ZeePedia

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 >>
img
Research Methods ­STA630
VU
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
img
Research Methods ­STA630
VU
·
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
img
Research Methods ­STA630
VU
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
img
Research Methods ­STA630
VU
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:
  1. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITION & VALUE OF RESEARCH
  2. SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF RESEARCH & ITS SPECIAL FEATURES
  3. CLASSIFICATION OF RESEARCH:Goals of Exploratory Research
  4. THEORY AND RESEARCH:Concepts, Propositions, Role of Theory
  5. CONCEPTS:Concepts are an Abstraction of Reality, Sources of Concepts
  6. VARIABLES AND TYPES OF VARIABLES:Moderating Variables
  7. HYPOTHESIS TESTING & CHARACTERISTICS:Correlational hypotheses
  8. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:Where to find the Research Literature
  9. CONDUCTING A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW:Write the Review
  10. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:Make an inventory of variables
  11. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND RESEARCH PROPOSAL:Problem Definition
  12. THE RESEARCH PROCESS:Broad Problem Area, Theoretical Framework
  13. ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH:Ethical Treatment of Participants
  14. ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH (Cont):Debriefing, Rights to Privacy
  15. MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTS:Conceptualization
  16. MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTS (CONTINUED):Operationalization
  17. MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTS (CONTINUED):Scales and Indexes
  18. CRITERIA FOR GOOD MEASUREMENT:Convergent Validity
  19. RESEARCH DESIGN:Purpose of the Study, Steps in Conducting a Survey
  20. SURVEY RESEARCH:CHOOSING A COMMUNICATION MEDIA
  21. INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS IN MALLS AND OTHER HIGH-TRAFFIC AREAS
  22. SELF ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRES (CONTINUED):Interesting Questions
  23. TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION:Guidelines for Questionnaire Design
  24. PILOT TESTING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE:Discovering errors in the instrument
  25. INTERVIEWING:The Role of the Interviewer, Terminating the Interview
  26. SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TERMINOLOGY:Saves Cost, Labor, and Time
  27. PROBABILITY AND NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLING:Convenience Sampling
  28. TYPES OF PROBABILITY SAMPLING:Systematic Random Sample
  29. DATA ANALYSIS:Information, Editing, Editing for Consistency
  30. DATA TRANSFROMATION:Indexes and Scales, Scoring and Score Index
  31. DATA PRESENTATION:Bivariate Tables, Constructing Percentage Tables
  32. THE PARTS OF THE TABLE:Reading a percentage Table
  33. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH:The Language of Experiments
  34. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH (Cont.):True Experimental Designs
  35. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH (Cont.):Validity in Experiments
  36. NON-REACTIVE RESEARCH:Recording and Documentation
  37. USE OF SECONDARY DATA:Advantages, Disadvantages, Secondary Survey Data
  38. OBSERVATION STUDIES/FIELD RESEARCH:Logic of Field Research
  39. OBSERVATION STUDIES (Contd.):Ethical Dilemmas of Field research
  40. HISTORICAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH:Similarities to Field Research
  41. HISTORICAL-COMPARATIVE RESEARCH (Contd.):Locating Evidence
  42. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION:The Purpose of FGD, Formal Focus Groups
  43. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (Contd.):Uses of Focus Group Discussions
  44. REPORT WRITING:Conclusions and recommendations, Appended Parts
  45. REFERENCING:Book by a single author, Edited book, Doctoral Dissertation