Focus Group

The focus group is a form of qualitative research that allows a researcher to guide an informal discussion around one or more topics, allowing interaction with the group members (Morgan, 1997; 1998). In ethnography, the details achieved through a focus group can provide an added significance to the interpretation of data, and add depth to an understanding of what actually occurred in a particular focus group session (Agar & MacDonald, 1995). Suter (2000) urges ethnography scholars to step outside their traditional methodological practices, when necessary, and integrate the focus group method into their research protocols.

The researcher in a focus group encourages conversation between participants to provide relevant information about the setting, where there may be a range of views, and the extent to which participants agree or disagree about something is of interest to the researcher, and to come to a consensus between participants about different issues (Fox, 2009). Although the method has some weaknesses (e.g., domination of one group member, difficulty of interpretation and summarization, limited generalization), it provides a relaxed setting for data collection and the interaction contributes to combining several

opinions together (Gaskell, 2000; Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007), due to the interaction among all group members. The participants primarily answer questions guided by a moderator, while at other times they are asked to comment on a specific point (Nielsen, 1993).

The use of this method provided access to each participant’s own topic and allowed group interaction within a discussion forum (Suter, 2000). The participants were asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. This method was used as a means to provide the final batch of data and triangulate the outcomes of the previous tools (Cohen, et al., 2000) thus improving their validity. It allowed observing a large amount of interaction on different issues in a limited amount of time and widened the range of responses (Suter, 2000).

A well prepared administration of a focus group should guarantee that the evidence reached at the conclusion stage would have stemmed from the data, thus increasing the validity of the research. The purpose is to get high quality data in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others (Flick, 1998; Patton, 2002). Whether the data were drawn from focus groups or individual interviews, they are equally significant in the analysis (Suter, 2000).

3.4.4.1 Reliability and Validity of the Focus Group

Being a qualitative research method, the focus group has problematic issues regarding the traditional testing of reliability and validity. As the goal of focus group research is to ask “why” rather than “how many,” to generate hypotheses rather than assert their representativeness, the question of reliability becomes less important (Wilcox & Byers, 1991). Plummer-D’Amato (2008) suggests using “dependability” instead of reliability, referring to the consistency of interpreting the data collected, and “credibility” as being analogous to internal validity. It is primarily the consistency of the procedures in following a clear protocol in running the group and analysing the data that leads to a certain degree of reliability (Belgrave, Zablotsky & Guadagno, 2002).

Focus groups tend to be strong on validity (Flom, n.d.), when validity is defined as the extent to which a measure measures what it purports to measure, and if people are talking about what you think they are talking about. Validity can be increased by using a clear set of topics to be discussed, maintaining an environment for free expression and sharing. Kidd and Parshall (2000) suggest that content validity is more achievable when the data accurately reflect the participants’ views. Listening to each participant express their own perception, it was possible to authenticate the faithfulness of data compared to the original meaning expressed in the other methods.

3.4.4.2 Piloting Focus Group

The focus group method was used to collect data from the participants as a group, depending on the same points discussed in the adolescents’ in-depth interview. Questions used for this task were combined according to the two questionnaires used by Hofman (1982) and, Bennion and Adams (1986) (Appendix 15). The pilot group was formed by the same five participants who took part piloting the other methods. The group was invited to the church hall for discussion around the outcome of the primary results and to discuss the points that were mentioned through the adolescents’ in-depth interview and the text tools. During the interview itself the participants were cooperative and showed interest to discuss the issues that were mentioned in the questionnaire.

No changes were made to the questions in the interview itself, but the researcher was more focused according to the findings from other methods during the research period and conducted the interview in a better way that allowed everyone to express themselves and take part in an active and productive way. At the end of the pilot, the researcher added more questions as a result, also depending on the parameters for developing focus group questions used by Nadi and Platt (2009) in their study about developing ethnic identity (Appendix 16).

3.4.4.3 Conducting the Focus Group

The focus group was held after the primary analysis of the data collected by the other methods and It served for triangulation. The timing of the focus group, being the last among the other methods, and its nature, allowed the researcher to observe personal interaction within the participants, and helped organize and clarify what had been iterated before (Morgan, 1988).

The meeting of the focus group was held in the church, 17 participants arrived;

three did not attend without any former notice. Although it was a big number for a group, it was held in a way which enabled every participant sufficient time and space to express themselves regarding points that needed further clarification. It was important to get the opinion of each group member and encourage speaking among the more passive interviewees (Shkedi, 2003), since, unlike the personal interviews, this was the time to see the participants’

individual contribution in the shaping of their identities. The focus group was held according to a list of topics about identity, such as; Involvement in the community; Belonging; Ethnic, National and Religious identity; citizenship;

Career and future orientation (See Appendix 16). These topics were resulted from the primary findings of the data collected from the previous methods. A discussion was held around each point and the taped meeting lasted two hours.

The main contribution of the focus group to the data collection stage was in its ability to clarify any concepts that needed further investigation due to the soft nature of the data. It was important to validate the data collected and understand what the participants meant when they used a certain expression in the definition of their identity. The focus group concluded the data collection stage which started with the Adolescents’ in-depth interviews, through the parents’ semi-structured ethnographic interviews, and on to the narrative tools.

The data were then analysed per method and then between methods.