Focus group

4.2.1.1 Focus groups in social science research

I used focus group discussions as the main research method in this study. Considering the theoretical assumptions of this thesis as mentioned in Chapter 1, the employment of focus groups as the main research method was suitable for two reasons: first, focus group discussions give participants a good opportunity to express their attitudes; second, through group interaction during the discussion, common-sense discourses can be articulated more vividly, thus we can explore the ways meanings and knowledge are discursively constructed. The construction of social media users’ moral agency are discursively articulated through media witnessing and media remembering, focus group discussions make the interaction among social media users possible, and therefore became the best option in this study.

Focus groups as a research method originated from marketing research as early as in 1920s. By the 1980s focus groups were widely used in anthropology, communication studies, education, political sciences, psychology, public health, sociology and many other disciplines (Morgan and Spanish, 1985: 404; Morgan, 1997: VII; Wilkinson, 1998: 183-184). Could any group discussion be named a ‘focus group’? According to Krueger and Casey (2009: 2), a focus group has been defined as a ‘carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment’. The process of focus groups relies on a trusting, open environment between participants and moderators. Therefore, focus groups could not be used for building consensus,

educating, or for evaluating the impact of an educational event. There are some exceptions, such as in pedagogical research where researchers play less of an active role in group discussion. For example during storytelling research Parfitt (2014) used discussion groups as an educational tool where participants learnt from the experiences of one another.

David Morgan (1996: 130) defines focus groups as ‘a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher’. He points out that in this definition there are three essential components namely: focus groups are a research method; the interaction between participants are the source of the data; and the researcher plays an active role in the group discussion. Focus groups could be used as a self-contained research method or in combination with other research methods to collect data. Focus groups are ‘particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how they think and why they think that way’(Kitzinger, 1995: 299).

The origin of focus groups was ascribed to focused interviews, a research method used by Pau Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton on radio morale programs in 1941. According to Merton (1987: 564), there were both continuities and discontinuities between focused interviews and focus groups: a focus group is a ‘modified version’ of a focused interview in his mind. And he treated this phenomenon as an instance of ‘obliteration by incorporation (OBI)’ – the obliteration of sources of ideas, methods, or findings by their incorporation in currently accepted knowledge – during the transmission of knowledge (Merton, 1979: IX).

Between individual and group interviews, there is no consensus as to when one method is likely to be more effective. Bryman concluded that the focus group contains elements of two methods: the group interview and focused interview. Focus groups add ‘the element of interaction within groups’, thus it is ‘more focused than the group interview’ (Bryman, 2012: 502).

Essentially, a focus group is a group interview among people who have the same or similar experiences. Yet, there are several differences between two of them:

a. Focus groups typically emphasise a specific theme or topic that is explored in depth, whereas group interviews often span very widely. b. Sometimes, group interviews are carried out so that the researcher is able to save time and money by carrying out interviews with a number of individuals simultaneously. However, focus groups are not carried out for this reason.

c. With a focus group the researcher will be interested in such things as how people respond to each other’s views and build up a view out of the interaction that takes place within the group (Bryman, 2012: 501).

As Myers (2000: 201)states: it is not surprising that sometimes participants’ views are frequently ‘complex, unstable and apparently contradictory’ during focus group discussion. It is understandable in that discussion usually has different meanings for the researcher and participants: for the researchers, group discussion is a way of gathering opinions; while for the participants, expressing opinions is a way of interacting with a group of people – previously acquainted or not.

It is no exaggeration to say that the size of group is central to the success of the focus group method. From former scholars’ studies we could conclude that ideas on the ideal size of focus group vary: at one extreme end are studies conducted with three participants, at the other exist groups with as many as twenty people. After using focus groups in a series of research projects, Peek and Fothergill (2009: 37) found that focus groups that included ‘between 3-5 participants ran more smoothly than the larger group interviews […] due to time constraints and the amount of information that participants wanted to discuss’. Krueger and Casey’s idea on the size of the focus group is that ‘the group must be small enough for everyone to have opportunity to share insights and yet large enough to provide diversity of perceptions’ (Krueger and Casey, 2009: 6). On the practical side, to manage larger focus groups with more than 6 participants is difficult because a focus group with more participants means that it is difficult for people to have enough involvement, which fails to stimulate discussion among participants. Apart from that, it is difficult to transcribe larger focus group discussions due to its group sizes. However, group compositions should be based on the goals and context of different research projects instead of following absolute rules in terms of structuring focus groups (Peek and Fothergill, 2009: 41).

Former scholars have different opinions on the selection of group participants: some believe that pre-existing natural groups are necessary; while others advocate using newly-formed groups in which people are unknown to each other. Although with the same purpose in mind – to guarantee the quality of the data collected – scholars have different considerations for selecting different participants. The

traditional focus group comprises of previously unacquainted people. However, sometimes groups composed from prior familiarity have advantages. No matter which kind of participants are selected, we should bear in mind that each group has its own strengths and weaknesses. Kitzinger and Barbour(1999) have argued that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ template for focus group methods, and instead favoured a design which considered the political, theoretical and practical features of the research problem at hand.

