The following is a modified excerpt from Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015, pp. 106-107), a qualitative methods text covering in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, ethnography, qualitative content analysis, case study, and narrative research.
Are focus group discussions the “best” method for your qualitative research study? There are several considerations that are fundamental to the decision whether to use the focus group method. In particular, the researcher needs to pay attention to the suitability of group discussions based on the research objectives as well as the accessibility and receptivity of the target population.
Unlike the in-depth interview (IDI) method that benefits from the “naturalness” of the one-to-one approach, the more contrived environment of the focus group discussion may make the method less suitable under certain circumstances. For example, face-to-face (in-person or video) focus group research would not be appropriate for a state agency that wants to understand the credit needs of low-income residents of a small town, because the community’s narrow pool of these residents would necessitate recruiting people who may know each other and who may be reluctant or unwilling to share details of their lives, particularly as those details relate to credit. For similar reasons, face-to-face focus groups would not be advised for investigating sexual activity among teenagers in a close-knit community. And, group discussions would not be suitable when the objective of the research is to gain feedback on the usability of a new website (i.e., the ability to navigate the site and move easily around it to find needed information) because it is the individual interplay with this website that comes closest to mirroring its eventual use in the real world, and this can better be learned in an IDI setting, not a group discussion.
On the other hand, group discussions are ideal when the research topic is not highly sensitive and the dynamics of the group interaction can foster important insights relevant to the research objectives. For example, a researcher might use group discussions to investigate (a) reactions to a new mobile-phone concept in order to identify its perceived strengths and weaknesses, (b) perceptions of risk and risk-taking among firefighters, (c) material preferences and purchases among people who knit or crochet, (d) eating habits and food preferences among young people with diabetes, (e) attitudes toward changes in a nonprofit’s annual fundraising event among its program volunteers, (f) coping mechanisms and in-class techniques for calming elementary school students in emergency situations among teachers, and (g) informational needs among residents of a retirement facility.
From a Total Quality Framework perspective, a more productive group discussion (in any mode) is smaller in size—ideally, no more than 10 people—because it gives the moderator sufficient time to gain substantive, useful feedback from each group participant while also reducing any intimidation participants may feel from speaking in a larger group setting. This factor is why smaller group formats such as dyads (two-person group) and triads (three people) can be particularly useful in some situations. Toner (2009), for instance, describes the “more intimate interaction” she experienced in conducting dyads with Native Americans and Latinas as well as the “incredibly rich data” that resulted from these discussions. Her research is an example of how a small group size has the potential advantage of reaping in-depth information, not too dissimilar from an IDI.
Toner, J. (2009). Small is not too small: Reflections concerning the validity of very small focus groups (VSFGs). Qualitative Social Work, 8(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325009103374