Focus Groups
91Key Readings
*Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in
Social Research. London: Sage.
Greenbaum, T. (1998) The Handbook of
Focus Group Research (2nd edn).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Amos, A. (1998) ‘Drawing the line: an analysis of lay people’s discussion about the new genetics’, Public Understanding
of Science, 7: 113–133.
Kitzinger, J. (1994) ‘The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research parti- cipants’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 16: 103–121.
Merton, R. and Kendall, P. (1946) ‘The focused interview’, American Journal of
Sociology, 51: 541–557.
Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. and Walker, R. (1994) Family Fortunes: Pressures on
Parents and Children in the 1990s.
Morgan, D. and Krueger, R. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’, in D. Morgan (ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp. 3–19. Stewart, K. and Williams, M. (2005)
‘Researching online populations; the use of focus groups for social research’, Qualitative Research, 5: 395–416.
Waterton, C. and Wynne, B. (1999) ‘Can focus groups access community views?, in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds), Developing Focus Group Research: Poli- tics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage. pp. 127–143.
G
Generalization
Definition
The extent to which the findings of a study can apply to a wider population. Research which is generalizable enables the results and implications of a study to be brought into more general use.
Distinctive Features
Generalizability is often referred to as external validity. Again this refers to the extent to which the researcher’s conclusions still hold true when applied to other cases outside of the study sample.
Research which uses sampling based on probability theory, such as random sampling or systematic sampling, improves the generalizability of research findings on the basis that the sample is more likely to be representa- tive of the population from which it is drawn. Qualitative research rarely utilizes probability samples and, furthermore, typically uses small samples. There is a danger that qualitative researchers might know a lot about the sub- jects of their research but not much about the wider population. As a conse- quence, qualitative research is often criticized for its lack of generalizability and, following from this, the use of qualitative research for policy purposes is seen as being limited.
Rather than aiming for statistical or empirical generalization, qualitative research often seeks to produce concepts which are theoretically generalizable. Mitchell (1983), an advocate of the case study method, argues that cases should be chosen on the basis of their power to explain rather than their typi- cality. Sampling on the basis that such critical cases will be of particular inter- est to the researcher in terms of being able to confirm or contrast emergent theory is termed theoretical sampling.
The extent to which concepts are generalizable will vary over space and time. For example research that is conducted in Welsh schools on pupils’ atti- tudes to school uniforms may be generalizable to English school pupils, but the findings could not be said to be generalizable to school pupils in other parts of the world due to the hugely varying cultural context. In practice, the research
audience must make a common-sense judgement about the transferability and relevance of the findings for their own situation.
Case studies are particularly criticized for their lack of generalizability. In many accounts researchers will take care to describe the context and particu- lars of the case and highlight for the reader the similarities and differences between the case studied and other cases of the same type. Case studies which involve evaluation of a programme or intervention are typically worth inves- tigating for their own sake and consequently generalization is not an impor- tant consideration.
The generalizabilty of qualitative research may be improved by using multiple methods or combining qualitative and quantitative methods. This could be done through early survey work to establish the distribution of the vari- able of interest, thereby enabling the researcher to deliberately select representa- tive schools, hospitals, streets or whatever. This technique can be extended to sampling within the case to find typical teachers, doctors or homes.
Examples
An example of theoretical generalization can be provided by Southerton et al. (2001) who borrow Goffman’s concept of ‘a script’ (that is, a device which config- ures its users) to explore the nature of caravans and caravanners. The authors argue that the material characteristics of the activity of caravanning underpins the social ordering of caravanning communities. Or, in other words, caravans serve to set caravanners apart from other tourists. The authors make no claims for the empirical generalizability of their work by stressing the universal nature of caravanning and its impact on the tourism industry. Rather they make claims for theoretical generalizability by informed discussion of the ways in which objects (in this case caravans) are implicated in the delineation of social boundaries.
Seale (1999) provides a useful overview of how educational research has combined qualitative and quantitative research in order to aid the generaliz- ability of findings. Seale reviews a number of studies exploring topics such as equal opportunities within schools and parental involvement. In these studies the researchers conducted preliminary surveys in order to select representative samples from which to conduct further in-depth qualitative research.
Evaluation
Qualitative methods have been criticized for their lack of generalizability (Babbie, 2001). The disapproval stems from the view that no matter how inter- esting or insightful the research is, if it is not generalizable then it is not considered to be research evidence that can be put to use.
While some researchers have responded to this criticism by considering how far the research findings might be extrapolated to other contexts, others have questioned the need for generalizability in qualitative research (Lyotard, 1993). It is argued that the aim of qualitative research is not to provide typical accounts but rather to explore particularities through thick description. Qualitative studies are said to be strong on naturalism or ‘ecological validity’, producing research which is theoretically (or conceptually) generalizable. Qualitative research is therefore able to produce concepts which are a useful aid to thinking outside of the immediate research setting in which they were conceived. Green and Thorogood (2004) have taken up this point, arguing that the issue of generalizability may have less relevance than the ability to sensi- tize readers to new concepts. Qualitative research generates concepts that are ‘good to think with’ and consequently are of use to other settings beyond the immediate context in which they were produced.