For researcherswho work with pre-existing groups (Kitzinger, 1994; Holbrook and Jackson, 1996; Krueger and Casey, 2009) – usually friends, classmates, colleagues – the naturalness of the discussion among group members could enhance the quality of the research data. Furthermore, on a practical side, it is comparatively easier to recruit formerly known members to come forward for the discussion. On the other hand, the pressure of discussing an issue with acquaintances tends to make participants give ‘culturally expected views’ instead of honest and spontaneous ideas of their own. Apart from that, the leading pattern in naturally occurring groups might make some participants’ unwilling to voice their opinions. Both of these social pressures may contaminate the reliability of data collected. Whichever way researchers choose, a group composed of homogenous people is preferable during focus groups.

The reason to recruit homogenous rather than diverse people for focus groups is understandable. Individuals tend to sensor their ideas in the presence of diverse people in social status, educational levels, power, or even personal characteristics to the extreme. As a result of that, the quality of data cannot be guaranteed if the

group is composed of people with high different characteristics. To access the views of a diverse population by using focus groups, it is necessary to conduct multiple sessions (Grude-Schuck et al., 2004).

When considering how many interviews are sufficient for a qualitative research study, generally speaking, there tends to be a saturation point. ‘Saturation’ here means that at some point no new ideas emerge in the data, for example, repetitious information will appear during discussions, and thus we can say that group numbers are sufficiently high enough. With regard to the number of focus groups to conduct, Morgan (1996: 144) suggested that ideally after three to five groups most projects would reach a saturation point, which means that little new information would emerge because the mediator could predict what participants would say according to the former discussion. Yet, he also indicated that the diversity of the participants in each group, the range of the topics being discussed and ‘the degree of the structure in the interviews’ will increase the number of the groups needed to get satisfactory results (Morgan, 1997: 44).Gaskell holds the view that the exact saturation point during a study depends on the nature of the topic, on the numbers of different milieus that are considered relevant, and on the resources available. Bearing efficiency and available resources in mind, Gaskell recommends that the upper limit for a single researcher is ‘somewhere between 15 and 25 individual interviews and some six to eight focus group discussions’ (Gaskell, 2000: 43).

Besides that, Gaskell treats the interview as a ‘joint venture’, which is an interaction that involves an exchange of ideas and meanings between researchers

and respondents instead of a ‘a one-way process of information passing from one to another’ (ibid: 45). Therefore, we could draw the conclusion that the involvement of moderators or facilitators in focus group is of great importance, because they play the role of ‘catalyst’ for social interaction among the participants. Not all groups are fully capable of self-management, which shows the importance of a proper moderator during focus group discussion. After each group, I made sure that the participants who finished would not disclose the details of the research to those who might be part of a future discussion group.

4.2.1.2 The strengths of focus group discussions

Focus groups, as a means of qualitative data collection, have been used by social scientists, such as sociologists and psychologists, for more than half a century. However, it is not until the last decade of the 20th _{century that they became a}

widespread method in social research (Wilkinson, 1998). Calder (1977, cited in Morgan and Spanish, 1984: 255) has identified three different types of focus groups within market research: exploratory, clinical, and phenomenological. Exploratory focus groups are used primarily as means of generating an hypothesis; clinical groups provide insights into participants’ unconscious motivations; and phenomenological groups give the researcher access to the participants’ common sense conceptions and everyday explanations.

We should bear in mind that, as just one of the research methods in social sciences, focus groups have limitations: it is ineffective to measure the knowledge or authentic perspective of individuals due to pressure from social norms; it is not

designed to identify an individual’s views on sensitive topics; it does not yield generalised data in the same way as surveys by researching a small sample of people. However, by depicting several of its disadvantages, there remain some advantages of this research method that we should not overlook. As a consequence of group dynamics during focus group sessions, data collected through the social interaction of the group are much richer than those one-to-one interviews. That is the uniqueness of focus groups.

Focus groups have the advantage to ‘offer the chance to observe participants engaging in interaction that is concentrated on attitudes and experiences which are of interest to the researcher’ (Morgan and Spanish, 1984: 259). On top of that, this group-based research facilities ‘the interaction of participants without excessive control form the researcher and can produce novel or unexpected insights which may not be generated via other methodologies’(Holbrook and Jackson, 1996: 136). In general, focus groups ‘are a particularly good choice of method when the purpose of the research is to elicit people’s understanding, opinions and views, or to explore how these are advanced, elaborate and negotiated in a social context’ (Wilkinson, 1998: 187). What is more, ‘[r]educed researcher influence/ control can be seen as a benefit of focus group research for researchers who are primarily interested in participants’ own meanings and understandings, and who encourage participant-directed interaction, rather than constraining it’ (Wilkinson, 1998: 190). Kitzinger (1994, cited in Bryman, 2012: 513) drew attention to two types of interaction in focus groups: complementary and argumentative interactions. In studies of media audiences, focus groups are popular for the following reasons:

‘first, focus groups generate discussion, and so reveal both the meanings that people read into the discussion topic and how they negotiate those meanings. Second, focus groups generate diversity and difference, either within or between groups’ (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996: 96).