focus groups vs interviews in research

• Panelist area
• Become a panelist

Pros and cons of focus groups vs. interviews: an in-depth review

Our guide to market research can be downloaded free of charge

Last update: March 2020.

In an earlier article we discussed the major differences between focus groups and face-to-face interviews . Today we’d like to compare both methodologies and discuss the pros and cons of focus groups vs. interviews.

If you are interested in market research in general, and qualitative techniques in particular, don’t miss out our step-by-step guide to market research in which we discuss a thorough approach to all types of marketing questions. The guide can be downloaded for free here .

Feel free to watch the video below (undertitled in English) where our founder, Dr. Pierre-Nicolas Schwab, sums the differences, advantages and inconvenients of focus groups vs. qualitative interviews.

Table of contents

• Advantages of focus groups

Advantages of qualitative interviews

Disadvantages of focus groups.

• Disadvantages of qualitative interviews
• Pros and cons of focus groups vs. interviews : an overview

How to choose?

Only for our subscribers: exclusive analyses and marketing advice.

"I thought the blog was good. But the newsletter is even better!"

Advantages of Focus groups

Focus groups are especially suited when you want to confirm your analysis with a wide variety of consumers’ profiles. Focus groups are indeed the best way to exchange viewpoints and discuss disagreements between consumers. This dynamics will not be captured in a face-to-face interview. In addition focus groups may be less expensive than interviews, provided the analytical treatment remains light. Most market research institutes have indeed removed the costly part of the process (i.e. transcriptions and coding ). For more information on the budget part, please read our ultimate guide to market research price .

An interview will allow you to go much deeper, in particular thanks to a longer speaking time. More insights are likely to be collected, which will be useful for a later quantitative phase. We find it easier to analyze individual interviews than focus groups (especially if you decide to code your interview in a software like Maxqda )

Last but not least, the role of the interviewer is usually less important in interviews than in focus groups; the expected bias, if an interviewing guide has been well prepared, will therefore be lower too.

Speaking times: the differences between focus groups and interviews

One aspect that is often overlooked is the speaking times differences between focus groups and interviews. A focus group usually gather around 8 participants for 2 hours. An individual interview is usually around 45-60 minutes. Divide 2 hours (120 minutes) by 8 and you obtain 15 minutes speaking time per participant in a focus group vs. 45 to 60 minutes in a face-to-face individual interview. This is 3 to 4 times less. That’s why individual interviews are usually seen as an exploratory market research technique, whereas focus groups are more confirmatory by nature.

Whereas focus groups are easy to organize with consumers, they are much more challenging in a B2B context. Have you ever tried to get 8 or 10 busy professionals around one table outside of business hours?

Whatever the setting, the role of the moderator is key to make people speak and interact. The risk to fail is considerably higher than when you follow a well-prepared interview guide.

If you want to learn more about moderator’s bias please read this article . We highlight in particular one academic research by  Grønkjær et al. (2011) which state that :

Our analyses identified how interaction can come to a dead-end, including the risk of hierarchical issues. Based on the analyses from this study, the moderator’s ability to pursue the participants’ utterances may be the reason for coming to a dead-end.

Disadvantages of face-to-face interviews

The logistics side of the interviews is complicated, especially if you have to travel meet the interviewees. Writing an interview guide is a process that is also certainly more time-consuming for an individual interview than for a focus group.

Moreover, analyzing all interviews requires skills (and tools) that are neither easy nor cheap to acquire. Finally face-to-face interviews can be especially challenging to organize in a B2B setting (in some cases we even had to refuse B2B market research projects because we thought they were not feasible).

Pros and cons of focus groups vs. interviews: a summary

It may seem challenging to choose between individual interviews and focus groups. Qualitative interviews are best suited if you want to gather specific experiences and opinions that you can explore in more depth with your interviewer. This format allows respondents to feel free to confide in you without judging their answers (feeling of trust and closeness to the interviewer) and avoids bias.

Focus groups will be of particular interest to challenge an idea to different experts, consumers or prospects, on the concept of a brainstorming session. In particular, it will be interesting to invite people with complementary experiences to identify the crucial points you will need to work on in the future.

• Market research methods

18 February 2019

Really helpful.

Post your opinion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Don't forget to check your spam folder .

You didn't receive the link?

Pour offrir les meilleures expériences, nous utilisons des technologies telles que les cookies pour stocker et/ou accéder aux informations des appareils. Le fait de consentir à ces technologies nous permettra de traiter des données telles que le comportement de navigation ou les ID uniques sur ce site. Le fait de ne pas consentir ou de retirer son consentement peut avoir un effet négatif sur certaines caractéristiques et fonctions.

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

Affiliations.

• 1 Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University.
• 2 Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University.
• PMID: 30287965
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

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.

Focus Groups

Differentiating between focus groups and interviews.

Learning why customers like a specific brand can seem a basic undertaking.  What to ask, how to ask it, and who to ask, however, can become rather complex. From the get-go, researchers must consider the study’s intent. Is the research’s objective to average a customer’s opinion? Or is it in-depth analysis? Will the study take place in the field or a control room? Seemingly similar, focus groups and interviews can offer very different results in the same scenario. All depends on who is being questioned, and when. Before going further let’s quickly explore each research method and its strengths.  

A group discussion hosted by a moderator, focus groups involve anywhere from four to eight participants. Selection of participants varies a great deal. Studies may base decisions on age group, gender, regional background or any other demographic marker. No matter the selection process, however, the aim of focus groups is to find a consensus.  

Interviews consist of exploring the attitudes and responses of a sole participant. Interview answers, therefore, have the most capability to offer substantive, in-depth answers. The method is also ideal for exploring subject areas the might be deemed too controversial or sensitive for a focus group atmosphere.

Always Remember Pragmatics

While the study’s intent should always guide selection, so too should more pragmatic goals. Obtaining information is the key goal. What if, for instance, only 1 of the 3 world’s experts in a dying cultural practice respond? Though maybe seeking a focus group, any researcher would still be smart to conduct an interview. Aside from incident rates, there are a few other facets to consider.  

• Variety – Studies that cover a broad demographic will require the same variety in its research. While interviews can be productive in specific cases, focus groups typically allow researchers to gather insight without any detriment to accuracy.   
• Representation – Access is one of the most critical elements to qualitative research. Depending on response rates and availability, an interview may be the study’s one recourse.
• Detail – Interviewers have more room for detail, yes,  but focus groups provide a different kind of detail altogether. Depending on the study, researchers may wish to see how a consensus is made or otherwise receive input from a group.    

Assessing Strengths and Similarities

While using different processes and playing to different strengths, focus groups and interviews are still have common procedures. Even more important, the level of detail that a focus group offers depends on the number of participants. The more people, the less specific the detail…at least in terms of personal input. Similarly, an interview may be too confined for properly assessing the rationale behind a customer’s opinion. Thinking of the two methods as a sliding scale, rather than as mutually exclusive, is a solid first step to figuring out how to best implement either type. Roger A. Straus offers a great chart in a post from The Research Playbook.

Focus Groups and Interviews: Faster and More Relevant Online  

Focus groups, interviews, and other qualitative methods are finding new attention with the advent of technological improvements to video streaming. Quite important, since products can now develop and release in the same time span usually allocated to organizing a traditional qualitative study. The effect on interviews and focus groups is profound.

• Location – Participants and researchers can interview from anywhere with an internet location, easing discourse and allowing for a better glimpse into participants everyday lives
• Accessibility – Going through an online route grants research teams access to vastly more participants
• Equipment – Using the internet drastically reduces the amount of necessary equipment for recording and processing data

Curious to learn more about the benefits of conducting online qualitative research? We’ll gladly walk you through it. 

Sign Up for our Newsletter

Related articles.

How to Facilitate Meaningful Insights: Strategies for Effective Focus Group Discussions

Conducting a worthwhile focus group requires a strong purpose and well-defined objectives. This isn’t an ordinary…

How to Optimize Engagement with a Virtual Focus Group: Strategies and Tips

Creating successful engagement in virtual focus groups starts with proper planning. This involves everything from the…

Maximize the number of research projects completed by year’s end: Yes, it can be done

Ask most agencies managing enterprise-level market research (MRX) projects, and they’ll tell you they have a…

Interviews and Focus Groups

Cite this chapter.

• Matthew T. Prior 5  

7779 Accesses

10 Citations

This chapter presents a philosophical and methodological background for conducting and evaluating interview and focus group research in applied linguistics. It discusses the strengths and limitations of various approaches and deconstructs ‘commonsense’ assumptions about interviewing by examining the influence of two prevalent perspectives: ‘interview as research instrument’ and ‘interview as social practice’. Emphasizing researcher responsibility, ethical conduct, and reflexivity, Prior also gives attention to issues related to rapport, language choice, interculturality, and ‘naturalness’ of interview and focus group data. The chapter concludes by considering recent directions in interview research and provides an annotated list of resources for further reading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

I am primarily concerned here with face-to-face interviews. For other modes, see, for example, Gubrium et al. ( 2012 ).

This is a necessarily abbreviated history. Oral history interviews and anthropological interviews can be traced back much further. See, for example, Malinowski ( 1922 ) and Ritchie ( 2011 ).

See Rapley ( 2007 ) for another perspective on “naturally occurring” data.

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples . London: SAGE.

Google Scholar  

Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography . London: SAGE.

Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s Immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3 (3), 304–325.

Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview . London: SAGE.

Baker, C. D. (2002). Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 395–412). London: SAGE.

Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research . New York: Routledge.

van den Berg, H., Wetherell, M., & Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (Eds.). (2003). Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12 (2), 143–176.

Chase, S. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 421–434). London: SAGE.

Chen, S.-H. (2011). Power relations between the researcher and the researched: An analysis of native and nonnative ethnographic interviews. Field Methods, 23 (2), 119–135.

Chiu, L.-F., & Knight, D. (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice. In J. Kitzinger & R. Barbour (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 99–112). London: SAGE.

Codó, E. (2008). Interviews and questionnaires. In L. Wei & M. Moyer (Eds.), Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 158–176). Oxford: Blackwell.

Currivan, D. B. (2008). Conversational interviewing. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 152). London: SAGE.

De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2012). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2012). Doing rapport and the ethics of “faking friendship”. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107–122). London: SAGE.

Dushku, S. (2000). Conducting individual and focus group interviews in research in Albania. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (4), 763–768.

Edley, N., & Litosseliti, L. (2010). Contemplating interviews and focus groups. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 155–179). London: Continuum.

Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research . London: SAGE.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research . London: SAGE.

Foley, L. (2012). Constructing the respondent. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvast, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 305–315). London: SAGE.

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of language testing . London: Routledge.

Goodman, S., & Speer, S. (2016). Natural and contrived data. In C. Tileagă & E. Stokoe (Eds.), Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues (pp. 57–69). London: Routledge.

Goodwin, J. (2012). Sage biographical research (Vol. 1: Biographical research: Starting points, debates and approaches) . London: SAGE.

Griffin, G. (2015). Cross-cultural interviewing: Feminist experiences and reflections . London: Routledge.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual to the interview society. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 3–32). London: SAGE.

Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., & McKinney, K. D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Heyl, B. S. (2001). Ethnographic interviewing. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 369–383). London: SAGE.

Ho, D. (2006). The Focus group interview: Rising to the challenge in qualitative research methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 5.1–5.19.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 140–161). London: SAGE.

Horowitz, R. (1986). Remaining an outsider: Membership as a threat to research rapport. Urban Life, 14 (4), 409–430.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics in Academic Writing, 23 (2), 215–239.

Kasper, G., & Omori, M. (2010). Language and culture. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 455–491). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kasper, G., & Prior, M. T. (2015). Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (2), 226–255.

Kecskes, I. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 67–84). London: Routledge.

Kenney, R., & Akita, K. (2008). When West writes East: In search of an ethic for cross-cultural interviewing. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23 , 280–295.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311 , 299–311.

Kropf, M. E. (2004). Survey methods. In J. G. Greer (Ed.), Public opinion and polling around the world: A historical encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 468–474). Oxford: ABC-CLIO.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research . London: SAGE.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular . Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Lavrakas, P. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of survey methods . London: SAGE.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice . London: SAGE.

Lillrank, A. (2012). Managing the interviewer self. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 281–294). London: SAGE.

Litosseliti, L. (2007). Using focus groups in research . London: Continuum.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific . London: Routledge.

Maryns, K. (2012). Multilingualism in legal settings. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 297–313). London: Routledge.

Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Gendered identities and immigrant language learning . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Miller, E. (2011). Indeterminacy and interview research: Co-constructing ambiguity and clarity in interviews with an adult immigrant learner of English. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 43–59.

Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research . London: SAGE.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27 , 85–111.

Nairn, K., Munro, J., & Smith, A. B. (2005). A counter-narrative of a “failed” interview. Qualitative Research, 5 (2), 221–244.

Parkinson, J., & Crouch, A. (2011). Education, language, and identity amongst students at a South African university. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10 (2), 83–98.

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographical narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 163–188.

Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 200–221). London: SAGE.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2 , 281–307.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 275–293). New York: Guildford.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 555–570). London: SAGE.

Prior, M. T. (2014). Re-examining alignment in a ‘failed’ L2 autobiographic research interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 20 (4), 495–508.

Prior, M. T. (2016). Emotion and discourse in L2 narrative research . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Prior, M. T. (2017). Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review . https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029 .

Rapley, T. J. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse, and document . London: SAGE.

Rapley, T. J. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 541–554). London: SAGE.

Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor—A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182–199). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, K. (2011). Using micro-analysis in interviewer training: ‘Continuers’ and interviewer positioning. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 95–112.

Riemann, G., & Schütze, E. (1991). “Trajectory” as a basic theoretical concept for analyzing suffering and disorderly social processes. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 333–357). New York: de Gruyter.

Ritchie, D. A. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of oral history . Oxford: Oxford University press.

Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice . London: SAGE.

Roulston, K. (2011). Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10 (4), 348–366.

Roulston, K. (2012). The pedagogy of interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 61–74). London: SAGE.

Roulston, K. (2014). Interaction problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14 (3), 277–293.

Rubin, H. R., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). Conversation with a purpose—Or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367–391). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: SAGE.

Skinner, J. (2012). The interview: An ethnographic approach . London: Berg.

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.

Speer, S. A. (2002). ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 511–525.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. ARAL, 30 , 128–148.

Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 35–42.

Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (2011). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: Discursive perspectives [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 1–128.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (4), 575–592.

Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies . New York: The Free Press.

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing . London: SAGE.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 177–199). London: SAGE.

Winchatz, M. R. (2006). Fieldworker or foreigner? Ethnographic interviewing in nonnative languages. Field Methods, 18 , 83–97.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Matthew T. Prior

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew T. Prior .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Aek Phakiti

Department of Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Peter De Costa

Applied Linguistics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

Luke Plonsky

School of Education, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sue Starfield

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Prior, M.T. (2018). Interviews and Focus Groups. In: Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., Starfield, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_11

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-59899-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-59900-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (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

Qualitatively Speaking: The focus group vs. in-depth interview debate

The author consulted 20 qualitative researchers to get their answer to the age-old question: Which is better, the focus group or the IDI? The answer, of course, is: it depends.

Editor’s note: Carey V. Azzara is founder and principal of AtHeath, a Newton, Mass, research firm.

If debate is healthy, you might describe the debate over qualitative methods as positively athletic. There are plenty of opinions regarding which qualitative approach provides the best results. You, no doubt, have your own opinion.

To explore the reasons professionals feel strongly about the merits of focus groups (FGs) versus in-depth interviews (IDIs), we asked 20 of them when and why they choose to use FGs versus IDIs. The themes that emerged from our asynchronous debate process are illuminating.

In general, there were three, somewhat predictable, positions: one-on-one interviews are superior to focus groups; focus groups are superior to one-on-one interviews; align the research approach with the research objectives.

Each person who took one of the first two positions gave well-thought-out reasons for his or her choice. It typically related to the specific research problem they faced. Another reason for a preference was skill. Practicing what you know how to do best makes sense. Many professionals are better at one approach than another; this factor obviously plays a role in the choices practitioners make.

Aligning the approach with the objectives was an overarching theme even among professionals who strongly favor one technique over the other. Thus, our next questions are, what are the “when and why” answers experts gave? And, can we create a concise best-practice statement from the collective wisdom of 20 practitioners?

Arguments for in-depth interviews

IDIs provide the best opportunity to explore decisions and compare differences and similarities among reference group members. When the research objective is to understand individual decision processes or individual responses to marketing stimuli (e.g., Web sites) IDIs are typically the choice. IDIs allow detailed exploration of a single respondent’s reactions without contamination. They are particularly valuable when researchers want individual reactions placed in the context of the individual’s experiences.

A preference for IDIs is likely when group interactions are unimportant or detrimental. A few scenarios are:

• when it is easier to reach target respondents with IDIs;
• when there is a better cost-benefit for IDIs;
• when it is preferable to collect responses without the group influence factor;
• when probing and/or laddering techniques are part of the data collection process;
• when project objectives require a direct correspondence of specific findings to specific respondent segments; and/or
• when a device or process is being tested for usability.

Additionally, if the topic is highly sensitive (e.g., serious illnesses) use of IDIs is indicated. Subjects which are highly personal (e.g., bankruptcy) or very detailed (e.g., divorce decrees) are best probed deeply with IDIs.

Sensitive subjects are also a factor in business research. Topics with competitive consequences are sensitive areas (for example, companies consider information-technology practices proprietary, especially security technology). In addition, businesses are wary of participating in FGs with competitors (such as when participants are from the same vertical industry, etc.).

A preference for IDIs was evident when:

• working with small populations, especially if geographically-dispersed;
• avoiding operational pitfalls is a concern (e.g., the threat of 60 percent of a group cancelling or possibly inviting the wrong people; it’s easier to recover from one bad-fit IDI than a FG with eight people); and
• you need deep layers of information from probing (e.g., interviewing “experts”).

In the final analysis IDIs are a practical approach and typically easier to manage. However, it’s important to distinguish between the ease-of-use factor versus the better-approach factor!

Arguments for focus groups

Several versions of the following comment were typical: “My rule of thumb is to assume focus groups and switch to IDIs only if necessary.” A basic question is, “Will the group dynamics add to the findings?”

There are triggers to suggest when to do groups versus using other qualitative approaches. FGs are particularly compelling:

• when consensus or debate is required to explore disparate views;
• to generate opportunities for point-counterpoint discussion and resolution;
• as an excellent approach for broad, exploratory topics, and as a mechanism for helping people generate and share their ideas;
• when the interaction between the participants sparks a discussion that illuminates a topic, draws out latent issues;
• when you want people to work in teams;
• when the rich quality of respondent interactions is needed or you are exploring common trends; and/or
• when you are early in the exploration of a concept or topic, as group dynamics are powerful in the discovery process.

Focus groups have an advantage when trying to engage clients (decision-makers) in the research process. When research sponsors take time to view focus groups it expedites their buy-in, moving the study to final recommendations faster. You are less likely to “lose” your client in the course of two or four hours compared to the time associated with IDIs. For some practitioners focus groups were preferred when speed is important, but apply caution here: advocates of IDIs use this argument too. FG practitioners believe IDIs take longer to execute than FGs and are harder and more time-consuming to analyze.

Focus groups of no more than eight respondents was a recommendation echoed by several practitioners. Triads and mini-groups were suggested as alternatives for generating ideas while allowing in-depth questioning. Mini-groups are well-suited to obtaining reactions to product stimuli and generating refinements. Contrary to most opinions, sensitive issues are not only okay in groups, but may be explored as well as or better than in IDIs, because respondents engage when discussing their condition or issue with others in the same boat.

Finally, the statement, “I favor the group situation; people are forthcoming among peers when attention is focused on many rather than one,” depicts a popular position.

Two themes emerged that we can use to construct a best-practice statement. The first is characterized by the mantra, “Objectives drive design.” Evaluate critically the research objectives and apply the approach most likely to provide insights. A good practitioner chooses the best method for the work and the selection process requires understanding the merits of all available approaches.

A key question is whether the objectives are individual in nature (e.g., decisions, preferences, usability) or group-oriented and benefit from participants’ discussion or perhaps arguments (e.g., concept exploration).

The second theme is summarized by the simple comment, “Why not use both?” Designing qualitative research using IDIs and FGs provides the best of both worlds - and it’s not a cop-out! IDIs provide depth of questioning and personal information while FGs help us understand the social context of issues. The methods are complementary.

For business decision makers, combining the benefits of IDIs and FGs is a great solution if the budget supports it. In fact, perhaps the only real argument against this approach is concern about exceeding a project’s budget.

How moderators can address silence in interviews Related Categories: Research Industry, One-on-One (Depth) Interviews, Focus Group-Moderating

Qualitatively Speaking: The power of B2B qualitative research and how to harness it Related Categories: Research Industry, Recruiting-Qualitative, Qualitative Research Research Industry, Recruiting-Qualitative, Qualitative Research, Bus.-To-Bus. Research, Business-To-Business, CX/UX-Customer/User Experience

Removing self-bias when doing cross-cultural research Related Categories: Research Industry, Focus Group-Online, Qualitative Research Research Industry, Focus Group-Online, Qualitative Research, African-American, Cultural Insights, Diversity Equity & Inclusion (DEI), Hispanic, Asians, Marketing Research-General

16 Top 
Consumer Research Companies Related Categories: Research Industry, Focus Group-Online, Qualitative Research Research Industry, Focus Group-Online, Qualitative Research, Consumer Research, Consumers, CX/UX-Customer/User Experience, Consumer Research Consultation, Consumer Services, Ethnographic Research, Hybrid Research (Qual/Quant), Market Segmentation Studies, Quantitative Research, Respondent Database/Recruiting System, Segmentation Studies

Focus Groups vs. Interviews: How to Perform Successful Market Research

Rev › Blog › Marketing › Focus Groups vs. Interviews: How to Perform Successful Market Research

There are various methods you can use to conduct qualitative market research. Experienced market researchers understand that there are advantages and disadvantages to each method.

Two of the most common methodologies are focus groups and in-depth interviews. Yet, knowing the differences between focus groups and interviews, and deciding which one to utilize for your specific needs, would depend on a few factors.

Focus Groups for Market Research

Focus groups involve bringing a group of people together to provide feedback on a product. A moderator guides the session and interacts with the focus group participants, asking them questions about the product. The goal is to prompt an open and candid group discussion. Questions are pre-determined and used to get detailed responses from the group participants.

Focus groups help market researchers collect valuable data. For example, a focus group would be a good way to decide which features customers want on a new smartphone. Focus group sessions usually include about 10 participants and last for about 90 minutes.

Advantages of Focus Groups

• The diversity of focus groups ensures that multiple perspectives, backgrounds, and opinions are represented.
• Online focus groups are usually more affordable than in-depth interviews.
• This research method is also easiest to organize in a B2C setting.
• Focus groups are the best way to understand the role that group dynamics play in purchasing decisions.
• It is easy to conduct focus groups and generate results quickly. Light analysis of answers needs no coding – only the use of transcription services such as Rev.

Disadvantages of Focus Groups

• Focus group participants’ contributions may be disproportionate if there is an outspoken group member.
• There is also a lower average speaking time for each of the group members.
• Focus groups are difficult to organize for B2B settings.
• The participants may influence each other, which can affect answers.
• There is a strong possibility that a moderator’s bias can affect results.

In-Depth Interviews for Market Research

Another qualitative data collection technique is in-depth interviews. Researchers ask the recruited respondents questions and encourage them to provide insightful responses. In-depth interviews generally consist of open-ended questions, making them ideal for collecting meaningful data about a product or service.

For example, an in-depth interview would be a good way for the smartphone manufacturer to learn how a user finds the phone interface. These face-to-face interviews last anywhere between 45- 60 minutes. Unlike focus groups, where 90 minutes are allocated for up to 10 people to speak, the interviewee is actively participating the entire time.

Advantages of In-Depth Interviews

• Recruited respondents have a longer speaking time.
• In-depth interviews offer more detailed feedback for better data collection.
• Researchers can generate results using statistical data analysis.
• There is less chance for moderator bias than in focus group settings.
• Insights gathered from this feedback are usually more useful for the quantitative phase.

Disadvantages of In-Depth Interviews

• In-depth interviews are more difficult and complicated to organize.
• This research method is also generally more expensive .
• The data is more complex to interpret and usually needs special software or coding.
• Writing interview guides can be quite time-consuming; especially for an individual interview.
• This type of qualitative research is challenging to organize in B2B settings.

Which Research Method to Choose

Both focus groups and in-depth interviews can be useful for your research project, and each method deserves a place within the research process.

• Focus groups tend to be more useful in the initial stages of research. Group dynamics provide a powerful way to understand broader topics and generate new ideas.
• In-depth interviews are more suitable for the later stages of research. Interviews allow for a deeper dialogue between the participant and the researcher.

Your choice should be based on your budget, stage in the process, business settings, and overall requirements.

Both methods can greatly benefit from transcription services, like those provided by Rev. Transcripts allow you to analyze everything said in your focus groups or in-depth interviews, with fully searchable text. Try Rev’s 99% accurate human transcription services or our more affordable AI-generated transcripts if you’re on a budget.

Download Our Free Focus Group Interview Checklist

Related content, latest article.

How to Analyze Focus Group Data

Most popular.

Differences in Focus Groups & In-Depth Interviews for a Successful Market Research

Featured article.

How to Use Automatic Transcription as a Marketing Professional

Everybody’s favorite speech-to-text blog.

We combine AI and a huge community of freelancers to make speech-to-text greatness every day. Wanna hear more about it?

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 ]

tools4dev Practical tools for international development

Focus Groups or One-on-One Interviews: What’s better?

Focus groups and individual interviews are both excellent means of collecting data and information to support your M&E work. Both collect qualitative information directly from participants and should provide detailed and rich data. But knowing which one to use in certain circumstances is key to getting the most out of these research methods. In fact, neither is better, nor worse – they serve very different purposes and should be used at different times.

What is a Focus Group?

A Focus Group is a structured discussion groups, which aims to gather critical information about beneficiaries. A focus group is a small, but representative, sample of people who are asked about their opinions on a particular topic. The responses are then used to generate insights and understanding about that topic. Focus groups can be an effective way to gather information because they provide a forum for open discussion and allow for the exploration of different viewpoints. They also offer the opportunity to build rapport and relationships with participants. When conducting a focus group, it is important to have a clear purpose and objectives. The questions should be well-crafted and relevant to the topic at hand. Additionally, the facilitator should create an environment that is conducive to open dialogue and respectful of different perspectives.

What is a one-on-one interview in the context of M&E

A one-on-one interview is, as the name suggests, an interview between the practitioner and one programme participant. Interviews may be highly structured, or they may be open ended, depending on what you would to achieve in your data collection. Semi-structured interviews are most frequently used, providing the best of both, but in this event, it is necessary to be mindful of not asking leading questions – that is questions that might bias the answer. Keep the structured questions to the letter and carefully consider the sequence of questioning.

What are the benefits of each?

Both have many benefits. While focus groups allow you to gather information, and then gather insights on its validity by assessing the responses across a group of participants, interviews will allow you to go into a great deal of detail, from a single perspective. Focus groups can help to build an evaluation story, as participants collaborate and grow their learning and reflections together. Focus groups allow for a level of diversity of opinion as many are contributing their views, and help you form a fuller picture as you observe participants agreeing and disagreeing with shared sentiments.

Interviews allow for an in-depth exploration of what is taking place and allows individual participants more privacy in their responses. In a 20-minute interview where an interviewee feels safe and protected, you can gather a great deal of insight on personal transformations that have taken place. Interview can be powerful tools to gather rich and deep information on individual participants.

Benefits of Focus groups

1. You can gather information and then get insights on its validity by assessing the responses across a group of participants. 2. Focus groups help to build an evaluation story, as participants collaborate and grow their learning and reflections together. 3. Focus groups allow for a level of diversity of opinion as many are contributing their views, and help you form a fuller picture as you observe participants agreeing and disagreeing with shared sentiments.

Benefits of One-on-One Interviews

1. You can go into great detail from a single perspective. 2. You can explore different aspects of the topic in depth with each interviewee. 3. Interviewees might feel safer to express themselves.

What are the downsides of each?

In a focus group, it is inevitable that some participants may provide more information than others or provide it in such a way that others may not feel free to speak. This may particularly be around sensitive issues – and potentially, the very issues you are aiming to evaluate! Try to observe the average speaking time, or design focus group activities to ensure that all participants have a voice. As these discussions are more open, it may be easy for bias to arise, or for opinions to be shifted in group situations. It may be that you run a short, anonymous poll at the start to gather a baseline, and again on closure so that the focus group provide a few data points.

Interviews can be costly and time consuming, Interviews are best held face-to-face which can entail travel, and significant organisation if you need to run a series. For large programmes, many argue that only a few opinions do not constitute particularly powerful data – and a sample smaller than 20% is really only useful for telling stories of impact. Interviews can also be very tricky to interpret and may involve thematic analysis which is difficult to rely on when you only have a small number of responses.

When should I consider using them?

Consider an interview for complex programmes which take a detailed approach to personal transformation. When you are interested on how individual participants have found the programme, and where these participants had highly differentiated needs which were to be addressed, then an interview would work well. If you are aiming to produce a case study along the lines of individual stories of transformation and overcoming adversity, then an interview would be the better option.

Choose a focus group where you are implementing ongoing monitoring and you need an efficient way of gathering a diversity of opinions, and where you are aiming to assess levels of participation, and to observe opinion sharing to get differing views on key issues. If your aim is to keep participants involved and you are running a series, it is helpful to create an observation instrument for what is working, so you can monitor your monitoring and get the most out of successive focus groups. Focus groups can provide powerful insights based on themes you already understand so if you are quite clear on what you’re expecting to see, testing this hypothesis in a group setting can provide powerful and systematic insights.

It is either/or then?

Researchers will frequently use both methods in a single evaluation depending on what they want to understand, measure and achieve. It is definitely not a case of either/or, but should rather be viewed at the project level, to decide what the evaluation outputs are, how these will be measured, and which is the best approach for each indicator. Build your research methods approach from an understanding of your impact framework, and which KPIs and reporting formats are best suited to each. Design your questions well, and consult online resources for best practice, or meet with academics and researchers to validate your approach.

Ask yourself a number of key questions:

• What KPI am I measuring for in this activity? How would the data be best?
• How will I make the outcome of the research systematic? What is important in this event – sample size or detail?
• What questions should I ask? Is there a set of global best practice questions linked to my KPIs and can I replicate these?
• What kind of issues am I dealing with? If this highly sensitive and more suited to an individual approach? Or is there the potential to gain key insights from a trusted group even if issues are potentially sensitive?
• How much time and funding do I have, where are my target participants located and what is the possibility of coordinating people in either individual or group sessions?

About Angela Biden

Related Articles

Master en gestion des achats et de la chaîne d’approvisionnement en santé publique

22 August 2023

Apply now: UN Post Graduate Diploma in Global Health Procurement and Supply Chain Management

Top 10 Websites to find Monitoring and Evaluation Jobs

12 August 2023

A guide to focus group interviews

Last updated

12 March 2023

Reviewed by

Jean Kaluza

Analyze focus group sessions

Dovetail streamlines focus group research to help you understand the responses and find patterns faster

• What is a focus group?

A focus group is a technique in qualitative research to collect data through group discussions. A group of five to 10 people answers questions on a specific topic in a moderated setting.

The person who runs the focus group is the moderator. They’re in charge of leading the members through the discussion and taking notes of the group’s opinions.

• Characteristics of a focus group

The characteristics of a focus group include:

A specific discussion topic

A facilitator

Carefully planned group discussions

Similar characteristics across the participants

• Five different types of focus groups

There are several types of focus groups . They include:

1. Dual moderator focus group

This involves two moderators, each with different roles. For example, one may take notes while the other facilitates the discussion. 

2. Two-way focus group

One group watches and listens to what another group is discussing and later comments on what they have heard or observed. Again, both groups have facilitators. 

3. Client-involvement focus group

This focus group includes representatives from the company you’re studying. The client is part of the discussion and steers the discussion toward the main objective.

4. Mini focus group

A mini focus group involves a smaller group of participants, typically four or five. 

5. Online focus groups

In online focus groups, participants contribute to the discussion remotely via video chat. 

• The purpose of focus group interviews

The primary purpose of a focus group interview is to gather qualitative insights from people with specific knowledge of a particular topic or product. Other purposes of focus groups include:

Identifying how people use products

Testing new ideas

Understanding customer needs

Understanding customers' dissatisfaction with certain products

Listening to your customers’ discussion about your products 

Viewing brand perception in the community

• When to use a focus group interview

You should use focus group interviews when:

Exploring or generating hypotheses

You want a better understanding of the results of a primary quantitative research

Seeking a more interactive research method

You can’t explain a problem by any other method

Understanding complex phenomena, behaviors, or motivations

• Logistical considerations of a focus group

Some of the logistical considerations to prioritize are:

Recruiting the right participants

Since focus groups rely on a small number of respondents, it’s essential to recruit suitable participants for effective results. 

The common criteria for selecting the right participants are choosing members with knowledge of the subject. Other popular recruiting methods are:

Random selection : Drawing names of participants from a large group of people

Nomination : Where key individuals suggest people they think are a good choice

Volunteering : Where you recruit participants through newspaper ads or flyers 

Selecting the right moderator

It’s necessary to select the right facilitator to steer the discussion in the right direction. 

They should also have: 

Adequate topic knowledge

Facilitator experience 

Knowledge of focus group techniques and moderation

The ability to empathize with the group 

The skills to direct the discussion

Choosing the venue

You should carefully choose the location to match the expectations of the respondent group. 

It should be accessible to all, have ample parking, and be well-connected by public transport. This ensures that participants arrive on time without any difficulties. 

The room should be free from distractions and the appropriate size for the participants. Participants are more likely to feel comfortable expressing opinions in a relaxing environment. 

Ensuring working equipment

The moderator should check the equipment beforehand to ensure it works. This includes ensuring audio or video recording tools are well-serviced and functioning as required. 

You need to inform the participants that you may record the session. It’s important to receive permission to record and get participants to sign NDAs if they’re discussing sensitive ideas. 

Selecting the right incentives

It’s standard practice to offer respondents incentives to thank them for showing up. 

You may need to provide incentives to keep the participants focused and content. 

Some incentive ideas include: 

Monetary compensation

Company merchandise

Prize draws

Free transport

Proper time management

When conducting focus group interviews, keep the sessions short. Focus group interviews should typically last 60–90 minutes. The longer the discussion, the less interested the participants will likely be, so the sessions become less lively.

• How to conduct focus group interviews

Follow these steps when conducting a focus group interview:

Prepare an interview schedule

First, write out a list of questions and topics for the discussion. This ensures clear objectives from the start. Keep your interview questions:

Short and clear

On topic and in line with your research objectives 

Unambiguously worded

Well-structured

With the efficient use of an interview guide, the moderator will periodically check to ensure that the discussion is progressing appropriately.

Moderating involves keeping the interactions flowing and guiding the group whenever they veer off to irrelevant topics. 

While moderating, the facilitator should let the participants know they are part of the team. In addition, the moderator should use pauses and probes. 

Examples of probes include: 

Please elaborate more

Can you tell me more about that? 

The moderator can curb distractions with: 

We’re not discussing that topic at the moment

That sounds unrelated; maybe we can come back to that later

Additionally, the moderator must regulate and control group dynamics. This includes research-endangering social conformity. 

Should your group have a louder or more persuasive voice, the rest could naturally agree with their perspectives and opinions. This can quickly turn a diverse focus group and data set into an expensive single-minded response from your whole group. 

Tactics to consider include timing and moderating responses carefully, providing post-its for participants to respond with, or creating exercises to ensure every voice is equal.

Starting the focus group

The moderator should spend the first few minutes of the discussion creating an open and permissive atmosphere for all the participants. The moderator can start by welcoming the members and giving an overview of the discussion. 

Leading the discussion

Once the moderator establishes rapport, they set ground rules and welcome follow-up questions. 

The moderator should ask questions methodically. Once they’ve asked all the questions, it’s time to wrap up with final thoughts. 

Finally, the moderator can thank the participants and end the session. 

• Addressing common focus group challenges

Here are three common challenges of focus groups and how to address them.

1. Managing group dynamics

Domineering people can lead a discussion and skew research findings. If more than one strong personality is in the room, hostility or outright fights can derail productivity. 

Agreeable or more introverted individuals in the group may go along with whatever voice they are most persuaded or intimidated by. This means you may never discover their true opinions. 

Consider the following tips to make all participants comfortable during the discussion:

Start the session with a warm-up activity for all members to get comfortable

Use icebreakers such as two truths and one lie

Use a mix of written and verbal participation techniques for maximum contribution 

2. Facilitator bias

Moderators can negatively impact the outcome of the discussion. This happens when the facilitator selects people with positive responses that align with their opinions. 

Although bias is challenging to eliminate, noting potential sources of bias can address the challenge. Moderators can mitigate bias by remaining objective, being self-aware, using neutral language, and minding body language. 

3. The results may not be representative

Often, you cannot generalize the results from a small group to a larger group. Therefore, you should choose participants who represent the target audience to address this challenge. 

• Advantages of focus groups

 Focus groups offer several advantages, including:

Understanding the subject matter and customer base in their own words

Recording facial expressions and other nonverbal signs

Generating results in 90-minute sessions

A deeper understanding of the respondents through personal interaction

Listening in on conversations about your product you otherwise would never hear

Disadvantages of focus groups

Face-to-face focus group interviews also have a few drawbacks.

Geographical restrictions can cause issues if participants have to travel to participate. 

Some members may shy away and contribute less to the discussion.

The discussion may veer toward irrelevant topics, so a strong facilitator is crucial.

The follow-up probes might take longer.

Paying a group rather than individuals can be costly and risks conforming to one voice.

• Sample focus group interview questions

The interview questions should be engaging, explorative, and open-ended.

For instance, when discussing a topic that tests a phone's performance in the market:

Engagement questions to ask a focus group about their phones:

Which is your favorite phone?

What do you consider when buying a new phone?

Exploration questions can include:

Who influenced you to purchase the phone you are currently using?

What are the advantages of using the phone brand?

How do you feel about changing to other brands?

Exit questions ensure nothing has been left out. Sample interview questions could include:

Is there anyone who would like to add to what we’ve said?

Does anyone have any final thoughts?

How are focus group interviews conducted?

Focus groups involve 6–10 respondents coming together for a guided discussion. During the session, the members answer predetermined questions to gather their opinions and motivations about a particular topic. 

Why are focus group interviews better?

Typically, this research method can unearth detailed information while observing the respondent's body language. You can collect multiple findings while witnessing the group's thought process.

What should be discussed in a focus group?

Participants of focus groups are free to share their opinions, insights, and knowledge about a specific topic. 

How do you plan a focus group question?

The questions in a focus group discussion should be explorative, open-ended, carefully worded, and unbiased. You should write them to fit what your research study is trying to uncover.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data . Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.

There are several types of interviews, often differentiated by their level of structure.

• Structured interviews have predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order.
• Unstructured interviews are more free-flowing.
• Semi-structured interviews fall in between.

Interviews are commonly used in market research, social science, and ethnographic research .

Table of contents

What is a structured interview, what is a semi-structured interview, what is an unstructured interview, what is a focus group, examples of interview questions, advantages and disadvantages of interviews, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of interviews.

Structured interviews have predetermined questions in a set order. They are often closed-ended, featuring dichotomous (yes/no) or multiple-choice questions. While open-ended structured interviews exist, they are much less common. The types of questions asked make structured interviews a predominantly quantitative tool.

Asking set questions in a set order can help you see patterns among responses, and it allows you to easily compare responses between participants while keeping other factors constant. This can mitigate   research biases and lead to higher reliability and validity. However, structured interviews can be overly formal, as well as limited in scope and flexibility.

• You feel very comfortable with your topic. This will help you formulate your questions most effectively.
• You have limited time or resources. Structured interviews are a bit more straightforward to analyze because of their closed-ended nature, and can be a doable undertaking for an individual.
• Your research question depends on holding environmental conditions between participants constant.

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

Semi-structured interviews are a blend of structured and unstructured interviews. While the interviewer has a general plan for what they want to ask, the questions do not have to follow a particular phrasing or order.

Semi-structured interviews are often open-ended, allowing for flexibility, but follow a predetermined thematic framework, giving a sense of order. For this reason, they are often considered “the best of both worlds.”

However, if the questions differ substantially between participants, it can be challenging to look for patterns, lessening the generalizability and validity of your results.

• You have prior interview experience. It’s easier than you think to accidentally ask a leading question when coming up with questions on the fly. Overall, spontaneous questions are much more difficult than they may seem.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. The answers you receive can help guide your future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview. The questions and the order in which they are asked are not set. Instead, the interview can proceed more spontaneously, based on the participant’s previous answers.

Unstructured interviews are by definition open-ended. This flexibility can help you gather detailed information on your topic, while still allowing you to observe patterns between participants.

However, so much flexibility means that they can be very challenging to conduct properly. You must be very careful not to ask leading questions, as biased responses can lead to lower reliability or even invalidate your research.

• You have a solid background in your research topic and have conducted interviews before.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking descriptive data that will deepen and contextualize your initial hypotheses.
• Your research necessitates forming a deeper connection with your participants, encouraging them to feel comfortable revealing their true opinions and emotions.

A focus group brings together a group of participants to answer questions on a topic of interest in a moderated setting. Focus groups are qualitative in nature and often study the group’s dynamic and body language in addition to their answers. Responses can guide future research on consumer products and services, human behavior, or controversial topics.

Focus groups can provide more nuanced and unfiltered feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large surveys . However, their small size leads to low external validity and the temptation as a researcher to “cherry-pick” responses that fit your hypotheses.

• Your research focuses on the dynamics of group discussion or real-time responses to your topic.
• Your questions are complex and rooted in feelings, opinions, and perceptions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
• Your topic is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the type of interview you are conducting, your questions will differ in style, phrasing, and intention. Structured interview questions are set and precise, while the other types of interviews allow for more open-endedness and flexibility.

Here are some examples.

• Semi-structured
• Unstructured
• Focus group
• Do you like dogs? Yes/No
• Do you associate dogs with feeling: happy; somewhat happy; neutral; somewhat unhappy; unhappy
• If yes, name one attribute of dogs that you like.
• If no, name one attribute of dogs that you don’t like.
• What feelings do dogs bring out in you?
• When you think more deeply about this, what experiences would you say your feelings are rooted in?

Interviews are a great research tool. They allow you to gather rich information and draw more detailed conclusions than other research methods, taking into consideration nonverbal cues, off-the-cuff reactions, and emotional responses.

However, they can also be time-consuming and deceptively challenging to conduct properly. Smaller sample sizes can cause their validity and reliability to suffer, and there is an inherent risk of interviewer effect arising from accidentally leading questions.

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each type of interview that can help you decide if you’d like to utilize this research method.

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

The four most common types of interviews are:

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

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably 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 can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

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 .

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

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). Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/interviews-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Interviews, focus groups, or surveys: which should you use?

How does your brand resonate with your participants? Sarah Durham and Big Duck’s Senior Strategist Laura Fisher discuss the ins and outs of interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Learn how you can conduct your own research, make your focus groups more diverse, and how to get more accurate responses.

Sarah Durham: Welcome back to the Smart Communications Podcast. I’m Sarah Durham and I’m joined today by Laura Fisher , who’s a Senior Strategist here at Big Duck. Welcome back, Laura.

Laura Fisher: Thanks for having me.

Sarah Durham: For those of you who’ve been listening to this podcast for awhile, Laura has been on the show a few times. Most recently we recorded a podcast about how doing interviews can help you get better insights and we thought today we would kind of expand on that and another article that Laura wrote on our blog, which is called interviews, focus groups and surveys, three research methods to help you understand audiences and we’re going to unpack that in a little bit more detail today so that if you’re doing your own research, you’ve got a few more tips and tricks up your sleeve. So let’s dig in. Before we talk about these methodologies, let’s talk a little bit about context. Why would a nonprofit communicator or other person need to do this kind of research?

Laura Fisher: We typically see research being most useful at two different phases in a project, potentially at the beginning of a project when you’re just starting out and trying to learn a bit about your audiences. So from a communication standpoint, your audiences, their motivations, their perspectives are going to be key to whatever it is you’re trying to do. So if you’re launching a campaign or going through a rebrand before you begin talking to audiences and doing some research among them can be helpful to jumpstart that project and get their perspectives. The second place it might be helpful is midway through a project using research as a form of testing. So we see this with organizations a lot. If they are testing a new brand, maybe a name or a logo or a tagline or connecting a campaign and testing a concept or a theme for that campaign, putting it in front of your target audiences to get their feedback and it can help you make decisions and help you understand if this new branding or new campaign concept is going to resonate with the people that you’re trying to reach.

Sarah Durham: Okay. So let’s talk about three different types of research you map out in this blog. And by the way, we’ll link to this blog and also to the podcast about conducting interviews in the show notes. But walk us through high level what you talk about in this article and the contexts in which each of these methodologies might be most useful.

Laura Fisher: The three methodologies I lay out are interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Interviews and focus groups are both what we call qualitative research, which means you’re really digging into perceptions and motivations and the feelings of an audience member as opposed to something more quantitative, which might be numerical data. So for interviews and for focus groups, you’re more having individual conversations. An interview for example, is a conversation with one person exploratory with the audience group you’re trying to get to know. So these come in handy. If you are trying to understand and experience a motivation or behavior that might have connected someone to your organization. Maybe understanding why they donate or why they volunteer. A focus group is pretty similar. It’s just with a larger group. So typically between five to eight people, all with a common connection to your organization. And you can use focus groups for similar reasons, to really unpack motivations and perspectives and experiences. And in a focus group you can really in real time see themes emerge because multiple people are talking to you about the same topic and you can see trends over time. For surveys, these are typically most helpful when you’re trying to ask a lot of questions of a large number of people. You can ask, you know, up to 20-25 questions in a survey. I have a list of thousands and thousands and cover a lot of topics. So while with interviews and focus groups, you might be digging into a few topics very deeply, a survey. You could talk about your communications, your brand, and more in a number of questions and really dig into various perspectives on your communications. So we tend to think about interviews and focus groups and qualitative research when you’re really trying to dig into a topic and meaty way and surveys as being more of a high level way to get a lot of insights very quickly.

Sarah Durham: So, we’ll talk through a couple of examples and places where these might be more or less useful for you, but before we do that, I want to ask you a question that I imagine some of the people who are listening to this are going to have, which is can I really do my own interviews or my own focus groups? I’m sure a lot of people have seen TV shows where focus groups are done by professional facilitators with two way mirrors and all of that. If somebody is not an expert researcher, can they do this on their own? Laura Fisher: Definitely. I think there are a ton of resources out there for creating a research process on your own and really is as simple as writing some objective, non-leading questions, getting the right people in a room and asking those questions. You as the researcher, because you work in the organization, will have to play a more objective role than you might typically. So you should be approaching it from a purely research standpoint, not letting, you know, your role at the organization, get in the way of asking clear and objective questions. But I think if, for many of our clients in nonprofits, time and capacity and budget is a constraint and there’s no reason that you, the communicator, cannot conduct some of the research on your own. You could also consider having someone else at your organization that does not work in communications and doesn’t regularly interact with donors or volunteers. Conduct the research on your behalf if that helps you feel like you’re getting more objective opinions.

Sarah Durham: Yeah, I agree. I think DIY research is a little bit like exercising, like it’s better to do some rather than none and if you can’t afford to hire a pro or you don’t have a volunteer who’s really an expert, definitely better to do what you can do on your own then skip it. There is a little bit of jargon that you’ll see come up also when you start to search for interviews, a lot of times professional researchers will call interviews IDIs, in depth interviews, which you know I’ve always thought was a little bit, a little bit of malarkey cause it’s really just an interview.

Laura Fisher: That’s true.

Sarah Durham: A lot of the interviews we do here are just done by phone and they’re you know, half hour long, maybe an hour maximum and developed with a facilitator’s guide. So to your point, questions are developed in advance. They’re written to be non-leading and also the sort of ground rules for the conversation like what is or isn’t going to be confidential, whether or not you’re taking notes, who’s going to see those notes? Those kinds of things are good to think through in advance. Right?

Laura Fisher: Definitely. I think having a script is really key to interviews and focus groups because it, for one, gives you a guide and talking points to start a conversation and make sure everyone feels comfortable having that conversation and to following a script, especially if you’re doing a number of interviews can help to eliminate bias and make sure you’re asking everybody the same questions and giving everyone a chance to weigh in on the same topics.

Sarah Durham: And I think we dug into that a little bit also in the other podcast we’ve got . So if you’re about to embark on a lot of interviews that will be good to listen to. And we’ll link to it again. Before we move past interviews, let’s talk about an example or two of where interviews are handy or where you found that they were the right type of research.

Laura Fisher: As I said before, interviews are especially helpful for unpacking motivations and experiences and really understanding why the connection someone has with your organization is important and powerful. So I have found it particularly useful in messaging work that we do. So for example, we’re working right now with a rare disease organization on crafting new donor messaging. And in that process we’re talking to 25 different donors to hear about their connection to the organization, why they give, what parts of their mission they care most about where else they give, and why they might give to other organizations to really unpack who that person is and what their experience and motivations are for giving to the organization. And then using that and finding themes across all 25 of the interviews to craft messaging that they can then use with a much larger donor audience. So in that case, interviews are really helpful to dig into a specific topic and action, which is giving.

Sarah Durham: And why would you do a focus group instead of interviews? Laura Fisher: Especially in the context of donating, sometimes a focus group and having a number of people in a room talking about why they give can make people uncomfortable. They like to have one-on-one conversations. So I find focus groups to be more useful when you’re talking about a nonsensitive topic or when you’re testing an identity of some sort. So an example of when we’ve used focus groups is with an education organization doing an awareness campaign and they had a campaign theme, a hook, which was messaging and a visual application and we gave them some options and they really wanted to hear from the people that it was going to be put in front of to see which resonated the most. So we did a focus group where we showed those concepts to a group of about six different people and got their feedback in real time to what they liked, what messaging resonated, what visuals resonated, that sort of thing. And then we could use that to help the organization make a decision about which one to move forward with more broadly. So in that case it was especially helpful because we had work to put in front of a few people. They had the ability to react in real time and then we could build on conversations and perspectives that people were bringing after they saw actual visual and writing work play out. So the focus group has been particularly helpful in those testing contexts.

Sarah Durham: Yes, so that’s a great example of a testing contacts. And I can think of one that we worked on when we were collaborating with the strategic planning firm. We were doing a strategic plan together and we did some focus groups for an arts organization, a Brooklyn based arts organization. And we had focus groups with artists in different communities. Again, not a sensitive topic for people to get together and share their feelings about the organization or about the work. Although there is a dynamic in focus groups that is the sort of either group think or group dynamics that you do have to manage. So what comes up in the group dynamic?

Laura Fisher: It is true that when you have a group of people together talking about anything, people are going to build on each other’s perspectives. Perhaps be biased by the conversation that happened before they speak. It might mean something as simple as the fact that they just, you know, say I feel the same way as the person who spoke before you or that they don’t share an opinion because they’re in a room with a lot of people. So one way we combat that in focus groups, making sure that you give everyone an alternative way to share their feedback. So we often will have a piece of paper, or if it’s a virtual focus group, we share our email addresses, things like that. So if someone feels more comfortable sharing and writing or they want to add to something that they didn’t feel comfortable sharing out loud as an example or something like that, they can do so in writing and share it privately. So that’s just a quick way to make focus groups a little bit more inclusive and kind of combat some of that group think or shyness that can happen in group settings.

Sarah Durham: You can also set some norms at the beginning of the focus groups about hearing all voices or asking perhaps, you know, very loud and dominant personalities in the focus group to take a break and let somebody else talk or something like that. I’ve seen that be a little bit of a wildcard. It kind of just depends I guess on who’s in the room. Okay. So let’s talk a little bit about surveys. What’s an example of a context or two when a survey is particularly helpful?

Laura Fisher: As I said before, surveys are especially helpful when you have a lot to ask of a large number of people. So we were doing a brand and communication study with another health organization and they have a list of, you know, 50 to a hundred thousand people that they haven’t heard from in terms of communications preferences and their views and perceptions of their brand in a long time. So we did a full assessment of their brand and their communications. And a big piece of that was a long survey that included a lot of questions about both brand and communications. Everything from which statement about our organization is most motivating to where do you like to receive your communications? So we got to ask a long list of questions from a lot of people that they hadn’t heard their perspective in quite a long time and then could synthesize at a very high level themes that emerged on their email list. So while an interview might have given us more in depth information about fewer people, we got to see a snapshot of tens of thousands of people that they hadn’t been able to see in a long time. So if you’re feeling like you don’t really know who is on your email list or you have no idea what channels people prefer to hear you on, a survey can be a really good way to get a lot of information about a lot of people very quickly.

Sarah Durham: It’s really helpful also to sort of see that pie chart that quantitative data gives you about percentages of people who’ve responded a certain way. Before we started recording, I was remembering with Laura a project we worked on years ago where we actually used a survey to test two different logos that a client was considering and I was very skeptical of that. I thought that something quantitative about something as kind of emotional as a logo would be problematic, but it really worked well. The organization was kind of undecided, not sure. We sent an email to their alumni, which was a very large list to weigh in on these two visual directions and there was a clear winner. There was an open ended field for comments and people share a lot of comments, which was a lot of work for the people synthesizing those insights to sift through, but really helped make sure that it was something that they got input from, from a very broad range of people in their community. So let’s say you’ve done your interviews or your focus groups or your surveys, maybe you’ve done some combination of those things. We frequently do use, you know, multiple modalities of research depending on the project. How do you synthesize those insights and how do you get over or work with the biases of whoever is actually conducting the research?

Laura Fisher: Synthesis can take time and that time it takes depends a lot on the research methodology you use. Going through surveys, as Sarah said, you get to see pie charts and percentages and they can be a little bit easier to analyze because you get a quicker snapshot of how everyone’s feeling about every question you asked. Interviews and focus groups, we tend to take very diligent notes or even record those and then sift through them. The way that we tend to do it is to have one person sift through the notes and collect themes. Once go back and sift through it and collect themes, add on to themes you’ve already collected again and then have a second person review those notes and identify their own themes, push back on themes that they didn’t see highlighted as much as you might have noted. Just to make sure that whoever is reviewing on the first time is not bringing their own biases to what themes they emerge by having two synthesizers review it. You make sure that you’re getting really objective results about the actual themes that emerged the most times from the script and the recording of the interviews and focus groups. So that’s a great way to eliminate one person’s bias by layering in a second researcher to with you.

Sarah Durham: Yeah, I have seen that be really powerful and transformative in our work in two ways. The first is that two different people do see or hear different themes and ideas, but also I think for the first person, if you, for instance, conducted those focus groups or did those interviews yourself as you’re doing them, you do start to form ideas and insights and it is very easy as you try to synthesize those insights to reveal your own preferences, to start to build the case that you want to build. And what I think is really powerful when somebody else has to review them and synthesize them is that you know that’s going to be checked. So you hold that tendency a little bit more at Bay but also the people that you are presenting those insights to or those findings to tend to believe them a little bit more because they aren’t just, you know, Laura did all this research and therefore she thinks X and it’s all about her. It’s a little bit more objective or it’s been pressure tested a bit and I think that that’s particularly useful if you’re doing research that you’re going to present to your executive director or your board or to a funder where the validity of that research needs to be maybe a bit more rigorous and less personal. There is another step that I see you and your colleagues on our strategy team do to that I think when you’re doing your own research in house at a nonprofit is worth elevating and that is the step of after the research is done before you get into recommendations, sharing back those synthesized insights. So when we do the research, I think you often have a first presentation, which is just a kind of, this is what we heard synthesis, and then a second presentation, which is the recommendations. Is that correct?

Laura Fisher: That’s correct. So we tend to do all of the research for several months, come back with a set of findings and insights, and those are typically just a synthesis of the themes that we saw and a little bit about what we think that might mean. We’re not jumping to this means you need to start, you know, sending 500 emails this year or whatever it may be. It would be something like your list doesn’t feel like they hear from you enough. So it’s kind of that middle step of reporting back on what we heard and adding our own layer of communications insights. And we’d like to do that because it helps to, to Sarah’s point earlier, when the recommendations do come around, it makes a lot more sense. It’s about taking someone on that research journey with you. If we conducted 25 interviews and did a survey to 50,000 people, you’re going to want to hear that and you’re going to want to hear the results of that. And oftentimes with the clients we work with, this is the first time they’ve, you know, heard directly from their audiences in awhile. So we find that that step of checking in and sharing back what we heard can be really powerful for the organization and help them even beyond communications. Sometimes the quotes that they see or the information they get in the survey help them in other places in their organization as well, not just the communications and marketing they’re doing.

Sarah Durham: It’s also a nice way to, I think, highlight the difference between strategies and tactics. Because I think if you jump right from doing research into making recommendations, those recommendations are often tactical, like send more email. But when you stop to say your audiences want to hear from you more, there are many strategies to solve that problem. Email might be one tactic you could use, but there may be multiple ways you could do that. And I think it’s a nice way to kind of Mark the journey of how you arrive at those recommendations with some of the tactics that might emerge. There’s another piece that comes up a lot and we try to layer very proactively into our work that we want you to think about too and that is how to make sure that the research that you conduct is inclusive and equitable and Ally Dommu , Big Duck’s Director of Strategy, wrote a blog about that which we’re going to link to in the show notes . But Laura, this is something that you’ve got a lot of practices around. What tips or tools do you think are useful to bear in mind to make sure the research process is inclusive and equitable?

Laura Fisher: For us I think bringing the inclusivity and equitability into the research process is all about the voices that you seek out and center in the research process. So that might look a couple of different ways. It might be that- do I make it as equitable as possible? You’re not just hearing directly from board members. You’re hearing from volunteers, you’re hearing from program participants, you’re hearing from a number of different people who engage with your organization in different ways and not just those who might have influence to make sure that you’re hearing from all different voices. Similarly, making sure that you have a diversity of voices that you’re listening to as well. So demographically diverse, we try to implement things like screener surveys before we do interviews or focus groups to cast a wide net and try to collect a number of different people that are connected to in different ways and demographic makeups to identify the people that we want to have in a focus group or an interview and make sure that, as much as we can, we are talking to a diverse set of people and a diverse set of connections to your organization. That’s not always possible and sometimes from our clients, you know, we aspirationally want to have a more diverse email list or something like that. So we try to help clients seek out that as well. And it’s helpful I think to think about when you’re embarking on a research process, how you can not only be representative of what your current board or your current email list looks like, but what aspirationally you might be looking for.

Sarah Durham: So there are probably millions of resources that if you Google things like how to do focus groups or how to do interviews or something that come up. One of the resources we like a lot here is a book called Just Enough Research , which you can buy on Amazon . I can’t remember the author’s name. We’ll try to link to it in the show notes, but Just Enough Research is a very handy book. If you’re trying to do your own research and talks about some of the things we’re discussing today. Are there any other parting tips or tricks you want to elevate?

Laura Fisher: I would just add a resource that I use a lot is a Survey Monkey guide to writing good survey questions . For anyone who hasn’t written a survey before or hasn’t in a very long time. It does a great job of sharing how to use different question types, how to make sure you’re writing an objective question. That kind of information might also be useful for writing an interview script or a focus group guide so we can link to that as well. It’s a very helpful sort of starter kit for embarking on a survey.

Sarah Durham: Great. Yeah, and I think one of the insights that’s emerging for me is I listened to you talk is that when you spend a lot of time doing research for a living, as you do, you build a network of tools and resources and skills and those allow you to build your confidence and to feel more certain that the research you’re doing is done well and as valid as it can be, but you don’t have to go that deep. Right? It’s better to do some research and do your best and for an in-house person with limited time to do that, just being thoughtful and methodical is probably the first and most important place to begin.

Laura Fisher: Definitely, and I would just add that sometimes even doing five interviews is enough to hear themes from a certain group. The book just enough research is very true that even a little bit can go a long way, especially if you’re starting from not having many research practices happening at all. So even starting with five interviews can really share some themes that you might not have noticed before. Sarah Durham: Yeah, and I feel like I’ve said this before on this podcast, but my experience has been that any project benefits from research that sometimes, you know, research is the first thing that gets cut from the budget. There’s just not enough time or there’s no money to do it. But anytime we’ve done research, it has always been helpful. There’s always something that emerges that you say, wow, you know, I didn’t know that, or that’s so valuable. And sometimes what emerges is a little bit unexpected. Like everybody’s really on the same page about this, or nobody’s on the same page about this. Everybody sees it really differently. So we hope that this podcast has inspired you to take a step back before you embark on your next big communications project and ask how much research should I do going into this to understand the context or the landscape, what kind of testing might I do and what’s the most efficient and effective way to get that research done so that it’s done well, done equitably, and your organization can really benefit from it. So Laura Fisher, thank you for joining me.

Laura Fisher: Thank you for having me.

THE SMART COMMUNICATIONS PODCAST IS HOSTED BY  SARAH DURHAM , CEO OF  BIG DUCK  AND PRODUCED BY MARCUS DEPAULA. OUR MUSIC IS BY  BROKE FOR FREE .

Related content, interviews, focus groups, and surveys: three research methods to understand audiences.

The pros and cons of three different research methodologies to help you get to know your audience.

Laura Fisher

How can interviews help you get better insights.

Laura Fisher, Big Duck’s Senior Strategist, shares how qualitative research can help you understand your target audiences better.

Sarah Durham

Interviews as research: gaining fast, smart insights.

Research is an often overlooked part of nonprofit communications. Learn how conducting five interviews can give your team insights to make smarter communications decisions.

Brandraising

As you expand the tools you use to communicate online and off and staff's roles change, how do you ensure you're all speaking with one voice?

Should your nonprofit podcast?

Podcasting can be a smart way to reach new audiences. Chandra Hayslett, Communications Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, shares her experiences launching The Activist Files Podcast.

Sarah Durham is the Founder, Board Member at Big Duck

Laura Fisher is a Former Senior Strategist at Big Duck

Recent insights.

Focus Groups vs. In-Depth Interviews

• June 19, 2017

When testing a product, concept, or idea companies will often hire a third-party company to conduct qualitative research . While there are a number of methodologies that researchers can employ to capture the nuanced responses of target audience respondents, focus groups and in-depth interviews (IDIs) are two of the more common ones.

When working with our clients we consider budget, objective, geography, and time. While focus groups and in-depth interviews can probe deeper and get to the “whys” behind an answer, they are not necessarily interchangeable. This blog will explain the differences between focus groups and in-depth interviews and if both can’t be employed, then which one might be most appropriate depending on what you are trying to discover.

Focus groups and in-depth interviews each have their own strengths, and if the budget allows, conducting focus groups and in-depth interviews offers the most comprehensive insights.

FOCUS GROUPS      

• Real-world response
• Observe commonalities  and differences between participants
• Fluid discovery
• Brainstorming
• Showing visuals (logos, etc.)
• Best when participants are in the same geographic location                                                                                                   

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

• Explore more sensitive topics
• Granular understanding of product being testing
• Reach a broader audience
• More detailed answers per question
• Great when participants are dispersed geographically

Focus groups vs. in-depth interviews

Pulling together a focus group is more than just asking random people to come sit in a room for a few hours and answer questions. A well-organized study first seeks to understand what, precisely, the client is hoping to achieve in its market testing. Understanding the target audience or demographic allows the market researcher to recruit people that fit the “persona types” being mindful to recruit across a broad demographic range so that a realistic variety of voices are heard.

While it’s true that focus group participants have less speaking time than if they were being interviewed individually, what does get revealed is the group dynamic and how responses are potentially influenced in a group setting. The quality of the information gleaned in a focus group is dependent upon the strength and skill-set of the moderator: A moderator that can read the room can often steer the conversation and pull out more nuanced responses from the participants.

If testing any visuals or food or beverage, focus groups are the way to go. It’s much harder to get feedback for visuals or flavors over the phone (although we can use webcam interviews — yet a lot is lost here without that in-person, live reaction we’re seeking).

In-depth interviews vs. focus groups

If you need or want to go deeper on a topic, then in-depth interviews are the way to go. An in-depth participant has the undivided attention of the interviewer and subjects can be explored in more detail. Another consideration for conducting in-depth interviews is it is sometimes easier to recruit participants to commit to an in-depth interview rather than a focus group, as there is more flexibility in scheduling and often doesn’t require any travel by the participant.

Depending on the scope of the project and budget, the market research firm will recommend which qualitative methodology is most appropriate. Choosing a company that is experienced in qualitative research is imperative if you want to get the most out of your investment.

If you need to hone your skills in moderating for both in-depth interviews and focus groups, check out our training programs from InterQ Learning Labs.

Trying to decide between focus groups or in-depth interviews? Contact us for a proposal.

• Request Proposal
• Participate in Studies
• Our Leadership Team
• Our Approach
• Mission, Vision and Core Values
• Qualitative Research
• Quantitative Research
• Research Insights Workshops
• Customer Journey Mapping
• Millennial & Gen Z Market Research
• Market Research Services
• Our Clients
• InterQ Blog

One-on-One Interviews vs. Focus Groups: Advantages & Disadvantages

Comparing qualitative research methods: in-depth interviews & focus groups.

Qualitative market research has definitely been a great tool for businesses to study foreign markets. After all, it’s through market research that businesses gain insights into their target market. Researchers utilize various qualitative research methods like in-depth or one-on-one interviews and focus groups depending on what kind of data a business is looking to collect. 

And each method has its advantages and disadvantages and that largely depends on how researchers see fit. There are clear advantages of focus groups over interviews; IDI interviews (short for in-depth interviews) have got their advantages, too. That complicates the situation and makes it difficult for market researchers to decide which method to choose for successful market research .

Read our case study: How Transcribe Lingo Rescued a Major Law Firm

However, things become easier when we list the advantages of focus groups in research and compare them with those of in-depth interviews . Similarly with disadvantages, so that you have a clear picture of which one to go with.

A Deep Dive into Advantages & Disadvantages of One-on-One Interviews vs. Focus Groups

Focus groups.

As a feedback mechanism, a focus group involves recording feedback from a group of people on a product. Focus group sessions are guided by a moderator who interacts with different participants present in the discussion. Focus group interview questions include questions about the product under study that are being posed to the participants. While there’s real research going on with everything being recorded, the overall ambience of the discussion remains open and candid. The questions for focus group participants are set beforehand by market researchers in order to get detailed responses.

The end product of such a well-directed group discussion is the collection of valuable data regarding a product that’s the subject of the research. Focus group studies don’t only revolve around the features that are present in the product. Participants are also teased with questions about features they would like to see in the product. Regardless of whether that product is a smartphone, an app, a treatment for diabetes, etc. Mostly, the number of participants in a focus group is 10. With each participant given roughly 9 minutes to speak, focus group discussions can last for a total of 90 minutes. So if you want to know why is a focus group better than an interview , keep reading.

Advantages of Focus Groups Over Interviews

• Focus groups feature multiple participants who offer diverse perspectives on the same product.
• Focus groups need comparatively less spending when it comes to content analysis and coding than in-depth interviews. Therefore, focus groups are affordable and just require transcription services .
• A focus group is the most feasible qualitative research method compared to in-depth interviews, especially in a B2C setting.
• Focus group discussion is the top research method when it comes to identifying the group dynamics in buying behavior.
• Focus groups are easier to conduct and you can generate valuable insights a lot more quickly.

Disadvantages of Focus Groups Over Interviews

• Not all participants in a focus group discussion get equal time to voice their opinion if there’s an outspoken participant in the group.
• Speaking time allocated to each focus group participant is less compared to one-on-one interviews.
• If you’re conducting market research for a B2B business, focus groups are hard to organize.
• Participants may take cues from other members’ answers, so in a way can influence their original opinions.
• A moderator’s bias may creep in and affect the accuracy of data, which can make the results less reliable.

One-on-One Interviews

Another qualitative market research method is in-depth or one-on-one interviews . Unlike focus groups, the respondents in in-depth interviews are hired by the market research firm . Recruited respondents are asked various open-ended questions by market researchers in order to collect insightful and in-depth answers. One thing that you need to know when comparing focus groups vs interviews is the quality of the data collected from IDI interviews about a product or a service.

In-depth interviews as qualitative research methods are so designed to promote engagement with participants and extract more detailed responses. Pharmaceutical companies can collect valuable insights about drugs and treatment methods through in-depth interviews with healthcare professionals. In-depth interviews are conducted face-to-face and last about 45 – 60 minutes. Therefore, participants get more speaking time compared to what they get in focus group discussions.

Advantages of One-on-One Interviews Over Focus Groups

• Participants in one-on-one interviews get to speak for a longer duration.
• Longer speaking time means respondents can offer in-depth answers on products or services.  
• Detailed feedback garnered from in-depth interviews means researchers can collect more valuable data to conduct statistical analyses.
• Generally, in-depth interviews yield accurate results because of the least interference from moderator bias, which is so prominent in focus group settings.

Disadvantages of One-on-One Interviews Over Focus Groups

• One of the disadvantages of one-on-one interviews is that they have a very complicated methodology and are difficult to organize.
• No wonder then one-on-one interviews are more expensive compared to focus groups.
• Data generated from in-depth interviews need a specialist to interpret it and requires coding services on top of transcription.
• Especially in B2B settings, one-on-one interviews are quite difficult to organize and time-consuming interview guides make it even more difficult, which researchers have to create before interviews.

One-on-One Interviews vs. Focus Groups: Which Qualitative Research Method To Choose

Researchers may find one or the other more useful in different settings for their market research projects. In other words, there should be enough room to accommodate both these research methods and use one over the other as the project demands. 

Both one-on-one interviews and focus groups have got advantages and disadvantages. While focus groups are useful when it comes to collecting data about group dynamics, in-depth interviews allow researchers to deep dive into individual respondents’ answers to collect more useful and accurate data.

Rest, it will depend on your budget and business settings – whether B2C or B2B –  which will determine whether to go with focus groups or one-on-one interviews. However, one thing is common to both these qualitative market research methods and that’s both require transcription services , which are provided by Transcribe Lingo.   

You can time going through the data collected from market research by getting your recordings converted into transcripts that are easier to sift through. Contact Transcribe Lingo now for 99% accurate and highly secure human-done transcription services by emailing us at [email protected] or calling directly on the following numbers depending on your location: UK: +44 121 295 8707 ; USA: +1 213 669 6381 .

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• The Best Zoom Transcription Service to Transcribe Zoom Meetings - […] Even as the pandemic is nearly over, the changes it has brought are still in vogue today. Think of…
• 17 Businesses & Professionals That Need Transcription The Most - […] PR professionals write on behalf of companies, they have one-on-one interviews with CEOs and executives. Also, they record PR…
• University Transcription Services: Uses, Benefits, and Types - […] is the conversion of spoken words into written words. The audio files involve recordings of face-to-face interviews, focus groups,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Top 7 Focus Group Software for Comprehensive Research

It’s important to include qualitative research in long-term studies to really understand a community. Companies often use focus groups to gather deeper insights from their biggest supporters and customers. Focus group software is an easy way to get rich insights from discussions.

In this blog, we will explore top focus group software and help you choose the best one.

What is Focus Group Software?

Focus group software is a tool designed to facilitate and streamline the process of conducting focus group sessions. This software helps researchers, marketers, and other professionals gather qualitative data and insights from participants in a well-organized and controlled way.

Focus group analysis software has various important roles in making focus group sessions run smoothly and effectively. Here are the typical functions of focus group software:

• Participant Recruitment
• Session Management
• Moderation and Facilitation
• Audio and Video Recordings
• Transcription and Analysis
• Participant Feedback

What are the Benefits of Focus Group Software?

The benefits of focus group software include:

• Efficiency: It streamlines the entire focus group process, from participant recruitment to session management, saving researchers time and effort.
• Organization: Focus group software helps keep sessions organized by managing participant lists, scheduling sessions, and providing tools for moderation and analysis.
• Remote Participation: Many software platforms allow for remote participation, enabling researchers to conduct focus groups with participants worldwide and increasing accessibility and diversity.
• Data Collection: It facilitates data collection by providing features for recording audio and video and tools for transcription and analysis, making it easier to gather and analyze qualitative data.
• Cost-Effectiveness: By reducing the need for physical meeting spaces and travel expenses, focus group analysis software can be a cost-effective solution for conducting research.
• Participant Engagement: Some software platforms offer interactive features that enhance participant engagement during focus group sessions, leading to richer and more insightful discussions.

Top 7 Focus Group Software in 2024

Focus group software plays a vital role in facilitating interactive discussions, collecting qualitative feedback, and analyzing participant responses. As we step into 2024, let’s explore some of the top focus group software options available:

01. QuestionPro Community

QuestionPro Community is an online focus group software and research community platform designed to help businesses understand their customers’ needs and expectations. It provides a comprehensive suite of tools for conducting online qualitative research and gathering real-time insights from a community of participants.

How it works:

QuestionPro Community enables researchers to conduct video discussions and online focus groups, offering greater control over the research process. This is particularly advantageous when external factors such as pandemics, scheduling issues, or geographical diversity may impact the ability to conduct offline qualitative research.

QuestionPro Community has the ability to use smart filters to enroll the most relevant community members and invite them to join video discussions. Community administrators and researchers can plan, schedule, and efficiently conduct live discussions with panelists, replicating the models of offline traditional focus groups within the online community environment.

Moreover, QuestionPro Community offers auto-transcription of chat discussions, making analysis more accessible and efficient. Researchers can mark out chats to track essential insights and monitor participant behavior in real-time from anywhere, providing a comprehensive understanding of the research data.

Forsta is focus group analysis software that helps make qualitative research smooth and efficient. This flexible tool combines various features to create a lively online space for running focus groups. It offers a user-friendly platform that allows researchers to conduct virtual sessions easily. Participants can engage in discussions, share their perspectives, and interact with each other in real-time.

Forsta offers a versatile platform for facilitating insightful qualitative research. It provides a virtual backroom where researchers and moderators can collaborate, discuss session objectives, and strategize before and during the focus group sessions.

The tool also lets you make breakout rooms, which means you can have smaller focus group discussions within the larger focus group. This feature fosters more intimate conversations and enhances participant engagement.

03. QualSights

QualSights is advanced online focus group software that aims to change the way focus group research is conducted. It has many useful features for researchers and businesses that want to gather detailed information through qualitative research data. QualSights helps researchers engage with research participants from diverse locations.

QualSights allows researchers to observe focus group sessions remotely through high-quality video streaming. It supports both one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions, providing flexibility to researchers in designing their study methodologies.

Participants can chat with each other and the moderator in a virtual space that encourages open conversations and sharing ideas.

MAXQDA is a comprehensive focus group analysis software designed to facilitate qualitative research projects. It provides a versatile platform for researchers to manage and analyze various data types, including text, audio, and video files. With its robust set of tools, MAXQDA enables users to conduct in-depth analysis of focus group data, extract meaningful insights, and generate visualizations to aid interpretation.

MAXQDA is an all-in-one solution for focus group analysis, offering powerful features customized specifically to meet the needs of qualitative research researchers. It allows researchers to import focus group transcripts in various common text formats, such as DOC, DOCX, ODT, RTF, and TXT.

Additionally, researchers can import audio or video files of focus group interviews and analyze them directly within the software, with or without a prior focus group transcript.

FlexMR is a comprehensive insight hub offering a wide range of qualitative and quantitative research tools, including conducting small video focus groups. It provides a user-friendly platform for conducting video focus groups with interactive features to enhance participant engagement and collaboration.

FlexMR enables researchers to conduct online focus groups with a range of interactive features, including images, audio, video, smart boards, and quick polls. Participants can engage in both video and text chats, while stakeholders and decision-makers can observe sessions from a virtual observation room with a private chat facility.

Hosts can actively facilitate engagement by liaising between moderators and observing stakeholders.

Aha! is an online qualitative research platform with a focus group and In-depth Interviews product. This online focus group platform has an integrated Zoom online platform, making it easy to use video, voice, sharing content, and chat features. This unique platform helps conduct live webcam and mobile video chats for research.

Aha! offers both scheduled and spontaneous focus group sessions through live webcam or mobile video chats. These meetings are recorded and can be transcribed automatically using machine learning or human transcription.

The platform also has useful features like a personalized client backroom, a scheduling system with alerts, and tech checks for smooth running.

Qualzy is a great focus group software that changes how researchers do qualitative research. It is designed to help researchers conduct in-depth market research on participant behaviors and experiences. This focus group analysis software offers a comprehensive suite of tools for focus group studies.

Qualzy makes market research easier from start to finish, covering everything from planning to sharing findings. With it, researchers can smoothly run video focus groups, connecting with participants even if they’re far away.

It also offers helpful tools for transcribing, translating, and editing, making it easier to turn focus group data into useful information. And because it works in multiple languages, researchers can connect with people from different backgrounds and get detailed, culturally relevant focus group data.

The Benefits of QuestionPro Community in Focus Group Solutions

QuestionPro Community is a focus group analysis software. It offers a comprehensive and user-friendly solution for conducting focus groups, empowering researchers to gather valuable insights efficiently and effectively.

Here are several benefits of using QuestionPro Community in focus group solutions:

Seamless Online Experience

With QuestionPro Community, researchers can seamlessly transition their focus group activities to an online environment. This eliminates the challenges with offline research, like scheduling issues and distance limits, so it’s easier to engage participants from different places.

Instant Feedback

The platform provides real-time analytics during focus group sessions, allowing you to make quick decisions and gain timely insights.

Cost-Effectiveness

Using QuestionPro Community for online focus groups can save a lot of money compared to offline traditional focus group methods. You don’t have to pay for renting a venue, travel, or accommodations. This means businesses can spend their money and allocate resources more efficiently.

Targeted Recruitment

The software offers smart filters and participant selection tools, allowing researchers to recruit specific demographics or customer segments for their focus groups. This targeted approach ensures that discussions are relevant and meaningful, leading to deeper insights into customer needs and preferences.

Enhanced Engagement and Interaction

QuestionPro Community enables rich multimedia interactions, including live video discussions and chat features, fostering greater participant engagement. This interactive environment encourages open dialogue and collaboration, producing richer qualitative data.

Efficient Analysis Tools

The platform includes features such as auto-transcription and chat analysis, streamlining the process of analyzing focus group data. Researchers can easily identify patterns, key themes, and sentiments within the discussions, accelerating the generation of actionable insights.

Behavior Monitoring

QuestionPro Community allows researchers to monitor participant behavior in real time, providing valuable insights into engagement levels and response dynamics. This focus group analysis software enables researchers to adapt their approach during focus group sessions and ensure optimal outcomes.

Online focus groups are definitely the future of research. They’re easy to handle, packed with power, and offer great returns on investment. Transition your focus groups online now to unlock the full potential of qualitative research.

Running an online focus group becomes simple with robust online focus group software like QuestionPro Communities. This tool makes it easy to manage various studies, both frequent ones and those that last over time. Plus, it grants you access to quantitative and qualitative data, aiding your brand decisions.

QuestionPro Communities offers different modules for effectively managing online research. It includes features like IdeaBoard, a discussion platform for generating ideas, panel management, and handling rewards and incentives.

Start building your active online research community today! Cultivate meaningful relationships to stay ahead in the competitive business landscape and make smarter decisions.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

10 Quantitative Data Analysis Software for Every Data Scientist

Apr 18, 2024

11 Best Enterprise Feedback Management Software in 2024

17 Best Online Reputation Management Software in 2024

Apr 17, 2024

Top 11 Customer Satisfaction Survey Software in 2024

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Forced migration in education: challenges and opportunities

Making vulnerable groups able to connect socially and digitally -opportunities and pitfalls Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: This article addresses digital and social inclusion of adults with potential low digital skills. The article presents a case study of how digital learning activities (DLAs) as a service to refugees, immigrants, senior citizens, and young adults neither in education, employment, or training (NEETs), are delivered outside the formal educational system by two libraries and one civic organization in Norway, Denmark, and Belgium. Through the theoretical lenses of social capital building, co-creation and co-producing, the article analyzes how the DLA’s were organized and tailored for the participant’s needs, with an emphasis on cooperation efforts with local sub-partners and representatives from the target groups. Methods: A multiple case-design was applied using a process tracing method combining qualitative and quantitative techniques. To measure the partner organizations’ experiences from the project, we conducted participant observation, personal and focus group interviews, in addition to self-reporting schemas about how they organized the DLA’s. Surveys were conducted to measure the participants’ experiences. Results: By combining literature and theoretical approaches from several fields; digital inclusion, public and civil organization research – with a particular focus on libraries, and their role in educating refugees and other vulnerable groups, the article provides new insights on how public and non-public organizations in local communities can work together to tailor-make DLAs and contribute to the promotion of digital inclusion. Discussion: Libraries and civic organizations have potential to reach out to vulnerable people in local communities, to provide innovative DLA’s and to connect both people and organizations. Vital for recruitment of participants and to find the right level of digital/technical ambition is to closely co-create and co-produce with representatives from other local organizations in both civil and public sector during the whole process. Co-creating activities with actors representing the target group in the planning phase as well as co-producing them in the implementation phase, are important prerequisites. The article discusses the challenges of trust-building, of finding the right level of digital ambition as well as developing long-term digital activities as important factors for the promotion of digital inclusion.

