The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method
Author:
Top Cited Papers
- 5 February 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Sociological Methods & Research
- Vol. 45 (2) , 231-259
Abstract
Despite their long trajectory in the social sciences, few systematic works analyze how often and for what purposes focus groups appear in published works. This study fills this gap by undertaking a meta-analysis of focus group use over the last 10 years. It makes several contributions to our understanding of when and why focus groups are used in the social sciences. First, the study explains that focus groups generate data at three units of analysis, namely, the individual, the group, and the interaction. Although most researchers rely upon the individual unit of analysis, the method’s comparative advantage lies in the group and interactive units. Second, it reveals strong affinities between each unit of analysis and the primary motivation for using focus groups as a data collection method. The individual unit of analysis is appropriate for triangulation; the group unit is appropriate as a pretest; and the interactive unit is appropriate for exploration. Finally, it offers a set of guidelines that researchers should adopt when presenting focus groups as part of their research design. Researchers should, first, state the main purpose of the focus group in a research design; second, identify the primary unit of analysis exploited; and finally, list the questions used to collect data in the focus group.Keywords
This publication has 60 references indexed in Scilit:
- Analysing group dynamics within the focus groupQualitative Research, 2010
- Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative ResearchPS: Political Science & Politics, 2010
- Qualitative Data Archiving: Rewards and ChallengesPS: Political Science & Politics, 2010
- The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in MalawiAmerican Political Science Review, 2004
- Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative ResearchAmerican Political Science Review, 2001
- Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative PoliticsComparative Politics, 1999
- Evaluation of Cognitive Interviewing Techniques: Do the Results Generalize to the Field?Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 1997
- Capturing the Group Effect in Focus Groups: A Special Concern in AnalysisQualitative Health Research, 1994
- The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participantsSociology of Health & Illness, 1994
- Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveysApplied Cognitive Psychology, 1991