Qualitative Data Collection: Focus Groups PDF

 5 Interactive data collection 2: focus groups OVERVIEW Wh...

 5 Interactive data collection 2: focus groups OVERVIEW What are focus groups? Introducing our focus group data When and why would I use focus groups? Issues to think about in relation to participants Ethical issues in focus group research Preparing for focus groups Conducting focus groups What to do when focus groups go badly Using a group discussion format has become an increasingly popular way to collect data from participants. The focus group (FG), as it is generally known, as a social science method was developed by Robert Merton and colleagues in the early 1940s (Merton, 1987; Merton & Kendall, 1946), but until the 1990s only really featured in political and market research. Now, after ‘rapid growth’ (Morgan, 2002: 141), it’s become an entrenched and exciting method of data-collection (Farnsworth & Boon, 2010; Morgan, 1997). Initially spearheaded by health researchers (Wilkinson, 2004), FGs are now used extensively across the social sciences to explore topics as diverse as the language of racism (see Augoustinos & Every, 2007), tourists’ views of air travel and sustainability (Becken, 2007), and the place and role of alcohol in ‘dating’ in Sweden (Abrahamson, 2004). This chapter outlines a relatively formal, but not highly structured, style of FG (Morgan, 2002), akin to the style of interview discussed in Chapter 4; as we build on many points raised in Chapter 4, we recommend you read that chapter first. Other types of FGs include less formal mealtime discussions among friendship groups (e.g. Fine & Macpherson, 1992; Speer, 2002b). 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 107 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  108 Successfully collecting qualitative data WHAT ARE FOCUS GROUPS? Focus groups are a method where data are collected from multiple participants at the same time. They involve a relatively unstructured, but guided, discussion focused around a topic of interest. The person who guides the discussion is called a mod- erator, rather than interviewer, because they don’t just ask questions and get direct responses back; what you’re typically aiming for is participants discussing points raised by the moderator among themselves. Usually, the moderator is the researcher or someone external to the group; in some cases (e.g. sometimes with pre-existing groups) FGs can be self-moderating, with the discussion guided by a group member who takes responsibility for moderating the group (e.g. Buttny, 1997). Traditionally, FGs have been an in-person, face-to-face mode of data collection, but like interviews have shifted into the virtual realm in the last decade or so – see Box 5.1. Our focus in this chapter is on face-to-face groups. BOX 5.1 VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS Like interviews (see Chapter 4), FGs can take many different ‘virtual’ forms, from a range of typed discussions produced in different online modes (e.g. using chat software, discussion boards, email), to audio(visual) group conversations (e.g. using the telephone, Skype). Moving to a virtual format means groups can either be run where all participants contribute at the same time (synchronous groups), which mimics a face-to-face group, or where participants contribute at different points over an extended period of time (asynchronous groups). Many of the advantages (and disadvantages) of virtual FG methods echo those for virtual interviews (see Boxes 4.5 and 4.6 in Chapter 4), but each form also has its own particularities. If you are considering using a virtual FG method for data collection, you need to be aware of these, and think about how they intersect with the sorts of topics and participants you may be researching. Virtual FGs offer exciting possibilities (particularly for the tech-savvy), but also particular challenges. We do not discuss them in any more depth, as we do not consider them a ‘beginner’ method of qualitative data collection. If you are contemplating virtual focus groups, to get you started, we recommend reading Gaiser (2008) for an accessible yet thorough introduction to online FGs, including comparisons with face-to-face groups, and Hughes and Lang (2004) for a more in-depth yet still accessible discussion, and then consulting the growing body of scholarship on virtual FGs (e.g. Adler & Zarchin, 2002; Bloor et al., 2001; Burton & Bruening, 2003; Chase & Alvarez, 2000; Fox et al., 2007; Gaiser, 1997; Graffigna & Bosio, 2006; Hoppe et al., 1995; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Liamputtong, 2011; Madge & O’Connor, 2004; Mann & Stewart, 2000; Oringderff, 2008; Schneider, Kerwin, Frechtling, & Vivari, 2002; Silverman, n.d.; Sweet, 2001; Underhill & Olmsted, 2003; Williams & Robson, 2004). 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 108 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 109 Social interaction among group members is central to the method; it’s what distin- guishes FGs from methods like interviews or surveys. FGs are potentially complex social situations (Hollander, 2004). In an FG, participants (can) interact with each other to ask questions, challenge, disagree or agree. As you get to see everyday processes of social interaction, the FG reduces some of the artificiality and decontextualisation of many forms of even qualitative data collection (Wilkinson, 1999). Indeed, FGs have been seen as one way of gaining accounts that are more ‘naturalistic’ – more like regular conversations – than those generated in individual interviews (Wellings, Branigan, & Mitchell, 2000). FG data can reveal the ways the meaning of a topic is negotiated among people, how accounts about a topic are elaborated, justified, and so on, as they are disputed or agreed upon, which has been termed collective sense-making (Frith, 2000; Wilkinson, 1998a). Some say that the method is wasted or even misused if we do not consider the interactive, contextual nature of the data (Hollander, 2004; Kitzinger, 1994b) and the role of group dynamics in the production of FG data (Farnsworth & Boon, 2010) in our analysis; this element is, however, often not analysed in any depth (Webb & Kevern, 2001; Wilkinson, 1998b). INTRODUCING OUR FOCUS GROUP DATA Throughout the rest of the book, we provide illustrative and worked examples from an FG we designed and ran specifically for the book. We wanted to replicate as closely as possible the typical student first research experience by focusing on a topic we have not researched before, so we chose ‘weight and obesity’ as an issue removed from either of our primary research interests. Because students typically collect their own data, after we brainstormed and developed a question guide, we hired a postgraduate student, William (Will) Hanson, to run a FG for us – the first group he had ever moderated. Furthermore, because students typically collect data from other students, we recruited six partici- pants from Victoria’s university; all were undergraduate psychology students, and white women, but they ranged somewhat in age (four were school leavers; two were mature students), and in other ways, such as parental status and weight history – two women revealed having previously had gastric-band (weight-loss) surgery during the group. Will piloted the FG guide – informally – with a group of his friends prior to conducting the actual focus group, and we all concluded on the basis of the pilot that only a few minor changes were needed to the FG guide (see Material Example 5.1). The FG was conducted in a room on campus; the audio-recording was transcribed by a professional transcriber (not without problems!) and checked by Will. The full transcript of the FG is available on the companion website; the research materials we developed for the FG (participant information sheet [PIS], consent form and demographic form) are presented later in the chapter as Material Examples 5.2–5.4. (There is also a transcript and audio file of another FG, on body art, and copies of all of the relevant research materials for that FG, on the companion website.) 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 109 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  110 Successfully collecting qualitative data ILLUSTRATIVE RESEARCH EXAMPLE 5.1 Boys’ and men’s ‘body image’ concerns Recent years have seen a significant increase in men’s apparent concerns about their bodies. Identifying this as a social problem, British health and clinical psychologists Sarah Grogan and Helen Richards (2002) argued that understanding ‘body image’ in boys and men was imperative to avoid the significant health risks associated with poor body image (see Gleeson & Frith, 2006, for a deconstruction of the social cognitive concept of ‘body image’ and the reconceptualisation of ‘body imaging’ as a process and activity, more in keeping with the principles of contextualist and constructionist qualitative research). Although quantitative research had identified the proportions of men experiencing body dissatisfaction, and what body parts this was about, what had been missing were detailed understandings of why men were dissatisfied, and how this affected them, notably around issues like diet and exercise. Choosing a focus group methodology, Grogan and Richards aimed to ‘explore how young men experience their bodies within a culture that is apparently placing more emphasis on the importance of body image for men’ (p. 221). Focus groups were chosen for a number of reasons: to generate interactive data; to access ‘natural’ language; to increase disclosure (piloting had confirmed that group discussions facilitated disclosure on sensitive topics like this, for their sample); to create a non-hierarchical research context; and to reduce researcher influence. Participants were 20 white working- or middle- class boys and men, of ‘average build for their heights’ (p. 223), who took part in an age- matched focus group discussion of approximately 30 minutes. Each group contained only WHEN AND WHY WOULD I USE FOCUS GROUPS? FGs have the potential to access forms of knowledge other methods cannot (Wellings et al., 2000) and generate completely unexpected or novel knowledge (Wilkinson, 1998a), as Illustrative Research Example 5.1 shows. They can provide an open, supportive environment in which participants talk in-depth on often quite sensitive issues (Wilkinson, 1998c) and the interaction between participants can result in elaborated and detailed accounts (Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998c). Because FGs mimic ‘real life’, with people talking to each other rather than to a researcher, they encourage the use of participants’ real vocabularies and ways of talking about the topic (Kitzinger, 1994b; Wilkinson, 1998a) – participants might not feel the need to use the ‘correct’ terms. FGs are an excellent method if you want to elicit a wide range of views, perspec- tives, or understandings of an issue (Underhill & Olmsted, 2003; Wilkinson, 1998a). They can be a useful exploratory tool to start looking at under-researched areas, because they don’t require any prior empirical knowledge about the issue (Frith, 2000). They can also be good for accessing the views of underrepresented or marginalised social groups (Wilkinson, 1999), not least because speaking with others ‘like you’ may be less intimi- dating than speaking just to a researcher (see Liamputtong, 2007). 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 110 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 111 four boys/men, to increase the depth of discussion, aged either 8, 13, 16 (two groups) or between 19 and 25. Piloting had confirmed men/boys would be more comfortable talking with a female moderator, so all were moderated by a woman, who was otherwise matched with participants in terms of regional accent, social class and ethnicity. Data were audio- recorded, transcribed and analysed using ‘thematic decomposition’ (Stenner, 1993) to identify patterns across men’s accounts. Thematic decomposition combines discourse and thematic approaches; it identifies themes within a text, and interprets these within poststructuralist framework (Stenner, 1993), and resembles some forms of poststructuralist discourse analysis (see Chapter 8). Their results were both expected and surprising. Muscularity was prized, but only a limited muscularity (bodybuilding was universally described negatively), and linked to a ‘masculine’ domain – fitness. Being ‘overweight’ was framed negatively, as the responsibility/fault of the individual (a lack of control), and as something (therefore) to legitimately tease (fat) people about. Exercise was framed as a domain for avoiding ‘getting fat’, but the participants’ accounts were complex and contradictory around it: they could ‘be bothered’ to exercise to avoid getting fat, but would not put in effort to develop muscularity. The authors interpreted this finding as reflecting a tension between masculine (doing exercise for fitness) and feminine (caring about the appearance of the body) modes of engaging with the body. However, ‘self-esteem’ was related to the participants feeling good about their bodies. They summarised that the ‘men and boys presented complex stories where they described pressure to look lean and muscular but felt that trying to get closer to their ideal through exercise was too trivial to justify the time and effort involved’ (p. 230). The stories men told were complex, and not entirely predictable or consistent with what might have been anticipated from quantitative studies, showing the value of focus group methodology for gaining in-depth and unanticipated accounts. If you have some kind of social change or activist intent to your research, then FGs also offer a potentially useful method. Taking part in a group discussion about a topic can have a ‘consciousness-raising’ effect on individuals, and lead to some kind of indi- vidual (and perhaps ultimately social or political) change (Morgan, 1997; Wilkinson, 1999). Being part of research, in a group context, thus potentially results in a different consciousness among participants, and so research can become a tool to foster social change. FGs can also be experienced as empowering – with the sharing of views mean- ing that people can realise they’re not so isolated in their experience or perspective. For these reasons, among others, they have been noted as a particularly suitable method for conducting research with people from less privileged and more marginalised commu- nities (Liamputtong, 2007; Wilkinson, 1999); they have been employed within partici- patory action research frameworks, to produce change (e.g. Chiu, 2003; Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005). Self-moderated FGs can be particularly useful for generating socially undesirable responses, as the absence of the researcher decreases concerns about social desirabil- ity. For example, we can compare Victoria’s (Clarke, 2005) and British-based LGBTQ psychologist Sonja Ellis’s (2001) results from their researcher-moderated FGs with 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 111 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  112 Successfully collecting qualitative data British university students talking about lesbian and gay rights, with US communica- tion researchers Laura O’Hara and Marcy Meyer’s (2004) self-moderated FGs. Whereas Victoria’s and Sonja Ellis’s participants’ accounts were firmly underpinned by liberal discourse, O’Hara and Meyer’s participants often articulated more overtly anti-gay views. Although context of data production must be considered (the US vs. the UK), it is worth considering using self-moderated groups for topics where social desirability may be of concern. Depending on the nature of your research topic, it may also be appropri- ate to consider some sort of participant–moderator matching, such as getting a man to run FGs with men if you are a female researcher. Although you might imagine that sensitive topics – such as sex (Frith, 2000) or drug-addiction (Toner, 2009) – might not be suited to face-to-face FG research, because people would be uncomfortable talking about these things in a public forum, FGs can actually be good for collecting data on sensitive or personal topics, perhaps even bet- ter than methods like interviews (Frith, 2000; Kitzinger, 1994b; Liamputtong, 2007; Renzetti & Lee, 1993; Wellings et al., 2000). Some researchers have found them good for talking to children and young people about sensitive and personal topics (Fox, Morris, & Rumsey, 2007; Hoppe, Wells, Morrison, Gillmore, & Wilsdon, 1995). People can feel less uncomfortable discussing sensitive topics in a collective rather than indi- vidual context – though in larger studies, the opportunity to participate in either an FG or an individual interview may be appropriate (e.g. Braun & Kitzinger, 2001; Braun & Wilkinson, 2003, 2005). Topics generally don’t preclude the use of FGs, although in some cases they could – for instance, it would be hard to imagine that face-to-face FGs would be suitable for research about people’s experiences of shyness; individual interviews might be better (Morgan, 1997). Topics where there are likely to be strongly (emotive) conflicting views might not suit FGs in any form (Hughes & Lang, 2004), for very different rea- sons – they could just descend into a bitter argument that leaves everyone upset. It’s really important that you judge this latter possibility on the basis of topic and the con- text that your research is being conducted in. Take, for instance, the topic of abortion, which in some countries is not particularly controversial and in others, highly contro- versial. Say your research question was ‘What are late adolescents’ understandings of abortion?’ Without taking the context into account, the question appears well suited to the FG method. But in many places, participants may have strong pro- or anti- views, and be very invested in those views. Given that, it might be unwise to run a group on the topic unless you are an experienced researcher with a lot of FG experience and think through the issues very carefully. For topics where there are conflicting views one solution could be to organise your groups around a particular viewpoint, which would eliminate the likelihood of (high-level) conflict. However, FGs are not the ultimate method (see Table 5.1), and any method is only as ‘good’ as it is for the purpose and fit of the research project overall (see Tables 3.1–3.3 in Chapter 3). FGs are suitable to almost all types of qualitative research question, with the exception of representation and, generally, experience questions. FGs are not the best method if you want to elicit detailed personal narratives, due to the 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 112 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 113 collective nature of the discussion and the fact that individual narratives can get lost in the cut and thrust of dialogue between participants, or for researching sensitive topics when you are asking in detail about personal experiences rather than broader socio-cultural or personal meanings (Liamputtong, 2011). And for getting data from busy professionals, they might prove logistically challenging. In such cases, individual interviews are likely better. The key is to choose your data collection tools to get the information you want, for the question and topic, from the particular sample. Table 5.1 Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups Advantages Disadvantages Flexibility in exploring unanticipated issues Do not allow in depth follow-up of individuals’ Good for gathering new knowledge about issues views or experiences little is known about Can be difficult to manage Access to everyday ways of talking about topics Can easily get ‘off topic’ and be hard to bring (high ecological validity) back on topic Access to interaction and meaning-making Logistically difficult – difficult to recruit for and processes organise Can facilitate disclosure (even or especially Not a good method to use with busy people around sensitive topics) Not good for people who are geographically Can lead to some level of empowerment of dispersed participants, or social change More inconvenient for participants if they have Reduce the power and control of the researcher, to travel to you, at a particular time data potentially less influenced by the Focus groups are generally longer than interviews moderator so more time consuming for participants Good for groups for whom research May need an assistant to manage practical participation might be daunting matters Transcription of FG data is very time-consuming ISSUES TO THINK ABOUT IN RELATION TO PARTICIPANTS Because of their collective nature, the composition of FGs – who is, and who is not, part of any particular group – is a really important issue. However, how much composition matters also depends in part on the topic and the context (consider the abortion example, above), so these sorts of choices should not be made in isolation. Two key dimensions to consider in relation to participants are how similar they are, and whether they know each other. In each case, there’s no right or wrong position; you just need to explain what you did, and why. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 113 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  114 Successfully collecting qualitative data HETEROGENEITY OR HOMOGENEITY? Should participants in the groups be different or similar? Some people argue that het- erogeneity is good; it brings different views, and produces a more diverse discussion. Others argue that homogeneity is good, as it creates an easy or familiar social environ- ment, meaning participants feel comfortable and start from a similar place (Liamputtong, 2011). Mostly, homogeneity seems to be favoured as providing a shared basis for discus- sion (Liamputtong, 2011), but the obvious question is how similar and in what ways? We all carry multiple, and intersecting, personal, social and political identities, which hold salience for us at different times. For instance, on the surface, Virginia and Victoria appear very similar: we’re both white, middle class, non-religious, highly educated women, who grew up as only children in the 1970s and 1980s and are currently academics in psychol- ogy departments. We also both have tattoos and share a fondness for cinema and good food. But we also differ, and some of these differences are not insignificant: Virginia is a Pākehā New Zealander who identifies as straight, has a conventionally acceptable body size, grew up very poor (yet ‘middle class’) in a non-conventional setting, was raised by just her mother, and, despite being rather accident prone, is not currently disabled. Victoria, in contrast, is English, identifies as non-heterosexual, comes from an intact heterosexual nuclear family and had a conventional upbringing that became increasingly middle class as she got older, but does not have a conventionally ‘acceptable’ body size, and is currently legally regarded as disabled by virtue of a chronic illness (see also Boxes 1.3 and 1.4 in Chapter 1). Furthermore, although we both identify as non-religious, Victoria’s position is more active; she is a member of the campaigning organisation the British Humanist Association. So even apparent similarities can mask quite different prac- tices and experiences. Even if your sample is students – a sample group often critiqued for their particularity and homogeneity (Henrich et al., 2010) – you shouldn’t assume homogeneity, as noted above in relation to our FG sample. One recommendation is that similarity be determined in relation to the topic of the research: if you wanted to explore the social problem of binge drinking, groups of (school- leaver) students of the same gender and social class background would be a homogeneity strategy; groups that are mixed in terms of gender, social class, age and occupation would be a heterogeneity strategy. Ultimately, which strategy you use depends on the specifics of the research itself (Morgan, 1997). But you need enough diversity in any group to ensure an interesting discussion (Barbour, 2005); you don’t want the participants to just keep saying ‘yeah’ and ‘I agree’. FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES OR STRANGERS? FGs can consist of friends, acquaintances or strangers. Being part of the same social net- work (e.g. as friends, as members of a support group, as work colleagues) can inhibit dis- closure and open discussion, especially if people feel more vulnerable (e.g. Leask, Hawe, & Chapman, 2001). Confidentiality can also be more of a concern if participants are part of our networks (see Box 5.2 later in this chapter). With strangers, there’s the comfort that you’ll probably never see them again (Liamputtong, 2011). However, being with people 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 114 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 115 you know can also create an easier context in which to discuss the issues. In our experi- ence, FGs work best when made up of either friends or strangers. With acquaintances, there seems to be some uncertainty that inhibits free discussion and deep disclosure. But again, topic and research question (and indeed pragmatics around recruiting) might be a determining factor; some participants may not talk about some topics with strangers (or with friends) (Liamputtong, 2011). In our FG, the participants were potentially known to each other (studying the same degree), and this appeared not to inhibit disclosure. There are two additional advantages to friendship groups: a) their history – when someone is expressing a particular point of view, those who know that person can chal- lenge what they say, or elaborate on an account based on what they know (Kitzinger, 1994b), which can lead to really rich and complex data (Liamputtong, 2011); b) ready- made interactional familiarity – this means that FGs potentially run more ideally, with participants talking among themselves, discussing and (dis)agreeing with each other, rather than just responding to the moderator. However, both come with a downside – familiarity can mean much is left unstated, because of histories of shared knowledge and interactional patterns. Furthermore, we don’t always share everything with friends, and group norms can suppress dissenting views among friends (Leask et al., 2001). Therefore, within the context of stranger groups, people might feel free to express a range of perspectives (Bloor, Frankhand, Thomas, & Robson, 2001). There are no hard-and-fast rules. Ultimately, it’s a question of weighing these things up alongside your topic and pragmatic considerations (e.g. recruitment). SAMPLE SIZE When thinking about sample size, it’s important to realise that the ‘unit’ of data collec- tion is the FG, not the participant: if you run five FGs each with five participants, you’ve collected five units of data; if you’d done individual interviews with 25 participants, you’d have 25 units of data. FGs aren’t a quick and dirty route to gaining a large sample (Liamputtong, 2011). But you do generally collect a smaller number of data units with FG research than with interviews. One concept for determining when you cease data collection is saturation – the point where your data collection does not generate anything (substantially) new and the range of perspectives appears to have been completely covered (see Chapter 3) (Morgan, 1997). Other pragmatic concerns may (also) determine sample size, as will your research topic, questions and aims (see Bloor et al., 2001) – for example, if you want to compare dif- ferent groups of participants (e.g. women/men; young/old), you’ll need more groups (Liamputtong, 2011) – the diversity of the sample (more diverse, more groups), and the size of the individual groups (generally, smaller groups, more groups). See Tables 3.1–3.3 in Chapter 3 for further guidance. Recommendations for FG size vary (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Liamputtong, 2011; Morgan, 1997); in our experience, we’ve found smaller groups (three–eight partici- pants) work best in terms of generating a rich discussion, and are easier to manage. With smaller groups, however, there’s a risk that you’ll get less diverse viewpoints expressed, or if participants are not engaged, the conversation may stutter (Morgan, 1997). Larger 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 115 28/02/2013 7:36:11 PM  116 Successfully collecting qualitative data groups can be much harder to manage, and it’s not unusual to have at least one person silent throughout most of the group. Smaller group sizes can be better for more sensitive topics, where there is more risk of distress or intense responses (Smith, 1995b). ETHICAL ISSUES IN FOCUS GROUP RESEARCH Ethics is imperative in any research, and consent needs to be obtained before an FG begins (see Chapters 3 and 4). But certain ethical issues have particular resonances with FG research: 1) withdrawal during data collection; 2) withdrawal after data col- lection; and 3) confidentiality. 1 A participant changing their mind and deciding to leave during a group is possible, and is their right – before you worry unnecessarily, it’s never happened to us. If it does happen, we advise temporarily stopping the group, taking the participant to somewhere private, and checking they’re are okay. If they are visibly upset (dis- cussed later), you will need to follow the protocol laid out in your ethics proposal. We suggest telling them that you’ll be in touch with them again, after the group; they may wish to meet with you directly after the group. 2 In this instance, they may wish to also withdraw their data. The withdrawal of FG data is a complex but rarely discussed issue. Some ethics committees say it isn’t pos- sible, because of the interactive/interdependent nature of the data. If you do offer it, consistent with psychology ethics codes (e.g. The Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society, 2009), no solution is satisfactory. The most likely possibility is that you simply ‘lose’ the whole group; another is that you try to avoid this by removing any of their substantive contributions (e.g. anything beyond a ‘mm’ or laughter) – but this requires identification with absolute certainty, and may not be satisfactory to the participant; if they contributed a lot, it also destroys much of the interactive nature, discussed above, potentially ruining the data. So withdrawal requires thought, and must be specified on the participant information sheet (see Chapter 3). 3 In FGs, there is an added ethical ‘risk’ around confidentiality and disclosure: oth- ers in the group may potentially break it (see Box 5.2) (Liamputtong, 2011; Smith, 1995b). It is imperative that you highlight that everyone needs to maintain confi- dentiality (Wilkinson, 1998a), before and after the group. We also feel it’s important to explicitly have this in the consent form, so that participants ‘sign up’ to maintain confidentiality as a consent ‘contract’. What does maintaining confidentiality actu- ally mean in practice? Does it mean that they can’t say anything about the group? No. It’s okay to talk very generally about the topic of the group. What isn’t okay is identifying individuals in any way, such as talking (to others) about who took part in the group, or attributing specific comments or behaviours to specific individuals (such as telling a mutual acquaintance: ‘Did you know Mark has anorexia? I was in a focus group with him and other day, and he said...’). It’s useful to explain these parameters to participants. If something comes up in an FG that a participant really feels the need to discuss, the moderator (or researcher, if different) is the person to speak to. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 116 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 117 BOX 5.2 A BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY How often confidentiality is breached is unknown, but breaches of confidentiality can have serious implications for other participants. When we were doctoral students, we found out that a participant (A), who had taken part in one of our FGs made up of undergraduate students, had subsequently ‘outed’ another participant (B) as gay to the rest of their class – a clear breach of confidentiality. The breach of confidentiality was compounded by the fact participant B was not out to their classmates, but had come out during the FG. This outing and breach of confidentiality was only inadvertently discovered in a chance interaction with participant B, who had been upset by it (because participant B felt the outing was motivated by anti-gay feeling), but did not want us to follow it up in any formal manner (partly because participant B felt this would make the situation worse). PREPARING FOR FOCUS GROUPS The main drawback of the FG method is logistical. FGs are very time-consuming to plan, and run. But don’t let that put you off – they’re a fantastic method of data collection, but preparation is essential (Wilkinson, 2004). TIMEFRAMES FOR FOCUS GROUPS A basic ground-rule for FG research is that everything will take longer than you think. For running a FG, you need to allow lots of time. Participants need to be told how much time they’re expected to give, and to allow at least half an hour more than the maximum time you think you’ll need. Why? Because inevitably someone’s late, so the group starts later than anticipated, and they can easily go over time, too. You don’t want your participants to have to leave early. If your group was scheduled for 1 p.m., to take 1.5 hours, you don’t want a participant to have made another appointment at 2.30, as they may have to rush off before the group finishes. This also allows time at the end of the group for discussion, which can be important if the dynamics or topic have been difficult. DESIGNING A GUIDE; SELECTING STIMULUS MATERIALS One of the first things you’ll do in preparing for the FG is carefully design the ques- tion guide. The FG guide has been described as a ‘map to chart the course’ (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996: 41) of the FG. In many ways it is similar to an interview guide: it covers the range of issues that you want the participants to discuss, and the questions should be clear, succinct, precise and only ask about one issue (see guidelines in Chapter 4 for developing questions). However, in contrast to an interview guide, the questions in an FG guide act as prompts to elicit general discussion: you want questions which will stimulate participants to respond and to agree and disagree with each other, rather than just answering the moderator. Questions which ‘open out’ the conversation 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 117 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  118 Successfully collecting qualitative data MATERIAL EXAMPLE 5.1 Weight and obesity focus group guide Set up by saying we’re seeking their thoughts and opinions; that nothing is right or wrong, that they are welcome, but aren’t required, to talk about personal experi- ences. Some of the questions will be about real issues, and some will be speculative. Start by asking everyone to introduce themselves and briefly say what the last thing they ate was (you set a ‘light-hearted’ tone by going first). These questions are broad, and aim to access the mean- ings most commonly avail- Starting questions able – the general discourse on the topic. What’s the first thing that comes to mind when I say the word ‘weight’? What’s the first thing you think about when I say the word ‘obesity’? Questions in parentheses are clarificatory and/or could Who counts as obese? (How fat do people need to be for you to work as probes. think they’re obese?) Questions are organised into ‘themes’ that cover the range of issues we want to discuss. Obesity and weight (individuals) Each theme addresses a particular issue. Why do you think people get fat or obese? Questions like this are very open questions, Questions listed {{ Lack of exercise? that should stimulate a diverse discussion among participants, but they also target a under the main question (either as {{ Eating? (healthy/unhealthy? junk food? Quantity?) particular form of ‘knowledge’ – we wanted inset bullet points ideas or attributions about ‘causation’. or in parentheses) {{ Compulsive (over)eating? act as prompts for discussion. They {{ Modern lifestyles (sedentary lifestyles, driving, television, convenience foods [ready would only be used meals]) if they weren’t first raised by the {{ Advertising of junk foods? participants, or if participants didn’t {{ Genetics (a ‘fat gene’)? say anything in response to the {{ Lack of will power? question. Some people get fat (obese), while others do not – why do you think that is? {{ Genetics (a ‘fat gene’)? Do you think willpower is a useful idea for thinking about weight and obesity? (get them to discuss) Do you think people can be ‘fat and fit’? (get them to discuss) What do you think/feel when you see an obese person? Weight and society Do you think it’s acceptable to be obese in society? (why/why not?) {{ How about fat? What about just ‘chubby’? {{ Does this vary by age? (Class? Race?) What media messages have you encountered about people’s weight? {{ Do you think the media depict fat/obese people in a negative way? If yes, how do you feel about these depictions? In the original guide, this question was worded: “How do you think the media depict fat/obese people? (What do you think about such depic- tions?)”. However, piloting showed that it didn’t work, and we changed it to this. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 118 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 119 The obesity epidemic Do you think we’re having an obesity epidemic? (If not, why not? Moral panic by the media?) Why do you think are we having an obesity epidemic? As you will see, many of Beyond the obesity epidemic the main questions are very general, and seek views and perspectives, and should What do you think could be done to resolve an obesity epidemic? stimulate discussion among {{ Banning junk food? participants. {{ Food industry standards for food content? {{ Having a ‘fat tax’ (taxing high fat and sugar foods more than healthy foods)? {{ Banning advertising of junk and convenience food? {{ More government healthy-eating campaigns (e.g. 5 a day)? {{ More government exercise campaigns (to get people exercising at least 5 × a week)? {{ Teaching children how to cook? {{ More physical education in schools? {{ Incentives for active commuters (e.g. walking, biking etc.)? {{ Safe walking to school schemes for kids? {{ Gastric band surgeries for individuals to help them lose weight? What levels of intervention do you think would be necessary to resolve an obesity epi- demic? (Government? Local Government? Industry? Individuals?) Weight and responsibility Do you think obese people are more of a ‘burden’ on society than thinner people? {{ In what ways? Why/how is it a problem? {{ If so, what could be done? What do you think about the idea that fat/obese people should be held responsi- ble for their weight? {{ Should they have to pay more tax (because they are more of a burden on health care systems)? {{ Should they be required to pay more for things like seats in airplanes, trains, etc. – if they need more than one seat or a wider seat? Do you think society should be held responsible for individuals’ weight? If so, what On the original could society do? guide, this was {{ Should advertising of high sugar/high fat foods be banned? worded “What other things {{ Should tax payers pay for surgery and weight loss programmes for obese individu- might society be required als (e.g., gastric bands on the NHS, Weight Watchers and exercise programmes to do?”: In prescribed [paid for] by GPs)? the pilot, it didn’t work as {{ Do you have any other ideas for societal-level interventions? a question, so we changed it to this. Closing Do you have any other thoughts or views you’d like to share? Can you tell me why you decided to participate in this focus group? What has it felt like to participate in a focus group? Is it what you expected? (If not, what did you expect?) The first closing question is designed to allow for anything relevant that hasn’t been covered to be addressed. Sometimes really important data appear at this point. The second and third questions bring the session back to the participants; they also provide the researcher with information about possible ‘perspec- tives’ on the topic that may inform analysis, and provide a back-up check that the group has been ‘ok’ for the participants. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 119 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  120 Successfully collecting qualitative data are good ones (more specific questions work best as probes at particular points). For example, in our body art focus group guide, we had questions like ‘Why do people get tattoos/piercings?’ and ‘Is it possible to have too many tattoos/piercings?’, with probes like ‘Is this different for men and women?’ (see the companion website for the body art FG guide). Material Example 5.1 shows our weight and obesity FG guide (it includes instruc- tions about opening the session). We have annotated it to highlight some of our considerations and decisions as we designed and piloted it. Piloting is not always within the scope of a small project, but, depending on your topic, it may be appropriate for you to do what we did and try out the schedule more informally with a group of friends to ensure it ‘works’ and you get the data you need. At the very least, you should review the guide after conducting your first group. Ensuring that you know the guide really well is always important; it also frees to you manage group dynamics more fully (discussed below). FGs often use some kind of stimulus material, such as exercises (Colucci, 2007; Kitzinger, 1994b), vignettes (Bailey, 2008), or print images or film clips (e.g. YouTube) for participants to reflect on (e.g. Finlay, 2001; Speer, 2002b), either as ‘icebreakers’ or to structure and stimulate the conversation. Stimulus materials and activities can be a great way to engage participants and foster discussion, generating rich data and making the FG experience particularly enjoyable for participants (Colucci, 2007). If using stimulus materials, it’s important to consider why you are picking a particular stimulus. Do you want participants to discuss that particular instance, or talk more generally from it? If appropriate, try out the materials on friends to check that they work in the way that you want them to. Moreover, if you are using anything audio- visual, you need to check that it works, in the place you are going to use it, directly before each group. RECRUITING FOR AND ORGANISING FOCUS GROUPS Recruiting for and organising FGs can be some of the most time-consuming aspects of FG research. Recruitment is a challenge because it involves getting numerous individu- als together in one place. It is vital to start recruiting as early as you can; for instance, as soon as you get ethical approval. Depending on what collection of participants you want (e.g. friends, strangers), recruitment will pose different challenges (see Box 5.3). If recruiting strangers, you need to recruit every member of each group. If you’re recruit- ing groups of friends, you’ll quite likely just need to recruit one member of each group – they recruit the rest. This isn’t necessarily as painless as it sounds, but it can be a rela- tively easy way of accessing friendship groups. See Chapter 3 for further information on recruitment. Choosing a location is an important aspect of planning an FG – you should balance your needs (safety and quiet) with those of the participants (ease of access and com- fort); see Chapter 4 for advice. Just as with interviews, providing (quiet) refreshments is important in focus groups, as sharing food can facilitate communication (Krueger & Casey, 2009) and put people at ease. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 120 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 121 BOX 5.3 STRATEGIES TO AID FOCUS GROUP ORGANISATION When recruiting for FGs, certain strategies (sometimes combined) can ease group organisation: If you are organising groups around some participant feature (e.g. age, sex) make sure you ‘screen’ for this information at the point of signing people up because participants don’t always take note of such information in advertisements and information sheets. When organising times, consider your participant group and try to think about times that might suit that group (e.g. if undergraduate students, when are they likely not to have classes? For stay-at-home parents, what times of the day – or weekend – might work best?). Have a range of pre-determined times that you will run groups (plus another ‘free’ category). As people volunteer to participate, sign them up for the session ‘on the spot’. If they can’t do any, put them into the free listing, and arrange them into a group later. If recruiting for more than a couple of groups, have fewer group times on offer than the number of groups you anticipate – for instance, if you think you’ll run six groups, start with four time slots, try to fill those, and then add additional ones as needed. If you have more times than groups, you may end up with lots of half-full groups, and virtually no full groups, which means a whole lot of reorganisation. Another option is to have a list of potential times, and note down for each participant you recruit when they would not be available, and then organise once recruiting is done. This only really works if you recruit very quickly; otherwise people’s schedules fill up, and you’re back to square one. Free online meeting-arranging software (e.g. Doodle.com) can be used to set up potential times, and then you get participants to indicate availability. While an excellent tool, it requires confidence that all participants will respond, and quickly. It’s often easier to organise groups with people you know or with pre-existing friendship groups (your contact participant may be able to organise a suitable time with the rest of the group). Always ensure you confirm with participants when their groups is, and remind them of the upcoming group the day before (this is especially important if the groups have been set up well in advance). One confirmation and one reminder should suffice. These can be done via text, email, social media or telephone, depending on their and your preferred mode of communication. CONDUCTING FOCUS GROUPS Okay, so the participants are about to arrive... The arrival of participants is not without a few anxious moments (see Box 5.4). As they arrive, offer refreshments, and engage in small-talk. If they are to wear name-tags, give them these. Tell them 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 121 28/02/2013 7:36:12 PM  122 Successfully collecting qualitative data MATERIAL EXAMPLE 5.2 Participant Information Sheet NB: This PIS is the one we used recruiting for the focus group for this book. A PIS outlines to potential participants the practical and ethical aspects of the research, and is designed to give them all the necessary information to make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to take part. It is usually given to participants who indicate interest, before they ‘sign up’ for a study. We use a ‘question/answer’ style because it highlights different elements of participation, and gives a very clear structure to the PIS – this format is preferred in both our institutions. But different ethics committees/codes require slightly different details in the PIS, so you need to make sure yours is accurate for your institution and country. The PIS would typically be required to be on institutional letterhead, too. Information on Participant Information Sheet – Focus Group on Weight & Obesity who the research- ers are, and what the purpose of Who are the researchers and what is the purpose of the research? the project is, should appear right at the start We are Dr Victoria Clarke (a lecturer in social psychology at UWE) and Dr Virginia Braun (a lecturer in of the PIS. psychology at Auckland University, New Zealand). We are collecting data for a textbook that we are In some PISs, you writing on qualitative research in psychology for the publisher Sage (the book will be published in 2011). might want a more detailed – and The data will be used for the analytic examples we provide in the book and a long anonymised separate – section extract will be reproduced in the book. A psychology postgraduate student (William Hanson) will on how the data will be used. moderate the focus group – we want the data we analyse in the book to replicate as closely as possible the typical student project (i.e. data collected by a student with students as participants). This section outlines how data will be col- What type of data are being collected? lected and some practicalities of We are collecting data using a focus group discussion. A focus group is simply a group discussion taking part. ‘focused’ on a particular topic or theme – in this instance, weight and obesity. One of the purposes of focus groups is to closely replicate how we express views and form opinions in real life. This means that you will be expected to talk to each other, as well as to the moderator, and to indicate when you agree and disagree with each other. We are interested in your views and opinions on the topic of weight and obesity, and we’d like the focus group to be a lively discussion; there are no right Further details or wrong answers to the questions you will be asked to discuss! about participation are set out in this What will participation in the focus group involve? section, including outlining the scope of the research This particular focus group will involve around six participants and one moderator, and will be question. audio-recorded. It should last around an hour and a half, but please allow for the group to last for up to two hours. In the group, you will be asked to talk about issues relating to weight and obesity, and to the much discussed ‘obesity epidemic’ (such as possible solutions to the epi- demic). The questions will relate to your perspectives and views on these topics, rather than to your own individual practices related to weight or body management. However, you are more than wel- This sort of infor- mation may not It’s not always come to draw on personal experiences in the group, if you wish. be specified in wise to give out advance. However, personal num- When is the focus group scheduled for? you should let peo- ple know how the bers (for safety reasons), so you FGs will be set up may wish to leave One of difficulties of organising focus groups is getting a group of people together in the same and when they are likely to happen. out the telephone place at the same time! The group is provisionally scheduled for 25 February, 2.30pm. number, if you do not have an office Given the difficulties of getting people together, please contact Victoria via email (victoria. one. We recom- [email protected]) or phone (0123 4567 890) if you can’t attend the group for any reason (we mend never giving out home tele­ will have a list of reserve participants and we will ask one of them to step into your place). phone numbers. Please also be prompt (and let us know if you are delayed)! 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 122 28/02/2013 7:36:13 PM  This sets everything out so the participants know what to Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 123 expect. Note that in various places, the opportunity to ask questions is emphasised. What will happen on the day? Once everyone has arrived, the focus group moderator will give everyone a name badge (to help them remember your names, and in case you don’t know the other participants) and ask you to read and sign the consent form. You will be given a copy of the consent form signed by the moderator. You will also be asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire. The mod- erator will discuss what is going to happen in the group and you will be given an opportunity to ask any questions that you might have. Refreshments (soft-drinks and quiet snacks!) will be provided. The moderator will then ask everyone to agree on some ground rules for the group (e.g., avoiding speaking over other people, being considerate of other people’s feelings). Once everyone is happy for the group to begin, the moderator will switch on the recording devices and ask the first question. You will be given another opportunity to ask questions at the end of the group. Focus group moderators often have an assistant who observes and takes notes during the focus group but doesn’t participate in any way. The assistant’s notes help the transcriber to It’s a good idea This is an unusu- ally big ‘thank you’ distinguish between all the different voices (this can be a rather tricky task!) and produce a more to specify the benefits of taking gift for participa- accurate transcript. On the day, Victoria or another postgraduate psychology student may take part, which poten- tion. The scale recognises the the role of observer. They will sit quietly in the room (or in an adjoining observation room) and tial participants might not neces- participants’ ‘gift’ observe and take notes during the focus group. sarily appreciate. in allowing the data to be publicly For student used in this book. What are the benefits of taking part? participants, It also potentially learning about the assisted recruit- You will get the opportunity to participate in a research project and experience the research process research process is a benefit. ment in a context from ‘the inside’. We think that participating in research is one of the most valuable ways to learn about where students mostly participate research (between us, we have participated in more than a dozen different research projects), and it can for course credit help us to be better researchers because we have a genuine sense of what it feels like to be a research - as you can see, we did ‘advertise’ participant. You will also get the opportunity to participate in a (hopefully) lively and interesting discus- this. However, par- sion on weight and obesity, and to share and develop your views on an important social issue. As a thank ticipants indicated Specifying the reasons other you for participating in the group, the publisher Sage will give each participant a £50 book voucher to risks – actual and than this as the potential – is a key main reason they spend on Sage books or journals (see www.sagepub.co.uk). ethical requirement took part: interest, in the PIS. relevance of topic, Are there any risks involved? We recommend wanting to learn always including about the focus There are no particular risks involved in this project, and there is also no deception. The general information on group method. relevant support ‘risks’ of participating in focus groups centre on the potential to become upset by a particular ques- services, should tion or topic (e.g., if a question reminds you of a distressing personal experience), or by another participants become upset during or after participant’s comments or behaviour. If you feel distressed as a result of participating in the focus the data collection. This section in this group, the UWE Counselling and Psychological Service provides support to people studying at UWE. As they retain the PIS is relatively PIS, such informa- (We provided web, telephone, email and physical contact details here.) tion is on hand if brief. You typically would include needed. information about Will I be identifiable? the possible limits that would affect No. The focus group will be transcribed by a professional transcriber, and Victoria and Virginia confidentiality will make sure the transcript is anonymised so that any personally identifying information has or anonymity, and also more been changed or removed. detail about Right to withdraw is a key ethical requirement. how you would anonymise data – Can I withdraw from the research? In some research you might want to specify a time-frame (e.g., one month after data col- and any possible lection is one we commonly use), as there are limitations (e.g., Once you have agreed to be part of the research, you can still withdraw. practical considerations – for instance, if you if participants are If you wish to withdraw, please email Victoria as soon as you can. have already published your analyses, it is members of a impossible to then withdraw. Key is to be spe- very small com- munity, others in If you have any questions, please contact: cific and clear about this. that might suspect they recognise Dr Victoria Clarke, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Frenchay them). Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY. Email: [email protected]. Most PIS sheets (and other document like This research has been approved by the School of Life Sciences Ethics Committee. consent forms) will need a statement of ethical approval like this. Requirements vary (e.g., if you need to include date, approval number, etc) so check. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 123 28/02/2013 7:36:13 PM  124 Successfully collecting qualitative data where the bathrooms are; check if they wish to go before the group. Allow them to choose a place to sit (unless you are deliberately placing people; see Krueger & Casey, 2009); once seated, give them the PIS to read again (see Material Example 5.2). Introduce participants to each other as they arrive. A moderator’s assistant can offer excellent support through getting participants settled and distributing and collecting documentation before the group. They are also helpful for managing the recording equipment and taking notes/observing during the group; later they can be useful for checking the FG transcript or identifying speakers. It’s worth considering an assistant, especially for larger groups (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Liamputtong, 2011); the use of an assistant needs to be included in your ethics application. BOX 5.4 ANXIOUS MOMENTS BEFORE THE FOCUS GROUP Despite doing everything you can, sometimes people just don’t show up, or get ill at the last minute, and you’re left with only a few participants ready and willing to discuss your topic. This is one of the reasons some (e.g. Morgan, 1997) advise over-recruiting. But if people just don’t show, you have to make a decision on whether to proceed with a small group (or an individual interview, if there is only one participant). The most important thing is that you have anticipated this so that you can make a methodologically sound (rather than panicked) decision, and not waste the time of those who did show up. How crucial is it to your methodology and topic that you have a certain number of participants taking part in an FG? Small groups can generate rich data and have many of the key characteristics of FGs (Toner, 2009). If a larger group is essential (e.g. because you want to explore the negotiation of collective meaning making around a topic), you need to have considered what you will offer those who did show (a thank you, a reschedule, any compensation?), and how you will reschedule, if relevant.    A second dilemma occurs when starting an FG that should be made up of strangers, but two or more of the participants discover that they know each other to some degree. This may or may not be a problem (e.g. see Farnsworth & Boon, 2010), but when doing your recruitment, you need to be clear that participants may end up in a group where they may know someone else, coincidentally, and that they can usually change to a different group, or withdraw, if this is a problem. Forewarning them both prepares them for the possibility, and allows them to legitimately change groups (or withdraw) at that point, should they want to. In such an event, discuss the matter privately with each participant before going ahead with the group. Once everyone is ready, it’s time to start the group. After generally welcoming peo- ple, you want to make sure you explain carefully what will happen, gain consent (see Material Example 5.3), collect demographic information (see Material Example 5.4) and set up ground-rules for the group (see Material Example 5.2). This should all hap- pen before the recording equipment is turned on. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 124 28/02/2013 7:36:13 PM  Interactive data collection 2: focus groups 125 MATERIAL EXAMPLE 5.3 Research consent form NB: this consent form was the one we used for the focus group on weight and obesity for this book, so it has some elements specifically related to that. This is the typical level of detail needed in the UK. Compare it to the New Zealand example on the companion website, which is more specific. Always check the specific requirements of your local/ institutional ethics codes and develop your consent form accordingly. It would typically be required to be on institutional letterhead. Participant Consent Form – Focus Group on Weight & Obesity I give my consent to participate in the focus group on weight and obesity. I understand that I am participating in the group on a voluntary basis and I am free to decline to answer any question or to leave the focus group at any time, without giving a reason. I also understand that I can withdraw from the research at any time before (insert data one month after date of focus group), without giving a reason. I understand that all information provided is anonymous and confidential and that I cannot discuss the things that other participants say in the group with other people outside of the group. Different ethics bodies view retrospective I understand that the focus group will be audio-recorded and withdrawal differently, so check your local requirements. We recommend a transcribed by a professional transcriber. Only the researchers date of one month after data collection. (Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun) and the transcriber will hear This gives participants time to reflect and change their mind, but it also does not the audio-recording of the focus group in full. mean you need to delay your analysis too long, for fear of participant withdrawal of data. I understand that the focus group will be reproduced and analysed in In our experience, no participant has Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Practical Guide (working title) ever retrospectively withdrawn any data, and we research some of the most sensi- by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (Sage). Extracts from the focus tive topics possible. group may be quoted in other publications and presentations. Name: …………………………………………………… Signature: ………………………………………………. Date: ……………………………………………………. In some places like the UK, the researcher may be expected to sign a consent form. As best practice, you may also need or want to give a signed copy of the consent form to Signature of researcher:…………………………………………………… the participant. If you have any questions about this research, please contact: Dr Victoria Clarke, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY. Email: [email protected]. This research has been approved by the School of Life Sciences Ethics Committee. 05-Braun & Clarke_Ch-05.indd 125 28/02/2013 7:36:13 PM  126 Successfully collecting qualitative data Questions 1-8 are the very basic questions you should include to capture how your participants are positioned in relation to key social categories. You might also want to add additional questions related to your research topic (here, questions 9-12 are topic-specific ones). MATERIAL EXAMPLE 5.4 Participant demographic form – Focus Group Although the cat- on Weight & Obesity egories ‘male’ and ‘female’ are the most common, not every- one identifies as male In order to learn about the range of people taking part in this focus group, we’d be or female. The addi- tion of a third open very grateful if you could answer the following questions. All information provided category ‘Other’ can go a long way is anonymous and confidential. to avoiding gender- ism in research (see Please either write your answer in space provided, or circle the answer that best Chapter 3). applies to you. 1 How old are you? 2 I am: Male Female Other ______ 3 I am a: Full-time student Part-time student 4 Do you Yes, full-time Yes, part-time No work? 4a If you work, what is your occupation? 5 How would you describe your sexuality? Heterosexual These response options Bisexual combine the most com- mon categories, and include an option for