Focus Groups

Focus groups are a research method that bring people together, who may or may not know each other, to talk about a particular topic. Groups usually consist of six to twelve people and are flexible in duration (Longhurst, 2010). Focus groups were included in the research project for a number of reasons. First, they enabled access to multiple voices in a way that was logistically possible given time

considerations. Second, in the group setting, the voice of an individual was negotiated and intersected by the voices of others, providing opportunities for co-construction of knowledge (Longhurst, 2010; Marková, Linell, Grossen, & Salazar Orvig , 2007). Critiques of focus groups as a method include the potential for participants to feel pressured to agree with the majority (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, & Zoran, 2009) and the potential that some people will dominate the conversations (Fern, 2001; Greenhaum, 1998; Marková et al., 2007). In consequence, people who are less

forthcoming may feel pressured to either agree or remain silent during discussions (Fern, 2001; Marková et al., 2007). I tried to mediate these concerns by offering opportunities to all group members to speak and monitoring dominant participants.

Focus groups reflected my epistemological position, that meaning is socially constructed. Focus groups, while arguably an artificial ‘set up’ of a natural

conversation, afford opportunities for social constructions of understanding through group interactions (Marková et al., 2007; Paterson & Higgs, 2005).

Further to this, I used the focus groups as an opportunity to establish rapport with participants and increase the likelihood of their participation in the semi-

structured interviews (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). The conversations from each of the focus groups were also used to inform questions for the semi-

structured interviews. I drew on research from ethnography that suggests language from an outsider’s perspective can be different to the common language used by people from different cultural spaces (Gobo, 2008; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Spradley, 1979). In response to this, the discursive practices of participants in each of the groups informed the language I used with them in the semi-structured interviews. For example, I adopted language used in the Mothers’ Group focus group to talk about climate change “stuff” with Heidi in the semi-structured interview.

In conducting the focus groups, I wanted to ensure that the data was of the best quality possible. For this reason, I drew upon the six situational factors identified by Vicsek (2007) to influence the quality of data ascertained through focus groups. These included interactional factors, the environment, time factors, the content, personal characteristics of the participants, and the characteristics of the researcher (Orvik, Larun, Berland, & Ringsberg, 2013). As the environment was identified as one of the six situational factors, I negotiated the location of the sessions with participants. In addition, I was aware that time factors, such as time of day and the duration of the focus group can influence participation. Further to this, I considered the content and the structure of the engagement (i.e., question sequence). I engaged participants in conversations about what would work best for them regarding time, day and session length. I also had extended conversations with the supervisory team regarding sequencing of questions. Focus groups tended to last between 60 and 180 minutes.

The remaining situational factors considered the interactions between

researchers and participants as well as between participants (Orvik, Larun, Berland, & Ringsberg, 2013; Vicsek, 2007). I tried to be aware of the energy I brought into a room and self-monitored my interactions with participants. I always tried to present

professionally, while remaining warm, approachable and open (Moules, Field, McCaffrey, & Laing, 2015). Orvik, Larun, Berland and Ringsberg (2013) also identify professionalism and knowledge of the subject area of the facilitator as a significant influence to the quality of focus group data. I was particularly cognisant of the ‘knowledges’ I enacted during sessions because Research Objective 1of the study was to explore participants interpretations of concepts relevant to sustainability. For example, I used reflective questions in response to comments regarding what global warming actually was. Such as: “Yeah, you hear so many things, what do you think it’s about?” I tried to challenge relations of power in myself presenting as an external ‘expert’ and participants as ‘unknowing’ (Elwood & Martin, 2000; Marková et al., 2007). A full question schedule is included in Appendix C; However, a sample of questions from the schedule is shown below.

 What are likely to be some of the most important issues facing Tasmania in 2025?

 What are likely to be the most important issues in the World in the 2nd half of this century?

 What will life be like in your town/suburb/region in 2100?

 In what ways is life different to life 30 years ago?

 How would everyone think about the future of the next generation? And the future of the generation after that?

Many people were generous with their time, thoughts and their sharing of themselves with me. I wanted to reciprocate this generosity and so, in moments where I felt that I could give back, I did (Moules, Field, McCaffrey, & Laing, 2015). This often occurred through sharing my understandings about topics from the focus group,

or in answering questions about the University. In addition, at the end of the analysis stages of the research, I went back to the Neighbourhood House with a summary of findings of the research.