scholarly journals Focus Groups in a Medicine-Dominated Field: Compromises or Quality Improvements?

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Solbjør ◽  
Wenche Østerlie ◽  
John-Arne Skolbekken ◽  
Ann Rudinow Sætnan ◽  
Siri Forsmo
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Focus Group Research ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
National Breast ◽  
Disciplinary Field

Mammography screening has traditionally been viewed as a field for medical research. The medical science discourse, however, is highly quantitative, and its claims for validity somewhat opposed to those of qualitative research. To communicate research in a cross-disciplinary field, it is necessary to adapt one's research to several paradigms. The authors conducted focus group interviews with women due to be screened in a national breast cancer screening program. Their prospective design, both strategic and random sampling, and free discussions during focus groups are all questions of satisfying a medical science discourse in the frames of qualitative research. Focus group research showed itself adaptable through the data collection phase in a cross-disciplinary research project on mammography screening.

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.

scholarly journals How I Learned to Conduct Focus Groups

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maribel 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 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 Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamarinde L. Haven ◽  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
H. Roeline Pasman ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Gerben ter Riet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Disciplinary Field ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted ‘insufficient supervision’. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research

1977 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobby J. Calder
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Commercial Practice ◽  
Group Technique

Use of the focus group technique is widespread in qualitative marketing research. The technique is considered here from a philosophy of science perspective which points to a confusion of three distinct approaches to focus groups in current commercial practice. An understanding of the differences among these approaches, and of the complex nature of qualitative research, is shown to have important implications for the use of focus groups.

scholarly journals Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program

Radiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 294 (3) ◽  
pp. 528-537
Author(s):  
Jacky D. Luiten ◽  
Adri C. Voogd ◽  
Ernest J. T. Luiten ◽  
Mireille J. M. Broeders ◽  
Kit C. B. Roes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Breast Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
National Breast

scholarly journals Re-Thinking the Boundaries of the Focus Group: A Reflexive Analysis on the Use and Legitimacy of Group Methodologies in Qualitative Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 58-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Angela Caretta ◽  
Elena Vacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Action Research ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Group A ◽  
Data Collection Technique ◽  
Qualitative Data Collection

This article aims at problematizing the boundaries of what counts as focus group and in so doing it identifies some continuity between focus group and workshop, especially when it comes to arts informed and activity laden focus groups. The workshop [1] is often marginalized as a legitimate method for qualitative data collection outside PAR (Participatory Action Research)-based methodologies. Using examples from our research projects in East Africa and in London we argue that there are areas of overlap between these two methods, yet we tend to use concepts and definitions associated with focus groups because of the lack of visibility of workshops in qualitative research methods academic literature. The article argues that focus groups and workshops present a series of intertwined features resulting in a blending of the two which needs further exploration. In problematizing the boundaries of focus groups and recognizing the increasing usage of art-based and activity-based processes for the production of qualitative data during focus groups, we argue that focus groups and workshop are increasingly converging. We use a specifically feminist epistemology in order to critically unveil the myth around the non-hierarchical nature of consensus and group interaction during focus group discussions and other multi-vocal qualitative methods and contend that more methodological research should be carried out on the workshop as a legitimate qualitative data collection technique situated outside the cycle of action research.

scholarly journals Barriers to and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Egypt: Examining the Perceptions of Physicians and Residents in Alexandria

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 40-40
Author(s):  
Lori Brand Bateman ◽  
Somaia Khamess ◽  
Ahmed Nawar ◽  
Salah-Eldin Abdelmoneim ◽  
Waleed Arafat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Crc Screening

PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is not routinely performed in Egypt, and more than one third of CRC cases occur in individuals age 40 and younger, with overall survival estimated at only 2 years, presumably because of late diagnoses. To lay the foundation for the development of a CRC multilevel screening program in Egypt to promote CRC prevention and early detection, this qualitative study aimed to explore the potential barriers to and facilitators of screening from the perspectives of physicians and residents in Alexandria. METHODS We conducted one-on-one, 1-hour, semistructured interviews with primary health care physicians and specialists—oncologists and gastroenterologists—practicing in Alexandria, Egypt. Focus groups of residents, stratified by social class and gender, were also held. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in Arabic by trained interviewers/moderator, and were audio recorded, transcribed, translated into English, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Seventeen physicians participated—8 specialists and 9 primary care physicians—and 7 focus groups—7 to 8 participants each—were held. According to both interview and focus group participants, individual-level barriers to CRC screening included socioeconomic status, a lack of emphasis on prevention in the culture, fear, and cost. Provider-level barriers as mentioned by physicians included a belief that only high-risk patients should be screened and a lack of confidence in providers to perform and interpret screening tests appropriately. Structural-level barriers, discussed by physicians and focus group participants, included cost and a lack of testing availability. Potential facilitators of screening mentioned by physicians included implementing a media campaign emphasizing early detection and curability. Focus group participants focused on making screening tests free or low cost, obligatory, and convenient. CONCLUSION On the basis of the perceptions of physicians and residents of Alexandria, Egypt, multiple barriers to and facilitators of CRC screening exist. Addressing these would be important in designing a successful screening program.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document