recruiting participants and collecting data, and offer participants opportunities to be involved in research that is not necessarily face-to-face.

Research interviews are a fundamental qualitative research method 15 and are utilised across methodological approaches. Interviews enable the researcher to learn in depth about the perspectives, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3 , 16 Examples include, exploring patients' perspectives of fear/anxiety triggers in dental treatment, 17 patients' experiences of oral health and diabetes, 18 and dental students' motivations for their choice of career. 19

Interviews may be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, 3 according to the purpose of the study, with less structured interviews facilitating a more in depth and flexible interviewing approach. 20 Structured interviews are similar to verbal questionnaires and are used if the researcher requires clarification on a topic; however they produce less in-depth data about a participant's experience. 3 Unstructured interviews may be used when little is known about a topic and involves the researcher asking an opening question; 3 the participant then leads the discussion. 20 Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in healthcare research, enabling the researcher to ask predetermined questions, 20 while ensuring the participant discusses issues they feel are important.

Interviews can be undertaken face-to-face or using digital methods when the researcher and participant are in different locations. Audio-recording the interview, with the consent of the participant, is essential for all interviews regardless of the medium as it enables accurate transcription; the process of turning the audio file into a word-for-word transcript. This transcript is the data, which the researcher then analyses according to the chosen approach.

Types of interview

Qualitative studies often utilise one-to-one, face-to-face interviews with research participants. This involves arranging a mutually convenient time and place to meet the participant, signing a consent form and audio-recording the interview. However, digital technologies have expanded the potential for interviews in research, enabling individuals to participate in qualitative research regardless of location.

Telephone interviews can be a useful alternative to face-to-face interviews and are commonly used in qualitative research. They enable participants from different geographical areas to participate and may be less onerous for participants than meeting a researcher in person. 15 A qualitative study explored patients' perspectives of dental implants and utilised telephone interviews due to the quality of the data that could be yielded. 21 The researcher needs to consider how they will audio record the interview, which can be facilitated by purchasing a recorder that connects directly to the telephone. One potential disadvantage of telephone interviews is the inability of the interviewer and researcher to see each other. This is resolved using software for audio and video calls online – such as Skype – to conduct interviews with participants in qualitative studies. Advantages of this approach include being able to see the participant if video calls are used, enabling observation of non-verbal communication, and the software can be free to use. However, participants are required to have a device and internet connection, as well as being computer literate, potentially limiting who can participate in the study. One qualitative study explored the role of dental hygienists in reducing oral health disparities in Canada. 22 The researcher conducted interviews using Skype, which enabled dental hygienists from across Canada to be interviewed within the research budget, accommodating the participants' schedules. 22

A less commonly used approach to qualitative interviews is the use of social virtual worlds. A qualitative study accessed a social virtual world – Second Life – to explore the health literacy skills of individuals who use social virtual worlds to access health information. 23 The researcher created an avatar and interview room, and undertook interviews with participants using voice and text methods. 23 This approach to recruitment and data collection enables individuals from diverse geographical locations to participate, while remaining anonymous if they wish. Furthermore, for interviews conducted using text methods, transcription of the interview is not required as the researcher can save the written conversation with the participant, with the participant's consent. However, the researcher and participant need to be familiar with how the social virtual world works to engage in an interview this way.

Conducting an interview

Ensuring informed consent before any interview is a fundamental aspect of the research process. Participants in research must be afforded autonomy and respect; consent should be informed and voluntary. 24 Individuals should have the opportunity to read an information sheet about the study, ask questions, understand how their data will be stored and used, and know that they are free to withdraw at any point without reprisal. The qualitative researcher should take written consent before undertaking the interview. In a face-to-face interview, this is straightforward: the researcher and participant both sign copies of the consent form, keeping one each. However, this approach is less straightforward when the researcher and participant do not meet in person. A recent protocol paper outlined an approach for taking consent for telephone interviews, which involved: audio recording the participant agreeing to each point on the consent form; the researcher signing the consent form and keeping a copy; and posting a copy to the participant. 25 This process could be replicated in other interview studies using digital methods.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using face-to-face and digital methods for research interviews. Ultimately, for both approaches, the quality of the interview is determined by the researcher. 16 Appropriate training and preparation are thus required. Healthcare professionals can use their interpersonal communication skills when undertaking a research interview, particularly questioning, listening and conversing. 3 However, the purpose of an interview is to gain information about the study topic, 26 rather than offering help and advice. 3 The researcher therefore needs to listen attentively to participants, enabling them to describe their experience without interruption. 3 The use of active listening skills also help to facilitate the interview. 14 Spradley outlined elements and strategies for research interviews, 27 which are a useful guide for qualitative researchers:

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

Asking descriptive (broad), structural (explore response to descriptive) and contrast (difference between) questions

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

Repeating, restating and incorporating the participant's words when asking questions

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

For semi-structured interviews, a topic guide (also called an interview schedule) is used to guide the content of the interview – an example of a topic guide is outlined in Box 1 . The topic guide, usually based on the research questions, existing literature and, for healthcare professionals, their clinical experience, is developed by the research team. The topic guide should include open ended questions that elicit in-depth information, and offer participants the opportunity to talk about issues important to them. This is vital in qualitative research where the researcher is interested in exploring the experiences and perspectives of participants. It can be useful for qualitative researchers to pilot the topic guide with the first participants, 10 to ensure the questions are relevant and understandable, and amending the questions if required.

Regardless of the medium of interview, the researcher must consider the setting of the interview. For face-to-face interviews, this could be in the participant's home, in an office or another mutually convenient location. A quiet location is preferable to promote confidentiality, enable the researcher and participant to concentrate on the conversation, and to facilitate accurate audio-recording of the interview. For interviews using digital methods the same principles apply: a quiet, private space where the researcher and participant feel comfortable and confident to participate in an interview.

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Study focus: Parents' experiences of brushing their child's (aged 0–5) teeth

1. Can you tell me about your experience of cleaning your child's teeth?

How old was your child when you started cleaning their teeth?

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

2. Could you explain how you find cleaning your child's teeth?

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

3. How has your experience of cleaning your child's teeth changed over time?

Has it become easier or harder?

Have you changed how often and how you clean their teeth? If so, why?

4. Could you describe how your child finds having their teeth cleaned?

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

Is there anything they find upsetting about having their teeth cleaned?

5. Where do you look for information/advice about cleaning your child's teeth?

What did your health visitor tell you about cleaning your child's teeth? (If anything)

What has the dentist told you about caring for your child's teeth? (If visited)

Have any family members given you advice about how to clean your child's teeth? If so, what did they tell you? Did you follow their advice?

6. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this?

Focus groups

A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28 , 29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or phenomenology) as such, focus groups are used increasingly in healthcare research, as they are useful for exploring collective perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Consequently, they can yield rich, in-depth data and illuminate agreement and inconsistencies 28 within and, where appropriate, between groups. Examples include public perceptions of dental implants and subsequent impact on help-seeking and decision making, 30 and general dental practitioners' views on patient safety in dentistry. 31

Focus groups can be used alone or in conjunction with other methods, such as interviews or observations, and can therefore help to confirm, extend or enrich understanding and provide alternative insights. 28 The social interaction between participants often results in lively discussion and can therefore facilitate the collection of rich, meaningful data. However, they are complex to organise and manage, due to the number of participants, and may also be inappropriate for exploring particularly sensitive issues that many participants may feel uncomfortable about discussing in a group environment.

Focus groups are primarily undertaken face-to-face but can now also be undertaken online, using appropriate technologies such as email, bulletin boards, online research communities, chat rooms, discussion forums, social media and video conferencing. 32 Using such technologies, data collection can also be synchronous (for example, online discussions in 'real time') or, unlike traditional face-to-face focus groups, asynchronous (for example, online/email discussions in 'non-real time'). While many of the fundamental principles of focus group research are the same, regardless of how they are conducted, a number of subtle nuances are associated with the online medium. 32 Some of which are discussed further in the following sections.

Focus group considerations

Some key considerations associated with face-to-face focus groups are: how many participants are required; should participants within each group know each other (or not) and how many focus groups are needed within a single study? These issues are much debated and there is no definitive answer. However, the number of focus groups required will largely depend on the topic area, the depth and breadth of data needed, the desired level of participation required 29 and the necessity (or not) for data saturation.

The optimum group size is around six to eight participants (excluding researchers) but can work effectively with between three and 14 participants. 3 If the group is too small, it may limit discussion, but if it is too large, it may become disorganised and difficult to manage. It is, however, prudent to over-recruit for a focus group by approximately two to three participants, to allow for potential non-attenders. For many researchers, particularly novice researchers, group size may also be informed by pragmatic considerations, such as the type of study, resources available and moderator experience. 28 Similar size and mix considerations exist for online focus groups. Typically, synchronous online focus groups will have around three to eight participants but, as the discussion does not happen simultaneously, asynchronous groups may have as many as 10–30 participants. 33

The topic area and potential group interaction should guide group composition considerations. Pre-existing groups, where participants know each other (for example, work colleagues) may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and may enjoy a familiarity, which facilitates discussion and/or the ability to challenge each other courteously. 3 However, if there is a potential power imbalance within the group or if existing group norms and hierarchies may adversely affect the ability of participants to speak freely, then 'stranger groups' (that is, where participants do not already know each other) may be more appropriate. 34 , 35

Focus group management

Face-to-face focus groups should normally be conducted by two researchers; a moderator and an observer. 28 The moderator facilitates group discussion, while the observer typically monitors group dynamics, behaviours, non-verbal cues, seating arrangements and speaking order, which is essential for transcription and analysis. The same principles of informed consent, as discussed in the interview section, also apply to focus groups, regardless of medium. However, the consent process for online discussions will probably be managed somewhat differently. For example, while an appropriate participant information leaflet (and consent form) would still be required, the process is likely to be managed electronically (for example, via email) and would need to specifically address issues relating to technology (for example, anonymity and use, storage and access to online data). 32

The venue in which a face to face focus group is conducted should be of a suitable size, private, quiet, free from distractions and in a collectively convenient location. It should also be conducted at a time appropriate for participants, 28 as this is likely to promote attendance. As with interviews, the same ethical considerations apply (as discussed earlier). However, online focus groups may present additional ethical challenges associated with issues such as informed consent, appropriate access and secure data storage. Further guidance can be found elsewhere. 8 , 32

Before the focus group commences, the researchers should establish rapport with participants, as this will help to put them at ease and result in a more meaningful discussion. Consequently, researchers should introduce themselves, provide further clarity about the study and how the process will work in practice and outline the 'ground rules'. Ground rules are designed to assist, not hinder, group discussion and typically include: 3 , 28 , 29

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

Everyone can be expected to be listened to and their views respected

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

Moderating a focus group requires considered management and good interpersonal skills to help guide the discussion and, where appropriate, keep it sufficiently focused. Avoid, therefore, participating, leading, expressing personal opinions or correcting participants' knowledge 3 , 28 as this may bias the process. A relaxed, interested demeanour will also help participants to feel comfortable and promote candid discourse. Moderators should also prevent the discussion being dominated by any one person, ensure differences of opinions are discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants to contribute. 3 Asking open questions, reflecting on significant issues, inviting further debate, probing responses accordingly, and seeking further clarification, as and where appropriate, will help to obtain sufficient depth and insight into the topic area.

