Final Flashcards
(122 cards)
focus groups
A form of in-depth interviewing that uses moderated group discussions as a means of data collection. It uses the discussion and interaction among participants as data.
details about FG
Focus groups are a type of qualitative interviewing that involves group discussions moderated by a researcher on a specific topic. These groups do not require consensus; rather, the researchers seek to study the discussion that participants carry out (Morgan 2008) to explore how a specific group of people discusses aspects of their lives. We can learn not only what individuals think about a particular topic but also how they talk about the topic with each other. A focus-group study involves a number of groups, and each group usually includes between six and eight participants.
When do we use focus groups?
are particularly appropriate when you are interested in learning about how people understand things that occur in their everyday lives or that they have thought about. For this reason, you would use focus groups only if the topics you were exploring were familiar to the participants. Indeed, focus groups work best when the participants are knowledgeable enough or have had enough experience to carry on a free-flowing conversation about the topic under study.
Focus groups may also be useful for topics that participants care deeply about and may find hard to talk about in individual interviews.
talking circles
A practice that originated among the Woodland Tribes in the midwest as a parliamentary procedure. They have a sacred meaning for many Indigenous communities (Lavallé 2009) and involve passing around a small object with each person’s having the option to speak or to pass it on. Some Indigenous researchers recommend talking circles rather than focus groups for Indigenous research.
cons of focus groups
require a great deal of thought, planning, and, sometimes, expense.
biggest problem in focus groups
poor recruiting the “Achilles heel” of focus groups because if the members of each group are not compatible, there will not be a rich discussion. Therefore, most focus-group researchers suggest that each group should be made up of participants with common characteristics because people are likely to share their personal views and disclose more to people they see as like themselves
how does one recruit for FG?
You might, for example, use snowball sampling, whereby you locate one individual and ask that person to help you find others. If we wanted to do a focus-group study about book clubs, we might find a member of one club and see if that person might help us to recruit members of that club for a focus group.
When looking for participants for their study of shopping, they wanted to talk to ordinary people rather than to experts. They initially used a traditional marketing-research method that involves calling potential participants. When they were unsuccessful, they turned to settings where people would ordinarily meet, talk, and socialize, including mother and toddler centres, seniors’ homes, and job clubs.
what do you do once people agree to participate in the study?
Once people have agreed to participate in the study, it is a good idea to send them a follow-up message that includes the date, time, and place that the focus group will take place. If you have offered to cover transportation, babysitting, or other costs, or if you are providing a modest honorarium, this message should remind the participants of these details. A brief agenda and your contact information would also be useful to include in the follow-up message.
moderator
The individual who facilitates focus groups. This person guides the group with as little intervention as possible while maintaining the group’s focus.
list of qualities and characteristics of a good moderator:
- Familiarity with moderating focus groups
- Affinity to the task
- Ability to listen sincerely and inspire people to talk
- Ability to maintain enthusiasm and interest
- Curiosity and respect for the participants
- Good interpersonal communication and managing skills
- Ability to appear neutral so as not to steer the conversation
- Confidence and the ability to be in control, while staying flexible and adaptable
forming stage
suggest that the moderator encourage people to talk as though they were on a coffee break.
mixed-gender groups
Not surprisingly, in mixed-gender groups the topics preferred by men tend to dominate, thereby making these groups similar to all-male groups. This phenomenon is one reason that researchers often prefer separate groups for each gender identity.
“the first person to speak or to speak at length” often sets the tone or the direction of the whole discussion. This person often has higher status or power and will “tend to contribute more ‘successful’ topics,” those that others will take up.
strategies you might use to avoid having one person dominate the discussion.
when they had an established leader in the group, they would attempt to “co-opt” that person into the “process of leading the group without inhibiting” others from expressing their own points of view.
the moderator might discourage them by avoiding eye contact, not acknowledging their contributions, calling on other participants, and asking others carefully worded questions about what they think. The moderator can address the opposite challenge of shy participants by making eye contact with them or nodding encouragingly.
moderator can ask probing questions: “What do others think?” “Do others agree?” “Has anyone had a different experience?” “Does anyone see things differently?” As the conversation continues, the moderator should continually encourage the participants to explore how they are both similar and different from each other. Morgan (1997:12) writes that in the process of “sharing and comparing,” the participants do much of the work for the moderator.
norming
the middle stages of the focus group as the “norming” and “performing” stages. She writes that during these two stages the participants work together as a team to address the issue and are interactive and productive. They value each other’s points of view. During these stages, they are likely to come up with new ideas and ways of thinking about the issues under discussion.
adjourning stage?
it is time for the moderator to wind things up. They might summarize the discussion and ask if anyone has anything to add to the summary. The last question, as always, requests the participants to bring up any topics the group has not addressed. If a response leads to a rich discussion, it might be a good idea to add the new topic to the discussion guide for future groups. Finally, the moderator can invite questions the participants might have about the research itself.
how the social and relational contexts affected the discussion in the focus groups.
She tells a story of running into one of the group members some time later who told her that she had not disclosed having been raped because her group was composed mostly of men and she thought it would make them uncomfortable if she raised the issue. In addition, the group took place at the woman’s workplace, where, she felt, bringing up her experience would be awkward.
issue of participants’ “invention or exaggeration of experience” in a group
This phenomenon occurred in a focus group made up of members of a university fraternity who lived together and knew each other well. This group’s discussion was different from that of any other group. The first participant who spoke in the group talked about violence between him and his father; they had gotten into a fistfight. Hollander notes that this story set the tone for the rest of the session. Other participants followed by telling stories about violence that they had been involved in. This was the only group in which a theme was commission of violence. In every other group, the discussion revolved around victimization, fear of victimization, and how to avoid becoming a victim. Interestingly, participants had filled out a survey before the groups started, and none of the incidents that came up during the discussion had been mentioned on the surveys. Hollander suggests that a combination of the gender and associational and conversational contexts “encouraged the men to exaggerate their violent exploits and mute their experiences of victimization and fear” (p. 624). As Deborah read the report of this group, she was reminded of how men might try to outdo each other in tales of sexual conquest. Hollander suggests that the pressure on young men to differentiate themselves from women to demonstrate their masculinity “encouraged narratives that would boost participants’ apparent conformity to hegemonic masculine experiences” (p. 625). As we discussed above, when the first participant sets a particular tone, it creates a precedent for what follows.
career
The stages a social group passes through. In focus-group research, there may be a common series of stages that the groups go through in their discussion.
men vs women.
Women were most likely to interrupt other women, and men were least likely to interrupt other men. Men were also more likely to divert the discussion onto another topic, to express puzzlement about a topic, and to make a summary statement that indicated they thought it was time for the group to move onto another topic.
unobtrusive methods
Research methods that do not involve interaction between the researcher and the participants; the researcher amasses data by collecting and analyzing materials that already exist.
manifest content
Obvious, surface-level meanings that are immediately evident.
ex. McDonalds - the ways the food items were described, the ways the items were organized into different categories, and the way the items were listed within each category, in order from most to least popular.
latent content
Subtle or implicit meanings that require interpretation. Qualitative researchers focus on latent content when they do content analysis.
ex. McDonalds - they concluded that the menus “convey messages that enable fast decisions and increase turnover” and that the categories of items, such as “Value Meals” and “Happy Meals,” “raise per person expenditure and minimize complex, ad-hoc item selection”
Analyzing Pre-existing Documents
In highly literate societies, written texts provide particularly telling windows into social worlds. Think about how much statistical records, survey forms, letters, autobiographies, articles in professional journals and magazines, and even works of fiction can tell us about the interests and concerns of the individuals who created them
Statistical Records
When conducting a study, researchers often consult pre-existing statistical records to get a general sense of a topic. In addition, many researchers have repurposed or reinterpreted existing statistics to reinforce their own findings or theories.
More recently, we have realized that sources of statistical data can reveal as much about a social group as the statistics themselves.
Researchers can also gain insight into the ideologies behind previously conducted studies by analyzing the design of the forms used to collect statistical data. To understand what such analysis can reveal, let us compare how questions of “race” and ethnicity are treated on the American census (US Census Bureau 2010) to how such questions are treated on the Canadian census (Statistics Canada 2017).