focus group interviews

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

Doctoral Seminar, December 17 2015Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven

Prof. Dr. Karin Hannes

Focus groupsDEFINITION

• A group of individuals, selected and compiled by the research team

• who share opinions and storylines based on personal experience

• about a well defined research phenomenon and topic

• in which guided, interactional discussion is used as a technique to generate rich details on complex experiences, opinions and behaviours of individuals (Van Royen, summer course qualitative research methods, UA, 2001).


Moderator

Participant

Participant

Participant

Interviewer Interviewee

Dynamics of a focus group are fundamentally different from interview settings


Focus groups are a compromise between the weak and strong points of interviews and observations:

• They provide access to (observing) participant’s behavior.• They give us insight in attitudes and opinions of participants

= combination of the focal points addressed in interviews and observations

WHEN?• You expect an advantage of interaction between participants for

situations that benefit from snow ball effects in reactions of participants. • You address a relatively new research topic, that needs to be explored in its

different dimensions, where you don’t know the overall direction in which common opinion goes.

• You are not only interested in what people say, but also in how they speak about certain topics.

Focus groupsDESCRIPTION AND GOAL

Group interview

Focus Group

Focus Group Interview: how do people think about a topic representing a variety in opinions and shared points of views.

The interviewer questions two or more people at the same time (in depth focus).

A relatively small number of people brought together to discuss a topic,

with the overall aim to gather as much information as possible in a

short timespan (broadness of viewpoints).

Focus groupsTYPES

Type Goals

Explorative Generate insight in a research phenomenon, in order to inform or develop a research question, usually through open questions

Fenomeno-logical

Exploring experiences of people in the group, in order to better understand the essence of their experience in relation to the research phenomenon

Clinical Often focussed on trying to understand which opinions influence people’s behavior and how an accurate response can be achieved

Storylines Generate insight in what people find important in a particular situation. The researcher gives a plot, but leaves out particular pieces that participants need to fill in.

Reactional Generate insight in reactions of the public, by launching two or more controversial statements or topics and registering their response to it.

Focus groupsTYPES

Phases:• Starting phase of research, to determine what

important issues and concepts are. • Collecting data as main research project

(equivalent to an interview)• End phase of a research process, to evaluate

research results derived at, using the perspective of the research subjects.

Focus groupsTYPES

Designs:• Multiple-category design

– Variation in the group on the level of the participants, however with a central characteristic that ‘bonds’ participants in the context of the research phenomenon addressed

• Double layered design– Variation in at least two characteristics of the group– At least three focus groups in each layer

• Broad involvement design– Inclusion of a broad variety of different stakeholders, not

necessarily coming from a similar background (often used in action research procedures)

Focus groupsTYPES

Variant 1: Nominal group techniques • Great tool for empowering participants and creative

and problem solving oriented procedures.

Presenting a topic

Writing down ideas on an

individual basis

Inventarisation and

presentation of ideas

Grouping similar ideas

Ranking clusters of ideas

Presenting and discussing the

ranking (in terms of priorities)

Voting, with final ranking

Advantage: Voting can be done anonymous, everyone is involved (no effect of dominant participants).

Disadvantage: Voting does not always lead to consensus and the process is much more formal and mechanical than a focus group.

Focus groupTYPES

Variant 2: Delphi technique• Works great for assembling expert opinions, mostly with the goal to achieve

some sort of consensus in a group. The process is fully anonymised and participants don’t particularly know who the other participants are. – It is often used for ethical, politically sensitive, judicial, social or research

dilemma’s. – You can bridge geographical distance via anonymized writing. – Hierarchies between participants are erased.

• Core principle is stability in opinions, by organizing several question rounds (interview, survey, combination), always including a component where all answers are returned for feed back and discussion to the whole group.– It reveals differences and similarities between opinions.– Participants are encouraged to clarify their points of views much more; there is

more time for reflection in between rounds and people can change opinion based on the argumentation of others.

– The final goal of most forms of delphi studies is to reach consensus.

Focus groupsDESIGN AND CONDUCT

Moderator (preferable independent)• Explain and guide informed consent procedure

and discussion

During the talk the moderator:• Intervenes as little as possible in the debate • Does not provide personal opinions • Does not judge the content of what is being said • Invites participants to further clarify what they

mean, throws in questions that trigger the conversation

• Invites every participant to join the conversation – group dynamics are an important concern

• Summarizes the main points at regular intervals• Keeps the focus of the talk with the topic of

research

Observator (often the researcher)• Observe behavior of participants

Often has a coordinating role:• Greets participants, checks and masters

tape recording devices, deals with participants who are late, keeps track of the timing (1,5 a 2 uur)

• Deals with paper work of informed consent and demographic data of participants

• Remains available to participants after the focus group

• Discusses the non-verbal data and the overall focus group procedure with the moderator

• Ensures that records are transcribed and enriched with observation data.


Roles and responsibilitiesmoderator

Prompts and probes

Keep the focus of the interview

‘Let’s go back to the main point.’‘I think we should move on to the next point.’

Encourage participants and compliment them

‘That’s really interesting.’ ‘I didn’t think of that before.’

Invite them to deepen your understanding

‘What makes you think this really works?’ ‘Does this mean we need to make a difference between what you said about X and what you mentioned before about Y?’

Ask for clarification ‘Is X what you mean by…?’ ‘Let me check whether I understood your point correctly…?’ ‘What exactly do you mean by X?’

Consider vignettes with core concepts you are interested in, or instruct the moderator to throw in particular comments to get the conversation going.


Welcome: thank everyone, tell them who you are and what the context of the

research is

Provide information on the research topic and explain why it is important to learn

more.

Explain ground rules: speak in turns, no more than two minutes at the time, there is

no good or bad intervention, anonymity guaranteed

Start with an ice-breaker, a very easy to answer question that everyone can relate to

‘e.g. What motivated you to participate?’

Opening questions: Introduce topic in a way that challenges them to think about their connection with it ‘e.g. What first

enters your mind when I drop the concept ‘sexual harassment’?’

Transition questions: Probe and prompt participants on the experiences, thoughts

and experiences they bring ‘e.g. what makes you think women should dress more

appropriately when going out?’

Key questions: Move to the set of questions you want to see answered ‘e.g. what are

the main triggers that evoke ‘sexual harassment’, what do you think keeps it in

place as a social phenomenon?’

End questions: Invite participants to share their final thoughts or personal summary on the topic ‘e.g. if one of the academic experts on sexual harassment was sitting here with us, what would you generally advice them to study? If you were an

expert on sexual harassment, what sort of policy or practice advice would you give us?

Ground rule on mobiles: You can’t forbid people to leave the scene (ethical principle of voluntary participation), but you can agree on shutting down the phone during the time of the talk.

Type and order of the questions


General rules:• From general to more specific

Explore Structure• Question behavior before questioning attitudes

Get the story out first then focus on reflections on the story• Pull out the positive experiences before the negative experiences,

where possiblePositive climate risk of ‘complainers’ filling in the

conversation decreases• From spontanuous questions to directive questions

Get them to tell them what they want then refine your questions to create a better fit for purpose


Content interview guide moderator

Motivation

Logistics Info on date, location (decide up front), demographical data, material

Goal The moderator knows the goal of the research project and works towards achieving it.

Profile participants The moderator knows whom he/she is speaking with and what their characteristics are.

Timing The moderator knows how much time he/she should spent on each topic

Research topic The moderator knows what to speak about.Basis ethical rules The moderator has been ethically briefed on confidentiality, anonymity,

informed consent, the ‘no good no bad answer’ modus.

Introduction Provide the moderator with an instruction on how to organize the round table (getting to know each other) with participants.

Questions/Activities

Provide the set of questions (inclusive vignets and activities participants are supposed to do).

End phase Remind the moderator to say thanks and provide him/her with contact details of the researcher for follow-up.

Focus groupDESIGN AND CONDUCT

Pilot the interview guide of the moderator and the observation scheme :

– Is the number of questions appropriate for the time frame? – Are there any questions that receive too much or too little

attention? – Is the sequence of the questions okay? – Are there any issues that have not been briefed to

participants and were disturbing during the talk? – Did the moderator take the right decisions in terms of

group dynamics? – Is it feasible to jot everything down on the observation

scheme?


MANAGEMENT: advantages• Provokes a large variety of different forms of communication:

– anekdotes, arguments, comments, jokes, questions for clarification spontaneous and relaxed conversation

– Stimulates discussion and controverse, deviant opinions, emotional responses

– Statements may bring about a snow balling effect of new statements following up on what has been said increases the level of depth

• Impact of the group on individual perspectives can be traced• Fast and speedy way to collect data (not to analyse data)• Alternative for people who are reluctant to engage in individual

interviews • Requires little preparation of participants, 2-hour engagement and the

reward of a stimulating debate (you give and you get!)


MANAGEMENT: disadvantages• Less procedural control:

– More people may speak at the same time (recording challenge).– No-one speaks.– People speak about irrelevant topics (snow balling may thrift).– People speak and don’t listen.– People don’t follow your interview outline.– The influence of group norms, behavior, thinking and dominant voices is greater than

expected.• The end result very much depends on the capacities of the moderator and the atmosphere

in the group.• Team coaching: moderator, observator, participants• Better not used for very sensitive or ethically loaden topics• Analysis is complex• Participation means ‘being there’ when the others are there.


• Who? Check the composition of the group (heterogeneous-homogeneous / hierarchical positioning / strangers or colleagues?)

• Number? Until saturation is achieved?; in theory after 4-5 groups, but number also depends on

means and manpower, time frame as well. • How long? +/- 1,5 hours• Questions? 10 tot 12 for semi-structured, less for open• Participants? Ideally between six and 12 (over

recruitement should be build in)

Focus group CONCLUSION

Focus group interviews are an interesting technique for topics where you expect a benefit

from interaction and discours between participants. Prepare well,

both on the task, the team and the group dynamic level to get the maximum out of it.

References and worked examples featured

• Hannes, K., Heyvaert, M., Slegers, K., Van den Brande, S., Van Nuland, M. (2015). Exploring the Potential for a Consolidated Standard for Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Research: an Argument Delphi Approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14 (4), art.nr. 10.1177/1609406915611528, 1-16.

• Wang, Q., Hannes, K. (2014). Academic and socio-cultural adjustment among Asian international students in the Flemish community of Belgium: A photo voice project. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 66-81.

• Hannes, K., Pieters, G., Goedhuys, J., Aertgeerts, B. (2010). Exploring Barriers to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychiatry to Inform Health Policy: A Focus Group Based Study. Community Mental Health Journal, 46 (5), 423-432.

• Savin-Baden M & Howell Major C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge.

Exercise !

focus group interviews

Documents