Focus groups: data gathering

Focus groups with members of the public formed stage two of the data collection. Focus groups are small group discussions that allow for the

exploration of the social construction of a discourse – the “interpretive study” of how it is formed, negotiated and contested (Tonkiss 2004b). This is a method ideal for a project whose goal is to examine the way ‘responsibility’ is given meaning and becomes a socially produced ‘knowledge’, particularly because they lend themselves well to complex topics on which there is little knowledge (Bowling 1997). They are a useful way to help “disentangle the complex web of relations and processes, meaning and representation, that comprise the social world” (Cameron 2010, p.153). Focus groups were used to explore with members of the public, their subjective perceptions of which actors are significant in the food system and views on their roles, and the representation of the responsibility of those actors.

A feature of focus groups in comparison with other methods is that the

interaction of the group is central to the nature of the data gathered. The group discussion scenario is fruitful in eliciting people’s knowledge and views in a way that may be missed in “reasoned” answers to questions (Kitzinger 1994, p.299).

It can also ease access to the priorities and vocabulary of the participants rather than the researcher and offer a potentially rich environment in which different views are expressed and where people will respond to one another’s comments to reveal a “joint construction of meaning” (Bryman 2008). Potential limitations of focus groups are that one or more individuals may dominate the discussion or that a group dynamic masks more controversial views (Smithson 2010) but these pitfalls may be avoided by thoughtful moderation. (I failed, in the first

group session, to prevent an individual from dictating the conversation and took this lesson to subsequent groups.)

The dynamics of a focus group offer an ideal setting in which to explore the macro, relational aspect of the food system, the connections and boundaries between the creators and consumers of it. As such, they are a useful means of

“exploring, for instance, the discourses which shape practices of everyday life, the ways in which meanings are reworked and subverted, the creation of new knowledges out of seemingly familiar understandings” (Cameron 2010, p.155).

3.4.1 Sampling

There is no universally fixed, ideal number of groups with which to conduct research. So the original target was to conduct between four and six groups, a figure that is in line with gathering a range of data and reaching ‘saturation’

(Kitzinger 1994). It is also what was realistic for the time scale of this research project. In order to gain maximum interaction, the goal was for groups to consist of between six and ten participants. This size also meant the discussion would be more manageable and avoid the potential for gathering an unwieldy amount of confusing data (Cameron 2010).

Unlike quantitative research which aspires to be statistically representative, the aim of qualitative research is to reflect diversity and strategically choose a range of participants who will answer the research questions (Barbour 2001). Using purposive sampling therefore, the researcher judges which and how many participants will provide answers to the research questions. Purposive sampling involves seeking “the most productive sample to answer the research question”

(Marshall 1996). Given that all people acquire food and do eat, the ideal

contributors would be from the broad population. Ultimately, it was not difficult to find sufficient participants who wanted to help organise groups among the

“population of interest” (ibid.) i.e. a range of adults in the geographical area selected. The only age criterion was that participants be adults, i.e. over the age

of 18 because under-18s may not be fully autonomous in terms of their food provision.

Although participants with children were involved, the focus of the

conversations was on adult opinions, practices and influences related to food and responsibility, as this research is deliberately not focussing on responsibility in the food system related to children’s diets because this warrants separate attention. While there is a considerable body of literature on differences in diet and health conditions between different social groups, there appears to be no published qualitative research on perceptions of the food system and attitudes towards responsibility within it. Therefore, no further specifications for

purposive selection were made.

Qualitative research does not warrant a representative sample, so the aim was to recruit a typical sample that covered a range of socio-demographic

backgrounds, ages and ethnicities. While particular interests in food and health were not criteria for selection, community organisations and charities that focus on these subjects were thought to be fertile ground for initially seeking

volunteers who would be willing to share their thoughts on aspects of the food system. Although this may have risked returning a biased sample in terms of broad interest in food and health, it is did not appear to bias views on responsibility per se.

3.4.2 Focus group setting

The City of Brighton and Hove was chosen as the area for recruitment for practical and methodological purposes. Brighton and Hove lies on the south coast of England; it is a city renowned for its vibrancy, proximity to London for commuters, nightlife, festivals and architecture. It is also, however, has

contrasting areas of deprivation scores within a relatively compact area (see Appendix 1)³⁵. Obesity prevalence in the city is similar to the national average of

35 http://www.brightonbusiness.co.uk/documents/state_of_the_city_report.pdf

24 per cent: estimated to be 23 per cent of the population³⁶; Figure 3.5 illustrates the distribution. Estimated coronary heart disease prevalence is similar to the English average (5.3 vs. 5.8 per cent³⁷). The city therefore has representative key health indicators and a broad spectrum of socioeconomic and health characteristics, despite being in the relatively affluent south east of England.

The nature of the research did not require a geographic area representing anything other than a broadly diverse one. A specifically local interpretation of the subject matter was not being sought. Indeed, Krieger calls for an

abandonment of the ideas of ‘distal’ and ‘proximal’ determinants of health (2008) in order to account for the effect of power and political factors.

Figure 3.5: Map of distribution of estimated adult obesity prevalence in the City of Brighton & Hove (2003-2005)

Additionally, Brighton and Hove is the hometown of the researcher, which meant that a wide number of potential gatekeepers to help with focus group

36 http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB00206/obes-phys-acti-diet-eng-2010-rep.pdf

37 http://www.bhconnected.org.uk/sites/bhconnected/files/jsna/jsna-7.5.5-Coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

recruitment were easily reached. It also meant that costs for travel, room hire, and accommodation were minimised. Due to the desire to gather the views of a range of participants, the flexible method of convenience sampling was used.

3.4.3 Recruitment

Given that participants in focus groups are normally recruited based on their experiences of the subject being explored, the scope for recruitment in this study was potentially vast – given that all people have some encounter with the food system. Like other aspects of qualitative research including analysis and interpretation, recruitment needs to be a flexible, iterative process, particularly for a topic that is complex and poorly understood (Marshall 1996). A variety of sites were contacted such as The Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project, a community café, an allotment organisation and neighbours, thereby

increasing the likelihood of recruiting a diverse range of socioeconomic groups.

Initial steps towards recruitment involved Internet searches for such groups and sending messages to their organisers. Early searches were for community groups in the city such as those found on the East Sussex community

Information Service website³⁸ and allotment organisations. Initial contact was made with centres/organisation into which there was a direct introduction e.g.

through friends, relatives and volunteering work, in order to maximise potential uptake. Beyond initial contacts, further recruitment happened through

snowballing i.e. contacts of earlier respondents. In total four community centres, five children’s centres, three gatekeepers at other organisations such as an allotment group for unemployed people were contacted, while a

colleague from voluntary work and two friends/neighbours offered to organise groups from the start.

Gatekeepers were given an information sheet (Appendix 2) giving practical details of the sessions, sample research questions and emphasising

38 https://escis.org.uk accessed 21/07/11

confidentiality. They were asked for introductions to their groups, or for them to announce opportunities for taking part in the research project verbally and/or with flyers (Figure 3.6) to display or to show potential recruits. All managed to recruit people to the groups. The flyer and other material

presented to participants was marked “The FResH Project: Food Responsibility and Health”. This was to try to identify the project with a memorable, catchy name that did not sound to academic or potentially alienating. Below the flyer was a sheet of paper from which interested people could easily tear off the researcher’s contact information. Details of the financial incentives were not offered in the publicity in the first instance but participants were given £20 for

‘out of pocket’ expenses; because of the nature of the topic, it was not felt the

“compensation” would bias the recruitment or the discussions. It turned out that no groups were recruited directly from the flyers; rather gatekeepers used them to give a visual demonstration of the research project.

Figure 3.6: Focus group recruitment flyer

It appeared that the topic is one many people were keen to discuss, and the community settings provided environments where relationships between gatekeepers and attendees are strong, begetting trust; additionally, the social