Moderating online focus groups requires comparable skills, particularly if the discussion is synchronous, as the discussion may be dominated by those who can type proficiently. 36 It is therefore important that sufficient time and respect is accorded to those who may not be able to type as quickly. Asynchronous discussions are usually less problematic in this respect, as interactions are less instant. However, moderating an asynchronous discussion presents additional challenges, particularly if participants are geographically dispersed, as they may be online at different times. Consequently, the moderator will not always be present and the discussion may therefore need to occur over several days, which can be difficult to manage and facilitate and invariably requires considerable flexibility. 32 It is also worth recognising that establishing rapport with participants via online medium is often more challenging than via face-to-face and may therefore require additional time, skills, effort and consideration.

As with research interviews, focus groups should be guided by an appropriate interview schedule, as discussed earlier in the paper. For example, the schedule will usually be informed by the review of the literature and study aims, and will merely provide a topic guide to help inform subsequent discussions. To provide a verbatim account of the discussion, focus groups must be recorded, using an audio-recorder with a good quality multi-directional microphone. While videotaping is possible, some participants may find it obtrusive, 3 which may adversely affect group dynamics. The use (or not) of a video recorder, should therefore be carefully considered.

At the end of the focus group, a few minutes should be spent rounding up and reflecting on the discussion. 28 Depending on the topic area, it is possible that some participants may have revealed deeply personal issues and may therefore require further help and support, such as a constructive debrief or possibly even referral on to a relevant third party. It is also possible that some participants may feel that the discussion did not adequately reflect their views and, consequently, may no longer wish to be associated with the study. 28 Such occurrences are likely to be uncommon, but should they arise, it is important to further discuss any concerns and, if appropriate, offer them the opportunity to withdraw (including any data relating to them) from the study. Immediately after the discussion, researchers should compile notes regarding thoughts and ideas about the focus group, which can assist with data analysis and, if appropriate, any further data collection.

Qualitative research is increasingly being utilised within dental research to explore the experiences, perspectives, motivations and beliefs of participants. The contributions of qualitative research to evidence-based practice are increasingly being recognised, both as standalone research and as part of larger mixed-method studies, including clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups remain commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research, and with the advent of digital technologies, their utilisation continues to evolve. However, digital methods of qualitative data collection present additional methodological, ethical and practical considerations, but also potentially offer considerable flexibility to participants and researchers. Consequently, regardless of format, qualitative methods have significant potential to inform important areas of dental practice, policy and further related research.

Gussy M, Dickson-Swift V, Adams J . A scoping review of qualitative research in peer-reviewed dental publications. Int J Dent Hygiene 2013; 11 : 174–179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 429–432.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 291–295.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 371–374.

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Masood M, Thaliath E, Bower E, Newton J . An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39 : 193–203.

Ellis J, Levine A, Bedos C et al. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011; 28 : 62–68.

Macfarlane S, Bucknall T . Digital Technologies in Research. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . 7th edition. pp. 71–86. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Lee R, Fielding N, Blank G . Online Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An Editorial Introduction. In Fielding N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 3–16. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Creswell J . Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M . Qualitative research: Defining and designing In Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M (editors) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual For Applied Research . pp. 1–40. London: Sage Publications, 2013.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pope C, Mays N . Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 42–45.

Giddings L, Grant B . A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Adv Nurs Sci 2007; 30 : 52–60.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge, 1995.

Oltmann S . Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2016; 17 : Art. 15.

Patton M . Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Wang M, Vinall-Collier K, Csikar J, Douglas G . A qualitative study of patients' views of techniques to reduce dental anxiety. J Dent 2017; 66 : 45–51.

Lindenmeyer A, Bowyer V, Roscoe J, Dale J, Sutcliffe P . Oral health awareness and care preferences in patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2013; 30 : 113–118.

Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N . Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students' choice of professional career. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12 : 89–98.

Tod A . Interviewing. In Gerrish K, Lacey A (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Grey E, Harcourt D, O'Sullivan D, Buchanan H, Kipatrick N . A qualitative study of patients' motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214 : 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1178.

Farmer J, Peressini S, Lawrence H . Exploring the role of the dental hygienist in reducing oral health disparities in Canada: A qualitative study. Int J Dent Hygiene 2017; 10.1111/idh.12276.

McElhinney E, Cheater F, Kidd L . Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. J Adv Nurs 2013; 70 : 1267–1275.

Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Available at https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ (accessed September 2017).

Baillie J, Gill P, Courtenay P . Knowledge, understanding and experiences of peritonitis among patients, and their families, undertaking peritoneal dialysis: A mixed methods study protocol. J Adv Nurs 2017; 10.1111/jan.13400.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.

Spradley J . The Ethnographic Interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Goodman C, Evans C . Focus Groups. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . pp. 401–412. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

Shaha M, Wenzell J, Hill E . Planning and conducting focus group research with nurses. Nurse Res 2011; 18 : 77–87.

Wang G, Gao X, Edward C . Public perception of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43 : 798–805.

Bailey E . Contemporary views of dental practitioners' on patient safety. Br Dent J 2015; 219 : 535–540.

Abrams K, Gaiser T . Online Focus Groups. In Field N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 435–450. London: Sage Publications, 2016.

Poynter R . The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Kevern J, Webb C . Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001; 21 : 323–333.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R . Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups. In Barbour R S K J (editor) Developing Focus Group Research . pp. 1–20. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Krueger R, Casey M . Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J 225 , 668–672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessment of women’s needs and wishes regarding interprofessional guidance on oral health in pregnancy – a qualitative study.

• Merle Ebinghaus
• Caroline Johanna Agricola
• Birgit-Christiane Zyriax

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

• Abimbola M. Oladayo
• Oluwakemi Odukoya
• Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

Assessment of women’s needs, wishes and preferences regarding interprofessional guidance on nutrition in pregnancy – a qualitative study

‘baby mamas’ in urban ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in accra, ghana.

• Rosemond Akpene Hiadzi
• Jemima Akweley Agyeman
• Godwin Banafo Akrong

Reproductive Health (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Research Methods at SCS

• Basic Strategies
• Literature Reviews & Annotated Bibliographies
• Qualitative & Quantitative Methods

Case Studies

Focus groups.

• White Papers

• << Previous: Qualitative & Quantitative Methods
• Next: Surveys >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.georgetown.edu/research

Skip navigation

World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience

Focus Groups 101

July 31, 2022 2022-07-31

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

It is no secret that the field of user experience often favors objective, observational research methods over subjective, attitudinal methods. After all, when something is observed, with proof that it has actually happened, it can be hard to argue against it. However, it takes more than observational research to truly empathize and understand the full complexity of a person’s experience, which includes emotional experiences, mindsets, values, and belief systems. Since there is no other way to gather this data (at the writing of this article, mind reading with neural implants is not possible) researchers must use attitudinal methods to solicit the thoughts and opinions of target customers. A focus group is one of these methods.

In This Article:

What is a focus group, limitations and risks of focus groups, benefits of focus groups, you can run an effective focus group.

Definition: A focus group is a qualitative, attitudinal research method in which a facilitator conducts a meeting or workshop (typically about 1–2 hours long) with a group of 6–9 people to discuss issues and concerns about their experiences with a product or service. The term “focus” relates to the role of the facilitator, who maintains the group’s focus on certain topics during discussions.

Traditionally, focus groups have been a market-research method, used to get a sense of some aspect of a product, service, or concept. In these settings, the focus would typically be on certain words, graphics, videos, or other noninteractive media. All participants are presented with the media as a group and then prompted to provide their thoughts to the facilitator and the rest of the group.

Generally speaking, focus groups can provide useful information about your customers’ overall opinions and their impressions of a product or service.

Focus groups are notoriously problematic and often improperly used. Here are some of their limitations:

• They do not provide detailed insights on usability. People will comment on what is shown or remembered and offer opinions, so, by their nature, focus groups cannot provide any objective information on behavior when using a product or service. Thus, they cannot provide detailed usability insights, which would be best found with a usability test or field study . Even if there are some usability insights uncovered when presenting a design, products are almost never used by a whole committee; they’re used individually.
• People don’t always know what they will do or what will MOST benefit them in the future. In many focus groups, participants are asked whether they would use a particular product. But users do not always do what they say they will do. So, while it’s helpful to listen to customers’ concerns, preferences, or requests for features or product offerings — especially to uncover unmet user needs — the requests themselves are not always going to be the best solutions to address customers’ needs in a systematic and prioritized way.
• Negativity bias often results in people more readily recalling what was bad about an experience (particularly if it was not a great one), which can skew the discussion negatively for everyone else.
• The peak-end rule can cause people to overly focus on the most memorable and most recent moments, at the expense of other possibly more-meaningful ones.
• Priming can cause participants to overemphasize an aspect of their experience, because it so happened that someone else mentioned it and made them remember it.
• Group dynamics may impact how much (or how little) people share.  Strong personalities in the group may affect what and how much is shared. Depending on the focus group’s format, it may disproportionately represent the opinions of those who are more talkative or quick to answer. Groupthink is also more likely to occur in these settings if only verbal contributions are given attention. To paraphrase my colleague Sarah Gibbons : a poorly run focus group can be a great way to pay 9 people for the opinions of three.

Given these limitations, focus groups should NOT be utilized in the following contexts:

• Evaluating a design’s usability 
• Evaluating workflows
• Creating a list of design requirements
• Determining a UI’s impact on emotions
• Quantifying satisfaction or other sentiments 

Despite these shortcomings, there are some good reasons to consider a focus group:

• Participants with similar goals or perspectives can build on each other’s responses or recall experiences in greater detail. Sometimes during interviews, a participant might have trouble recalling all the details of an experience. However, hearing another participant mention something related may trigger the recollection of an important detail, which would otherwise get skimmed over in an interview.
• They can help teams clarify users’ mental models and language (vocabulary) around the problem space during discovery phases , before conducting further research. While you should generally run a pilot study for most research studies anyway, a focus group can help researchers rework a research plan or facilitator guide with language that could be more user-centered.
• They are a time-efficient method for the researcher. Rather than dedicate 9–12 hours interviewing 6–9 individual participants, a researcher can dedicate 1–2 hours to gather the perspectives of 6–9 people at the same time. It can be a quick way to learn from many people and perspectives (and certainly a 100% improvement to conducting no research at all). These can be especially time-efficient if the researcher is facilitating the focus group online rather than in person.
• When run properly, they can yield rich qualitative insights due to a format similar to semistructured interviews . Unlike questionnaires — which can sometimes limit the level of detail covered — focus groups give facilitators the flexibility to explore topics in which the participants are interested. This format is especially useful if the team is still in early stages of product development and trying to discover new information about the problem space.