Keywords: Digital Inclusion, social inclusion, Refugees, Vulnerable groups, Co-producing, Co-creating, social capital

Received: 29 Nov 2023; Accepted: 17 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Faye and Ravneberg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Reidun Faye, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

People also looked at

Search Cornell

Class Roster

Section menu.

• Toggle Navigation
• Summer 2024
• Spring 2024
• Winter 2024
• Archived Rosters

Last Updated

• Schedule of Classes - April 18, 2024 7:37PM EDT
• Course Catalog - April 18, 2024 7:08PM EDT

GDEV 3060 Farmworkers: Contemporary Issues and Their Implications

Course description.

Course information provided by the Courses of Study 2023-2024 . Courses of Study 2024-2025 is scheduled to publish mid-June.

The course examines issues related to primarily unauthorized immigrant workers, in particular immigrant farmworkers and their perceptions on their role in agriculture, their socio-economic interactions, labor concerns, opportunities for advancement in agriculture, and concerns stemming from the context in which they live.  Students will examine sociological issues (immigration detentions, farmworker access to health, education and other services, labor concerns, on-farm chemical safety issues, and integration into new home communities, pests), with particular emphasis on developing educational materials for farmworkers. Students will analyze data collected through interviews and focus groups, and examine participatory research methodologies. 

When Offered Fall.

Course Attribute (CU-CEL)

• Conceptualize and discuss the challenges that farmworkers confront in their everyday lives, and how they overcome obstacles to their well-being.
• Construct a framework to understand contemporary issues within the farmworker community drawing from: farmworkers' perspectives articulated through CFP interviews or focus groups; student observations based on interactions with farmworkers (through summer internships experiences, tutoring farmworkers in English as a Second Language, and/or participation in CFP on-farm activities); and the literature on sociological research on farmworker concerns.
• Design and field test educational resources for farmworkers (optional).
• Synthesize what they learned through the CFP summer internship program through the development and dissemination of academic posters/ publications, guidebooks, videos, fact sheets or other relevant publications.
• Utilize improved communication skills, state their opinion, question their assumptions and tolerate differing opinions, through participating as members of working teams that develop extension materials targeted for farmworkers and their employers.

View Enrollment Information

  Regular Academic Session.  

Credits and Grading Basis

1 Credit Graded (Letter grades only)

Class Number & Section Details

 1171 GDEV 3060   LEC 001

Meeting Pattern

• T 1:25pm - 2:15pm
• Aug 26 - Dec 9, 2024

Instructors

To be determined. There are currently no textbooks/materials listed, or no textbooks/materials required, for this section. Additional information may be found on the syllabus provided by your professor.

For the most current information about textbooks, including the timing and options for purchase, see the Cornell Store .

Additional Information

Instruction Mode: In Person Enrollment limited to: students in summer Farmworker program.

Instructor Consent Required (Add)

Or send this URL:

Available Syllabi

About the class roster.

The schedule of classes is maintained by the Office of the University Registrar . Current and future academic terms are updated daily . Additional detail on Cornell University's diverse academic programs and resources can be found in the Courses of Study . Visit The Cornell Store for textbook information .

Please contact [email protected] with questions or feedback.

If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.

Cornell University ©2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation

2. partisanship by race, ethnicity and education, table of contents.

• What this report tells us – and what it doesn’t
• Partisans and partisan leaners in the U.S. electorate
• Party identification and ideology
• Education and partisanship
• Education, race and partisanship
• Partisanship by race and gender
• Partisanship across educational and gender groups by race and ethnicity
• Gender and partisanship
• Parents are more Republican than voters without children
• Partisanship among men and women within age groups
• Race, age and partisanship
• The partisanship of generational cohorts
• Religion, race and ethnicity, and partisanship
• Party identification among atheists, agnostics and ‘nothing in particular’
• Partisanship and religious service attendance
• Partisanship by income groups
• The relationship between income and partisanship differs by education
• Union members remain more Democratic than Republican
• Homeowners are more Republican than renters
• Partisanship of military veterans
• Demographic differences in partisanship by community type
• Race and ethnicity
• Age and the U.S. electorate
• Education by race and ethnicity
• Religious affiliation
• Ideological composition of voters
• Acknowledgments
• Overview of survey methodologies
• The 2023 American Trends Panel profile survey methodology
• Measuring party identification across survey modes
• Adjusting telephone survey trends
• Appendix B: Religious category definitions
• Appendix C: Age cohort definitions

As has long been the case, White voters are much more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to associate with the Republican Party. Hispanic and Asian voters tilt more Democratic. Black voters remain overwhelmingly Democratic.

However, there have been some shifts toward the GOP in most groups in recent years.

The Republican Party now holds a 15 percentage point advantage among White voters: 56% of non-Hispanic White voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, while 41% align with the Democratic Party.

• This double-digit lead for the GOP among White voters has held for more than a decade. The last time White voters were about equally split between the two parties was in 2008.

About six-in-ten Hispanic voters (61%) are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, while 35% are Republicans or Republican leaners.

• The Democratic Party’s edge among Hispanic voters over the last two years is somewhat narrower than it was in years prior.

Black voters continue to overwhelmingly associate with the Democratic Party, although the extent of the Democratic advantage among this group has fallen off over the last few years.

• Currently, 83% of Black voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 12% align with the GOP.
• As recently as 2020, the share associating with the Democratic Party was 5 percentage points higher. That somewhat larger edge in party affiliation had been in place for much of the last two decades.

About six-in-ten Asian voters (63%) align with the Democratic Party, while 36% are oriented toward the GOP.

• The balance of partisan association among Asian voters has changed little over the last few years.

The relationship between education and partisanship has shifted significantly since the early years of the 21st century.

• The Republican Party now holds a 6 percentage point advantage over the Democratic Party (51% to 45%) among voters who do not have a bachelor’s degree. Voters who do not have a four-year degree make up a 60% majority of all registered voters.
• By comparison, the Democratic Party has a 13-point advantage (55% vs. 42%) among those with a bachelor’s degree or more formal education.

This pattern is relatively recent. In fact, until about two decades ago the Republican Party fared better among college graduates and worse among those without a college degree.

In the last years of George W. Bush’s presidency and the first year of Barack Obama’s, Democrats had a double-digit advantage in affiliation over Republicans among voters without a college degree. For example, in 2007, 56% of voters without a degree were Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 42% were Republicans or GOP leaners. This group was narrowly divided between the two parties for most of the next 15 years, but in the last few years it has tilted more Republican.

College graduates moved in the opposite direction, becoming more Democratic over this same period.

• Since 2017, the gap in partisanship between college graduates and those without a degree has been wider than at any previous point in Pew Research Center surveys dating back to the 1990s.

Voters with postgraduate degrees are even more Democratic than those with bachelor’s degrees. About six-in-ten registered voters who have a postgraduate degree (61%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 37% associate with the Republican Party. Voters with a bachelor’s degree but no graduate degree are more closely divided: 51% Democratic, 46% Republican.

Voters with a high school degree or less education and those who have attended some college but do not have a bachelor’s degree both tilt Republican by similar margins.

White voters are far more polarized along educational lines than are Hispanic and Black voters.

White voters by education

By nearly two-to-one (63% vs. 33%), White voters without a bachelor’s degree associate with the Republican Party.

The GOP’s advantage among this group has remained relatively steady over the last several years but reflects a major shift since 2009. This group is now substantially more Republican-oriented than at any prior point in the last three decades.

Today, White voters with a bachelor’s degree are closely divided between associating with the Democratic Party (51%) and the Republican Party (47%). Prior to 2005, this group had a clear Republican orientation.

Hispanic voters by education

In contrast, there are no meaningful differences in the partisan leanings of Hispanic voters with and without bachelor’s degrees. Democrats hold a clear advantage in affiliation among both groups of Hispanic voters, although the share of Hispanics (both those with and without bachelor’s degrees) who align with the Democratic Party has edged lower in recent years.

Black voters by education

Black voters both with (79%) and without college degrees (85%) remain overwhelmingly Democratic in their partisan affinity.

Black college graduates are somewhat less closely aligned with the Democratic Party now than they were for most of the prior three decades (for most of this period, 85% or more of Black college graduate voters affiliated with the Democratic Party).

Asian voters by education

Two-thirds of Asian voters with a college degree align with the Democratic Party; 31% associate with the Republican Party. The partisan balance among Asian voters with a college degree has remained largely the same over our last two decades of surveys. (Asian American voters without a college degree are a smaller group, and sample sizes do not allow for reporting trends among this group.)

Visit the chapter on partisanship by gender, sexual orientation and marital and parental status for discussion of overall trends among men and women.

Six-in-ten White men who are registered voters identify as Republicans or lean Republican, as do 53% of White women voters.

The balance of partisanship among White women voters has tilted toward the GOP in recent years, but it was more divided in 2017 and 2018.

Among Hispanic voters, about six-in-ten men (61%) and women (60%) associate with the Democrats. Hispanic women voters have become somewhat less Democratic in recent years (down from 74% in 2016).

About eight-in-ten Black voters – both women (84%) and men (81%) – are Democrats or Democratic leaners.

About six-in-ten men (61%) and women (64%) among Asian voters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. (There is insufficient sample to show longer-term trends among Asian voters by gender.)

Among White voters, there are wide differences in partisanship by gender, by educational attainment – and by the combination of these.

• Among White voters without a college degree, 64% of men and 62% of women say they identify as or lean toward the Republican Party (about a third of each associate with the Democrats).
• White men with a college degree also tilt Republican among voters, though to a lesser extent (53% are Republicans or lean Republican, 45% are Democrats or lean Democratic).
• In contrast, White women with a college degree are more Democratic than Republican by 15 percentage points (42% Republican or Republican leaning, 57% Democrat or lean Democrat).

Among Black and Hispanic voters, there are only modest differences in partisanship across the combination of gender and education. In both groups, there are no significant differences between men with and without college degrees, or between their women counterparts. (Because Asian American voters without a college degree are a small group, sample sizes do not allow comparing college and non-college Asian men and women.)

This dynamic has changed over time, as college-educated White men and women have grown more Democratic and those with less formal education have grown more Republican.

As recently as 15 years ago, there were sizable gender gaps in partisanship among both college and non-college White voters. In both cases, men were substantially more likely than women to associate with the Republican Party.

But, at that time, there was not a substantial difference in the partisanship of college and non-college White voters – for either women or men.

Today, there is no gender gap in partisanship among non-college White voters, while there is a gender gap among college graduate White voters. The difference in partisanship between White women voters who have a college degree and those who do not, in particular, is quite large.

By contrast, there is little variation in the partisanship of Black and Hispanic voters by these characteristics, and the relationship has varied less over time.

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Education & Politics
• Election 2024
• Gender & Politics
• Political Parties
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics
• Religion & Politics
• Rural, Urban and Suburban Communities
• Voter Demographics

What’s It Like To Be a Teacher in America Today?

Republican gains in 2022 midterms driven mostly by turnout advantage, more americans disapprove than approve of colleges considering race, ethnicity in admissions decisions, partisan divides over k-12 education in 8 charts, school district mission statements highlight a partisan divide over diversity, equity and inclusion in k-12 education, most popular, report materials.

• Party Identification Detailed Tables, 1994-2023

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy