The challenges of conducting focus-group research among Asian older adults

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
KALYANI K. MEHTA
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Large Cities ◽  
Personal Learning ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Group Context ◽  
Conducting Research

ABSTRACTThe paper demonstrates the particular value of focus groups as a data collection method in studies of older people with particular reference to those living in large cities in Asia. The strengths and limitations of focus groups as a modality of qualitative research are discussed and a case study is presented. Some of the method's strengths derive from the synergy of the interactions among elders with a shared history and lived experiences. Focus-group exchanges have the potential for inter-personal learning and reminiscence benefits. One difficulty with the method, however, is that many Asian people are inhibited about sharing personal problems in a group context. Drawing from a number of empirical studies based in Singapore, the challenges of conducting focus groups with older participants are detailed and appropriate ways of addressing them considered. The article elaborates on the author's use of software such as NVivo to expedite the analysis of large volumes of transcribed data, and on the retrieval of relevant quotes. Software is useful in extracting themes from codes, as well as allowing the researcher to appreciate the links between codes. Ethical issues such as confidentiality, cultural sensitivities such as language and respect for religion and tradition, and lessons learnt from conducting research using the group setting are discussed. Culturally relevant responses to these challenges are offered which could be useful for future researchers conducting focus groups in Asia.

How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes

Field Methods ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Guest ◽  
Emily Namey ◽  
Kevin McKenna
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
African American Men ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Health Seeking ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Health Seeking Behaviors

Few empirical studies exist to guide researchers in determining the number of focus groups necessary for a research study. The analyses described here provide foundational evidence to help researchers in this regard. We conducted a thematic analysis of 40 focus groups on health-seeking behaviors of African American men in Durham, North Carolina. Our analyses revealed that more than 80% of all themes were discoverable within two to three focus groups, and 90% were discoverable within three to six focus groups. Three focus groups were also enough to identify all of the most prevalent themes within the data set. These empirically based findings suggest focus group sample sizes that differ from many of the “rule of thumb” recommendations in the existing literature. We discuss the relative generalizability of our findings to other study contexts, and we highlight some methodological questions about adequate sample sizes for focus group research.

scholarly journals Homelessness: Emotion Discourse and the Reproduction of Social Inequality

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Moral Identity ◽  
Homeless People ◽  
Group Context ◽  
The Media ◽  
Groupes De Discussion ◽  
Negative Feelings

This article draws on data gathered in focus groups to analyze how people talk about homelessness and compares the findings to how homelessness is represented in the media, specifically newspapers. It examines how ideas about homelessness that circulate in society are taken up, used, and reproduced by people in social interaction. People “care” about homelessness and use emotion discourse in the focus group context to construct a moral identity and to manage interactional dilemmas. They express sympathy for homeless people, deflect responsibility for any negative feelings they may have, and shift responsibility for doing something about homelessness. In using emotion discourse, they reproduce conceptions of homelessness that circulate widely in the media and in society generally; this, in turn, reproduces existing social relations of inequality and exclusion.Cet article a recours à des données provenant de groupes de discussion afin d’analyser comment les gens parlent d’itinérance entre eux, puis il compare les résultats de cette analyse à la représentation de l’itinérance dans les médias contemporains, particulièrement les journaux. Il examine comment les gens dans leurs interactions adoptent, utilisent et reproduisent des idées sur l’itinérance qui circulent déjà dans la société. Les gens se « soucient » de l’itinérance et ont recours à un discours émotif dans leurs groupes de discussion pour se construire une identité morale et gérer les dilemmes interactionnels. Ils expriment de la sympathie pour les sans-abris, tout en déclinant toute responsabilité pour les sentiments négatifs que ces derniers peuvent éprouver et rejetant sur autrui le devoir d’agir sur l’itinérance. En utilisant un discours émotif, ils reproduisent des conceptions sur l’itinérance qui circulent abondamment dans les médias et dans la société en général. Leurs pratiques reproduisent ainsi des rapports d’inégalité et d’exclusion.

scholarly journals A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie ◽  
Wendy B. Dickinson ◽  
Nancy L. Leech ◽  
Annmarie G. Zoran
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Response Characteristics ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Focus Group Data

Despite the abundance of published material on conducting focus groups, scant specific information exists on how to analyze focus group data in social science research. Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. First, they identify types of data that can be collected during focus groups. Second, they identify the qualitative data analysis techniques best suited for analyzing these data. Third, they introduce what they term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein meticulous information about which participant responds to each question, the order in which each participant responds, response characteristics, the nonverbal communication used, and the like is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize how conversation analysis offers great potential for analyzing focus group data. They believe that their framework goes far beyond analyzing only the verbal communication of focus group participants, thereby increasing the rigor of focus group analyses in social science research.

scholarly journals Graduate Student Perspectives of Interdisciplinary and Disciplinary Programming for Teaching Development

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Bishop-Williams ◽  
Kaitlin Roke ◽  
Erin Aspenlieder ◽  
Meagan Troop
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Perceived Benefits ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Teaching Development ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Focus Group Data ◽  
Groupes De Discussion

Interdisciplinary (i.e., university-wide programming) and disciplinary (i.e., programming open to participants from one college or department) teaching development programs for graduate students have been used for many years in higher education. Currently, research on the benefits of these teaching models remains scant in terms of a contextualized understanding, and empirical studies are needed. The purpose of this study was to determine graduate students’ perspectives related to interdisciplinary and disciplinary teaching and learning experiences. Two online surveys were used: a quantitative survey and a qualitative follow-up survey. Three participatory focus groups were also conducted to allow for further in-depth exploration in both an interdisciplinary and disciplinary group setting that represented seven distinct colleges. Statistical and thematic analyses were conducted with survey responses, and thematic analyses were conducted on focus group data. Similar themes emerged from the survey and focus group data identifying perceived benefits of participation in either interdisciplinary or disciplinary teaching development. Respondents’ perceived benefits were related to: (a) becoming a better teacher; (b) social learning; and (c) that while the perceived benefits of the models vary, the outcomes of both experiences are shared. The lived experiences of these graduate students expand the characterization of interdisciplinary and disciplinary programming. This study points to the need for graduate student programs—specifically teaching development offered by educational development units—to provide both interdisciplinary and disciplinary teaching development opportunities that achieve a blend of benefits for learners. Les programmes interdisciplinaires (c’est-à-dire les programmes offerts à l’échelle de l’université) et disciplinaires (c’est-à-dire ceux qui sont ouverts aux participants d’un collège ou d’un département) de perfectionnement de l’enseignement pour étudiants de cycle supérieur existent depuis de nombreuses années en enseignement supérieur. À l’heure actuelle, la recherche sur les avantages de ces modèles d’enseignement reste très incomplète en matière de compréhension contextualisée et il y a grand besoin de mener des études empiriques. Le but de cette étude était de déterminer les perspectives des étudiants de cycle supérieur liées aux expériences d’enseignement et d’apprentissage interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires. Deux sondages en ligne ont été employés : un sondage quantitatif et un sondage de suivi qualitatif. Également, trois groupes de discussion participatifs ont été organisés afin d’explorer plus profondément les contextes des groupes interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires qui représentaient sept collèges distincts. Des analyses statistiques et thématiques ont été effectuées avec les réponses aux sondages et des analyses thématiques ont été effectuées sur les données recueillies des groupes de discussion. Des thèmes semblables se sont dégagés des sondages et des données recueillies des groupes de discussion. Ces thèmes identifiaient les avantages perçus de la participation dans le perfectionnement de l’enseignement tant interdisciplinaire que disciplinaire. Les répondants ont perçu les avantages suivants : (a) possibilité de devenir de meilleurs enseignants; (b) apprentissage social; et (c) bien que les avantages perçus de chaque modèle varient, les résultats des deux expériences sont semblables. Les expériences vécues de ces étudiants de cycle supérieur élargissent la caractérisation des programmes interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires. Cette étude souligne la nécessité que les programmes pour étudiants de cycle supérieur – spécifiquement les programmes de perfectionnement de l’enseignement offerts dans le cadre d’unités de pédagogie – doivent offrir des occasions de perfectionnement de l’enseignement à la fois interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires pour que les apprenants tirent des deux modèles un mélange d’avantages.