Given these benefits, focus groups are BEST utilized in the following contexts:

• Early discovery research to gauge customer familiarity or interest in a concept and initial impressions
• Understanding users’ mental models and expectations
• Cocreation workshops with sponsored customers

It’s fair to say that focus groups are often unfairly maligned, considering the many benefits they can yield with relatively less time commitment compared to other methods. The key to reaping these benefits and mitigating limitations is to use a combination of other research methods (like other behavioral or attitudinal methods), and having a strong research plan.

Here are the key things to consider when planning your focus group:

1. Recruit participants that are representative of your target audience(s).

Who do you want to learn about? What specific segment of users are you interested in? Even if your user is “everybody,” use personas , archetypes , or jobs-to-be-done to identify key recruiting criteria . Recruiting is a tricky balance of finding similar user motivations and goals (not demographics) while inviting a mix of backgrounds to reduce bias from other sources — such as having an overly westernized sample when studying a global offering.

2. Note potential sources of bias from the focus group’s structure.

Note who is not included, and why, for consideration during analysis and when strategizing future research.  Is it a different segment that’s intentionally excluded? Lack of response? Lack of interest/trust? Bias is difficult to totally eliminate, but awareness of sources of bias can help during analysis and might inform future research. For example:

• With online focus groups, there may be potential participants who are excluded from participating (be it due to a poor internet connection, lack of a desktop device, or low literacy in certain digital tools). Thus, they may not be able join a video chat or, if they do join, they may be less likely to participate when using an unfamiliar online-meeting tool or whiteboard platform for the first time.
• With in-person focus groups, it’s fair to assume that the study will only involve participants from the immediate commutable vicinity (i.e., within the city or state), especially if travel is not funded by the study or if insufficient notice is provided for those commuting from further distances.
• Is your focus group accessible? This is relevant for both in-person and online focus groups. Can disabled participants get into the facility and participate readily? Can nonverbal participants contribute?

3. Treat your focus group like a workshop . Make participants comfortable with participating, verbally or nonverbally.

As you plan your agenda for the focus group, remember that most of your participants likely do not know each other and will be asked to speak honestly, potentially revealing information that may make them feel vulnerable or unlike others. Some people may do it, others may not. Consider having the following in your focus group:

• It gives a structured way for participants to build rapport with the facilitator and with each other.
• It builds participants’ confidence, in themselves and in the format (particularly if you’re using online-meeting tools or digital whiteboards). Note: Do not “break the ice” with highly personal or sensitive topics, which will likely cause participants to withdraw instead. (In fact, those types of answers are probably not going to come easily in a focus-group format, even with the most “warmed up” group. These types of questions are better suited to 1:1 interviews).
• Both written and verbal participation opportunities As with any other UX workshop , offer multiple methods of engagement (verbal and nonverbal) to encourage maximum participation and contribution. This ensures that less vocal or nonnative speakers feel comfortable contributing. You can also use the diverge–converge technique to maximize participation while decreasing bias potential. Note:  If covering sensitive topics, offer an anonymous way to contribute (or, again, consider a different, more-private method altogether).

4. Have a (written) plan and guide.

Construct your prompts in advance to avoid leading or biasing participants.  As with semistructured interviews, focus-group questions should use the funnel technique : be open-ended and broad at the beginning and progressively build detail and specificity with concepts as the conversation progresses. On a related note: remember to frame followup questions both positively and negatively to avoid leading participants, particularly when the conversation may naturally skew in one of these directions.

Focus groups don’t accurately predict future behavior. However, they can help gauge attitudes and guide future exploration, thus avoiding wasted research time. Still, they should be considered a starting point to further research, rather than a validation step. The good news? If your focus-group participants are willing, not only will you have their input to guide your further research, you may also have a group of customers willing and able to test what you create to further guide your design.

Related Courses

User research methods: from strategy to requirements to design.

Pick the best UX research method for each stage in the design process

User Interviews

Uncover in-depth, accurate insights about your users

ResearchOps: Scaling User Research

Orchestrate and optimize research to amplify its impact

Related Topics

• Research Methods Research Methods

Learn More:

Please accept marketing cookies to view the embedded video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9nZRMN49J0

Frequency ≠ Importance in Qualitative Data

Tanner Kohler · 3 min

Deductively Analyzing Qualitative Data

Analyzing Qualitative User Data in a Spreadsheet to Show Themes

Kim Salazar · 4 min

Related Articles:

Obtaining Consent for User Research

Therese Fessenden · 8 min

Data Is More than Numbers: Why Qualitative Data Isn’t Just Opinions

Page Laubheimer · 9 min

6 Mistakes When Crafting Interview Questions

Maria Rosala · 5 min

Should You Run a Survey?

Maddie Brown · 6 min

Why 5 Participants Are Okay in a Qualitative Study, but Not in a Quantitative One

Raluca Budiu · 7 min

How Many Participants for a UX Interview?

Maria Rosala · 6 min

Interviews & Focus Groups

Interviews are a qualitative research method and typically takes the form of a conversation where questions are asked to elicit information. The interviewer poses questions to the interviewee, in an alternating series of usually brief questions and answers. The questions may be highly structured, open-ended, or somewhere in between the two.

In phenomenological, phenomenographic or ethnographic research, interviews are used to uncover the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects from their own point of view (Ayres, 2008). A particular case are focus groups which are specially chosen groups of people whose reactions are studied in guided or open discussions to determine the responses that can be expected from a larger population (David, 1996).

The use of focus groups is intended to collect data through interactive and directed discussions by a researcher. It is a form of qualitative research consisting of a group conversation in which prompts are given to elicit sharing data about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. Researchers should select members of the focus group carefully for compelling and authoritative responses (Bloor, 2001). Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. During this process, the researcher either takes notes or records the vital points he or she is getting from the group.

Advantages of the interviews include flexibility to the interviewers; and the ability to collectdata about the non-verbal behaviour and spontaneity of the respondent. Advantages in focus groups include the diversity of voices and opinions included in those authoritative responses. Conversely, as with other qualitative methods, there can be issues with replicability. Conducting interview studies can be time-consuming and may provide less anonymity to participants. Care needs to be taken to avoid researcher bias (Bailey, 1994). Member checking (sometimes called participant or respondent validation) is a technique that can improve the reliability of results – see Birt et al. (2016).

Interviews & Focus Groups: GO-GN Insights

Penny Bentley used semi-structured interviews with 20 Australian primary and secondary teachers of STEM subject areas interviews to explore and describe the experience of professional learning through open education (PLOE). Following the removal of transcripts used for the piloting and refinement of interview questions, data analysis and subsequent findings were based on the interviews of 16 teachers.

“I chose to explore and describe the different ways professional learning through open education (PLOE) was experienced by Australian teachers of STEM subjects, not to focus on PLOE itself. In doing so I viewed experience as a relationship between teachers and PLOE (non-dualistic ontology) and assumed this relationship was the source of new knowledge (epistemology). I wanted to explore, understand and describe the different ways teachers experienced PLOE, from their perspective. This was an interpretive activity, situating my research in the interpretive paradigm. Also, describing the perspectives of teachers, in terms of what PLOE means to them, was research of a qualitative nature. However, there are a range of methodologies within the interpretive paradigm, such as ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology and phenomenography. “In order to justify my choice for this study I needed to consider the differences between these methodologies. I was not studying the culture of a group of teachers using the open Web to learn about STEM education (ethnography), although culture may be an aspect of how the phenomenon of PLOE is experienced. Nor was I generating a theory to explain the cause of social processes and interactions when teachers engaged in PLOE (grounded theory), although I was interested in understanding and describing the different ways these processes and interactions are experienced. Even though human experience is the focus of phenomenology and phenomenography, it is the phenomenographic focus on variation of experience, rather the focus on essence of experience made by phenomenologists, that made a difference to which methodology and methods I chose.”

Marjon Baas conducted interviews in both the first and the fourth study of her research. In the first study, interviews were used to explore teachers’ current practices with OER and their need for support. The questions in the interview guide were based on the different layers of the OER Adoption Pyramid. Baas used additional interviews to gain more insights into teachers’ perceived value of an OER Community of Practice.

“A mixed method approach was adopted in which a questionnaire was sent out to examine the current state of affairs within the context of my study. Afterwards, interviews were conducted to explore teachers’ current practices with OER and their need for support. The instruments were designed based on the different layers of the OER Adoption Pyramid (Cox & Trotter, 2017). We used additional interviews to gain more insights into teachers’ practices because previous research showed that there is still a lot of ambiguity around the term OER and so-called ‘dark-reuse’ could be prevalent which cannot be measured in quantitative measurements alone. “The second study was a qualitative study to improve our understanding how teachers assess OER and how they move from initial assessment to adoption. In this qualitative study teachers were asked to collaboratively assess OER within their teaching subject. The aim of our study was to characterize what elements teachers take into account when assessing OER quality and not to generalize what defines a quality OER. We also explored by asking teachers to create an association map before and after the three months in which teachers could explore OER, if their perception changed during. We choose this qualitative design because it provides rich insights into the elements teachers’ take into account when assessing OER rather than a quantitative measurement in which teachers are asked to self-reflect how they assess OER. “The follow-up study focuses on a subject community in which we will make use of a mixed-methods design. Qualitative data will be collected through interviews with teachers based on the five phases of the OER re-use process as defined by Clements and Pawlowski (2012). This data will be used to analyze how teachers make use of the subject community.”

Viviane Vladimirschi used focus groups to assess the overall effectiveness of the intervention in her research. These focus group conversations consisted of semi-structured, open-ended questions.

“Focus groups are excellent for gaining new insights and assessing interventions. In my opinion, the biggest challenge is knowing what questions to ask in order to obtain useful data. I used Guskey’s (2002) Multilevel Evaluation Framework to guide the semi-structured, open-ended interview questions. In my opinion, Guskey’s model is effective and straightforward for educational interventions. “Although the use of mixed methods can be excellent to collect and compare different sources of data enhancing the quality of data and promoting convergence and confirmation of findings, the researcher must feel comfortable with and be knowledgeable with both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. I would also not recommend quantitative data methods for small sample populations.”

