Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions have become a popular qualitative research method among researchers both in the professional and academic fields. In fact many studies in the field of Social Sciences have relied on group discussions of various kinds to generate their data. Before the focus group method became popular within the academic community, it was a very successful method among research professionals in the marketing industry.

Krueger and Casey (2000) illustrate the potential of the focus group as a research method when they assembled the skills of 21 researchers who had conducted the focus group technique to research a variety of issues with an array of populations in an assortment of settings. According to them (ibid: 160-162), the academics showed a keen interest in the potential of focus group research in the 1980s as most of them wanted to find out if focus groups could provide a different kind of information than individual interviews or surveys. Soon, as this method became prevalent among academics, several strategies were introduced to make it systematic and verifiable.

For instance, data from the focus group discussions were captured using field notes and audio tapes and transcripts were used in the analysis.

As it turns out, today’s studies on various issues including marketing, public health, education, youth, the environment and the like have used the focus group method with the purpose of getting an insight into how people feel or think about an issue, product, service or idea. Besides being extensively used as a primary research method, the

as the surveys and in-depth interview studies as a way of furthering the interpretation of research findings. Their primary strength is in revealing what aspects of a topic are salient to a given population, and in exploring the range and elements of a subject area that concern a target group (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999: 188). Because of the varied topics that this method explores, focus group participants comprise many different types of people. It is also sometimes claimed that since they generate statements and views in the course of social interaction and dialogue, focus groups are more valid as indicators of public views than the data obtained from the more artificial circumstances of an isolated interview. Indeed, although focus groups are sometimes used on their own, many researchers have combined this method with other research methods including surveys, observations or single interviews. In fact, as Flick (2002 : 127) contends, it could replace single interviews because of its advantage of the group dynamics.

Normally applied to extract opinions and study attitudes of audiences, the focus group study, as defined by Krueger and Casey (2000:5),

is a carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non threatening environment. Each group is conducted with six to eight people by a skilled interviewer. The discussions are relaxed and often participants enjoy sharing their ideas and perceptions. Group members influence each other by responding to ideas and comments of others.

Because it is ideal for exploring opinions, comments, experiences or concerns, it is capable of bringing forth the inner feelings and responses from the participants. This advantage is not inherent in quantitative surveys. A survey for instance may be able to get rankings from its respondents on the seriousness of crime among youths today, while a focus group discussion among a small group of participants would be able to relate crime rate to parental upbringing, peer pressure and much more. In other words, the discussions in a focus group could extract information beyond just attitudes of the audience. They also may generate ideas and values not imported by the researcher, whereas a survey questionnaire can only elicit responses to those items selected as important by the survey designer, and constructed by the researcher’s vocabulary and formulation.

As the name implies, a set of focused issues are discussed in a focus group because it involves a collective activity such as viewing a number of television commercials or

simply giving opinions and comments on the lifestyle of a middle class segment. It is different from the broader category of group interviews because there is interaction among the participants to generate data. As each member of the focus group is considered a member of a social group, they are encouraged to express their viewpoints, exchange experiences and opinions (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999: 4). In essence, it is a practical way of eliciting opinions and comments on a complicated topic and analyzing it. The informal nature of the focus group makes it lively and unpredictable, and participants can make sudden connections. Nevertheless, it cannot be equated with a casual conversation between friends since a moderator is present to elicit responses and control turn-taking among participants. When the moderator intervenes in a discussion, he or she follows not only the discussion guide but being someone who has expertise in the topic, the moderator uses his or her own judgments about how conversation usually works (ibid: 175).

Taking into consideration the explanation above, the major strengths of focus group interviews and discussions over other methods are, firstly they generate discussions which automatically reveal meanings in relation to the subject matter discussed and secondly, the focus groups produce diversity and differences in viewpoints and opinions either within or between groups. Due to these interactive aspects of the focus groups, this method is capable of gathering data and insights that many other methods cannot offer.

Unlike individual interviews where the interaction is between the interviewer and a single interviewee, in focus groups, “a multitude of interpersonal dynamics occur”, people change their views through interactions, and the ”unit of analysis becomes the group” (Crabtree et al., 1993: 144). Beyond gaining interactive data, the focus groups also offer the opportunity to observe the non-verbal and verbal aspects of the group process.

With regard to the sample size, Krueger and Casey (2000: 205-206) remind us that the focus group interview or discussion is a qualitative study and therefore sample size is not an indicator of quality as in quantitative research. As such, statistical representativeness is not necessary. Rather it is “qualitative sampling” where it is

diversity of participants in the focus group that is essential. This strength is admittedly also a potential weakness as will be mentioned later.

The most important aspect is the pattern of interview results and the goal of the focus group which is to determine the variability of a concept or idea. In other words, the purpose of the study and the nature of what is to be discovered determine the sample type and size. This also means that the number of groups in a focus group study could be resolved by referring to the research questions and the different population sub-groups required (Flick, 2002:120). In making preparation for the various sub-groups, Krueger and Casey (2000: 27) caution that the researcher would have to mix people with similar expertise and power related to the issue in the study. This is done to create a conducive environment where participants feel comfortable to express themselves freely.

Analyzing the results from the focus groups follows accepted systematic steps wherein key points are identified and the results compared with other groups so that certain patterns can be distinguished. According to Krueger and Casey (2000), in categorizing the thought patterns of the participants the purpose of the study is of key importance.

Nevertheless, despite the many advantages of the focus group as a qualitative research method, it also has its limitations. Firstly, although the focus groups is not about consensus building but to obtain a range of opinions from a representative set of identified audiences in relation to a subject of study, its central problem is still

“representativeness” of the sample. In other words, regardless of the number of groups selected to discuss on an issue, being a qualitative method, it can never have a representative sample as a structured quantitative survey can.

In addition, since the nature of a focus group discussion is such that a small group of six to ten people is gathered to discuss an issue, there could be a possibility that some of the participants may be silent or less talkative. Here, the role of the focus group moderator and the method of recording data are crucial considerations. Therefore, it is essential for the moderator to be skilful in order to get reserved participants to open

up. This is important because it will determine the nature and quality of the data gathered.

In relation to this, special care is needed when analysing the data because it could be erroneous to get a consensus of attitudes from focus group data as similarity of views do not necessarily reflect an individual participant’s opinions. Also, when comparing data from different focus groups, there is a possibility of incorrect inferences drawn because certain groups may not offer the views discussed in certain other groups (Krueger and Casey, 2000).

Another major drawback of the focus group method is the heavy organisational effort required which translates to high costs in undertaking the tasks of participant selection, recruitment, arrangement of venue and preparation of incentives to participants and research assistants. As such, this reason alone could discourage a researcher from using this technique since the cost of organizing is not a meagre amount.

However, notwithstanding all the difficulties, if systematically planned and executed, the focus group technique could be a very rewarding experience. From the researcher’s own experience of undertaking this large scale study which comprised eleven focus groups comprising Malaysia’s divergent middle class population at six different locations, much of the limitations of the study were overcome successfully.

From the very beginning of the research plan up to the end of the focus group execution of this study, every consideration was made to ensure that the study’s goal was accomplished. This effort was central to the researcher because this method of data collection is the backbone of this study. For instance, the researcher was equipped with contingency plans to overcome the problem of participants who could not turn up on the appointed date of the focus group discussions. Also, research intermediaries were utilised to assist the researcher in the selection, recruitment and transporting participants from their homes to the discussion venue. To fill in the possible gaps in data analysis, the q-sorting technique was employed as a secondary research method. Details on the research procedures of focus group discussions and