Saturation is commonly used to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet there is little guidance on what influences saturation. We aimed to assess saturation and identify parameters to ...estimate sample sizes for focus group studies in advance of data collection. We used two approaches to assess saturation in data from 10 focus group discussions. Four focus groups were sufficient to identify a range of new issues (code saturation), but more groups were needed to fully understand these issues (meaning saturation). Group stratification influenced meaning saturation, whereby one focus group per stratum was needed to identify issues; two groups per stratum provided a more comprehensive understanding of issues, but more groups per stratum provided little additional benefit. We identify six parameters influencing saturation in focus group data: study purpose, type of codes, group stratification, number of groups per stratum, and type and degree of saturation.
Focus groups used for data collection in health research are increasingly conducted online. In two multi-center health research projects, we applied available methodological instructions for ...synchronous online focus groups (SOFGs). We describe necessary changes and specifications regarding the planning (recruitment, technology, ethics, appointments) and conduct (group composition, moderation, interaction, didactics) to enhance knowledge about the planning and conduct of SOFGs.
Recruiting online proved to be challenging and necessitated direct and analogue recruiting, too. To ensure participation, less digital and more individual formats may be offered, e.g. telephone calls. Explaining verbally the specifics of data protection and anonymity in an online setting can foster participants' confidence to actively engage in the discussion. Two moderators, one moderating, one supporting technically, are advisable in SOFGs, however, due to limited nonverbal communication, roles and tasks need to be defined beforehand. Participant interaction is central to focus groups in general, but sometimes difficult to achieve online. Hence, smaller group size, sharing of personal information and moderators increased attention to individual reactions appeared helpful. Lastly, digital tools such as surveys and breakout rooms should be used with caution, as they easily inhibit interaction.
Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in‐depth understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals ...rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique. In addition, there are no readily available guidelines for conservation researchers.
Here, we reviewed the applications of focus group discussion within biodiversity and conservation research between 1996 and April 2017. We begin with a brief explanation of the technique for first‐time users. We then discuss in detail the empirical applications of this technique in conservation based on a structured literature review (using Scopus).
The screening process resulted in 170 articles, the majority of which (67%, n = 114,) were published between 2011 and 2017. Rarely was the method used as a stand‐alone technique. The number of participants per focus group (where reported) ranged from 3 to 21 participants with a median of 10 participants. There were seven (median) focus group meetings per study. Focus group discussion sessions lasted for 90 (median) minutes. Four main themes emerged from the review: understanding of people's perspectives regarding conservation (32%), followed by the assessment of conservation and livelihoods practices (21%), examination of challenges and impacts of resource management interventions (19%) and documenting the value of indigenous knowledge systems (16%). Most of the studies were in Africa (n = 76), followed by Asia (n = 44), and Europe (n = 30).
We noted serious gaps in the reporting of the methodological details in the reviewed papers. More than half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size and group size (n = 93), whereas 54 studies did not mention the number of focus group discussion sessions while reporting results. Rarely have the studies provided any information on the rationale for choosing the technique. We have provided guidelines to improve the standard of reporting and future application of the technique for conservation.
Title. The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron?.
Aim. In this paper we explore the congruence of focus group interviews within a phenomenological framework.
Background. Focus groups as a ...research method are popular in nursing. Similarly, phenomenology is a dominant methodology for nurse researchers globally. A number of nurse researchers have combined focus groups and phenomenology, but there are others who argue that they are incompatible.
Discussion. The argument against using focus groups in phenomenological research is that phenomenology seeks essential characteristics or ‘essences’ of phenomena in a manner that requires an individual to describe their experiences in an ‘uncontaminated’ way. We recognize that traditionally most phenomenological interviews are conducted with only one interviewer and one respondent, but we question whether this needs to continue. We suggest means by which individual lived experience can be preserved within a group context. We draw on our own experience and the phenomenological literature to argue that focus groups are congruent with phenomenological research and extend this argument further by proposing that group interviews in phenomenology are actually beneficial because they stimulate discussion and open up new perspectives. Our observation is that some researchers who combine focus groups and phenomenology appear to do so uncritically and we argue that this is unacceptable.
Conclusions. It is important for nurse researchers to develop critical awareness of the research methodologies and methods they employ. We argue that the phenomenological focus group is not an oxymoron. Rather, the use of focus groups can provide a greater understanding of the phenomenon under study.
Focus Group Evidence Ryan, Katherine E.; Gandha, Tysza; Culbertson, Michael J. ...