Useful references for Interviews & Focus Groups: Ayres (2008); Bailey (1994); Bloor (2001); Morgan (1996)

Research Methods Handbook Copyright © 2020 by Rob Farrow; Francisco Iniesto; Martin Weller; and Rebecca Pitt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Asynchronous Online Focus Groups for Health Research: Case Study and Lessons Learned

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
• 2 Division of Adolescent/Young Adults Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
• 3 Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
• 4 Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
• 5 Institute for Behavioral and Community Health, San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA.
• 6 Trans Folx Fighting Eating Disorders, USA.
• 7 Department of Psychiatry, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
• 8 Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
• 9 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Hypertension, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
• 10 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
• PMID: 35185443
• PMCID: PMC8856649
• DOI: 10.1177/1609406921990489

Increasingly, social life-and accordingly, social research-is conducted in online environments. Asynchronous online focus groups (AOFGs) have emerged as an important tool to conduct remote research with geographically diverse populations. However, there remain few systematic accounts of AOFG methods to guide researchers' decision-making in designing and implementing studies. This paper seeks to address this gap by describing a recent study on body image and health among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) young adults. In this study, eight AOFGs were conducted in August-October 2019 with 66 TGD young adults residing in 25 U.S. states. Each AOFG lasted four consecutive days with two prompts posted by moderators per day. Overall, participant satisfaction with AOFGs was high: 98% reported their experience was excellent, very good, or good and 95% would be somewhat or very likely to sign up for another AOFG. This example is used to illustrate key methodological decision-points, acceptability of the method to participants, and lessons learned. The goal of this paper is to encourage other researchers, particularly health researchers, to consider using AOFGs and to engage with the method's strengths and limitations in order to develop new opportunities for online technologies to enrich the field of qualitative health research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Figure 1.. Asynchronous online focus group screening…

Figure 1.. Asynchronous online focus group screening and enrollment of transgender and gender diverse young…

Distribution of AOFG participants by…

Distribution of AOFG participants by U.S. state (n=66 transgender and gender diverse young…

Example image from Social Identity…

Example image from Social Identity Mapping Activity in asynchronous online focus groups with…

Example from Digital Image Board…

Example from Digital Image Board Activity in asynchronous online focus groups with transgender…

Figure 5.. Asynchronous online focus group (AOFG)…

Figure 5.. Asynchronous online focus group (AOFG) engagement: Percent of participants responding by prompt

Similar articles

• Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned. Genuis SK, Luth W, Weber G, Bubela T, Johnston WS. Genuis SK, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Oct 6;23(1):222. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02051-y. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023. PMID: 37803257 Free PMC article.
• Lessons Learned Designing and Using an Online Discussion Forum for Care Coordinators in Primary Care. Ferrante JM, Friedman A, Shaw EK, Howard J, Cohen DJ, Shahidi L. Ferrante JM, et al. Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1851-1861. doi: 10.1177/1049732315609567. Epub 2016 Jul 11. Qual Health Res. 2016. PMID: 26481942 Free PMC article.
• HIV prevention and HIV care among transgender and gender diverse youth: design and implementation of a multisite mixed-methods study protocol in the U.S. Jadwin-Cakmak L, Reisner SL, Hughto JMW, Salomon L, Martinez M, Popoff E, Rivera BA, Harper GW. Jadwin-Cakmak L, et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Nov 15;19(1):1531. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7605-4. BMC Public Health. 2019. PMID: 31730450 Free PMC article.
• IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis. Howarth E, Moore THM, Welton NJ, Lewis N, Stanley N, MacMillan H, Shaw A, Hester M, Bryden P, Feder G. Howarth E, et al. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016 Dec. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016 Dec. PMID: 27977089 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments. Walters SJ, Stern C, Robertson-Malt S. Walters SJ, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):138-97. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-2159. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532315 Review.
• Understanding health care pathways of patients with sepsis: protocol of a mixed-methods analysis of health care utilization, experiences, and needs of patients with and after sepsis. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Rose N, Ditscheid B, Draeger L, Dröge P, Freytag A, Goldhahn L, Kannengießer L, Kimmig A, Matthäus-Krämer C, Ruhnke T, Reinhart K, Schlattmann P, Schmidt K, Storch J, Ulbrich R, Ullmann S, Wedekind L, Swart E. Fleischmann-Struzek C, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Jan 8;24(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10509-4. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 38191398 Free PMC article.
• 'They've all endorsed it…but I'm just not there:' a qualitative exploration of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy reported by Black and Latinx individuals. Scales D, Gorman S, Windham S, Sandy W, Gregorian N, Hurth L, Radhakrishnan M, Akunne A, Gorman JM. Scales D, et al. BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 20;13(7):e072619. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072619. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37474192 Free PMC article.
• Exploring gender differences in uptake of GP partnership roles: a qualitative mixed-methods study. Jefferson L, Golder S, Essex H, Dale V, Bloor K. Jefferson L, et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Jun 29;73(732):e545-e555. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0544. Print 2023 Jul. Br J Gen Pract. 2023. PMID: 37365008 Free PMC article.
• Remodeling Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis: What Individuals Need for Success. Boakye MDS, Miyamoto S, Greenwood D, Van Haitsma K, Boltz M, Kraschnewski J. Boakye MDS, et al. Clin Diabetes. 2023 Spring;41(2):273-285. doi: 10.2337/cd22-0075. Epub 2022 Nov 18. Clin Diabetes. 2023. PMID: 37092157 Free PMC article.
• Clinician Perspectives on Referring Medicaid Back Pain Patients to Integrative and Complementary Medicine: A Qualitative Study. LaForge K, Gray M, Livingston CJ, Leichtling G, Choo EK. LaForge K, et al. J Integr Complement Med. 2023 Jan;29(1):55-60. doi: 10.1089/jicm.2022.0600. Epub 2022 Sep 26. J Integr Complement Med. 2023. PMID: 36154196 Free PMC article.
• Becker CB, & Stice E (2017). From Efficacy to Effectiveness to Broad Implementation: Evolution of the Body Project. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(8), 767–782. 10.1037/ccp0000204 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Biedermann N (2018). The use of Facebook for virtual asynchronous focus groups in qualitative research. Contemporary Nurse, 54(1), 26–34. 10.1080/10376178.2017.1386072 - DOI - PubMed
• Boateng B, Nelson MK, Huett A, Meaux JB, Pye S, Schmid B, Berg A, LaPorte K, Riley L, & Green A (2016). Online Focus Groups with Parents And Adolescents with Heart Transplants: Challenges and Opportunities. Pediatric Nursing, 42(3), 120–123, 154. - PubMed
• Brown GR, & Jones KT (2016). Mental Health and Medical Health Disparities in 5135 Transgender Veterans Receiving Healthcare in the Veterans Health Administration: A Case-Control Study. LGBT Health, 3(2), 122–131. 10.1089/lgbt.2015.0058 - DOI - PubMed
• Brown TA, & Keel PK (2015). A randomized controlled trial of a peer co-led dissonance-based eating disorder prevention program for gay men. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 74, 1–10. 10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.008 - DOI - PubMed

Related information

Grants and funding.

• UL1 TR002541/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting Participatory Research: A Case Study of Small-Scale Forest Management in Slovenia

• Open Access
• First Online: 02 November 2019

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Peter Kumer 17 &
• Mimi Urbanc 17  

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

14k Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Focus group discussion is a participatory research method that has been effectively utilized in numerous social science disciplines either as a standalone method or more often alongside other methods. The research presented in this chapter used focus groups as the final tool in an extensive study of small-scale forest owners’ management practices, examining driving and hindering factors. This issue stems from dispersed and fragmented private ownership with many owners, 89% of whose properties are smaller than 5 ha and are divided into three plots on average. This has posed a considerable challenge to Slovenia’s forestry sector. Focus groups sought to obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research as well as new insights. To this end, nine focus groups scattered around the country were conducted at the local level following the same format. The National Forestry Service’s district foresters contributed greatly to recruiting participants and carrying out the discussions. Important outcomes were owners’ perspectives on detached owners and their lack of management, as well as new topics that were not identified in previous stages. Despite some limitations—in our case, the inability to attract detached owners and overcome some power-related tensions between owners and the district forester—the focus groups proved to be not only efficient and informative for researchers, but above all supportive of state forest policy being implemented at the local level and greater stakeholder participation in it.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Visions from Local Populations for Livelihood-Based Solutions to Promote Forest Conservation Sustainability in the Congo Basin

Do interventions from participatory action research improve livelihood and reduce conflicts over forest resources a case study from south central ethiopia.

Understanding Community Participation in Tree Planting and Management in Deforested Areas in Cameroon’s Western Highlands

• Forest management
• Action research
• Research triangulation
• Stakeholder participation
• Hierarchical spatial organization

13.1 Introduction

The focus group is a qualitative method of data collection that has been widely used in the social sciences for several decades (Parker and Jonathan 2006 ). Its origins go back to Columbia University in the late 1940s. The first topics studied were attitudes toward radio soap operas and responses to the government’s own wartime radio propaganda programs (Bloor et al. 2001 ). From a prevailing data collection method in both public and private organizations, it has become a valuable research method in recent decades. Focus groups are commonly used to explore and construct knowledge about a particular phenomenon in small groups (Kitzinger 1995 ; Liamputtong 2011 ; Krueger and Casey 2015 ) or to aid interpretation, critical appraisal, or feedback for survey findings (Bloor et al. 2001 ). For a researcher, focus groups offer invaluable breadth of learning, and the participants’ thoughts complement the originality of researcher’s own thinking (Bloor et al. 2001 ). Moreover, participants have the capacity to identify various (hidden) dimensions of a topic (Longhurst 2010 ). Because the method is very resourceful and adaptive, and it perfectly complements other research methods such as surveys, questionnaires, and individual interviews (Longhurst 2010 ). In addition, its time efficiency and low cost have promoted its widespread adoption.

A further reason for the wide use of the focus group method is its inherent participatory nature based on group processes (Chiu 2003 ), making it an excellent participatory approach. This is additionally strengthened by the fact that focus groups normally address average people, who are assumed to be “ingenuous participants” (Farinosi et al. 2019 ). Accordingly, the focus group is one of the most dynamic research methods (Farinosi et al. 2019 ); its group dynamics help researchers to obtain richer and more detailed data (Lune and Berg 2017 ), making it stand out from other qualitative research methods. Whereas the scholarly benefits of the researcher–participant relationship have been clearly identified, participant benefits have received less attention. However, we believe there are some. The most tangible is in planning procedures by incorporating peoples’ needs and expectations. When a focus group discussion is driven by pure curiosity, participants’ benefits are confined to new insights and a wider perspective on the issues shared within a group more generally such as empowerment, inclusion, and community building.

The basic element of this method is the participatory aspect, which stimulates dynamic discussion among participants guided by a moderator in such a way that all group members are engaged and active. The discussion is normally semi-structured because the topics are well defined prior to carrying out a focus group (Miller and Scoptur 2016 ). Usually, a focus group cycle consists of two to ten discussions, but the number varies and depends on the research goals, number of topics, and time and budget availability. The number of participants for each individual focus group discussion varies from an optimal six to eight, to real-life practical modifications ranging from three to fourteen participants. The group size reflects the characteristics of participants as well as the topics being discussed (Bloor et al. 2001 ).

