Running focus group discussions

Before the group discussion took place, I had to make important decisions. The first was on the venue. Barbour (2010) advises that the choice of venue is important, as this may determine the emphasis placed on particular issues. This does not mean that there is such a thing as an ‘ideal location’ for a focus group, rather that the researcher should give thought to the likely impact of the setting on the nature of the discussion and should take care to structure the topic guide to ensure that the whole range of potential topics is covered (Ibid). I had to consider accessibility and transport issues for teachers and learners.

All FGDs with learners were done in classrooms located on the ground floor. This is supported by Barbour (2010), who asserts that access can be important, particularly where the research aims to be inclusive of those with physical disabilities. Travelling distance may also affect turnout and expenses if the project undertakes to provide compensation to participants (Ibid). I took this into account and offered to reimburse participants’ transport expenses, especially for learners’ FGDs.

Another decision relates to whether to audiotape or videotape discussions. I chose to audio-record the FDGs. According to Barbour (2010), many focus group researchers do audiotape discussions and produce verbatim transcripts, but do not subject these to detailed analysis. It is not the existence of a transcript that guarantees rigour, but the attention to detail and degree to which the researcher engages systematically with the data (Barbour 2008). This was achieved for my study by means of audio-recording FGDs and interviews, followed by verbatim transcriptions of recordings and meticulous analysis of notes through repeated re-listening to recordings.

I used an Olympus audio-recorder with a very high-quality sound. I practised using it and creating different file systems for FDGs with teachers and learners. This was done long before the commencement of FGDs and interviews to ensure that I was well acquainted with the device. Interviews with school managers and principals were recorded under differently labelled files for easy identification. I had to rehearse and practise recording many times before carrying out the interviews to iron out glitches associated with technical failure. The batteries were charged fully before each FGD or interview. I rehearsed a number of “mock” FGDs with my family members.

It was only after I had become adept at using the audio-recorder that I set out to conduct the discussions and interviews. Barbour (2010) asserts that if a recording is to be made, good quality equipment is essential and it pays to practise so that the researcher is confident in using the equipment and does not become distracted from the task, which is to facilitate and focus on the discussion. Notes on nonverbal cues may be especially valuable when it comes to interpreting data, as information on individual

speakers may be. The major problem with audio-recorders is that gestures are often missed by the audio-recorder, but speech intonation, sighs and stress are easily discernible. Non-verbal communication was very important for me, as the audio-recorder could not pick up the gestures, only the tone of voice. Barbour (2010) gives a clue and says moderators need to look out for nonverbal cues, which may provide an opportunity to engage otherwise quiet members and must also remain alert to the tenor of the discussion and potential impact on participants.

I got invaluable information on running FGDs from Owen (2001), who provides an insightful discussion about the difference between running groups for therapeutic purposes and using them in order to generate research data. When using groups in a research context, it is more important to encourage contributions from everyone and to explore the reasons for differing perspectives or qualifications because the focus is on the process rather than the outcome of the group discussion. It is also worth giving some thought to the match or potential mismatch between moderator and group members. Although participants may be more likely to talk openly with someone they identify as belonging to their group or community, it is easy to slip into making unwarranted assumptions about shared meanings and the ‘seduction of sameness’

(Hurd & McIntyre, 1996 in Barbour 2010) .This may prevent moderators from asking the penetrating questions necessary to process discussions as research data.

In my focus group preparations I made provision for learners from minority groups with problems in expressing themselves in English. Such learners may be quiet for most of the discussion session. I ensured that all members of the FGD aired their views. This was necessary, according to Barbour (2010), who asserts that when conducting focus groups with members of ethnic minorities whose first language may not be that of the researchers, it is easy to make unwarranted assumptions about ‘sameness’ based on shared language skills. Dialects are important, as are shared cultural and religious reference.

Despite observations about the potential of focus groups to create consensus, not all FDGs reach consensus (Waterton and Wynne 1999 in Barbour 2010). Careful

development of topic guides and facilitation of discussion by an attentive moderator can help interrogate apparent consensus. The central focus was on providing a window on FA provisioning during the discussion, whether this was the airing of conflicting views, developing a shared understanding, refining individual perceptions or making decisions.

It became clear that there is much more to carrying out focus group research than simply “sitting back and seeing what transpires” (Barbour 2010). Focus group moderators should attempt throughout to anticipate analysis, and this ultimate aim should guide requests for clarification or encourage participants to follow up on potentially interesting distinctions employed by, or alluded to, by the participants (Barbour 2010).

Tips on carrying out successful FGDs were invaluable in preparing me for the interviews. Bloor, Frankland, Thomas and Robson (2001) acknowledge that focus group participants can sometimes ‘under-react’ to questions and one of the most important skills for the novice moderator to master is that of learning to tolerate silences, in order to allow participants time to formulate responses. Sometimes one just needs to remain silent and gesture by an approving nod to a participant to carry on. I had to master a lot of moderating skills for the FGDs. I also realised that although topic guides may list what looks like rather vague areas for discussion, ‘the devil was in the detail’ in the form of prompts, which ensured that more specific issues were covered, but which allowed the moderator to judge when to wait and when to raise these sub-topics (Barbour 2010).

An especially valuable skill for moderators is knowing when to let the discussion develop although, at times, it might appear that participants are going ‘off piste’; such speculation can ultimately lead to unanticipated insights (Ibid).