Just wanted to reflect on qualitative research using focus groups.
How do you do the moderation? Do you use a semi-structured scheme? Or just go with the flow?
I have done 3 groups so far, using a semi-structured scheme. There are some specific issues emerging regarding which I want to get more in depth information. At the next focus group I want to focus on this. So what to do with the rest of the "semi-structured scheme"? Just leave it and focus on the important bit? Or go through it superficially and then go in depth regarding the interesting bits? Does this have a impact on the validity of the study?
Would be interested in your views.
In th

Very timely query. After 3 focus groups, issues would have emerged that you want to chase. Stick to the same interview schedule - its crucial to validity and insert additional questions (those which emerged from the first three groups. However, if the additional questions are of a sensitive nature (eg abuse etc)- these can only be addressed at individual interviews. I had to refine my focus group interview schedule after 3 groups and some issues could only be explored at individual interviews.
Hope that helps.

Thanks Hairui,

I understand your remark to stick to the original scheme and add the questions, yet fear that this may lengthen the actual interview.

Topics are not abuse, so that is not the problem, more an issue of time. Also not keen on repeating issues while interested in something else.

In your opinion is it from a theoretical point of view / research method point of view required to stick to the standard questions and to add on?

a little off topic but i disagree about the abuse. the issue is whether or not other people in the group have shared the same kind of experiences, i.e., if everyone in the group has (self-reportedly) been abused then it's fine to ask about abuse in a focus group as long as everyone there has been fully informed and consented to this. if only one person in the group has been through this then it probably isn't appropriate for the person who has been abused or the other participants who have been abused to discuss this in a group, but it does depend...

just a thought...

Refining your f/g interview schedule is recommended by leading academics in f/g methods (See Kitzinger, Bloor et al, Kreuger etc). Your subsequent group discussions should not be significantly longer than the previous ones. One way of ensuring that you keep to similar time frames is to move the discussion forward when familiar issues are raised so that you have more time to introduce the new(er) topics. Regarding sensitve issues: the possibility of sexual dysfunction and suicide were hinted at the focus group sessions. I explored these at the individual interviews.

i'm not doing focus groups but rather individual interviews. i think the scope you have for changing your question schedule depends on the methods of analysis, the approach to your data that you intend to use.
like in my case, it is significant which topics appear by themselves. thus it is important for me to always ask the exact same starting question. these initial narratives will then be analysed separately, as initial narratives, to the question of what topics appear or don't appear. but then i am mostly interested in HOW people speak about the topics. so i will use discourse analysis. thus, after the initial narrative, i pick up on things they said with further questions, and i also introduce things which previous interviewees said, and topics of my special interest. obviously, i cannot analyse the rest of the interview as to what topics come up or not. but i can analyze how they talk about the topics. for this, i need to get them to talk about the topic.

Thanks for your remarks.
Hairui, thanks. I will have another look at Krueger.
Also thanks Shani and A116.

Not sure where the issue of abuse came from. In my focus groups the topic is not about abuse, nor do we discuss sensitive issues, in fact all the information is very neutral.

How is the research from the 3 of you going?

Hi Rick,
As with all electronic messages, it can go a bit skewy. When I mentioned "abuse", it was just an example of sensitive topic(s) that just pop up when the researcher least expects it. In my case, one of the group members wanted to talk about his suicide attempts but I did not venture into exploring it with subsequent focus groups.
I've finished my fieldwork and am in my write-up.
Good luck with yours and feel free to ask any questions. Glad to be of help anytime.

Thanks Hairui,

I take your remarks into account, I had another look at Focus Groups (Krueger) and you are right.

Thanks for the offer to help regarding more (future) questions, I do appreciate that.

So how is the writing going?

Kind regards,

Rick

rick, things are coming along. slowly. i'm enjoying the actual fieldwork, but the transcribing is very tedious. i will be going to the EASST/SSSS conference in august - any chance you will be there, too? (as you are working in a similar area)

and how is it going for you? have you managed to get the number of focus groups required together?

Hi Rick,
Glad you checked it out for yourself. Writing is painfully slooooow. Now in the 5th chapter. Will take up to a year to finish the rest of it.
How's your fieldwork coming along? And what's your research interest?

hi rick
Hairui has valid points, i have followed the interview scedule with all groups interview schedule and on hearing the same stuff being said I direct the discussion to the next topic or addition. This has ensured saturation plus the added advantage of pursuing the emerging themes without having too much infor as it were cause transcribing can be trying to say the very least!

Sorry Rick for that jinxed post, my mind is just as jinxed this morning…hope u get the drift in it

Hi Hairui,

did a focus group yesterday evening actually which went well, I think, sticking to the orginal scheme, with some added questions to get more depth in certain areas.
Done 4 groups now, still a few to go.
The organisation of the groups has been, and still is the hardest part.
I am looking at quality in primary care, obviously a very wide subject!

Hairui, I understand the writing is going very slowly, yet at least you are making progress. Do you use any particular software (like Ethnograph) for you analyis?

Hi Shani,

thanks for asking. The organisation of the groups is the most difficult, yet I have managed to do 4 now, 2 others planned.

Like you, I like the actual groups yet the transcribing is quite boring and very time consuming. It is good to hear that your work in coming along.


I had not planned to go the conference that you mentioned. Excuse my ignorance: What does the abbreviation actually mean?Is it good?