Although the focus group method is primarily used in the social sciences, its usability nevertheless applies to other disciplines if the research necessitates a human or social aspect. The method has, therefore, also gained popularity in natural resource management. Not only are natural resources generally very complex, but they also touch upon various sectoral policies, which makes them challenging to manage. Forests and their future development are no exception, especially in connection with climate change discourse and accessibility and social equity concerns, among other things.

The usefulness of focus groups in forest management practices and options is widely addressed in the literature. Attention is given to the following aspects: how the management process is developed and steered (Corral and Hernandez 2017 ), what is considered or neglected in forest management (Mountjoy et al. 2014 ; Heltorp et al. 2018 ), whether and how stakeholders are included (Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2015 ; Awung and Marchant 2018 ; Ward et al. 2018 ), what stakeholders’ expectations and values are (Bernués et al. 2014 ; Andrejczyk et al. 2016 ; Ordóñez et al. 2017 ; Takala et al. 2017a , b ; Soto et al. 2018 ; Sutherland et al. 2018 ), which forest interventions are socially acceptable (Miller et al. 2014 ; Vaidya and Mayer 2016 ; Kelly et al. 2016 ), and what the benefits are for people involved in the management process (Egunyu et al. 2016 ).

Encouraged by the popularity of qualitative research methods for understanding the link between forests and society, and following the latest trends in forest management research (i.e., analytical approaches and methods; Leipold 2014 ), we used the focus group method to explore the characteristics of small-scale forest management in Slovenia. The purpose of conducting focus groups was to assemble diverse stakeholders that were engaged in forest management and to use moderated discussion to collect their often opposing views of and opinions about selected topics (Nyumba et al. 2018 ). Therefore, this chapter shows how the focus group method was used in the final phase for studying the management of pocket-sized private forest properties as an efficient complement to other methods. Specifically, focus groups were used to obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research stages as well as new insights.

13.2 Background

Slovenia is one of the most forested countries in Europe, and forests hold a prominent role in Slovenians’ mindset based on the wide variety of services they provide: from economic and environmental to recreational and social. Most of the country’s forests (76% of 1.2 million ha) are owned by approximately half a million private forest owners (PFOs), which is a large group within a country of only two million (Medved et al. 2010 ; Kumer and Potočnik Slavič 2016 ). Given the high number of forest owners in comparison to the total population, it is not surprising that private forest properties are small (89% of them are smaller than 5 ha). Moreover, private forest properties are also considerably fragmented with one owner having three parcels on average (Fig.  13.1 ). The small sizes of forest properties and their parcelization and fragmentation is a result of socioeconomic changes that occurred in the decades after the Second World War. The owners have started to migrate from rural areas to towns, and they lost interest in their forest property. The changes occurred when planned inheritance practices (e.g., by favoring one heir among the children) changed into unplanned practices. Inherited forest properties were divided among children, spouses, and siblings, each receiving an equal but small share. The same thing happened with restitution (denationalization), in which properties were assigned to all of the legal heirs of a single owner that lost land nationalized after the Second World War (Kumer 2019 ). On top of that, traditional inheritance practices in the past were different among regions. For example, due to Hungarian inheritance law (and despite planned inheritance), the land was broken up into small parcels in the eastern part of the country long before the aforementioned social changes. This has led to a situation in which forest properties in eastern Slovenia are even more fragmented than elsewhere. In addition to all of these forest-related aspects and challenges, there is another one worth mentioning: Slovenian law requires forests to be publicly accessible, permitting not only walking and relaxation, but also collecting berries, nuts, and mushrooms for personal consumption. This fact that Slovenians are very proud of can conversely lead to conflicts between land owners and users (Kumer et al. 2018 ).

Map showing the ownership fragmentation of forest land

In Slovenia, forest-related challenges have only been subject to quantitative research, and they have predominantly been discussed within the context of production-oriented forestry policy, which has aimed to engage owners in management of their economically underutilized forests. To our knowledge, no qualitative research has been conducted on the attitudes of forest owners, their socioeconomic background, and their understanding of forest values beyond mere timber production. Therefore, focus groups to complement prior surveys, interviews (Kumer and Potočnik Slavič 2016 ), owner type analysis (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017 ), and multi-criteria decision analysis (Kumer and Pezdevšek Malovrh 2018 ) appeared to be an ideal method to bridge this research gap. The focus groups are an ideal tool when trying to access local knowledge and also detailed and hidden information (i.e., interpersonal interactions and nonverbal communication).

In order to approach forestry stakeholders in an effective and communicative manner, we worked closely with the Slovenian Forest Service. This public institution, whose task it to outline and steer forest management planning in all forests, irrespective of ownership, is hierarchically organized with a central unit in Ljubljana and 396 forest districts around the country. District foresters are forestry experts that transmit national forest-related policy to the local level. They provide education and training for forest owners, cooperate with rural communities, and foster awareness about forests and nature preservation. Due to their embeddedness in the local situation, they were our key figures for approaching forest owners.

13.3 Implementing the Method

13.3.1 designing the focus groups.

The essential part of the preparatory phase was developing an implementation guide, as suggested by Crabtree and Miller ( 1999 ). Building on the research question, a list of semi-structured questions was prepared based on prior research steps; specifically, on the results of a mixed-mode survey, in-depth interviews, and multi-criteria research analysis for evaluating stakeholders’ perceptions.

The questions included in the guide covered the following topics: agricultural affiliation, inheritance practices, gender differences in management, interpersonal relations with co-owners and neighbors, managerial practices, distant management, taxes, and future forestry regulation.

In order for the process to run smoothly and to help the moderator to conduct the discussion efficiently, a series of questions and a strict timeline were outlined. The general outline for the entire cycle was set between March and June 2016. The entire time span allowed flexibility in carrying out individual focus groups.

The focus groups required technical equipment for audio and video recording. Video recording was needed for analysis of interpersonal interactions and nonverbal communication.

13.3.2 Selecting and Recruiting Participants

The quality of the data collected was greatly dependent on the participants, and so the group composition was of high importance. We paid particular attention to participants’ heterogeneity and diversity (Table  13.1 ), which were both acknowledged in the literature (Bole et al. 2017 ). The internal variety also considered gender and age balance. The common denominator of our stakeholder groups is embeddedness in forest management at the local level. More specifically, partakers were individual small-scale private forest owners (SPFO), members of PFO associations, and members of machinery circles. A top-down legal and decision-making perspective was added by including district foresters, other employees of the public forestry service, and representatives of Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry.

The group composition created a challenge, which is referred to as “power imposition” (Cooke and Kothari 2001 ). Numerous SPFOs considered themselves less knowledgeable about forestry than the forestry sector professionals and employees. To overcome SPFOs’ self-perceived inferior position and subsequent impediment, we emphasized that our goal was only to collect personal attitudes, experiences, and reflections. This proved to be effective and encouraging enough for SPFOs to take part.

The success of the recruitment process, however, depended greatly on the local district forester and his or her credibility, moral authority within the forest owners’ community, and other stakeholder communities. It was the district forester, therefore, that functioned as a communication channel. We also reached nonowners through academic contacts, e-mail, and phone invitations. In addition, attendants were further encouraged by simple incentives. These included practical gifts, such as recyclable shopping bags, notebooks, and umbrellas. Professionals were provided with confirmation of their participation, allowing them to integrate attendance into their daily work and have travel costs reimbursed.

13.3.3 Location, Date, and Size

Given the general forest ownership and forest property situation in Slovenia and regionally specific inheritance practices, we paid special attention to the locations of focus groups. Nine focus groups were spatially dispersed and conducted in selected local units of the Slovenian Forestry Service. Nationwide coverage was in line with one of the aims of the research: to obtain a geographical aspect, including understanding regional differences.

The first group—a pilot or preparatory focus group for testing the questions’ clarity—was carried out in downtown Ljubljana. The venue was a modern, state of the art focus group facility, which offered a quiet, private, and comfortable environment for participants and an observation cabin with a one-way mirror and audio, visual, and other technical support for the moderator and his supervisors. Despite this excellent technical arrangement, its distance from forest owners’ home locations dissuaded us from using this venue for follow-up focus groups.

Based on practical and logistical reasons, the locations for the main part of the focus groups were selected close to participants. Consequently, we had to adapt to the availabilities and capacities of the local facilities. These focus groups, therefore, did not necessarily meet the technical standards of the first one. The chosen venues were different: from local inns to the local branch office of the Slovenian Forestry Service. The local branch offices proved to be a comfortable place to meet and discuss matters due to the participants’ familiarity with them. Organizing a group at the local level substantially reduced the overall cost: the participants traveled shorter distances on average.

13.3.4 The Moderator, Key Person, and Group Dynamics

The role of a moderator is to introduce the aim of the focus group and to guide the conversation. Introducing the aim is done with a broad, open-ended question in order to define the scope of the discussion and pitch the topic. In our case, the introductory question was “What does a forest mean to you?” For guiding the subsequent conversation, a moderator should only use the guide to negotiate the group and to create a structured way of collecting responses. However, the discussion might raise unpredictable and unexpected thoughts, and a moderator should, therefore, remain open-minded and receptive, and be able to react appropriately. A moderator can use probes to prompt participants to explain further.

Negotiating between allowing a natural flow of the interaction among participants on the one hand and a focus group guide with a timeline on the other is a considerable challenge. The group structure plays a role in this respect. Well-structured groups tend to answer a research question in a straightforward way, whereas less structured ones help reveal the perspectives of the group participants and may assist in the discovery of new ideas and insights (Morgan 1988 ). In our case, the moderator fostered spontaneous and free-flowing conversation, thereby allowing relatively unstructured discussions (Fig.  13.2 ).

Photograph Peter Kumer

Snapshot from a focus group in Velesovo.

The role of district foresters was an important one not only in the recruiting process, but also in the implementation phase, but in the latter case, their inactivity was appreciated. They understood that their viewpoints could influence the participants’ train of thoughts. Therefore, they refrained from talking, especially from giving informed opinions; however, they helped the moderator to put the attendees’ personal attitudes and experiences into a policy context and they brought in the absentee owners’ perspectives.

13.3.5 Analysis

We transcribed audio recordings in their entirety and then performed a computer-assisted grounded theory analysis. The theoretical background was based on Friese’s ( 2016 ) adaptation of a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz 2006 ), which foregrounds researchers’ interpretations and their “immersion” in the data in a way that embeds the narrative of the participants in the final research findings.

The ATLAS.ti program was used in the coding process, which is the core of the analytical stage. It included theoretical sampling; initial, focused, and axial coding; and building the category system. The focus groups were analyzed after each session.

13.4 Results

The focus group discussion provided down to earth interpretation of and reflection on findings from previous research stages as well as completely new and unexpected standpoints. By bringing in their personal and family experiences, participants enhanced the grass roots aspect of small-scale forest property management. To a researcher, they provided an in-depth understanding of small-scale forest ownership.

First, the discussion on cluster analysis results yielded two SPFO types—those that are engaged and those that are detached (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017 )—and it revealed other potential owner types in Slovenia. In addition, the notion of detached (absentee) SPFOs that live away from their properties and are not engaged in management gave rise to a broad and lively discussion mostly focusing on the reasons for their disengagement. Among these, the participants singled out past migrations, especially from rural to urban areas or from Slovenia abroad (mostly to western European countries or overseas), changes of permanent residence, and co-ownership, which hinders efficient management.

On the other hand, the important focus group outcomes were emerging topics that appeared relevant for the research but were not identified in the previous stages. One such example is the climate of mistrust among forest owners, which negatively affects their willingness to cooperate. A second circumstance was the landowner versus visitor conflict, which is especially evident near urban centers. Unlimited access to forests as a popular recreational space and a resource of non-wood forest products (such as mushrooms, nuts, herbs, etc.) can result in a collision of different (and often conflicting) ideas among diverse user groups about how to use the forest. This challenge is more severe due to inadequate consideration and a subsequent lack of appropriate monitoring and governance measures.

The participants also benefited from the focus groups by hearing the viewpoints of various stakeholders, and they were informed about the findings of previous research phases, which helped them to learn more about the topic. They could see a complex picture of different interests in the forest.

13.5 Reflection on the Method Used

In our broader research, in which we examined the managerial issues of small-scale forest properties, the focus groups were a final but valuable data resource and interpretation vehicle at the same time. They were therefore planned to be conducted during the last phase in order to allow the juxtaposition of results from previous research phases and ex post reflection on them. Surprisingly, new topics emerged. Taking all of this into account, focus groups proved to ideally complement than other methods, especially for issues in which the human aspect is of major relevance. Our case is closely in line with extensive literature addressing the usefulness of focus groups.

Although the entire endeavor was started and carried out exclusively for research purposes, the process and its activities were also advantageous for stakeholders, especially for district foresters. By participating in the process, they were able to realize some of their general tasks: training and educating owners, disseminating information on forest management, and raising forest-related issues among the public. Moreover, they were given the opportunity to obtain structured and evidence-based insight into current forestry policy from the perspective of owners and other stakeholders.

Nonetheless, some limitations were obvious. A critical limitation is connected with the selection of focus group participants. Despite the valuable assistance of district foresters in recruiting local forest owners and forestry-related stakeholders, the pool of participants did not represent the entire owner population. Detached owners were missing for the most part; absenteeism is inherent in their modus operandi in forest-related issues. This gap was partially filled by district foresters, who functioned as a proxy for absentee owners, whose perspective was thereby indirectly considered.

Even though the district foresters were crucial in the process, they were unable to mitigate the uneasiness of participants that were not entirely comfortable in expressing their views openly. District foresters were perceived as officials that supervise activities in private forests. Upon reflection, excluding foresters from the discussion would probably help overcome this gap.

Not only top-down power pressure emerged, but also a powerless feeling in the professional community in charge of implementing state policy at the local level, which revealed certain power relations within the forestry sector. Some foresters refused to participate because they thought their influence on owners was insignificant or that all owners in their district were inactive. It is somewhat surprising that intangible power and the informal position of foresters emerged as a decisive factor for (dis)engaged private small-scale forest management.

Organizing focus groups at the local level proved to be successful due to the familiar environment and participants. There was no need for an icebreaker to start the discussion. The district foresters functioned as a communication channel between the focus group moderator and participants. They often summarized the conversation and put it into the context of modern forestry challenges. Giving priority to local venues with basic technical equipment over a centrally located specialized focus group facility proved fortuitous in many respects.

Moreover, integrating the focus group into the research was generally economically and academically justified, providing abundant knowledge and information for modest financial input. However, the rich material obtained required substantial staff effort for subsequent qualitative analyzes. Focus groups made it possible for new topics to surface (new, subtle topics were identified) and discussions of aspects beyond the topics planned. These aspects were relevant to our research focus. For example, topics such as trust, cooperation, cultural influence, tradition, and globalized individualism proved to be an important managerial factor.

Management of a resource as important as a forest definitely cannot be devoid of public participation, especially management of private forests and particularly in countries with short democratic tradition. Focus groups are a vehicle for extending public participation. They should be further developed by the Slovenian Forestry Service and considered as a format for regular meetings at the local level to promote cooperation and information transfer, thereby positively influencing forest management.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study. The method would be less appropriate if the topics discussed were personal and the participants did not know one another. Focus groups are also inappropriate if the problem is individualized and does not require previous interactions. This is not the case in forest management because it typically requires aspects of various stakeholders.

Focus groups are appropriate for identifying unknown or suspected and subtle issues as well as for stakeholders’ reflection on aspects already identified and research findings. Inclusion of a spatially well-organized hierarchical institution (e.g., the Slovenian Forestry Service) into the research can raise certain power-relation tensions, yet the advantages considerably surpass possible disadvantages, not only by providing communication channels, but also by including experts’ opinions and informed experience. Because the issues related to forest management are uniform across the country, the spatial dispersion of focus groups helped us with generalization. Focus groups perfectly connect research, public service, and individual social groups.

Andrejczyk K, Butler BJ, Tyrrell ML, Langer J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landowners walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners. J Forest 114(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-151

Article   Google Scholar  

Awung NS, Marchant R (2018) Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process: insights from the mount cameroon national park REDD + project. Environ Sociol 4(2):235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144

Bernués A, Rodríguez-Ortega T, Ripoll-Bosch RBC, Alfnes FD (2014) Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 9(7):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479

Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K (eds) (2001) Focus groups in social research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Google Scholar  

Bole D, Šmid Hribar MŠ, Pipan P (2017) Participatory research in community development: a case study of creating cultural tourism products. AUC Geogr 52(2):164–175. https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.13

Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, London

Chiu LF (2003) Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research. Action Res 1(2):165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030012006

Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed Books, London

Corral S, Hernandez Y (2017) Social sensitivity analyses applied to environmental assessment presses. Ecol Econ 141:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.022

Crabtree BF, Miller WL (eds) (1999) Doing qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Egunyu F, Reed MG, Sinclair JA (2016) Learning through new approaches to forest governance: evidence from Harrop-Procter community forest Canada. Environ Manag 57(4):784–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0652-4

Farinosi M, Fortunati L, O’Sullivan J, Pagani L (2019) Enhancing classical methodological tools to foster participatory dimensions in local urban planning. Cities 88:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.003

Friese S (2016) CAQDAS and grounded theory analysis. MMG Working Paper, Göttingen

Heltorp KMA, Kangas A, Hoen HF (2018) Do forest decision-makers in southeastern Norway adapt forest management to climate change? Scand J For Res 33(3):278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1362463

Kelly MC, Germain RH, Mack SA (2016) Forest conservation programs and the landowners who prefer them: Profiling family forest owners in the New York City watershed. Land Use Policy 50:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.026

Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311:299–302

Krueger R, Casey MA (2015) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Kumer P (2019) Lastniki gozdov v Sloveniji. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana

Kumer P, Pezdevšek Malovrh Š (2018) Factors hindering forest management among engaged and detached private forest owners: Slovenian stakeholders’ perceptions. Small-Scale Forestry 18(1):105–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9409-2

Kumer P, Potočnik Slavič I (2016) Heterogeneous small-scale forest ownership: Complexity of management and conflicts of interest. Belgeo 4:1–21

Kumer P, Štrumbelj E (2017) Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest owners in Slovenia. For Policy Econ 80:116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.014

Kumer P, Šmid Hribar M, Smrekar A (2018) Gozd kot prostor številnih interesov in priložnosti. In: Flajšman K et al (eds) Trajnostna rekreacija in turizem v gozdu: zbornik zaključne konference CRP projekta “Priprava strokovnih izhodišč za turistično in rekreacijsko rabo gozdov,” 11 September 2018, Ljubljana. Založba Silva Slovenica, Ljubljana, p 23

Leipold S (2014) Creating forests with words: a review of forest-related discourse studies. For Policy Econ 40:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.005

Liamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: principles and practice. Sage, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Longhurst R (2010) Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford N et al (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 117–132

Lune H, Berg BL (2017) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson Education, Essex

Medved M, Matijašić D, Pisek R (2010) Private property conditions of Slovenian forests. Preliminary results from 2010. In: Medved (ed) IUFRO conference proceedings small-scale forestry in a changing world: Opportunities and challenges and the role of extension and technology transfer. Slovenian Forestry Institute, Ljubljana, p 879

Miller P, Scoptur P (2016) Focus groups: hitting the bull’s-eye. Association for Justice, Washington DC

Miller KA, Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Davenport MA (2014) Family forest landowners’ interest in forest carbon offset programs: focus group findings from the lake states, USA. Environ Manage 54(6):1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0352-5

Morgan DL (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Mountjoy NJ, Seekamp E, Davenport MA, Whiles MR (2014) Identifying capacity indicators for community-based natural resource management initiatives: focus group results from conservation practitioners across Illinois. J Environ Planning Manage 57(3):329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.743880

Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860

Ordóñez C, Beckley T, Duinker PN, Sinclair AJ (2017) Public values associated with urban forests: synthesis of findings and lessons learned from emerging methods and cross-cultural case studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.002

Parker A, Jonathan T (2006) Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate. Int J Res & Method Educ 29(1):23–37

Soto JR, Escobedo FJ, Khachatryan H, Adams DC (2018) Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv 29:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.009

Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Everard M, Geneletti D (2018) Qualitative methods for ecologists and conservation scientists. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):7–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12956

Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017a) Forest owners’ discourses of forests: Ideological origins of ownership objectives. J Rural Stud 51(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.014

Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017b) The order of forest owners’ discourses: Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership. J Rural Stud 55:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.009

Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2016) Use of a participatory approach to develop a regional assessment tool for bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenerg 94(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.001

Ward C, Holmes G, Stringer L (2018) Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation in protected-area governance. Conserv Biol 32(2):437–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13000

Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C (2015) Governance of forest recreation in urban areas: Analysing the role of stakeholders and institutions using the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ Policy Governance 25(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1668

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Slovenian Research Agency for funding the core program Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and the junior researchers postgraduate research program. Both funds provided support for publishing these findings.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Peter Kumer & Mimi Urbanc

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Kumer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Janez Nared

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Kumer, P., Urbanc, M. (2020). Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting Participatory Research: A Case Study of Small-Scale Forest Management in Slovenia. In: Nared, J., Bole, D. (eds) Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_13

Published : 02 November 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-28013-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-28014-7

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Qualitative Research: Focus Groups

• Getting Started

Focus Groups

• Observation
• Case Studies
• Data Collection
• Cleaning Text
• Analysis Tools
• Institutional Review

Photo: http://bit.ly/2tqEBFw

What is a focus group?

• Consists of a small group usually made up of six to twelve people
• Gathers opinions, beliefs, and attitudes about issues of interest
• Group is led through an open discussion by a skilled moderator
• Allows testing of assumptions
• Encourages discussion about a particular topic

Tips for Effective Moderating

• Keep track of which questions have and have not been asked and answered
• Know how to phrase questions that encourage participants to provide elaborate, detailed (rather than brief) responses
• Ask questions that elicit participant’s own views and experiences as opposed to reflecting the convictions of the moderator
• Ask one question at a time, verifying unclear responses,
• Use follow-ups and probes
• Remain neutral by asking open-ended questions and avoiding leading questions

Adapted from Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide

Suggested Readings

• U.S. Dept. of Commerce. (2009). Introduction to conducting focus groups (Open Access)
• << Previous: Interviews
• Next: Observation >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:13 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/qualitative-research

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Focus Groups

Focus groups are group discussions conducted with the participation of 7 to 12 people to capture their experiences and views regarding specific issues closely related to research question(s). Focus groups data collection method is most suitable for types of studies where multiple perspectives needed to be obtained regarding the same problem.

Focus groups are led by a moderator who is responsible to ensure that group discussions remain focused on the research area . Advantages of focus groups include the possibility of obtaining primary data through non-verbal channels, as well as, verbal channels and approaching the research area from various perspectives.

As is it is the case with any other research method, focus gropes have some disadvantages as well. Group discussions may be heavily influenced by one or two dominant individuals in the group. Also, some members of focus group may be discouraged from participating in discussions due to lack of confidence or not articulate communication skills. Moreover, the nature of primary data obtained through focus groups are greatly influenced by environmental factors such as design of the room, room temperature, time of the day, etc.

It is important to understand that data collection and data analysis using focus groups is much more difficult compared to questionnaires and interviews. You have to make sure that you fully understand these difficulties before making a final choice of primary data collection method. However, this is not to say that you should not use focus group to collect primary data for your dissertation.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection of the research area to submitting the completed version of the work before the deadline. John Dudovskiy

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 6 February 2023.

Table of contents

What is a focus group, step 1: choose your topic of interest, step 2: define your research scope and hypotheses, step 3: determine your focus group questions, step 4: select a moderator or co-moderator, step 5: recruit your participants, step 6: set up your focus group, step 7: host your focus group, step 8: analyse your data and report your results, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups, frequently asked questions about focus groups.

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research . Observations of the group’s dynamic, their answers to focus group questions, and even their body language can guide future research on consumer decisions, products and services, or controversial topics.

Focus groups are often used in marketing, library science, social science, and user research disciplines. They can provide more nuanced and natural feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organise than experiments or large-scale surveys .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Focus groups are primarily considered a confirmatory research technique . In other words, their discussion-heavy setting is most useful for confirming or refuting preexisting beliefs. For this reason, they are great for conducting explanatory research , where you explore why something occurs when limited information is available.

A focus group may be a good choice for you if:

• You’re interested in real-time, unfiltered responses on a given topic or in the dynamics of a discussion between participants
• Your questions are rooted in feelings or perceptions , and cannot easily be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’
• You’re confident that a relatively small number of responses will answer your question
• You’re seeking directional information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas
• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

Differences between types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Topics favorable to focus groups

As a rule of thumb, research topics related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. If you are seeking direction, explanation, or in-depth dialogue, a focus group could be a good fit.

However, if your questions are dichotomous or if you need to reach a large audience quickly, a survey may be a better option. If your question hinges upon behaviour but you are worried about influencing responses, consider an observational study .

• If you want to determine whether the student body would regularly consume vegan food, a survey would be a great way to gauge student preferences.

However, food is much more than just consumption and nourishment and can have emotional, cultural, and other implications on individuals.

• If you’re interested in something less concrete, such as students’ perceptions of vegan food or the interplay between their choices at the dining hall and their feelings of homesickness or loneliness, perhaps a focus group would be best.

Once you have determined that a focus group is the right choice for your topic, you can start thinking about what you expect the group discussion to yield.

Perhaps literature already exists on your subject or a sufficiently similar topic that you can use as a starting point. If the topic isn’t well studied, use your instincts to determine what you think is most worthy of study.

Setting your scope will help you formulate intriguing hypotheses , set clear questions, and recruit the right participants.

• Are you interested in a particular sector of the population, such as vegans or non-vegans?
• Are you interested in including vegetarians in your analysis?
• Perhaps not all students eat at the dining hall. Will your study exclude those who don’t?
• Are you only interested in students who have strong opinions on the subject?

A benefit of focus groups is that your hypotheses can be open-ended. You can be open to a wide variety of opinions, which can lead to unexpected conclusions.

The questions that you ask your focus group are crucially important to your analysis. Take your time formulating them, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can affect your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (questions that start with ‘why’ or ‘how’ are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

If you are discussing a controversial topic, be careful that your questions do not cause social desirability bias . Here, your respondents may lie about their true beliefs to mask any socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions. This and other demand characteristics can hurt your analysis and bias your results.

• Engagement questions make your participants feel comfortable and at ease: ‘What is your favourite food at the dining hall?’
• Exploration questions drill down to the focus of your analysis: ‘What pros and cons of offering vegan options do you see?’
• Exit questions pick up on anything you may have previously missed in your discussion: ‘Is there anything you’d like to mention about vegan options in the dining hall that we haven’t discussed?’

It is important to have more than one moderator in the room. If you would like to take the lead asking questions, select a co-moderator who can coordinate the technology, take notes, and observe the behaviour of the participants.

If your hypotheses have behavioural aspects, consider asking someone else to be lead moderator so that you are free to take a more observational role.

Depending on your topic, there are a few types of moderator roles that you can choose from.

• The most common is the dual-moderator , introduced above.
• Another common option is the dueling-moderator style . Here, you and your co-moderator take opposing sides on an issue to allow participants to see different perspectives and respond accordingly.

Depending on your research topic, there are a few sampling methods you can choose from to help you recruit and select participants.

• Voluntary response sampling , such as posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
• Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
• Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
• Judgement sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Beware of sampling bias , which can occur when some members of the population are more likely to be included than others.

Number of participants

In most cases, one focus group will not be sufficient to answer your research question. It is likely that you will need to schedule three to four groups. A good rule of thumb is to stop when you’ve reached a saturation point (i.e., when you aren’t receiving new responses to your questions).

Most focus groups have 6–10 participants. It’s a good idea to over-recruit just in case someone doesn’t show up. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn’t have fewer than 6 or more than 12 participants, in order to get the most reliable results.

Lastly, it’s preferable for your participants not to know you or each other, as this can bias your results.

A focus group is not just a group of people coming together to discuss their opinions. While well-run focus groups have an enjoyable and relaxed atmosphere, they are backed up by rigorous methods to provide robust observations.

Confirm a time and date

Be sure to confirm a time and date with your participants well in advance. Focus groups usually meet for 45–90 minutes, but some can last longer. However, beware of the possibility of wandering attention spans. If you really think your session needs to last longer than 90 minutes, schedule a few breaks.

Confirm whether it will take place in person or online

You will also need to decide whether the group will meet in person or online. If you are hosting it in person, be sure to pick an appropriate location.

• An uncomfortable or awkward location may affect the mood or level of participation of your group members.
• Online sessions are convenient, as participants can join from home, but they can also lessen the connection between participants.

As a general rule, make sure you are in a noise-free environment that minimises distractions and interruptions to your participants.

Consent and ethical considerations

It’s important to take into account ethical considerations and informed consent when conducting your research. Informed consent means that participants possess all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate in the research before it starts. This includes information about benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

Participants should also sign a release form that states that they are comfortable with being audio- or video-recorded. While verbal consent may be sufficient, it is best to ask participants to sign a form.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are too small to provide true anonymity to participants. Make sure that your participants know this prior to participating.

There are a few things you can do to commit to keeping information private. You can secure confidentiality by removing all identifying information from your report or offer to pseudonymise the data later. Data pseudonymisation entails replacing any identifying information about participants with pseudonymous or false identifiers.

Preparation prior to participation

If there is something you would like participants to read, study, or prepare beforehand, be sure to let them know well in advance. It’s also a good idea to call them the day before to ensure they will still be participating.

Consider conducting a tech check prior to the arrival of your participants, and note any environmental or external factors that could affect the mood of the group that day. Be sure that you are organised and ready, as a stressful atmosphere can be distracting and counterproductive.

Starting the focus group

Welcome individuals to the focus group by introducing the topic, yourself, and your co-moderator, and go over any ground rules or suggestions for a successful discussion. It’s important to make your participants feel at ease and forthcoming with their responses.

Consider starting out with an icebreaker, which will allow participants to relax and settle into the space a bit. Your icebreaker can be related to your study topic or not; it’s just an exercise to get participants talking.

Leading the discussion

Once you start asking your questions, try to keep response times equal between participants. Take note of the most and least talkative members of the group, as well as any participants with particularly strong or dominant personalities.

You can ask less talkative members questions directly to encourage them to participate or ask participants questions by name to even the playing field. Feel free to ask participants to elaborate on their answers or to give an example.

As a moderator, strive to remain neutral. Refrain from reacting to responses, and be aware of your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows). Active listening skills, such as parroting back answers or asking for clarification, are good methods to encourage participation and signal that you’re listening.

Many focus groups offer a monetary incentive for participants. Depending on your research budget, this is a nice way to show appreciation for their time and commitment. To keep everyone feeling fresh, consider offering snacks or drinks as well.

After concluding your focus group, you and your co-moderator should debrief, recording initial impressions of the discussion as well as any highlights, issues, or immediate conclusions you’ve drawn.

The next step is to transcribe and clean your data . Assign each participant a number or pseudonym for organisational purposes. Transcribe the recordings and conduct content analysis to look for themes or categories of responses. The categories you choose can then form the basis for reporting your results.

Just like other research methods, focus groups come with advantages and disadvantages.

• They are fairly straightforward to organise and results have strong face validity .
• They are usually inexpensive, even if you compensate participant.
• A focus group is much less time-consuming than a survey or experiment , and you get immediate results.
• Focus group results are often more comprehensible and intuitive than raw data.

Disadvantages

• It can be difficult to assemble a truly representative sample. Focus groups are generally not considered externally valid due to their small sample sizes.
• Due to the small sample size, you cannot ensure the anonymity of respondents, which may influence their desire to speak freely.
• Depth of analysis can be a concern, as it can be challenging to get honest opinions on controversial topics.
• There is a lot of room for error in the data analysis and high potential for observer dependency in drawing conclusions. You have to be careful not to cherry-pick responses to fit a prior conclusion.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of four types of interviews .

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups . Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favourably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias in research can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behaviour accordingly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2023, February 06). What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/focus-groups/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Book Title: Graduate research methods in social work

Subtitle: A project-based approach

Authors: Matthew DeCarlo; Cory Cummings; and Kate Agnelli

Book Description: Our textbook guides graduate social work students step by step through the research process from conceptualization to dissemination. We center cultural humility, information literacy, pragmatism, and ethics and values as core components of social work research.

Book Information

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2021 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Social work

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous

Home > ETD > Doctoral > 5909

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

Exploring prelicensure bsn students' knowledge of mindfulness meditation using a smartphone app to manage stress and promote resilience: a qualitative single case study.

Beth A. Kelley , Liberty University Follow

School of Nursing

Doctor of Philosophy

Kara Schacke

mindfulness meditation, mindfulness meditation smartphone app, BSN student stress, BSN student resilience, meditation, stress, resilience, knowledge of mindfulness meditation, christian university

Disciplines

Education | Nursing

Recommended Citation

Kelley, Beth A., "Exploring Prelicensure BSN Students' Knowledge of Mindfulness Meditation Using A Smartphone App To Manage Stress And Promote Resilience: A Qualitative Single Case Study" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 5909. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5909

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore pre-licensure Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students' knowledge of mindfulness meditation (MM) using a smartphone app (SMA) to manage stress and promote resilience. Guiding this study was the transactional model of stress, adaptation, and coping by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and the zone of proximal development (ZPD) educational theory by Vygotsky. The study asked the following questions: What was pre-licensure Bachelor of Science of Nursing (BSN) students’ knowledge of mindfulness meditation (MM) using a smartphone app (SMA) to manage stress and promote resilience? What had the prelicensure BSN student experienced regarding MM with an SMA? What did prelicensure BSN students know about MM using an SMA to manage stress? What did prelicensure BSN students know about MM using an SMA to promote resilience? A sample of 91 students was obtained to answer the demographic questionnaire and three surveys. From those students, 25 volunteered for interviews and focus groups with 14 BSN students for interviews and 11 students split into two focus groups. The data were collected from surveys, interviews, and focus groups, and themes were developed. Data obtained contributes to current knowledge, and recommendations for further research are given.

Since August 09, 2024

Included in

Education Commons , Nursing Commons

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Home > B2B Blog > The Benefits of Conducting In-Person Focus Groups
• The Benefits of Conducting In-Person Focus Groups

Focus groups are an extremely valuable method of qualitative data collection, which generate rich, qualitative data through open-ended questions and interactive discussions. They usually involve a moderator leading a discussion with a small group (ideally 6-8 individuals) to understand their views and opinions on a particular topic product, service, or idea.

They are different from other qualitative data collection methods (such as in-depth interviews, diary studies etc.) in that their purpose is to generate data through interaction and discussion between group participants – participants have the opportunity to share their own views and experiences, listen to those of others, reflect on their own standpoint and consider this further.

Focus groups have traditionally been conducted in face-to-face environments. Over time, the modality has evolved to include online environments – starting with online forums and discussion boards, and more recently, online groups using video conferencing software (i.e. MS Teams, Zoom) which mimic the face-to-face environment.

Each approach has its own unique benefits and drawbacks, and it is important to consider the research objectives before deciding on whether an in-person or remote focus group will yield the desired outcomes.

Before considering the pros and cons of each approach, it is worth clarifying the nature of group processes and the stages involved in group discussions. By understanding the processes and dynamics of group discussions, we can better envisage how these dynamics would play out in a face-to-face or a virtual environment and help us decide which method would best suit our research objectives.

The stages observed in group discussions

The psychologist Bruce Tuckman identified five stages that are commonly observed when a group of people come together to discuss or work through a particular topic, and these phases comprise: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning.

Before briefly summarizing each stage, it’s important to note that the researcher’s goal is to guide the group to reach a productive (‘performing’) stage, where the group works with greater synergy, tackling more challenging topics and yielding greater depths of insight. It is important to consider what are the drivers and blockers of reaching this stage in a virtual environment, versus a face-to-face environment.

Forming: in this phase, individuals have not yet relaxed into the group situation and may be preoccupied about their acceptance into the group. Individuals will engage more with the group moderator in this phase and are less likely to engage with other participants.

Storming: this is a period of tension where some individuals may adopt particular roles, some may attempt to exert their dominance or expertise, while others may respond with silence or aloofness.

Norming: a calmer phase often follows, where the group norms are established and participants begin to work cooperatively and some may seek common ground, agreeing with others and reinforcing what they say. It is this stage where social norms will influence individuals and may express normative and socially acceptable views – which are important for the moderator to revisit later in the discussion as individuals become more relaxed in the group environment.

Performing: during this stage the group will work more interactively and more openly discuss the research topics. The group will have relaxed and individuals are less guarded by this stage, allowing greater levels of agreement and disagreement between group members. This is the most productive phase of the group, where the group works with greater synergy, tackling more challenging topics and yielding greater depths of insight. Some groups do not reach this stage despite the researcher’s best efforts, and it is important to consider how the format of the group can facilitate or inhibit the group discussion reaching this point.

Adjourning: the final phase often sees the group consolidating and sometimes reinforcing their earlier points, as the group draws to a close. Participants are given the opportunity to share any final thoughts they have, reflecting on the discussion overall.

Understanding this view of the stages of a focus group discussion helps us consider which modality of group would yield the most insight and help us achieve our research objectives. Of course, there are distinct benefits to each approach, whether face-to-face or online, which also warrant consideration when deciding on the most suitable approach.

Benefits of face-to-face focus groups

Enhanced engagement, dynamics and rapport building.

Arguably, a face-to-face environment more closely mirrors a natural social setting where the physical presence of participants aids spontaneity and encourages debates which reveal more about participants’ opinions and motivations. Building rapport comes more naturally in person, and distractions tend to be less prevalent in face-to-face settings, helping participants to focus and engage in the discussion. It is also worth adding that the greater energy involved in face-to-face discussions is a core benefit and avoids online group fatigue – where having a discussion in an online environment can result in the participant experiencing high cognitive load, having limited interactions with other participants and potentially dropping out from the group.

Greater spontaneity and opportunity to observe non-verbal communication

Spontaneous reactions that can lead to unexpected insights are more likely in a physical setting. While non-verbal cues can be more easily observed by the researcher – such as demonstrating agreement by nodding or shaking head and the emphasis and gesticulation used when discussing specific topics. It also works from the researcher’s perspective, who is able to look around the room and gesture to participants. The researcher can interpret body language as an indication of the participant’s engagement – the researcher can see who is trying to interject, who looks confused, who seems bored – and find a way to engage them in the discussion.

Physical interaction with stimuli

Physical materials and stimulus can be interacted with in-person, making face-to-face groups a good choice for approaches involving product and concept testing, projective techniques requiring materials (i.e. drawing exercises) and role-playing.

Benefits of online groups

Not limited by geographical proximity.

Online groups are particularly useful where time-pressed or geographically dispersed populations mean that it would be difficult to bring a group together physically or if there was a reason that a physical group might somehow inhibit people’s ability to openly articulate their views. These groups offer a convenient option with participant’s able to join from anywhere, meaning better chances of good participation rates.

Cost and time efficiencies

While face-to-face groups incur charges for viewing room hire, travel and other logistical arrangements, remote groups are often much more cost-effective. With no requirement to travel to the focus group, or coordinate face-to-face meeting spaces, online focus groups can be organized more quickly and efficiently.

Technological efficiencies

Today’s online focus group platforms allow the researcher to mimic a face-to-face group by providing the opportunity for participants to discuss topics/work together in smaller groups in online break-out rooms. They also allow the use of the chat function to informally share views, online polls and mentimeters, and screen sharing which allows the presentation of online stimulus. Each of these helps to engagement and build on the depth of interaction and discussion. Remote focus groups also have the benefit of built in recording and transcribing – increasing efficiencies in capturing the data for analysis.

Reduced environmental impact

With no travel involved, remote focus groups reduce the carbon footprint of the activity – contributing to more sustainable research approaches.

It is clear there are distinct benefits for each approach when it comes to conducting focus groups either face-to-face or online. In my view, the social context of the face-to-face focus group better allows the researcher to observe the development of ideas and how this is shaped through discussion with other participants. I would argue that the face-to-face approach is better suited to facilitating a more dynamic, interactive and engaged group and would be my mode of choice for any research incorporating focus groups.

Of course, the convenience and greater speed of conducting online focus groups makes this choice attractive – in which case the researcher might consider a hybrid approach such as conducting a proportion of face-to-face focus groups with core audiences and a proportion of online focus groups with supporting audiences (i.e. in relation to the target audience) – to achieve the best of both worlds.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

Get in touch to discuss your research requirements >

Recent Articles

• Navigating Remote Training: Turning Challenges into Opportunities
• The Importance of Active Listening in Business Communication and Market Research
• When to Use Qualitative Research to Better Understand Your Customers and Their Needs
• 5 Top Tips for Running Effective Customer Journey Workshops

Speak to an expert...

• Keep up to date with our latest research
• First name *
• Last name *
• Company name *
• By subscribing to this newsletter, you are opting in to our marketing communications. Read our privacy policy for more information.
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Privacy Overview

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

• Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
• Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.

Advertisement

Supported by

The Australian Professor Who Turned Breaking on Its Head

Rachael Gunn, known as B-girl Raygun, displayed some … unique moves as she competed in a field with breakers half her age. The judges and the internet were underwhelmed.

• Share full article

By Dodai Stewart and Talya Minsberg

Reporting from Paris

Breaking made its debut as an Olympic sport Friday, and among the competitors was Dr. Rachael Gunn, also known as B-girl Raygun, a 36-year-old professor from Sydney, Australia, who stood out in just about every way.

By day, her research interests include “dance, gender politics, and the dynamics between theoretical and practical methodologies.” But on the world’s stage in Paris, wearing green track pants and a green polo shirt instead of the street-style outfits of her much younger fellow breakers, she competed against the 21-year-old Logan Edra of the United States, known as Logistx.

During the round robin, as Raygun and Logistx faced off, Raygun laid on her side, reached for her toes, spun around, and threw in a kangaroo hop — a nod to her homeland. She performed a move that looked something like swimming and another that could best be described as duckwalking. The high-speed back and head spins that other breakers would demonstrate were mostly absent.

The crowd cheered Raygun politely. The judges weren’t as kind. All nine voted for Logistx in both rounds of the competition; Logistx won, 18-0.

Online, Raygun’s performance quickly became a sensation, not necessarily in a flattering way.

“The more I watch the videos of Raygun, the Aussie breaker, the more I get annoyed,” one viewer posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “There’s 27.7 million Australians in the world and that’s who they send to the Olympics for this inaugural event??? C’mon now!”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .