FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (Contd.):Uses of Focus Group Discussions

<< FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION:The Purpose of FGD, Formal Focus Groups

REPORT WRITING:Conclusions and recommendations, Appended Parts >>

Research Methods STA630

Lesson 43

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (Contd.)

Functions of the Recorder

The recorder should keep a record of the content of the discussion as well as emotional reactions and

important aspects of group interaction. Assessment of the emotional tone of the meeting and the group

process will enable the researcher to judge the validity of the information collected during the FGD.

Record the following:

� Date, time, and place:

� Names and characteristics of participants:

� General description of the group dynamics (level of participation, presence of a dominant

participant, level of interest):

� Opinions of participants, recorded as much as possible in their own words, especially for key

statements: and

� Vocabulary used, particularly in focus group discussions that are intended to assist in

developing questionnaire or other material as stipulated under the topic.

It is highly recommended that a tape/video recorder (with permission) be used to assist capturing

information. Even if a tape/video recorder is used, notes should be taken as well, incase the machine

malfunctions and so that information will be available immediately after the session.

A supplementary role for the recorder could be to assist the facilitator (if necessary) by drawing his/her

attention to:

� Missed comments from participants, and

� Missed topics (the recorder should have a copy of the discussion guide, key probe questions

during the FGD).

If necessary, the recorder could also help resolve conflict situations that facilitator may have difficulty

handling.

Number and duration of sessions: The number of focus group sessions to be conducted depends

upon project needs, resources, and whether new information is still coming from the sessions (that is,

whether contrasting views from various groups in the community are still emerging).

One should plan to conduct at least two different focus group discussions for each subgroup (for

example two for males and two for females).

For duration, a focus group session typically lasts up to an hour and a half. Generally the first session

with a particular type of group is longer than the following ones because all of the information is new.

Thereafter, if it becomes clear that all the groups have the same opinion on particular topics, the

facilitator may be able to move the discussion along more quickly to other topics that still elicit new

points of view.

3. Analysis of Results

�

After each focus group session, the facilitator and the recorder should meet to review and

complete the notes taken during the meeting. This is also the right moment to evaluate how the

focus group went and what changes might be made when facilitating future groups.

�

A full report of the discussion should be prepared that reflects the discussion as completely as

possible using the participants' own words. List the key statements, ideas, and attitudes

expressed for each topic of discussion.

�

After the transcript of the discussion is prepared, code the statements right away, using the left

margin? Write comments in the right margin. Formulate additional questions if certain issues

are still unclear or controversial and include them in the next FGD.

155

Research Methods STA630

�

Further categorize the statements for each topic, if required. Compare answers of different

subgroups (e.g., answers of young mothers and answers of mothers of above childbearing age in

the FGD on changes in weaning practices).

The findings must be recorded in coherent manner. For example, if young women in all focus

group discussions state that they start weaning some 3-6 months earlier than their mothers did

and the women above childbearing age confirm this statement, one is likely to have a solid

finding. If findings contradict each other, one may need to conduct some more focus group

discussions or bring together representatives from two different subgroups to discuss and clarify

the differences.

�

Summarize the data in a matrix, diagram, flowchart, or narrative, if appropriate, and interpret

the findings.

�

Select the most useful quotations that emerged from the discussions to illustrate the main ideas.

4. Report Writing

�

Start with a description of the selection and composition of the groups of participants and a

commentary on the group process, so the reader can assess the validity of the reported findings.

�

Present the findings, following a list of topics and guided by the objective(s) of the FGD.

Include quotations whenever possible, particularly for key statements.

Uses of Focus Group Discussions

�

The primary advantage of focus groups is its ability to quickly and inexpensively grasp the core

issues of the topic. One might see focus group discussions as synergistic i.e. the combined

effort of the group will produce a wider range of information, insights, and ideas than will the

accumulation of separately secured responses of a number of individuals. Even in non-

exploratory research, focus group discussions produce a lot more information far more quickly,

and at less cost than individual interviews.

�

As part of exploratory research, focus group discussions help the researcher to focus on the

issue and develop relevant research hypotheses. In the discussions the relevant variables are

identified, and relationships are postulated. Once the variables are identified, the same focus

group discussions help in the formulation

of questions, along with the response categories, for the measurement of variables.

�

Focus group discussion is an excellent design to get information form non-literates.

�

Focus groups discussions are a good means to discover attitudes and opinions that might not be

revealed through surveys. This is particularly useful when the researcher is looking at the

controversial issue, and the individual might be able to give his opinion as such but not discuss

the issue in the light of other viewpoints. In focus group discussions there is usually a

snowballing effect. A comment by one often triggers a chain of views from other participants.

�

Focus group discussions are well accepted in the folk communities, as this form of

communication already exists whereby the local communities try to sort out controversial

issues.

�

Focus group discussions generate new ideas, questions about the issues under consideration. It

may be called serendipity (surprise ideas). It is more often the case in a group than in an

individual interview that some idea will drop out of the blue. The group also affords the

opportunity to develop the idea to its full significance.

�

Focus group discussions can supplement the quantitative information on community

knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP), which may have already been collected through

survey research.

�

Focus group discussions are highly flexible with respect to topic, number of participants, time

schedule, location, and logistics of discussion.

�

Focus group discussions provide a direct link between the researcher and the population under

study. In fact most of the focus group discussions are held close to peoples places of living and

156

Research Methods STA630

work. It helps in getting the realistic picture of the issue directly from the people who are part of

it.

�

For some researchers, focus group discussions may be a fun. They enjoy discussing the issues

directly with the relevant population.

Limitations

�

Results of the focus group discussions cannot usually be used for generalization beyond the

population from where the participants in FGD came. One important reason being the lack of

their representative-ness about other populations.

�

It is often seen that participants usually agree with the responses from fellow members (for

different reasons). Without a sensitive and effective facilitator, a single, self-appointed

participant may dominate the session. Researchers have to be cautious when interpreting the

results.

�

The moderator may influence focus group discussion and may bias the information.

�

Focus group discussions may have limited value in exploring complex beliefs of individuals,

which they may not share in open discussion.

�

It is possible that focus group discussions may paint a picture of what is socially acceptable in

the community rather than what is actually occurring or is believed. The picture may be given

of what is ideally desirable and not what is really in practice. Participants may like to project a

good image of their community to strangers; hence the information may be highly

contaminated.

CASE STUDY

Case study is a comprehensive description and analysis of a single situation or a number of specific

situations i.e. cases. It is an intensive description and analysis of a case. Researchers often use

qualitative approach to explore the case in as rich a detail as possible. The examples could be a case

study of a highly successful organization, a project (Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi), a group, a couple, a

teacher, and a patient. In a way it is more like a clinical approach to study the case in detail.

If the researcher is looking at highly successful organization then he may have to look into all the

factors that may have contributed to its success. The factors may relate to the availability of the

financial resources, the management, the work environment, work force, the political atmosphere, and

many more. All these factors may be considered as different dimensions for studying the organization.

Similarly, one may do the case study of a happily married couple.

Data Sources

Usually the following sources are suggested:

� Naturalistic observations (ethnographic studies)

� Interviews

� Life histories

� Tests (Psychological, clinical)

In most of the cases the data sources may depend upon the nature of the case under investigation. If we

are trying to do the case study of a community, then one shall be looking for naturalistic observations

(ethnographic information), in-depth interviews with individuals, life histories of the people, and any

thing, which may have previously been written about the community.

Preserve the unitary character of the object under study: The researcher tries to study the case as a

whole by collecting the breadth of data about the totality of the unit. For the collection of such data a

multidisciplinary approach may be used, which could help looking at the case from different

157

Research Methods STA630

perspectives prior to coming to some conclusions. Hence it is not a segmental study; therefore effort is

made to study it as a whole and while making the analysis try to present it as a unit.

Case Control studies

It is also possible to select two groups (taking them as cases), one with an effect (study group) and the

other without effect (control group). Both the cases are similar except for the effect. One could look at

the case of Manga Mandi village, where, a few years back, deformities in the bones of children were

observed in one part of the village. Here one could explore the totality of the background of affected

and unaffected parts of the locality, each being treated as a unit. One could develop hypothesis by

having an in-depth analysis of the affected and unaffected parts.

Case study is empirical

Case study is empirical because:

� It investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context. It is retrospective study

in which the researcher follows the research process from effect to its cause. It is a study back

in time. Just like a medical practitioner who is treating his patient as a case, tries to diagnose

his/her ailment by taking the case history, doing the physical examination, and if necessary,

doing some laboratory tests. On the basis of the triangulation of all this information the medical

doctor traces the cause of patient's present ailment. The information is empirical.

� When the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, the

researcher tries to use multiple sources of evidence. One could say that the researcher is trying

to look at the case by using multiple dimensions, and trying to come up with a finding that is

empirical.

Limitations

Despite the fact that the case study may be considered empirical yet it lack rigor in its approach.

Therefore it has limitations with respect to the reliability of the findings. Also one could question

whether the case is representative of some population.

158

Table of Contents: