In 2018, five articles were published pertaining to the focus group method. Two of these articles discuss the key differentiating attribute of focus groups, i.e., participant interaction and engagement, and the important role this attribute plays in the integrity of the research.
The interactive component of the focus group method also raises questions concerning mode, which is the subject of two other articles in this compilation. Specifically, these articles address the strengths and limitations of the in-person and online asynchronous focus group modes.
The fifth article in this paper discusses the concept of saturation in the context of determining the “right” number of focus groups to conduct for a particular study. Saturation has been discussed before in RDR, with the emphasis being on the idea that saturation alone is an inadequate measure by which to derive the number of events and, in fact, as a sole measure, saturation jeopardizes data quality, see “Designing a Quality In-depth Interview Study: How Many Interviews Are Enough?”
The RDR post on February 20, 2013 talked about focus group research and how it is anything but a “plain vanilla” research method in terms of design considerations. To illustrate, the post discussed the issue of group composition; specifically, the “homogeneity or heterogeneity the researcher wants represented by the group participants.” Another important design consideration in face-to-face group discussions centers on the social context and especially the impact that participants’ interactions have on the discussion and, consequently, the research outcomes. This is a pretty obvious facet of the focus group method yet, surprisingly, it is largely ignored in the analysis and reporting of group research. Researchers and non-researchers alike complain about the disruptive effect of “dominators” (outspoken group participants who assert their opinions without regard to others), the refusal of “passive” participants to speak their minds, and/or participants talking over each other (making it impossible to hear/follow the discussion) but focus group reports typically fail to discuss these interactions and the role they played in the final analysis.
The good news is that some researchers have given extensive thought to the interaction effect in focus group research and have promoted the idea that this effect needs to be a considered element in the study design. One example is Lehoux, Poland, and Daudelin (2006) who have proposed a “template” by which qualitative researchers can think about, not only how group interaction impacts the group process but also, how participants’ interaction dictates the learning or knowledge the researcher takes away from the discussion. The Lehoux, et al. template consists of specific questions the researcher should address during the analysis phase. For instance, group-process questions include “What types of interactions occur among participants?”, “Which participants dominate the discussion?”, and “How does this affect the contribution of other participants?” The knowledge-content questions ask things like “What do dominant and passive positions reveal about the topic at hand?” and “What types of knowledge claims are endorsed and/or challenged by participants?”
The credibility and ultimate usefulness of our focus group research depends on a thorough and honest appreciation for what goes on in the field. The analysis and reporting of the “interactional events” that guided the discussions in our group research is the obligation of all researchers. Otherwise, what really went on in our discussions is some kind of secret we harbor, leaving the users of our research – and the researchers themselves – blinded to the true outcomes. Like a kaleidoscope, our understanding of what we “see” from our focus group research depends on how we account for the interactions taking place, and how each dominant and passive piece plays a role in creating the final effect.