The American journal of evaluation,
09/2014, Letnik:
35, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
In evaluation and applied social research, focus groups may be used to gather different kinds of evidence (e.g., opinion, tacit knowledge). In this article, we argue that making focus group design ...choices explicitly in relation to the type of evidence required would enhance the empirical value and rigor associated with focus group utilization. We offer a descriptive framework to highlight contrasting design characteristics and the type of evidence they generate. We present examples of focus groups from education and healthcare evaluations to illustrate the relationship between focus group evidence, design, and how focus groups are conducted. To enhance the credibility of focus group evidence and maximize potential learning from this popular qualitative data collection method, we offer a set of questions to guide evaluators reflection and decision making about focus group design and implementation.
The focus group (FG) technique has been recently rediscovered by social scientists. It has become the subject of important methodological discussions and it is now considered a very innovative ...research method. However, such a widespread use of FG seems to have become a fashionable research technique. The impression is that FG is often adopted without any prior consideration of whether it really is the most suitable research technique for achieving the cognitive goals of the research. At the same time, it seems that the FG is often adopted only because it is considered an easy-to-organise and inexpensive technique. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the nature of the FG, analyse its advantages and disadvantages and identify the cognitive problems that it helps to face. In order to discuss these two points, I will focus on the two main characteristics that differentiate the FG from other techniques of information gathering in social research. Firstly, in FGs the informative source is a group. Secondly, the heuristic value of this technique lies in the kind of interaction that emerges during the debate. Several researchers have indicated these two aspects as the main characteristics of FG; but only few authors have translated these comments into serious epistemological and methodological knowledge, thus allowing the FG to give its best results.
Background. Focus group interviews are a method for collecting qualitative data and have enjoyed a surge in popularity in health care research over the last 20 years. However, the literature on this ...method is ambiguous in relation to the size, constitution, purpose and execution of focus groups.
Aim. The aim of this article is to explore some of the methodological issues arising from using focus group interviews in order to stimulate debate about their efficacy.
Discussion. Methodological issues are discussed in the context of a study examining attitudes towards and beliefs about older adults in hospital settings among first‐level registered nurses, nursing lecturers and student nurses. Focus group interviews were used to identify everyday language and constructs used by nurses, with the intention of incorporating the findings into an instrument to measure attitudes and beliefs quantitatively.
Conclusions. Experiences of conducting focus group interviews demonstrated that smaller groups were more manageable and that groups made up of strangers required more moderator intervention. However, as a data collecting strategy they are a rich source of information.
Focus group interviews in nursing research: part 1 Doody, Owen; Slevin, Eamonn; Taggart, Laurence
British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing),
23/2013 Jan 10, Letnik:
22, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Focus groups are used by researchers in the social and behavioural sciences to explore phenomena and are accepted as a legitimate qualitative methodology. The primary goal of focus groups is to use ...interaction data resulting from discussion among participants to increase the depth of the enquiry and reveal aspects of the phenomenon assumed to be otherwise less accessible. This article, the first of three articles on focus groups, examines the nature of focus groups, issues regarding planning focus groups, selecting participants and the size of the groups. This article is aimed at students who are undertaking research modules as part of their academic studies or writing a research proposal as well as at novice researchers who intend to use focus groups as a means of data collection.
Hispanics in the United States are among those with highest consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and lowest consumption of water. These dietary disparities are rooted in systemic ...influences that must be identified and addressed.
The study aimed to describe how Hispanic parents currently living in the greater Washington, DC, metro area and born outside of the United States, perceived upstream factors that influenced their current beverage choice.
Six qualitative focus groups were conducted in Spanish in 2021.
Hispanic parents (n = 31) of children enrolled in Early Head Start in the greater Washington, DC, metro area were recruited (all women, born outside the United States, and spoke Spanish as a first language).
Verbatim transcripts were analyzed deductively using the Community Energy Balance Framework.
The five key findings were: Growing up (in their countries of origin in Central America and Mexico) participants were used to drinking water, often gathered it from the source, and liked its flavor. Relatives passed down their knowledge about potabilization of water, the health benefits of drinking water, and health consequences of drinking SSBs. Growing up, prepackaged SSBs were not as accessible compared with where they now live in the United States. Participants perceived that sociocultural hospitality norms dictated that guests should be served SSBs and not water. Participants noted that messages regarding juice and water across US public health programs and policies were not aligned.
These findings suggest there are opportunities for public health messaging and procurement of safe, palatable drinking water in lieu of SSBs and juice.
PDF
