Conducting focus groups

The discussions were all conducted by the moderator in Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) as the national language, based on the interview guide prepared by the researcher. The researcher acted as the co-moderator who took care of the recording equipment. A note taker was also hired to document the discussions.

In this study, the focus groups were conducted as suggested by Bryman and Bell (2003): (1) Introduction: introduce the research unit, structure and objectives of group discussion, conventions such as confidentiality, speak in turns, permission to record; (2) Discussions to cover all topics/questions based on the interview guide; (3) Summing up: thank the participants and reimburse expenses; and (4) lunch or refreshments.

The focus group started with small talk to make participants comfortable while waiting for others to arrive. According to Krueger and Casey (2009), a 5- to 10-minute period of small talk is helpful in creating a warm, friendly environment until enough participants are present.

In this research, many participants were late (up to one hour); therefore the researcher used this opportunity to distribute the consent form (Appendix C) for the participants to sign. The participants were given some time to read the consent form, which covered the purpose of

92

the study, procedures, and confidentiality. Participants were informed that the study had obtained ethics approval from Curtin University and they were then encouraged to ask any questions they had about the process.

After signing the consent form, the researcher also asked the participants to fill out a short questionnaire (Appendix D) that contained a number of socio-demographic questions.

Although focus group data is qualitative, obtaining some background information about the participants is useful in interpreting their responses to the focus group discussion and in ensuring that the desired market segments have been adequately captured (Edmunds 1999).

As suggested by Krueger and Casey (2009) and Flick (2007), once the introductory session was finished, refreshments were distributed to the participants to show gratitude and encourage a relaxed atmosphere and to promote further conversation within the group.

Most of the participants in this study knew each other. According to Powell et al. (1996), pre-formed groups may consist of friends, colleagues, and relatives, who collectively provide a more supportive environment. Previous studies (Rabiee and Thompson 2000; Kitzinger 1994, cited in Chamhuri 2009) also showed that when participants knew each other, they felt more comfortable talking about personal issues and could relate better to each other’s comments.

Most of the participants were married women with and without children, so in terms of gender they were homogeneous. However, participants were heterogeneous in terms of education, occupation, ethnicity, and income. Heterogeneous groups are more appropriate where the study aims to capture a wide variety of opinions (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, cited in Liamputtong 2011). Furthermore, some variation is needed to allow contrasting opinions (Krueger and Casey 2009) and produce richer information (Calder 1977, cited in McLafferty 2004).

With the permission of the participants, each session was recorded using a digital voice recorder for subsequent transcription and analysis. Using a digital recorder allows the researcher to directly download the files onto a computer for subsequent transcription (Flick 2007), and this was the method chosen in the current study. These recorders were also valuable in tracking the length of sessions accurately and quickly, and complemented the written notes taken during the discussions. Bertrand et al. (1992) recommended that focus group discussions be recorded simultaneously by a reporter who takes notes during the sessions and by a voice recorder (after asking for permission from the participants).

93

A series of focus groups were organised during December 2011 in Pekanbaru, Riau Province, to cover three products (rice, chicken, and kangkong). After rice was deemed unsuitable, with many participants receiving a free rice supply from a family rice field (see Section 4.3.1 above), additional focus groups were organised to explore the shopping habits associated with the purchase of cooking oil during September 2012.

As planned, this study initially involved four focus groups for the three products. However, new themes continued to emerge in the fourth group, and therefore another focus group was added. This fifth group did not yield any new themes. The focus groups conducted in September covered only one product (cooking oil). In this context, the fourth focus group repeated the previously mentioned themes, so in this instance four focus groups were considered appropriate.

Each group in the first five focus groups consisted of between 7 and 18 participants. There were 7 participants in FG1, 10 participants in FG2 and FG3, 18 participants in FG4, and 17 participants in FG5 (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5: The two series of focus group participants The first five focus groups

Focus group Participants Venues

1 7 university classroom

2 10 university mosque

3 10 university meeting room

4 18 moderator’s living room

5 17 researcher’s living room

Additional four focus groups

Focus group Participants Venues

1 8 moderator’s living room

2 7 moderator’s living room

3 6 moderator’s living room

4 6 moderator’s living room

As previously planned, the researcher initially invited 10-15 participants, because a higher number of people was considered desirable for a less complex topic such as food shopping.

94

Due to some cancellations and additional participants, the actual number in each group was between 6 and 18. This range, however, was still within that suggested by the literature. The latter four focus groups (for cooking oil) consisted of fewer participants because there were less questions and because the interviews focused on only one product (cooking oil). There were 8 participants in FG1, 7 participants in FG2, 6 participants in FG3, and 6 participants in FG4.

The five focus groups were conducted at different venues. The main consideration for choosing these venues was their close proximity to participants’ residence or their place of work and participants’ familiarity with them (Krueger 1998b). Other considerations included toilet facilities and a prayer room, as the discussions extended beyond midday. The venues used were a university classroom (FG1), a university mosque (FG2), a university meeting room (FG3), the moderator’s living room (FG4), and the researcher’s living room (FG5). All of the additional four focus groups were conducted in the moderator’s living room because of its proximity to the participants’ places of residence.

For the first five focus groups, as the discussions were expected to take about 6 hours, including a one hour break for lunch and prayer, lunchboxes were provided around 12 noon.

Most authors suggest that a typical focus group discussion should last for 1.5 to 2 hours (Richards and Morse 2007; Edmunds 1999). In this study, the first series of five focus groups needed to cover two sessions and thus lasted longer about 3 to 3.5 hours excluding the lunch break. For the additional four focus groups, with only one session, the discussions only took about 1 to 2 hours each.