Qual Quant (2012) 46:1125–1136 DOI 10.1007/s11135-011-9600-4
The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages Ivana Acocella
Published online: 3 September 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract The focus group (FG) technique has been recently rediscovered by social scientists. It has become the subject of important methodological discussions and it is now considered a very innovative research method. However, such a widespread use of FG seems to have become a fashionable research technique. The impression is that FG is often adopted without any prior consideration of whether it really is the most suitable research technique for achieving the cognitive goals of the research. At the same time, it seems that the FG is often adopted only because it is considered an easy-to-organise and inexpensive technique. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the nature of the FG, analyse its advantages and disadvantages and identify the cognitive problems that it helps to face. In order to discuss these two points, I will focus on the two main characteristics that differentiate the FG from other techniques of information gathering in social research. Firstly, in FGs the informative source is a group. Secondly, the heuristic value of this technique lies in the kind of interaction that emerges during the debate. Several researchers have indicated these two aspects as the main characteristics of FG; but only few authors have translated these comments into serious epistemological and methodological knowledge, thus allowing the FG to give its best results. Keywords Focus group · Qualitative technique of information gathering · Moderator · Focus group discussion · Interaction
I. Acocella (B) Department of Educational Sciences, Cultural and Training Processes, University of Florence, Florence, Italy e-mail:
[email protected]
123
1126
I. Acocella
1 Why keep talking about the focus group? The focus group (FG) is a “non-standard”1 technique of information gathering, based on an apparently informal2 discussion among a group of people. The debate occurs in the presence of a moderator who leads the discussion according to the cognitive purposes outlined on the participants’ characteristics, and an observer, who observes non-verbal behaviours and collects non-verbal information emerging from the interaction and integrates verbal information rising from the conversation. The discussion focuses on a topic selected by the researcher, whose aim is to analyse it in detail. The FG technique has been recently rediscovered by social scientists. It has become the subject of important methodological discussions and it is now considered a very innovative research method. Many authors affirm that the FG is particularly suitable for pointing out unexpected aspects of a social phenomenon, as it concentrates more on the frames of reference of groups analysed, than on those of the researcher (Morgan and Spanish 1984). Some researchers use the FG to analyse little known phenomena, as this technique is considered capable of providing sufficiently detailed information in a short amount of time and at a low cost (Bertrand et al. 1992). Others affirm that the interaction among discussion participants helps them become more inclined to consider and reflect upon aspects of their daily life that are usually taken for granted (Morrison 1998, p. xiv). Therefore, there are many reasons why the FG has been reconsidered and it has been applied to several fields in recent years. However, such a widespread use of FG seems to have become a fashionable research technique. The impression is that FG is often adopted without any prior consideration of whether it really is the most suitable research technique for achieving the cognitive goals of the research. At the same time, it seems that the FG is often adopted only because it is considered an easy-to-organise and inexpensive technique (Stokes and Bergin 2006). On the contrary, only a sound methodological consideration in each research context can allow the FG to give its best results and to be adopted when really needed. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the nature of the FG, analyse its advantages and disadvantages and identify the cognitive problems that it helps to face. In order to discuss these two points, I will focus on the two main characteristics that differentiate the FG from other techniques of information gathering in social research. Firstly, in FGs the informative source is a group. Secondly, the heuristic value of this technique lies in the kind of interaction that emerges during the debate. Several researchers have indicated these two aspects as the main characteristics of FG; but only few authors have translated these comments into serious epistemological and methodological knowledge, thus allowing the FG to give its best results.
1 FG is defined as “non-standard technique” because it uses non standard information collection procedures
in so far as, from the moderator’s perspective, the text and the questions asked do not follow a pre set order. At the same time, from the point of view of the interviewee, there is no classification scheme for the possible answer alternatives. This technique privileges the “micro” problems, that is, idiographic and mostly bottomup orientations. Moreover, this is used to explore the existing range of opinions about a given topic (without knowing how these are distributed across the population). 2 The discussion is said “apparently informal” because during a FG discussion participants are free to express themselves in the same way they would do if they were talking to equals; at the same time, they speak about everyday questions. However, FG debate only partly resembles an ordinary discussion, as the discussion develops in a place chosen by the moderator and according to cognitive aims which are pre-established by the researcher and not spontaneously formed in the group; the group itself is very often formed ad hoc for the researcher’s purposes.
123
The focus groups in social research
1127
2 The group as a source of information FG groups are not naturally constituted, insofar as they are created ad hoc by the research group according to the cognitive goals of the research. FG groups are constituted so as to achieve two main aims: firstly, to facilitate interaction among participants; secondly, to maximise the collection of high quality information in the little time available. First, in order to facilitate interaction, it is recommended that moderators create a comfortable environment, where participants can feel free to express their opinions. It is also advisable that the discussion takes place among people who share similar interests and who feel equal to each other, even though this does not mean that they should have the same opinion on the topics discussed. This is why it is recommended to create a homogenous group and to avoid any situations that may cause inhibition and discourage conversation (Marbach 1982, p. 246). Moreover, if participants feel equal, they will get to know each other more quickly, and this will help them express their thoughts more spontaneously. According to the principle of “homogeneity”, it is very important that the FG does not include participants with too distant cultural levels, social status and hierarchical positions in order to avoid inhibition or situations where some participants are ashamed to talk in front of people to whom they feel distant in terms of life experience, representations of the world, and so on (Greenbaum 1988). In these cases, it can happen that more educated participants or those with senior positions intervene in the discussion before the others, while those less educated or in subordinate positions simply conform, owing to the perceived expertise or dominant status of the former. At the same time, it is important to avoid excessively homogeneous groups in order to encourage the collection of different points of view (Krueger 1994, p. 71). A certain level of heterogeneity can facilitate the collection of a wider range of opinions and perspectives— sometimes even opposed to each other—on the topic selected and enrich the results of the research (Hisrich and Peters 1982, p. 12). Likewise, it is important to avoid excessively heterogeneous groups, as they may generate discussions that are hard to manage. Creating FGs involving participants with widely differing perspectives can cause inhibitions and unpleasant situations for the members of the group and a level of conflict that may prevent the debate from developing (Bloor et al. 2001, p. 36). Therefore, it seems that the most suitable option is to reach a balance between homogeneity and heterogeneity in relation to most important participants’ characteristics according to the research topic. Homogeneity in relation to some characteristics of participants that will prevent inhibition (by developing, for instance, equal relations among the members of the group, or relations that are at least perceived as equal); heterogeneity in relation to some other characteristics of participants that will promote a certain level of dynamism in the discussion. Second, in order to guarantee the collection of detailed and relevant information regarding the research topic, it is important that the people involved are interested in the topic and that they are able to discuss it thoroughly in the little time available. A way to favour these conditions is to invite to the discussion people who have a direct experience of the topic, “experts” and privileged witnesses whose point of view emerges from their familiarity with that phenomenon and from an everyday relationship with it (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, p. 53; Cote-Arsenault and Morrison 1999, p. 281). This also motivates people to take part in the discussion and to interact with each other to discuss the topic. If these conditions are not met, the intervention of the group members will not provide a relevant contribution to the research (Krueger 1994, p. 71).
123
1128
I. Acocella
Non-expert participants will only be invited if the purpose of the FG discussion is to collect the stereotypes and common sense in relation to the topic analysed. The expression “common sense” indicates in this case a form of knowledge shared by any social group that develops from only indirect experience (Aronson et al. 1997). In order to make the communication among the group members more spontaneous and to avoid ambiguities that may emerge from different cognitive and evaluative perspectives, it is important that the members of the discussion group have similar experiences towards the topic discussed (Merton and Kendall 1946, p. 541). This condition will be more easily achieved if the people invited to the discussion share characteristics that can help to identify themselves as belonging to the same social group. This way, even if the discussion takes place among people who are meeting for the first time, they will feel that they have encountered similar situations due to the fact that, for example, they have experienced a similar professional or social context (Munday 2006). This will also favour the creation of a compact group and the perception, among its members, of being invited to the discussion as representatives of a specific social group, rather than as mere individuals. The group participating in a FG is similar to what Merton defines as “collectivity”: “a social structure composed of individuals who have shared common values and have therefore acquired a sense of solidarity and moral obligation to meet role expectations” (1957, p. 570). The moderator plays a primary role in the conversion of initial agglomerates into a group. He will underline the aspects that the participants have in common, and will help them discuss the topic properly. The moderator will also help them identify the perspective from which they are requested to look at the topic in that specific group discussion. In fact, each member of the group belongs to different social spheres, and the way a phenomenon is described will vary according to the point of view he or she adopts each time; a policeman who, for instance, is also a father, will conceptualise social security in different ways according to whether he looks at it from his professional (policeman) or private (father) perspective. By doing this, the moderator will also clarify the goal of the meeting and the reasons why exactly those people have been invited to the discussion. This will help the members identify the subject to which they will relate as a group and not as mere individuals. In the light of this, it is possible to understand the words of Krueger, one of the major experts of this technique. He affirms that one of the major goals of the FG is to reveal the “public self” (1994, p. 8), that is, the collective and public dimension of opinions. During FG discussions, the interaction among people that are considered “experts” of the phenomena, who share a common social background for they identify themselves as belonging to the same social group, can raise inter-subjective representations that reflect the images and beliefs of that social group configured into the FG (Acocella 2008). Of course, the interpretations given to a social phenomenon will change according to the group, even when that specific phenomenon is mostly shared by each of them, as these representations changes are connected to the different experiences that each group has had of that phenomenon (Jaspars and Fraser 1989, p. 133). In this respect, think of the different descriptions that a group of Social workers and Catholic philanthropic associations operators could give of the “social marginality” phenomenon. Both professional categories are in touch with social vulnerability on a daily basis, yet they come in touch with the same phenomenon for different reasons and in different ways. Therefore, they may develop different perspectives over the same phenomenon and attribute different meanings to the concept of “marginality”.
123
The focus groups in social research
1129
3 Encouraging interaction It is usually preferred to consider the FG as “group discussion” rather than “group interview”; indeed the term “interview” implies the act of asking questions—besides the revelation of personal and private opinions—by an interviewer and, at the same time, the act of providing an answer by the person interviewed (Krueger 1994). As opposed to this, also in the most structured3 and directive4 FGs, the moderator will propose a discussion topic and will wait for the answer to that topic to generate from the discussion group. This means that the “answer” will generate from the dynamics of opinions expressed in the discussion (e.g. contrarieties, contradictions, distinctions, specifications, examples, and so on). The importance of this aspect is also highlighted by Kitzinger and Barbour, according to whom FGs “are group discussions exploring a specific set of issues […]. Crucially, FGs are distinguished from the broader category of group interviews by the explicit use of group interaction to generate data. Instead of asking questions of each person in turn, FG researchers encourage participants to talk to one another: asking questions, exchanging anecdotes, and commenting on each others’ experiences and points of view. At the very least, research participants create an audience for one another” (2001, p. 4). Thus these authors underline how the informative source of this technique lies in the debate and interaction among the discussion participants. In a FG, two main kinds of interaction can be taken into account. The first interaction develops between the participants and the moderator. The participants–moderator interaction is usually asymmetrical, as the moderator proposes the topic to discuss and the participants reply to it. The second interaction is that among participants, that is—or should be—more equal, especially if the group has been put together according to criteria that aim at developing feelings of equality. It is important to stress that the moderator is primarily assigned a relational task, whose aim is to encourage both cohesion and confrontation of opinions within the group. This is due to the fact that the interaction among participants is more important than the interaction between moderator and participants, as the informative source of the FG lies in the former (Puchta 2005). This is also why the moderator must encourage a group discussion rather than a group interview. In order to encourage a collective debate, the moderator should follow a particular style. Firstly, he should launch a discussion topic and leave the participants free to interact, rather than asking questions to each participant (Frey and Fontana 1993, p. 27). Secondly, he should avoid asking questions aimed at collecting information about attitudes, motivations or individual experiences. None of this these kinds of questions would stimulate interaction among participants or affirm their perception of belonging to the same group. They would rather push each member to interact mostly with the moderator and to reflect upon the topic as individuals, reporting on their private experience and sacrificing precious time for collective debate. Questions should also highlight the fact that participants have been invited to the discussion group as members of an “expert” group rather than as individuals; their belonging to that specific group of “experts” is what makes them eligible for providing relevant information about the phenomenon investigated. Only by this kind of interaction can emerge inter-subjective
3 The “structuration level” is a property in the analysis scheme and indicates the level of detail in which the
discussion draft will analyse the topics selected. 4 The “directiveness level” indicates the level of freedom given to the moderator for conducting the discussion,
especially in relation to the analytical purposes of the research and how the group dynamics will be managed.
123
1130
I. Acocella
representations that will be the result of a negotiation of the different perspectives and of the contribution of all participants in the discussion group. Contrarily FG debate is often driven without any attention on these aspects regarding conduction; at the same time, many FGs are organized to gather information on attitudes, motivations or individual experiences. For instance, the first questions asked during the research interview on how to create an effective cholesterol treatment program were: “think back to the last time you wanted to make a change relating to health. It may have been a change in what you eat, your weight, smoking, or exercise habits. What kind of barriers or roadblocks did you run into?”, “What helped you or would have helped you the most in making the change?” (Krueger 1998, p. 29). Questions like this encourage participants to give individual answers as they have to explain the reason for their choices, illustrate the individual strategies adopted to fight their condition, mention the people who helped them in that situation, and so on. It would have been more appropriate to formulate questions in a different way, such as: “given that you have all tried to improve your health, what would you suggest to people who, like you, would like to improve the way they eat, exercise and try to avoid harmful behaviours?”; “What obstacles have you come across along this path?”; “What are the factors that may push a person to take this path?”. Often FGs are structured as outlined above only because this allows to interview many people in a short time. This represents a hybrid form of FG, as it includes some aspects of an individual interview. This technique lacks both the positive aspects of conventional FGs, such as the multiplication of information that generates from the interaction among individuals, as well as attributes of interviews, such as the possibility that an individual has to build an argument autonomously following their own narrative in as much time as needed. Sometimes participants themselves will resist the desired mode of interaction by waiting to be asked a question or by interacting with the moderator alone. In these cases, the moderator must prevent the development of “speaking in turns” and avoid any dynamic whereby participants feel obliged to intervene about every single aspect of the discussion. In these cases, it also may be useful to explain to participants what a FG is and what its technique is based upon, so as to clarify that the discussion must develop among themselves, with as little intervention from the moderator as possible. Focusing the attention on the interaction among participants allows to recover the negotiated nature of their accounts. The context of the discussion can influence the information produced during the FG, as this represents the result of a set of moves made from both the moderator and the participants. The analysis of the interaction among the group members can be aimed at investigating how conscience and ideas develop during the collective discussion (in order to analyse clarification, creation and stabilisation of opinions), as well as at evaluating the reliability of the information. This can be achieved by looking, for instance, at whether they have been invalidated by group dynamics (such as the influence of individuals who have imposed themselves or have somehow strongly impacted upon the discussion). Secondly, analysing these dynamic can be useful to give a different value to the topics discussed, as not every topic will be discussed by participants with the same interest and intensity.
4 Opportunities and risks of interaction Several cognitive and communicative mechanisms can emerge during a FG discussion. Some of them will consist in a limit, while others will be a resource for the production of the final accounts. These mechanisms play a fundamental role in the answer process.
123
The focus groups in social research
1131
Indeed, it can happen that whenever an individual is asked to reply to a question, he or she is never fully in control of his/her answers, even if his/her intention is to be as honest as possible and to best meet the interviewer’s expectations. At least three different phases can be identified during the response elaboration process.5 The attribution of a meaning (of the terms used during the discussion), the retrieval and organisation of information and the formulation of a judgment. Each of these phases can be subjected to different types of distortion and limit the reliability of the information, as well as the quality of the final result. The “meaning attribution” process develops in a FG each time the members of a debate assign a specific meaning to the terms and expressions used along the discussion. This is a cognitive problem that can emerge during this process and that involves polisemic or semantic dispersion.6 Given that the connection between concepts and terms is not rigid, the linguistic code is not fully shared. This makes the communication imperfect (Bright and Bright 1965, p. 250; Marradi 1994, p. 178 ss.); during FG discussions, this problem can multiply according to the number and type of participants. Some authors—including Vaughn et al. (1996, p. 43)—believe that in order to solve the semantic ambiguity problem, the introduction given by the moderator should clarify the terms and expressions that are likely to be used during the discussion. This is a very complex matter. First of all, it is not possible to clarify all the terms that may emerge during the discussion, as this would be a long and infinite task. Moreover, the clarification proposed by Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub may impose the researcher’s conceptual and linguistic categories to the participants, thus reducing the typical potentialities of these debates to gather information by adopting the point of view of the people invited (Bertrand et al. 1992). Therefore, the moderator should encourage participants, if necessary, to explain themselves the meaning of the terms and expressions they use, rather than providing definitions. The ongoing interaction among the social actors allows them to clarify individual opinions and to compare their positions to those of other participants according to a “sharing and comparing process” (Morgan 1988) that leads to a definition and to an elucidation of the subjective meanings. This allows for the collection of different nuances that hide behind the same term. For instance, the answer classification and ordering processes are included in the strategies aimed at clarifying the information provided. During the classification exercise, participants can be invited to divide the answers provided by the group into classes and to attribute a verbal label to them. The negotiation of the positions of the different voices to attribute to each class can facilitate the elucidation of the meanings that different participants have attributed to different terms and expressions. In the ordering exercise, participants are asked to order the different aspects that have emerged during the discussion and to identify those that the group members see as most important. 5 This sequence is obviously used for expositive purposes. We are aware of the fact that during interaction
the answer process can be formulated according to a different phase sequence or that the phases may overlap. Moreover, some phases can be sometimes completely skipped, as a participant can answer instinctively without reflecting or before the interviewer has completely formulated his question. Considerations of this kind have been ideated by standard interview researchers (Tourangeau et al. 2000, p. 15) but these cognitive and communicative mechanisms can emerge also during a FG discussion every time moderator formulates a question or participant answers. 6 This expression was proposed by Marradi (1984) in relation to the dispute regarding the superior univocity and precision of the scientific terms. He has collected data that demonstrate that, at least for what the term “theory” concerns, the variety of nuances found in the scientific language is largely higher than the nuances found in the common language.
123
1132
I. Acocella
The second process that takes place when formulating an answer—the retrieving and organisation of information—includes different mnemonics and other association of ideas that participants adopt when answering a question in a proper way. Interaction, with its memory solicitation and idea-confrontation processes, plays a fundamental role during this phase, even if it presents cognitive and communicative risks that can emerge as the discussion develops in a short time among a large number of people who do not follow precise and preset speaking turns. If the interaction among participants develops smoothly and without an excessively directive intervention from the moderator, the information generated by the discussion can multiply. The group synergy can favour the production of a plurality of positions and stimulate participants to remember forgotten or unconsidered details. Moreover, group discussions often proceed by means of association of ideas. In these cases, a sort of chain effect is created as one intervention paves the way to the next and encourages the formulation of different interpretations resulting in better final knowledge of the topic investigated. For these reasons, many authors use terms such as “synergism”, “snowballing”, “stimulation” (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990) when referring to “respondent interaction advantages”. This is also probably why many authors affirm that the FG technique is particularly suitable to obtain new answers and unexpected opinions, thus stimulating researchers’ interpretative imagination. One of the cognitive problems that may emerge during the information collection and organisation phase is that shared information prevails over information that is not agreed upon by all the members of the group. This is a problem insofar as non-shared information can also be useful for cognitive goals (Gigone and Hastie 1993; Wittenbaum and Stasser 1996). This means that the type of information that is most likely to emerge during a FG will reflect the experiences that the people involved in it have in common and share. This consists in an intrinsic limit to the FG technique and this type of problem can emerge every time a topic involves a minority in the group. In order to solve this problem, the moderator can highlight, during the discussion, that not everyone in the group possesses the same information and that there are always specific aspects connected to the experiences of different individuals (Stasser et al. 1995, pp. 258–261). Another cognitive risk that can emerge during the information collection and organisation phase is connected to the dynamics that emerge among the members of the group when they are asked to share a set of information that is only individually possessed. Some psychologists have highlighted that the quality of individual performance decreases according to the increase in the number of participants (Latané et al. 1979). This is primarily attributed to coordination problems that end up slowing the free production of ideas (Kravitz and Martin 1986). This pattern can occur even during a FG. Even if the FG technique encourages the formulation of ideas, the reticular interaction that is created among the members of the group does not always give everyone the possibility to express their points of view. While listening to other participants’ interventions, each individual is quickly stimulated to formulate memories and ideas. Yet, not everyone can express their ideas when they reaches their turn to talk and sometimes they cannot remember all the thoughts that the previous discussion raised in then. Likewise, an individual may constantly be interrupted during the discussion by other participants who want to immediately contribute to what is being asserted. Their intervention will, in this case, distract the speaker from his or her stream of thoughts (Fern 1982). This problem may be solved by asking each individual to write some reflections on the main topics; these short texts are then read and discussed, evaluating together all the ideas end
123
The focus groups in social research
1133
thus offering participants the possibility to enrich them with further considerations emerged during the debate. This solution may be ideal, insofar as it would give more value to the contribution of each participant, as well as to the advantages that emerge from their interaction. However, it is also important to consider that this option may distort the answer formulation process, thus reducing the potentialities of the FG to produce relevant information with the benefit of the interaction among participants. Participants may end up repeating what they have already stated on paper only to be consistent. A third risk to the correct collection of information is the speed of the interaction that develops during the discussion. This does not always allow participants to go through every topic in detail, especially if it presents many aspects to deal with. The interaction that arise during a FG often develops by means of association of ideas, which causes an ongoing change of topic along the intervention. Topics that have only briefly emerged can be quickly abandoned, while others can be dwelled upon in detail even if they are not strictly relevant to the purpose of the research. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a FG discussion will provide a complete analysis of the topics that the researcher is interested in investigating. In order to reduce this risk, it is important that the topic selected is as specific as possible, so as to allow every member of the group to reflect upon it and intervene as specifically as possible. Moreover, in order to collect reliable and correct information, the topic should be as interesting and familiar as possible to participants, so as to motivate them to proactively contribute to the discussion. If participants are not interested in the topic, they will be less active and more inclined to contribute with stereotypes or short answers, if at all. This consideration strengthens the option, previously proposed, to invite “expert” participants to the discussion, who are able to go through the problem properly and in the short time available. The third phase of the answer process is the “formulation of a judgment”. This phase is strictly related to the context and to the dynamics that develop among the members of the group during the discussion (Cannell et al. 1981, p. 401; Bradburn 1984, p. 8). In relation to that, it can be useful to keep the level of involvement of the participants in the discussion, the positions and roles they assume under control (Banaka 1971, p. 21). During a FG discussion, the interaction among the members of the group allows participants to formulate their own point of view by confronting the other people invited. This helps them define their position more precisely and acquire a better knowledge of their own ideas. Very often, the discussion and the synergy that develop within the group push participants to talk about themselves and their daily experiences, or to express their opinion on a topic. This induces them to explain the reasons that made them think about a topic in a way and that made them formulate that idea. To compare his opinions with the other participants allows each individual to focus their attention on aspects which they had not reflected upon before (Morrison 1998, p. xiv). At the same time, the FG can help participants to clarify, strengthen or change an opinion that had remained uncertain until that point. For all these reasons, some researchers suggest that the FG can investigate the ordinary process at the core of the formulation of ideas (Krueger 1994). However, interaction and group dynamics do not always consist in a resource. In this phase of the formulation of the answer, they can present communicative limits. The mere presence of other people can inhibit an individual and influence the way a judgment is formulated or an answer is given. Sometimes, participants can also activate defensive strategies to protect themselves from the anxiety deriving from being in a group, as well as other strategies aimed at evaluating the advantages or disadvantages of letting themselves freely interact with other people. In these situations, the fear of being judged, to disappoint expectations or to get lost is also quite common. Even if the discussion takes place freely, during a FG these cognitive
123
1134
I. Acocella
mechanisms can lead participants to conform (at least publicly) to the most popular opinion in the group, as it is considered socially accepted. This will induce the participant to conform to the situation of the discussion. In this case, his answers will be the product of the opinions emerged by the majority of participants and of the interactions produced by that discussion. At other times, conformism can derive from the pressure of social conventions, thus pushing participants to express more socially desirable and stereotypical answers. In these cases, participants try to present themselves in the best possible way that is the most socially acceptable (Bickman 1974). These processes can contaminate the discussion, as they tend to privilege a convergence of positions that will necessarily hinder the diversification of opinions. Participants will be more inclined to provide expected answers. This will reduce the creativity and spontaneity of the information provided, thus limiting the potentialities of the FG to produce information by involving all the members in the group. This shows once more that the FG technique does not provide exclusively innovative answers. In order to reduce this risk and avoid an immediate convergence of opinions towards the point of view shared by the majority of participants, it may be useful to ask every member of the group to write their ideas on a piece of paper. The moderator will then read them to the group, but each answer will be kept anonymous. Participants will thereby feel free to express their opinion. These opinions will be then discussed in a group that will highlight their weaknesses and strengths. Another strategy to prevent conformism is to ask questions that undermine the legitimacy of social norms and general consensus (Bailey 1982, p. 103) or to ask questions in the third person (Moser and Kalton 1977, p. 327). For instance, a question about the use of marijuana may be asked in these forms: “some say that smoking marijuana is the first step towards stronger drugs, others affirm that it is absolutely innocuous. What do you think about it?” or “many people smoke marijuana; can you tell me why you think they do that?”. Social psychologists have demonstrated how conformism drastically decreases when the group includes a member with subversive ideas or deviating opinions (Allen and Levine 1969). In case of extremely conformist FGs, the moderator may support the opinions proposed by the minority of participants so as to guarantee a wider range of information. Some authors have suggested that the creation of a minority can be useful to increase the originality of the information produced, as it presents the same issues to the group from a different point of view (Nemeth and Wachtler 1983). Some other studies have demonstrated that conformism increases in ambiguous situations, where participants are more inclined to trust other people’s opinions (Allen 1965). The context produced by a FG could be perceived by many participants as ambiguous as it is unusual and new to them. This is why this defensive strategy is likely to be adopted. The level of ambiguity increases when participants are interrogated on topics in which they have scarce interest (Mckennell 1974, p. 226). This is another reason why it is important to invite to the discussion participants who are expert in the field (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990). Besides conformism, the polarisation of ideas is another mechanism that can come into play during the group interaction and that can potentially cause unreliable answers. It consists in the trend, often found in discussion groups, to adopt positions that are more extreme compared to those that single individuals would adopt (Bristol and Fern 2003, p. 444). This phenomenon can develop for different reasons. For instance, the interaction can provide the individual with a range of elements supporting his initial suppositions that he had previously not though about or taken into consideration, thus strengthening his initial convictions. However, these positions may also become stronger as they may be considered as
123
The focus groups in social research
1135
prototypical of one’s group of reference (solicited in that particular discussion) and used to differentiate from groups that are perceived as very distant (Wetherell 1987).
5 Focus group: not an easy tool to use FGs certainly present many potential attributes as well as intrinsic limitations, and their use is certainly not easy. This paper has analysed the type of information that can be collected via this technique and has identified some of the most important aspects that need to be taken into consideration when preparing and leading a FG so as to achieve the best result. According to these aspects it is underlined that several cognitive and communicative mechanisms can emerge during a FG discuss; some of them are a limit, while others a resource. The interaction allows the participants to clarify individual opinions and to compare positions each other; at the some time the group synergy can favour the production of a plurality of positions and stimulate participants according to a “sharing and comparing process”, thus allowing to raise inter-subjective representations. On the other side, the speed of interaction and several coordination problems among participants, sometimes end up slowing the free production of idea. Furthermore, the presence of other people can inhibit an individual and influence the way a judgment is formulated or an answer is given, thus pushing participants to express more socially desirable and stereotypical answers. For these reasons, FG technique does not always permit to study a phenomenon in depth or to gather innovative answers. At the same time, it is too much to consider FG as a technique always capable of providing sufficiently detailed information in a short amount of time and at a low cost. The FG is an apparently simple technique to put in place; yet in order for the FG to achieve good results, it is necessary to go through a long process of preparation that will change each time according to the desired goal and cognitive results. Moreover, FGs imply a sound knowledge of the cognitive and communicative risks involved. If this aspect is not taken into consideration, the reliability and quality of the result may be undermined. This paper aimed to identify some methodological devices to decide when and how to choose FG. Only an appropriate methodological preparation and a sound knowledge of this technique, along with experience and training, allow FGs to be truly successful.
References Acocella, I.: Il focus group: teoria e tecnica. Franco Angeli, Milano (2008) Allen, V.L.: Situation factors in conformity. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 133–175. Academic Press, New York (1965) Allen, V.L., Levine, J.M.: Consensus and conformity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5(4), 389–399 (1969) Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Akert, R.M.: Social Psychology. Longman, Reading (1997) Bailey, K.D.: Methods in Social Research. Free Press, New York (1982) Banaka, W.H.: Training in Depth Interviewing. Harper and Row, New York (1971) Bertrand, J.T., Brown, J.E., Ward, M.V.: Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Eval. Rev. 16(2), 198– 209 (1992) Bickman, L.: The social power of a uniform. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 4, 47–61 (1974) Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K.: Focus Group in Social Research. Sage, London (2001) Bradburn, N.M.: Potential contribution of cognitive science to survey questionnaire design. Surv. Methods Newsl. 2, 7–10 (1984) Bright, J.O., Bright, W.: Semantic structures in northwestern California and the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Am. Anthropol. 67(5), 249–258 (1965)
123
1136
I. Acocella
Bristol, T., Fern, E.F.: The effects of interaction on consumers’ attitudes in focus groups. Psychol. Mark. 20(5), 433–454 (2003) Cannell, C.F., Miller, P.V., Oksenberg, L.: Research on interview techniques. In: Leinhardt, S. (ed.) Sociological Methodology, pp. 389–437. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1981) Cote-Arsenault, D., Morrison, B.D.: Practical advice for planning and conducting focus group. Nurs. Res. 48(5), 280–283 (1999) Fern, E.F.: The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. J. Mark. Res. 19, 1–13 (1982) Frey, J.H., Fontana, A.: The group interview in social research. In: Morgan, D.L. (ed.) Successful Focus Group. Advancing the State of the Art, pp. 20–34. Sage, Newbury Park (1993) Gigone, D., Hastie, R.: The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 65(5), 959–974 (1993) Greenbaum, T.L.: The Handbook for Focus Group Research. D.C. Health and Company, Lexington (1988) Hisrich, R.D., Peters, M.P.: Focus group: an innovative marketing research technique. Hosp. Health Serv. Adm. 27(4), 8–21 (1982) Jaspars, J., Fraser, C.: Atteggiamenti e rappresentazioni sociali. In: Farr, R.M., Moscovici, F. (a cura di) Rappresentazioni sociali, pp. 129–152. Il Mulino, Bologna (1989) Kitzinger, J., Barbour, R.S. : Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research. Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 1–20. Sage, London (2001) Kravitz, D., Martin, A.B.: Ringlemann rediscovered: the original article. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50(5), 936– 941 (1986) Krueger, R.A.: Focus Group. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage, Newbury Park (1994) Krueger, R.A.: Developing questions for focus groups. In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A. (eds.) Focus Group Kit, vol. 3, Sage, London (1998) Latané, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S.: Many hands make light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37(6), 822–832 (1979) Marbach, G.: Le ricerche di mercato. UTET, Torino (1982) Marradi, A.: Teoria: una tipologia dei significati. Sociol. Ric. Soc. 5(13), 157–181 (1984) Marradi, A.: Referti, pensiero e linguaggio: una questione rilevante per gli indicatori. Sociol. Ric. Soc. 15(43), 137–207 (1994) Mckennell, A.C.: Surveying attitude structures: a discussion of principles and procedures. Qual. Quant. 7(2), 203–294 (1974) Merton, R.K.: Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, Glencoe (1957) Merton, R.K., Kendall, P.L.: The focused interview. Am. J. Sociol. 51(6), 541–557 (1946) Morgan, D.L.: Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage, London (1988) Morgan, D.L., Spanish, M.T.: Focus group: a new tool for qualitative research. Qual. Sociol. 7(3), 253– 270 (1984) Morrison, D.E.: The Search for a Method. University of Luton Press, Luton (1998) Moser, C., Kalton, G.: Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Heineman, London (1977) Munday, J.: Identity in focus: the use of focus groups to study the costruction of collective identity. Sociology 40(1), 89–105 (2006) Nemeth, C., Wachtler, J.: Creative problem solving as a result of majority versus minority influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13(1), 45–55 (1983) Puchta, C.: Focus Group Practice. Sage, London (2005) Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D., Wittenbaum, G.M.: Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31(3), 244–265 (1995) Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N.: Focus Group. Theory and Practice. Sage, Newbury Park (1990) Stokes, D., Bergin, R.: Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qual. Mark. Res. 9(1), 26–37 (2006) Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., Rasinki, K.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000) Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Sinagub, J.: Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology. Sage, London (1996) Wetherell, M.: Social identity and group polarization. In: Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Cakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., Wetherell, M.S. (eds.) Rediscovering the Social Group: a Self-Categorization Theory, pp. 142–170. Oxford, Blackwell (1987) Wittenbaum, G.W., Stasser, G.: Management of information in small groups. In: Nye, J.L., Brower, A.M. (eds.) What’s Social About Social Cognition? Social Cognition Research in Small Groups, pp. 3–28. Sage, Newbury Park (1996)
123
