Badania fokusowe, Rozdział 4

• Rosaline Basbour
• Badania fokusowe
• W-wo 2011

Rozdział 4 Projekt badawczy

• The chapter will present various decisions regarding the planning of a research project
• Including choosing between individual interviews and focus groups used either as an independent method or as part of a mixed methods approach.
• Researchers will learn how to consider these alternatives and critically analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of projects based on mixed methods.
• Different positions on "triangulation" and the claim that combining methods is a source of similar data will also be discussed.

Individual interviews or focus groups

• There are no specific rules that determine whether focus groups or individual interviews are more appropriate.
• Some respondents, if given a choice, say they feel better talking one-on-one with a researcher and would be reluctant to participate in group sessions.
• For others, safety in numbers and focused group discussion may dispel many people's fears that they will not contribute "anything interesting" to the research.
• Focus groups can also be an attractive option for those who feel isolated or seek an opportunity to talk to people in the same situation
• It is important for researchers not to exploit people's feelings of loss and unmet needs, but they should be aware that participants may agree to participate in focus groups for a variety of reasons and there is nothing wrong with providing them with much needed support.
• Some researchers use focus groups in the mistaken belief that they are a shortcut to obtaining survey data.
• This method is also often used when individual interviews seem too cumbersome or time-consuming.
• Researchers who view focus groups in this way, however, do not take into account the additional time and effort required to gather groups in accordance with sample selection requirements and session planning logistics.
• Data collected during focus groups are sometimes presented in the form of quotes from individual respondents.

Individual interviews or focus groups

• Focus groups almost inevitably encourage this questioning unlike simply assuming they are truthful
• As discussions - even if they generally end in consensus (Sim 1998) - there is little likelihood that participants will agree on definitions and answers from the outset.
• The fact that focus groups strive to reach consensus is irrelevant if the researcher focuses on the process of reaching it, which happens very often with this method.
• Researchers should carefully consider what they want to achieve during focus groups or individual interviews, i.e. visualize the probable style and content of the exchange.
• This will help them make a decision about the most appropriate method. It is important not to be guided by the choices of other researchers.
• Just because others have chosen individual interviews does not mean that focus groups are inappropriate. Often, it is precisely because of using a different method that a researcher can contribute to the knowledge base within their discipline in an original way, for example by highlighting previously unexplored aspects of an issue or singling out the reasoning process behind certain types of behavior or beliefs.

Approaches based on mixed methods

• The groups allow data to be obtained that differs from the data generated during individual interviews, also with regard to content.
• In summary, it should be stated that there are no universal rules that researchers could follow when making a choice between focus groups and individual interviews. They should only consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods in the case of each new project and context
• The choice of research style in the case of a specific project depends on the most important goal of the research, the specified goal of analysis and the related research question, the preferred paradigm, the degree of desired research control, the level of researcher intervention, available resources, the time frame and aesthetics (ibid., pp. 139-140).

Approaches based on mixed methods

• It is sometimes possible to combine individual interviews with focused group discussions. Such an approach was used in a study of the views and experiences of health care workers on the highly controversial issue of "living wills"
• The decision was made due to the awareness of practical obstacles, such as night shifts, which may have made it difficult for some to attend focus group sessions.
• It turned out that the views of some people - who were avid advocates or staunch opponents of living wills - were already known to researchers and colleagues in the group.
• Including such people in a group discussion would certainly have enlivened the debate, but there was a high probability that the impact of such ardent individuals would overshadow the participation of others and some participants would feel embarrassed to express their own views, which were probably neither as clear nor as well practiced.
• There are also no strict rules regarding when to combine interviews and focus groups; it is simply a matter of considering the limitations and possibilities of a particular project.

Approaches based on mixed methods

• Although focus groups are essentially located in the interpretive-constructivist tradition, and surveys on the side of positivism, many researchers believe that the two methods complement each other and should not be seen as mutually exclusive approaches
• This has led to the rapid development of Quality of Life (QoL) indicators (Bowling 1997). In this way, researchers, instead of focusing on issues deemed important by health professionals, focus on patients' concerns and opinions
• There are differences of opinion as to the admissibility of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches.
• Paula Nicolson and Pippa Anderson (2001, p. 268) describe how they used qualitative methods to gain a sociological understanding of patients' experiences, "demonstrating how individuals explain and negotiate the meanings of their own experiences of illness [in this case, multiple sclerosis] in the context of their own biographies, and share common experiences with others in a similar situation".

Triangulation

• A frequently cited reason - at least in the case of large research projects - for using mixed methods is "triangulation"
• The task, however, is fraught with difficulties, even in the case of studies using only quantitative or qualitative methods. "Triangulation" involves the possibility of comparing data obtained through different methods in order to confirm or refute findings. The problem lies in how to explain the resulting inconsistencies and contradictions.
• The concept of "triangulation" - borrowed from navigation and hydrology - is based on the idea of a fixed point of reference, associated with a hierarchy of evidence, and assumes that researchers agree on assigning a certain method the status of allowing the most "authentic" or "credible" conclusions to be obtained.
• Interestingly, in the qualitative paradigm this "gold standard" status was usually granted to individual interviews (Silverman 2007), with which data obtained during focus groups are essentially compared
• In my opinion, what kind of data is likely to bring the researcher closer to social constructs of meaning from "real life", I would say those obtained during focus groups. "authentic", it is worth treating both focus groups and individual interviews - and what is more, all forms of qualitative and quantitative data collection - as methods allowing to obtain similar data. With such an approach, instead of focusing on attempts to establish a hierarchy of evidence, the researcher can benefit from comparing different datasets.

Triangulation

• Quantitative researchers, referring to "triangulation", express concerns about confirming results obtained using different methods, differences and discrepancies have a great impact on the analytical development of qualitative research.
• It is by focusing on them that you can reap the greatest benefits from comparing data from similar datasets. Instead of tormenting themselves with contradictory conclusions, researchers should try to use them as a source of knowledge.
• Thanks to focus groups, researchers can explore public discourse (Kitzinger 1994)
• By comparing similar data, she examined the experience of the hierarchical structure of peer groups at school and in her neighborhood.

Place of research

• Researchers using the focus group method must also be flexible when it comes to the location of the research in order to increase participation.
• There is probably no such thing as a universal place that all potential research participants would accept, but it should be remembered that using too narrow a range of locations can lead to biased opinions.
• Sometimes the choice of location is limited either due to accessibility or the cost of a suitable venue, so researchers sometimes have to compromise. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the probable impact of a particular venue on the participants and the data generated by them.
• The lack of an ideal location can be largely compensated for by including specific questions and stimulating material in the discussion scenarios, which will help to distract respondents from the associations suggested by the selected venue and steer the debate toward topics more relevant to the research.
• Icebreaking exercises, such as presenting excerpts from the tabloid press or fragments of TV series, may also be helpful, for example in a situation where participants have found themselves at a university for the first time in their lives.

Place of research

• Natural location influences debate and should therefore consider the connotations a given place may have for participants.
• Bloor and associates (2001, pp. 38-39) admit that a pub would not be a recommended place if respondents had problems with alcohol. It would be unnatural, however, if participants could not have some influence on the choice of venue in the case of a study that allows the use of a wide variety of venues.
• Returning, then, to the question of the impact of the venue of the research on the data generated, the meanings associated with certain locations may be not so much a problem as a significant contribution to the analysis.
• Organizing focus groups in different places can create new opportunities for comparison - and thus shed light on the processes researchers are trying to understand.
• That a research project can use a variety of locations should not therefore be regarded as a drawback of focus groups, but as a feature that can enhance their comparative capabilities. On the other hand, the differences arising as a result of applying this strategy do not have to become a problem, but can be used as additional material for analysis.

Matching the moderator to the group

• Indeed, the researcher personally influences the form and content of the data obtained during focus groups, as happens with all other qualitative methods.
• Those who are concerned with reflexivity of researchers emphasize emotional opinions over theoretical profundity
• If, however, "reflexivity" is used as another window onto the research meeting and the data generated, it can be a valuable tool in the analysis, promoting critical examination of the nature and impact of research relations (the issues of reflexivity and related benefits for the analysis will be described in greater detail in chapter 10).
• Of course, the respondents may seek the health service staff as a guide, which becomes a moral imperative. A potential fix is to allow participants to reference their concerns at the end of the session or by allocating informative flyers.

Matching the moderator to the group

• It is therefore important to consider the likely impact of a particular moderator, taking into account certain features.
• Tracey Hurd and Alice McIntyre (1996) point out researchers share assumptions that aren't being analysed critically. They recommend that a moderator would should come from the outside.
• Janet Smithson (2000) writes, that the strength of the group lies in the collective (group members have access to common knowledge that isn't the moderators).

Recruitment

• Like the other aspects of conducting focus group research, the recruitment of participants involves making several pragmatic and ethical decisions. Gatekeepers can play a particularly important role in relation to the recruitment of focus group participants.
• MacDougall and Fudge (2001) describe the difficulties encountered when trying to recruit retired men to a study of social health issues.
• Familiarity with cultural and subcultural patterns can also be helpful in organizing focus groups.
• June Strickland (1999) found that members of tribal Indian communities often arrived 15 to 30 minutes late for meetings and rarely arrived at the designated time. It was also observed, however, that they came with the expectation of being there for three or four hours

Recruitment

• Knowing Spanish made it easier to get help from residents. Esther Madriz (1998)
• She used own networks and the word of mouth, strategy that increases the probability of including people with limited reading and writing skills, as opposed to more common methods relying on the use of advertisements, posters or letters.
• Recruitmenta is essential for ensuring a representation of those involved.
• Recruitment is a necessary task in medical research.

Recruitment and ethical issues

• The issue of paying for participation in focus groups is very controversial.
• Research on ethical review accepts small payouts and donates vouchers.

Recruitment and ethical issues

• Researches engaged for minorities also emphaize equipping responders with traditional meals.
• All ethics may not cause harm to groups