A second iteration of exploration was carried out, as previously described, in order to enhance the user focus and refine requirements in the development of solutions. To refine requirements to a greater level of detail, a significant level of depth was required in the research to elicit substantial and useful information, particularly in relation to the design of information materials. Achieving this richer understanding would be most productively extracted through discussion between multiple users. A survey research method at this stage would be inappropriate. Although it may enable the questioning of a large sample and collate wide-scale viewpoints, richness of the data and the ability to probe and clarify would not be possible, which were important factors at this stage. Interviews allow the collection of rich data to
extract further insights but this would be a time-consuming method to gather fewer viewpoints (Courage & Baxter, 2005). Furthermore, interviews would be individual and would not enable discussion between participants. The benefits of discussion are that it facilitates idea generation and the reaching of a consensus between participants over issues.
Focus groups are used to gain insight into people’s views, perceptions and attitudes on a given topic (Litosseliti, 2003). A focus group creates a platform to bring together a selection of participants to contribute to a debate on a particular set of issues, whilst enabling the researcher to investigate and explore group norms and views (May, 2001). As such, they provide the opportunity for open discussion and rich data collection from several people: they are beneficial for investigating users’ points of view and feelings. Therefore, focus groups are a suitable method to find out about users’ experiences. The term focus group is sometimes interchanged with workshop in practice. However, the difference is that workshops are a group
setting in which to teach or inform participants whereas focus groups are to listen and gain information in a non-threatening environment (Litosseliti, 2003).
Focus groups are a useful method for eliciting user requirements (Lofthouse & Lilley, 2006; Maguire, 2001) and identifying issues which need to be addressed. Although the aspects to address were derived from the first phase of interviews, further viewpoints and greater detail can be gathered which may validate previous findings
173 or introduce further insights. To assist the development of solutions, the presence of several viewpoints and the collaboration possible in a focus group setting allows for greater discussion over ideas and can fuel development or quickly discount implausible ideas by eliciting further requirements. As Maguire (2001) outlines, participants in focus groups can stimulate ideas in each other and the discussion that ensues consolidates a collective perspective.
Litosseliti (2003) proposes that focus groups are applicable at different stages of research, from exploratory questioning to assessing a developed programme of activities. It is also suggested that this method is beneficial for examining participants’ shared understandings of everyday life and the everyday use of language and culture of a particular group. Furthermore, this method is useful for generating ideas through discussing different angles of a problem and potentially reaching solutions. For the aforementioned reasons, a focus group is an appropriate method for refining requirements and extracting user perspectives on potential solutions.
A phenomenon that is apparent in focus groups but rare in other forms of data collection is an internal inconsistency in responses: people can change their opinions during the course of the discussion after listening to other people’s points of view (Krueger, 1998). This may be considered a flaw of focus group research but in real- life settings people’s opinions do not remain constant. Therefore, it can be deduced that participants are responding in a normal and natural manner. The reason for the change in opinion, however, is important to identify: for example, did the person really change their personal view or did the forcefulness of another person result in the change? (Krueger, 1998).
Focus groups are a time-consuming method of obtaining data collection, requiring preparation time, travel time and time to conduct the actual session. However, they are a less time-consuming method of gathering several points of view at one time, by enabling the input of several participants in a shorter time frame than is possible with conducting individual interviews, and allow for collaboration and discussion. The number of participants in the group should not be too large though, as this can limit input from individuals and restrict the flow of discussion. Too many
174 participants can also be difficult to assemble and moderate on the researcher’s part (Krueger, 1998). There is not a definitive amount of participants of which a focus group should comprise but it is recommended that they should be kept to between eight and twelve participants (Lofthouse & Lilley, 2006).
Focus groups are a qualitative research method providing rich information and the consequently discursive nature of the method means that a semi-structured format is most appropriate. A systematic structure can be followed, however, to encourage focused, useful discussion. The session should begin with questions that allow
participants to become familiar with the subject matter by recollecting personal opinions and listening to others. This should be followed with key questions that elicit the information the study aims to obtain. Lastly, the session is summarised with the participants for clarification on both the participants’ and researchers’ part.
For the reasons outlined above, it was decided that a focus group was applicable as the primary method of data collection and more beneficial than only further
interviews or a wide-scale survey. However, whilst interviews were not deemed suitable as a sole research method for this phase of study, they can be appropriate used in conjunction with focus groups. Focus groups are more onerous: they are more time-consuming and can require participants to travel to another location. This can be impractical for people for a variety of reasons, such as disability or an inability to drive. Both of these examples are more likely to be the case for older people. In the recruitment for this study it was found that some tenants responded that they could not attend the arranged focus group but wanted to participate in the research.
Although carrying out interviews with individuals who could not attend the focus group would not involve the important aspect of discussion and collaboration, contextual interviews could add to the level of depth of information gathered in the focus group. They could be used to validate the focus group results through the outcomes being reviewed by other people that fit the population sample. The interviews could be used to identify requirements to review against those extracted from the focus group and observe in context. Conducting interviews with those
175 who could not attend the focus group ensured valuable viewpoints were not
dismissed on the basis of practical issues.