Focus groups in practice

When planning for the focus groups, the researcher of the current research initiated some long and sincere talks with key informers, i.e. credit union members whom the researcher knew for many years and were subsequently removed from the pool of potential focus group participants. More specifically, they advised the researcher on the most promising days and times of the week to conduct the focus groups, dates that popular professional events would take place as well as convenient and appropriate places for the interviews. They also informed the researcher about possible problems that could arise with the participants and how to avoid or to overcome them.

The researcher decided that for the specific research, the focus groups’ participants should comprise of members of a specific credit union. For this reason a purposive sampling was aimed at, recruiting members that were able and willing to provide data that were useful in answering the research questions. Additionally, participants were recruited so that a wide range of opinions and views could be expressed concerning the perceptions of members regarding the practical application of the co-operative principles and the participation of members in their credit union. Moreover, the participants were homogeneous in the sense that they belonged to the same profession and were members in the same credit union. As the researcher was not interested in differences in perceptions among men and women or differences in the age groups of members, the focus group consisted of people who could contribute to a wider range of perceptions on the research topic.

To assess the possibility of carrying out focus groups with the members of a specific credit union, at the beginning of the recruitment process, the researcher contacted the General Managers of various credit unions by phone asking for their assistance in attracting members to participate in the focus groups. As in the case of individual interviews, even though there was genuine interest to assist in the research, it soon became evident that it would be rather impossible to identify enough members to take part in the focus groups probably because of the uncertain and difficult climate of the days, the changes that took place as a result of the mergers among credit unions and the changes in their organisational chart. Hence, the credit union that the researcher had worked for four years was selected. Some of the researcher’s acquaintances and ex-colleagues in four towns were kindly asked to identify potential participants so as to carry out three to four focus groups of around ten people each, in any one town. However, even with the assistance of the researcher’s ex-colleagues, soon it became evident that it was not plausible to carry out three to four focus group interviews in any individual town due to the limited number of possible participants. Thus, it was decided to carry out only one focus group per town. Hence, the participants that had already been identified by the researcher’s acquaintances and ex-colleagues were considered for the focus group of their town.

Then, the researcher discussed the personal characteristics of each of the potential participants with the informers (the researcher’s social acquaintances and ex- colleagues). If the researcher considered that a specific person could add to the discussion by offering a new perspective and that his/her character and personality was compatible with the rest of the group, he asked the informer to contact the specific person. The informer then asked permission from the prospective participants to be contacted by the researcher, by phone, in order to establish rapport and explain to them the nature of the research and what was expected of them. In order to have a good mixture of participants only a couple of participants were chosen from each informer. Potential participants were then contacted and asked whether they could attend the specific focus group at a set date and time. When the researcher phoned each of the prospective participants, he informed

them about the reasons the researcher thought that they could significantly contribute to the research. Some retired participants actually expressed gratitude for selecting them and for believing that they could provide useful insights for the specific research. Moreover, when potential participants agreed to participate in the focus groups, the researcher asked them to identify any other potential participants (snowball sampling) (Bloor et al., 2001; Kruenger and Casey, 2009). Finally, apart from the initial telephone discussion, three or four days prior to the focus group, the researcher gave a warm and sincere follow-up call to the participants asking them to confirm their attendance (Kruenger and Casey, 2009). This was followed by a sms (or a third call on a land line to a couple of members that did not have a mobile phone) reminding them about the time and venue of the focus group the following morning.

For the specific research ten participants per focus group were arranged (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990; Tang and Davis, 1995; Morgan, 1997; Bloor et al., 2001; Rabiee, 2004; Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook, 2007; Kruenger and Casey, 2009; Bryman and Bell, 2011; Hair et al., 2011, p.191; Liamputtong, 2011), but twelve members were invited (i.e. over recruited by 20%) in order to make up for any participants not managing to attend the actual focus group (Popay, Rogers and Williams, 1998; Rabiee, 2004; Barbour, 2007; Kruenger and Casey, 2009).

All participants were members of the same professional credit union and they were of the same profession, hence the participants were homogeneous with regards to these two parameters (Kruenger and Casey, 2009). During the third focus group, the researcher felt that a fourth focus group would not contribute as no new topics were raised by the participants. In all three focus groups, the majority of the participants already knew of each other, either because they had worked at the same location, or because they were acquaintances or they had common friends. This assisted the group interaction as within 10 minutes all participants seemed to feel comfortable to express their opinion and to participate in the discussion. It can be said that the common (professional) background and the similar experiences in dealing with their credit union facilitated the smooth flow of the discussion.

Each of the three focus groups lasted for about one hour and a half to one hour and fifty minutes. More specifically, the first one lasted for one hour and fifty minutes, the second for a little longer than one hour and a half and the third for one hour and forty minutes. During the first focus group, the researcher tried to extend the duration of the focus group beyond the promised duration of one hour and a half, but to the researcher’s surprise, fifteen minutes after the promised time, he noticed that participants had already started to collect their belongings and made signals to each other indicating that it was time to leave. Soon after these signals, the researcher realized that the participants were very conscious of the time and thus, he let the discussion reach its end (Liamputtong, 2011). After this incident, the researcher tried to stick to the promised time.

The participants of the three focus groups were both male and female, active and retired members of the specific profession and members of the specific credit union, aged 30 to 70 years old (Table 5.4). Even though the researcher tried to maintain a balance, most participants were retired men probably because they had more leisure time at their disposal. The researcher is aware that the results cannot be generalized to the general population because of the small number of participants and because of the high contextualization of the results (due to the specific formation and direction of discussion in the specific focus groups). However, an informed reader could find comparable situations where the results may be used as a guide or make “logical generalizations to a theoretical understanding of a similar class of phenomena rather than probabilistic generalizations to a population” (Popay, Rogers and Williams, 1998, p.348).

Table 5.4: Age and sex of focus group participants:

Town 1 Town 2 Town 3 Total

Men In profession 2 2 3 7 Retired 4 5 4 13 Women In profession 2 2 2 6 Retired 2 1 1 4

With regards to the location, the researcher identified a number of possible venues, with the thoughtful assistance of the key informers. Hence, the focus groups took place in neutral locations, i.e. in the conference room of well-known, reputable cafeterias, in each of the three towns and in areas which were easily accessible by the participants (Barbour, 2007). The conference rooms were isolated from the cafeterias and were visited by the researcher prior to the actual focus group to ensure that the size, tone, character and temperature of the room was such so as to provide the participants with a friendly and comfortable environment (Kruenger and Casey, 2009; Doody, Slevin and Taggart, 2013b; Then, Rankin and Ali, 2014). Additionally, the venues were selected aiming at places with minimum distractions, where the participants could sit in a round or quasi- round table enabling them to have eye contact with each other and with the researcher (Morgan, 1997; Bloor et al., 2001; Then, Rankin and Ali, 2014).

Coffees, teas, juices as well as biscuits were offered to the participants. This was done in order to thank the participants for attending and spending about two hours for the specific research (Bloor et al., 2001; Barbour, 2007; Liamputtong, 2011; Then, Rankin and Ali, 2014). At the end of each focus group, each participant was given a pack of two local wines, to show the gratitude of the researcher as according to Kruenger and Casey (2009, pp.77, 79) “it would be next to impossible to conduct focus groups without incentives”. This was a symbolic present and it was clearly stated as such since the researcher considered that a monetary compensation of similar value could have offended the participants. Local wines were suggested by the key informers and judging by the faces of the participants when handed the wines, the suggestion was very good.

Each session was voice recorded using two different voice recorders following the consent of the participants. One ex-colleague/informant per town acted as a research assistant, drawing a sketch of the table with the seat of each participant and took notes of the sequence with which the participants talked in order to assist with the transcription of each focus group. Additionally, to further assist with the transcription of the focus groups’ discussion, the researcher asked the participants to mention their names each time they spoke, but as the focus group progressed

and they felt more comfortable in expressing their opinion, this was not followed as participants interrupted each other, added comments, completed the phrase of the previous person, murmured in agreement or voiced their disagreement.

Based on the examination of literature and the results from the interviews with the employees of various credit unions, the researcher prepared a discussion plan (topic guide) setting out 24 questions in total (Appendix 3), in a logical sequence, starting from more general and moving to more specific questions. The discussion plan included the questions that the focus groups should try to answer allowing the flexibility to the researcher to ask additional questions as he got the opportunity to do so while he was “thinking on his feet” (Barbour, 2005; 2007, p.85). These questions were pilot tested with a few potential participants (that subsequently were disqualified from the actual focus groups) and the phrasing and sequence of some of the questions were adjusted in order to become clearer and sequenced in a more logical manner.

During the focus groups, the researcher was aware of the need to remain as neutral as possible and to be systematic with the procedures he used. For this reason, following the consent of the participants, he voice recorded all focus groups and tried to engage all participants in order to capture as many views as possible and in the exact wording of the participants used. Moreover, the researcher asked probing questions in order to indicate to the participants that more explanations were needed and prompted in order to encourage all to express their views. In some instances, the researcher summarized the discussion in order to ensure that his understanding was correct, highlighting the different and conflicting views. Having worked for the specific credit union, for almost four years, the researcher was familiar with some of the issues that could have been raised by the participants, so rapport with them was established very easily and very quickly. Additionally, the researcher was already familiar with the language of the participants thus, gained more time for the questions in the topic guide. Although knowledgeable of the topic, the researcher had never seen things from the members’ perspective and could not understand the reasoning for some of their

requests, or the way they viewed their membership, thus, he could not be considered as a “native” or an “insider” with regards to membership issues.

Overall, the researcher is confident that the findings are reflections of what was discussed during the focus groups and he ensures that all participants’ views were taken into account and weighed equally. Additionally, the researcher ensures that any dissenting views have been included in the results so as to operate as a checking mechanism. Hence, all results have been included, not omitting any views that were not in line with his own. Additionally, the results of the individual interviews and the focus groups were not combined so that the reader can have access to the results of each of the two methods independently. The researcher also attempted to distinguish between findings (Chapter 6) and his interpretations (Chapter 7) keeping in mind that in qualitative research one can never be completely independent of the data he analyses and that each researcher may interpret the same data differently because of his own background and personality.