Is the focus group method appropriate for this research?

Whilst focus group techniques derived from practical application in the field of market research there is a growing literature on the place of focus group method in social science research (Krueger, 1994; Morgan & Spanish, 1994; Morgan, 1998). A number of considerations have their impact on the process of choosing among research methods. These range from the personal values and world view of the researcher, ethical issues of confidentiality and intrusion (May, 1993) through to practical constraints such as entry and access to a sample (Ball, 1990).

The decisive question is simply this: will this particular research method address this particular research question? My research question was about the lived experience of a group of professionals within a specific occupational area, and within a specific policy context. That experience was complex, multi-faceted, with some homogeneity within the group, given the professional identity, but predictably heterogeneity, given the individuals within the grouping. Wilson (1997) argues that the use of survey as a research method limits findings to ‘what people do, not why’ (p.212). Focus groups offer a different point of entry into understanding, a valuable addition to the phenomenological toolkit. Krueger (1994) sees the focus group as playing a part in inductive analysis, advocating their use where ‘the topic of enquiry is complex’ and goes on to point out that ‘in public sector, focus groups are used to examine areas of concern that have considerable complexity, and are typically dependent on motivational forces’ (1994, p.viii).

If the use of focus groups seemed to be a possible way to go deeper into understanding why these guidance professionals were acting in the way they had reported on the questionnaire, there still remained a question of validity. Could focus groups have a role to play in research at this level? For Krueger: ‘Focus groups are valid if they are used carefully for a problem that is suitable for focus group inquiry’ (1994, p.31). In this sense, the onus is on the researcher to ensure that the selected tool is appropriate for research task. Validity is not solely about what procedures are used, but the use of procedures is inherently and inexorably linked to the context. Morgan (1998) argues that: ‘focus groups are useful where there is a gap between people, for example, between those who make decisions and those who implement them’ (p.57). Some reservations and misunderstandings about focus group techniques in relation to validity in research remain. Bers (1989) neatly sums up the kind of denigration encountered: ‘focus group research is soft and fuzzy, and anybody can do it’ (p.261). Calling a skill ‘soft’ carries, if

unintentionally, the implication that it lies in opposition to a hard skill. The former is easily acquired, readily applied, the latter difficult to master, challenging to implement. The soft quality of the focus group technique seems to lie in its fluidity, uncertainty. Yet it is this fluidity which is challenging to the researcher; there is less control over the outcome of a focus group than over the outcome of a laboratory based trial or regulated experiment. Krueger also challenges the notion of focus groups as somehow unregulated, asserting that the focus group method is ‘a systemic and disciplined approach that emphasises understandable rules and respect for other views’, concluding that this method ‘keeps us grounded in reality’ (1994, p.239).

Flores and Alonso (1995) situate focus group method very firmly within phenomenology: ‘we expect, when using the focus group technique, that there is no interest in generalizing the result to a population. Instead, focus groups show the range of opinions, attitudes and experiences in that population’ (1995, p.97). They used focus group methods in their research on teacher response to changes in curriculum design and delivery, and found that ‘focus groups are an important way of discovering what interviewees think about a concrete theme: those feelings, attitudes, reactions and doubts they have concerning it - in a situation in which they can contrast their opinions’ (Flores & Alonso, 1995, p.84) and go on to challenge researchers in education to make greater use of focus groups, as they see this method ‘offering enlightenment’ (Flores & Alonso, 1995, p.86).

The data gathered from the questionnaire clearly indicated that a gap, apparently ever-widening, did exist between the policy makers and the guidance professionals responsible for delivery. These differences were most marked in the method used to measure the work done by the careers practitioners, and in the way specific client groups were targeted for careers interviews. If focus groups are helpful for making sense of gaps, they would certainly be appropriate for this research question. Another consideration was that focus groups would allow for genuine

exchange between the researcher and the participants; an exchange in real time, in real life rather more immediate and intimate than a questionnaire. Krueger (1994) warns that focus groups allows the respondents as much if not more influence on the data collection than the researcher. Given my commitment to listen to the professionals, and to let them tell their story, the argument for using focus group method was growing.

An argument against focus group technique is the inherent risk in allowing group dynamics to interplay with the gathering of data. Morgan (1998) reminds the researcher who opts for focus group that: ‘it’s yourfocus, but their group’ (p.10, original emphasis). Although the researcher cannot know for certain the outcome of any given group there is no doubt that the orchestration of the group lies with the researcher. This is not participant observation, but a situation created by a researcher, in which that particular group gathers to discuss that particular issue in the hope that the researcher can make sense of the data generated.