Accessing Habitus: Relating Structure and Agency through Focus Group Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gill Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Collective Agency ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Structure And Agency ◽  
Group Research ◽  
The Relationship

The article focuses on the intersection of theory methodology and empirical research to argue that we can learn about habitus through certain types of focus groups. An account of the relationship between structure, individual and collective agency is developed to provide a grounding for the methodological argument. The article suggests, on the basis of this understanding, that focus groups can be constituted to give us access to interactions which draw upon the collective basis of habitus. Some empirical work is drawn upon for illustrative purposes.

scholarly journals Using Participatory Focus Groups Of Graduate Students To Improve Academic Departments: A Case Example

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deanna Linville ◽  
Jennifer Lambert-Shute ◽  
Christine Fruhauf ◽  
Fred Piercy
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Academic Department ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Group Evaluation

The authors report on a participatory focus group evaluation of an academic department. The 20 participants, and the majority of the evaluators, were graduate students in that department. The authors report on their methods, their reflections, ethical issues they encountered and what they did about them, and how they used the results.

scholarly journals Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups: Generalisability, Quantifiability, Treatment of Context and Quotations

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilla Vicsek
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Concrete Situation ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Group Research ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Focus Group Data ◽  
Quantifying In

In this paper I discuss some concerns related to the analysis of focus groups: (a) the issue of generalisation; (b) the problems of using numbers and quantifying in the analysis; (c) how the concrete situation of the focus groups could be included in the analysis, and (d) what formats can be used when quoting from focus groups. Problems with respect to generalisation are discussed; types of generalisation are presented which can be used in focus group research. Arguments are made against using a primarily quantitative perspective in the evaluation of focus group data. It is argued that the situation of the particular group discussion should be taken into account in the analysis. A scheme for analysis that has been developed by the author is presented. Suggestions are made for the characteristics of the quotations in the analyses.

scholarly journals Advantages, Disadvantages, and Lessons Learned in Conducting Telephone Focus Groups to Discuss Biospecimen Research Concerns of Individuals Genetically at Risk for Cancer

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis Koskan ◽  
Janique Rice ◽  
Clement Gwede ◽  
Cathy Meade ◽  
Ivana Sehovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Perceived Benefits ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Telecommunication Technology ◽  
Group Research

Advances in telecommunication technology allow biomedical researchers to explore new, inexpensive opportunities for conducting focus group research. This article reports our experiences using such technology to engage individuals genetically at risk for cancer about biospecimen research. Telephone-based focus groups were conducted with a total of 40 individuals, and participants were asked about their experiences and perceived benefits and limitations of participating in a telephone focus group about biospecimen research. The lessons learned can effectively be applied to other areas of health research. In particular, this method may be most useful to engage individuals who are less apt to speak in public, and/or when there are concerns over privacy if face-to-face discussions methods are used.

scholarly journals How I Learned to Conduct Focus Groups

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maribel Del Rio-Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Group Interaction ◽  
Human Experience ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Group Research ◽  
Research Questions

The use of focus groups may provide researchers with important insights into research questions via participant discussion and interaction. As a human services practitioner and researcher, I became interested in learning how to conduct focus groups in order to apply these steps to my research and gain valuable insights about the human experience that the focus group interaction aims to bring to light. In this review, I will highlight the steps that I took to learn to conduct focus group research and through my experience I hope that readers gain familiarity and clarity into this unique qualitative research approach.

scholarly journals Designing Generative Dialogue Spaces to Enhance Focus Group Research: A Case Study in the Context of COVID-19 Vaccination

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110667
Author(s):  
Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Personal Narratives ◽  
Deep Understanding ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Group Research

Focus groups are a core method in qualitative research for bringing people together to discuss an issue of concern; however, it has been criticized for not enabling researchers to gain a deep understanding of the participants’ lived experiences or generating in-depth personal narratives that build on those experiences. In this article, the author builds on the shared epistemologies of qualitative research and journalism to introduce the Generative Dialogue Framework. The Generative Dialogue Framework is grounded in the intersection of inquiry, knowledge, and storytelling to design and facilitate remote and in-person focus groups. Informed by phenomenology, the philosophy of dialogue, and design thinking, along with a strong visual focus, the framework aims to surface participants’ lived experiences as a way of understanding their perceptions, thoughts, and perspectives, especially within the context of controversial or polarizing topics of concern. The Generative Dialogue Framework stimulates constructive dialogue by offering a focused framework and a structured yet flexible question guide. The result is intended to be a reflective learning dialogue in which participants jointly develop shared meanings and insights, rather than simply exchanging rationalized opinions. Drawing on insights from a case study that explores people’s perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccination, the article demonstrates the framework’s application and provides a toolkit to structure the design and implementation process. Finally, reflecting on methodological and epistemological perspectives, the author reviews the advantages and challenges of applying the framework in focus group research for both researchers and participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document