focus groups data collection in qualitative research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on December 10, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest.

Table of contents

What is a focus group, step 1: choose your topic of interest, step 2: define your research scope and hypotheses, step 3: determine your focus group questions, step 4: select a moderator or co-moderator, step 5: recruit your participants, step 6: set up your focus group, step 7: host your focus group, step 8: analyze your data and report your results, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about focus groups.

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research . Observations of the group’s dynamic, their answers to focus group questions, and even their body language can guide future research on consumer decisions, products and services, or controversial topics.

Focus groups are often used in marketing, library science, social science, and user research disciplines. They can provide more nuanced and natural feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large-scale surveys .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Focus groups are primarily considered a confirmatory research technique . In other words, their discussion-heavy setting is most useful for confirming or refuting preexisting beliefs. For this reason, they are great for conducting explanatory research , where you explore why something occurs when limited information is available.

A focus group may be a good choice for you if:

• You’re interested in real-time, unfiltered responses on a given topic or in the dynamics of a discussion between participants
• Your questions are rooted in feelings or perceptions , and cannot easily be answered with “yes” or “no”
• You’re confident that a relatively small number of responses will answer your question
• You’re seeking directional information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas
• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

Differences between types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Topics favorable to focus groups

As a rule of thumb, research topics related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. If you are seeking direction, explanation, or in-depth dialogue, a focus group could be a good fit.

However, if your questions are dichotomous or if you need to reach a large audience quickly, a survey may be a better option. If your question hinges upon behavior but you are worried about influencing responses, consider an observational study .

• If you want to determine whether the student body would regularly consume vegan food, a survey would be a great way to gauge student preferences.

However, food is much more than just consumption and nourishment and can have emotional, cultural, and other implications on individuals.

• If you’re interested in something less concrete, such as students’ perceptions of vegan food or the interplay between their choices at the dining hall and their feelings of homesickness or loneliness, perhaps a focus group would be best.

Once you have determined that a focus group is the right choice for your topic, you can start thinking about what you expect the group discussion to yield.

Perhaps literature already exists on your subject or a sufficiently similar topic that you can use as a starting point. If the topic isn’t well studied, use your instincts to determine what you think is most worthy of study.

Setting your scope will help you formulate intriguing hypotheses , set clear questions, and recruit the right participants.

• Are you interested in a particular sector of the population, such as vegans or non-vegans?
• Are you interested in including vegetarians in your analysis?
• Perhaps not all students eat at the dining hall. Will your study exclude those who don’t?
• Are you only interested in students who have strong opinions on the subject?

A benefit of focus groups is that your hypotheses can be open-ended. You can be open to a wide variety of opinions, which can lead to unexpected conclusions.

The questions that you ask your focus group are crucially important to your analysis. Take your time formulating them, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can affect your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

If you are discussing a controversial topic, be careful that your questions do not cause social desirability bias . Here, your respondents may lie about their true beliefs to mask any socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions. This and other demand characteristics can hurt your analysis and lead to several types of reseach bias in your results, particularly if your participants react in a different way once knowing they’re being observed. These include self-selection bias , the Hawthorne effect , the Pygmalion effect , and recall bias .

• Engagement questions make your participants feel comfortable and at ease: “What is your favorite food at the dining hall?”
• Exploration questions drill down to the focus of your analysis: “What pros and cons of offering vegan options do you see?”
• Exit questions pick up on anything you may have previously missed in your discussion: “Is there anything you’d like to mention about vegan options in the dining hall that we haven’t discussed?”

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

It is important to have more than one moderator in the room. If you would like to take the lead asking questions, select a co-moderator who can coordinate the technology, take notes, and observe the behavior of the participants.

If your hypotheses have behavioral aspects, consider asking someone else to be lead moderator so that you are free to take a more observational role.

Depending on your topic, there are a few types of moderator roles that you can choose from.

• The most common is the dual-moderator , introduced above.
• Another common option is the dueling-moderator style . Here, you and your co-moderator take opposing sides on an issue to allow participants to see different perspectives and respond accordingly.

Depending on your research topic, there are a few sampling methods you can choose from to help you recruit and select participants.

• Voluntary response sampling , such as posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
• Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
• Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
• Judgment sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Beware of sampling bias and selection bias , which can occur when some members of the population are more likely to be included than others.

Number of participants

In most cases, one focus group will not be sufficient to answer your research question. It is likely that you will need to schedule three to four groups. A good rule of thumb is to stop when you’ve reached a saturation point (i.e., when you aren’t receiving new responses to your questions).

Most focus groups have 6–10 participants. It’s a good idea to over-recruit just in case someone doesn’t show up. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn’t have fewer than 6 or more than 12 participants, in order to get the most reliable results.

Lastly, it’s preferable for your participants not to know you or each other, as this can bias your results.

A focus group is not just a group of people coming together to discuss their opinions. While well-run focus groups have an enjoyable and relaxed atmosphere, they are backed up by rigorous methods to provide robust observations.

Confirm a time and date

Be sure to confirm a time and date with your participants well in advance. Focus groups usually meet for 45–90 minutes, but some can last longer. However, beware of the possibility of wandering attention spans. If you really think your session needs to last longer than 90 minutes, schedule a few breaks.

Confirm whether it will take place in person or online

You will also need to decide whether the group will meet in person or online. If you are hosting it in person, be sure to pick an appropriate location.

• An uncomfortable or awkward location may affect the mood or level of participation of your group members.
• Online sessions are convenient, as participants can join from home, but they can also lessen the connection between participants.

As a general rule, make sure you are in a noise-free environment that minimizes distractions and interruptions to your participants.

Consent and ethical considerations

It’s important to take into account ethical considerations and informed consent when conducting your research. Informed consent means that participants possess all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate in the research before it starts. This includes information about benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

Participants should also sign a release form that states that they are comfortable with being audio- or video-recorded. While verbal consent may be sufficient, it is best to ask participants to sign a form.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are too small to provide true anonymity to participants. Make sure that your participants know this prior to participating.

There are a few things you can do to commit to keeping information private. You can secure confidentiality by removing all identifying information from your report or offer to pseudonymize the data later. Data pseudonymization entails replacing any identifying information about participants with pseudonymous or false identifiers.

Preparation prior to participation

If there is something you would like participants to read, study, or prepare beforehand, be sure to let them know well in advance. It’s also a good idea to call them the day before to ensure they will still be participating.

Consider conducting a tech check prior to the arrival of your participants, and note any environmental or external factors that could affect the mood of the group that day. Be sure that you are organized and ready, as a stressful atmosphere can be distracting and counterproductive.

Starting the focus group

Welcome individuals to the focus group by introducing the topic, yourself, and your co-moderator, and go over any ground rules or suggestions for a successful discussion. It’s important to make your participants feel at ease and forthcoming with their responses.

Consider starting out with an icebreaker, which will allow participants to relax and settle into the space a bit. Your icebreaker can be related to your study topic or not; it’s just an exercise to get participants talking.

Leading the discussion

Once you start asking your questions, try to keep response times equal between participants. Take note of the most and least talkative members of the group, as well as any participants with particularly strong or dominant personalities.

You can ask less talkative members questions directly to encourage them to participate or ask participants questions by name to even the playing field. Feel free to ask participants to elaborate on their answers or to give an example.

As a moderator, strive to remain neutral . Refrain from reacting to responses, and be aware of your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows) and the possibility for observer bias . Active listening skills, such as parroting back answers or asking for clarification, are good methods to encourage participation and signal that you’re listening.

Many focus groups offer a monetary incentive for participants. Depending on your research budget, this is a nice way to show appreciation for their time and commitment. To keep everyone feeling fresh, consider offering snacks or drinks as well.

After concluding your focus group, you and your co-moderator should debrief, recording initial impressions of the discussion as well as any highlights, issues, or immediate conclusions you’ve drawn.

The next step is to transcribe and clean your data . Assign each participant a number or pseudonym for organizational purposes. Transcribe the recordings and conduct content analysis to look for themes or categories of responses. The categories you choose can then form the basis for reporting your results.

Just like other research methods, focus groups come with advantages and disadvantages.

• They are fairly straightforward to organize and results have strong face validity .
• They are usually inexpensive, even if you compensate participant.
• A focus group is much less time-consuming than a survey or experiment , and you get immediate results.
• Focus group results are often more comprehensible and intuitive than raw data.

Disadvantages

• It can be difficult to assemble a truly representative sample. Focus groups are generally not considered externally valid due to their small sample sizes.
• Due to the small sample size, you cannot ensure the anonymity of respondents, which may influence their desire to speak freely.
• Depth of analysis can be a concern, as it can be challenging to get honest opinions on controversial topics.
• There is a lot of room for error in the data analysis and high potential for observer dependency in drawing conclusions. You have to be careful not to cherry-pick responses to fit a prior conclusion.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

It’s impossible to completely avoid observer bias in studies where data collection is done or recorded manually, but you can take steps to reduce this type of bias in your research .

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/focus-group/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, explanatory research | definition, guide, & examples, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14: Focus groups

Tess Tsindos

Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Assess when to use focus groups in qualitative research.
• Develop questions for a focus group guide.
• Understand how to conduct a focus group.

What are focus groups?

Focus groups are convened to discuss an issue of mutual concern. The purpose of a focus group is to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions or motivations of research participants. 1 While individual interviews explore the experiences of (usually) one participant (see Chapter 13 ), focus groups are conducted with three or more people who share an experience or concern. The conversation between participants in a focus group is mediated and facilitated by the researcher. Focus groups can be used when little is known about the participants or a topic (an exploratory process), when testing new ideas (e.g. acceptability of a program or intervention) or when undertaking an evaluation of a service or product.

The focus of the discussion is on the interaction between participants in the group; some participants may have similar experiences or views, while others have different experiences. The group dynamic is important and therefore it is important that participants lead the discussion and are encouraged to talk through their similarities and differences, so that the researcher might gain a well-rounded perspective and account of the topic. A group might be homogeneous, get along well and share similar experiences. Or the group might be heterogeneous and have differing opinions and experiences. Participants might know each other because they have been recruited from the same program or community, or they could be total strangers. All these elements contribute to the focus of discussion, and to the group dynamic; that is, the interactivity of the focus group.

How many focus group members should there be?

Ideally, a focus group should include 6–10 participants 2 and the conversation should be moderated by the researcher, using a focus group discussion guide. However, the number of participants may vary according to the topic and the number of participants able to be recruited. The data collected from focus groups tends to differ from interview data because people respond and compare their own experiences with those of others in the group. Therefore, the number and composition of group members influence the data gathered.

Having too many people in a group means that discussion can become chaotic and it is unlikely that everyone in the group will have a say. Having too few people means that there may not be sufficient interaction to enable to capture a group perspective. Focus groups have been conducted with as few as two people: in a focus group conducted by one of the authors of this chapter, several participants had been invited, but only two attended. Since participants were difficult to recruit from the target population, it was not feasible to cancel the focus group. The topic was recovery after percutaneous coronary intervention (a cardiac procedure). The focus group discussion developed into an intimate conversation between two older men about their challenges in physical recovery and the psychological effects of not being able to fulfil a traditional male role. The small group size was serendipitous, in that the researcher may not have been able to collect such rich data had the group been larger. 3

The researcher (s)

It is common to have two researchers present in a focus group. One facilitates the group, while the other observes and records the session, and takes notes about who said what, body language and other observable information that contributes to the context of the data being collected. The observer should be as unobtrusive as possible and not participate in the group discussion. Similar to interviews, focus groups are audio-recorded so the conversation can be transcribed for analysis.  The researcher is encouraged to build rapport with focus group participants, which is aided by having a friendly and approachable manner. The focus group method enables the facilitator to probe ideas as they arise and to check their understanding of participants’ responses. This active facilitation enhances the robustness of the data collected. The quality of the data collected will depend greatly on how effective the researcher is at facilitating the group, and thus good interpersonal skills are essential. Conducting effective focus group discussions comes with practice and experience.

How long should a focus group be?

There are no strict rules about how long a focus group should be. Different groups will likely run for different amounts of time because this depends on the research question/s and the types of group members. For example, a group of people who know each other and have a common experience may need no longer than 45 minutes, whereas a group of strangers with different experiences may need up to 2 hours. Additionally, the number of people in the focus group will affect the amount of time needed. A focus group discussion with 6 participants may likely be shorter than a focus group with 12 participants.

Designing the focus group guide

Before the commencement of a focus group, the researchers need to develop a focus group discussion guide, which is similar to an interview guide. Both aim to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions and motivations of participants. If the study’s research methods include interviews and focus groups, the questions will be very similar. T he difference is that the focus group discussion guide do es not typically ask questions to elicit individual storytelling, but rather to ask questions to invite discussion of shared experiences , in which participants confirm or contrast each others ’ views . If focus groups are the sole data collection method, the researcher may consult existing literature, speak to experts, including people with lived experience about the focus of the research, and draw on their knowledge so that the topics and questions can be mapped to the research question/s.

The focus group guide should be developed well in advance of commencing data collection. This provides time for the facilitator and the observer to explore together the language and clarity of questions, the order and flow of the guide, and whether the instructions for participants are clear and comprehensive. To facilitate free-flowing responses, it is important to use open-ended questions that encourage participants to be expansive in their responses. Examples of open-ended question formats include those that start with ‘who’, ‘how’ ‘tell me more about’ and ‘where’.

Pilot interview/s enable the researchers to test the interview guide. However, they are often not conducted because it can be difficult to recruit enough relevant participants. Instead, focus group questions might be reviewed by other members of the research team for clarity and comprehensiveness. The study design will determine the number of questions asked and the extent of the focus group guide. The target population may also determine the extent of the focus group guide; for example, clinicians who are time-poor may need shorter focus groups while patient populations may be interested in exploring their experiences in detail and at length.

Following is a template that can be adapted for the introduction of a focus group. Table 14.1 offers example questions for a focus group discussion guide.

Focus group introduction

‘Hi everyone. My name is [insert name] and I’m from [insert organisation]. I am conducting [describe study]. Thank you for agreeing to be part of this focus group today. You were invited to participate in this focus group because [include reason]. Today we would like to discuss [outline topics]. We anticipate that the session will go for approximately [insert expected time]. Before we get started, I’d like to explain how we would like to structure the discussion. 1. We would like to hear from everyone present. This may mean that I will call on you by name to respond to a question. I may also indicate to you when it’s time to wrap up your thoughts so we can move on to another person or topic. 2. Feel free to respond directly to each other. I’m here to facilitate the discussion, but you are encouraged to respond to the other participants in this group. 3. We are recording the session today. This will ensure that we capture everything discussed. Your names will not be used in the reporting of this data and we will be using pseudonyms or codes instead when writing up results. 4. Please be respectful of what other participants share. Due to the nature of focus groups, we cannot ensure confidentiality, but we do ask that you do not repeat what is discussed in this group to people who were not present. You should feel free to not answer a question if you don’t feel comfortable answering. Do you have any questions before we begin?”

Table 14.1. Focus group guide: Example questions for a descriptive study

An earlier variation of this table has appeared in the Supplementary material for the article Why do students plagiarise? Informing higher education teaching and learning policy and practice . 4

Setting up the f ocus group

In the past, most focus groups were conducted in person. Emerging technologies have enabled the conduct of focus groups online, using teleconferencing and videoconferencing platforms. While it is more challenging to conduct a focus group online – primarily because participants’ body language is often not seen – it can be a very useful method of collecting data. The benefits include low cost, greater access to participants in different locations and time efficiencies. 5 Participants who are less inclined to participate verbally are able to use ‘chat’ functions to contribute their comments. Whether the focus group is face-to-face or online, the facilitator will need to help participants feel as comfortable as possible and encourage discussion.

Focus group activities

Focus groups may incorporate activities in addition to, or to aid discussion; for example, sorting and ranking activities to prioritise topics for discussion in the focus group; or a River of Life 6 activity (see Chapter 18 ).

C onsiderations for the conduct of focus groups

C onfidentiality should be addressed explicitly; for example, using the Chatham House rule, which sets out expectations about repeating what is said in a meeting without revealing the identities of who said it or other participants. 7  It is advisable to provide each participant with an explanatory statement to read, which states that confidentiality is essential to the focus group discussions.

Expectations need to be communicated in advance. Many of the tips for interviews in Chapter 13 apply also to focus groups, but it is important to communicate the researchers’ and the group’s expectations upfront. Some, but not all, of the expectations of focus groups are included in Table 14.2. The facilitator should explain these expectations before the focus group starts. Table 14.3 provides examples of studies using focus groups for data collection.

Table 14.2. Dos and don’ts of conducting focus groups

Power imbalances. When setting up a focus group, the facilitator should pay strict attention to how homogenous the group needs to be concerning the topic, and how possible power imbalances might affect the data collection. For example, if the research question seeks to understand why drug administration errors occur in hospitals, it would not be a good idea to have doctors, nurses and pharmacists in the same group. Why? Because they might not feel comfortable expressing views in front of the very people they have seen make errors. Instead, you could run three separate groups: one with doctors, one with nurses and another with pharmacists. Conducting separate group discussions helps to avoid the chance that a powerful group might dominate the discussion and enables each group member to express their views openly.

Participant identity. The facilitator should invite participants to introduce themselves to other group members, to encourage familiarity; name tags can help participants remember each other’s names. The researchers will need to maintain a list of participants and any necessary demographic details.

Risk. The possibility of distress or harm occurring must always be considered in a focus group. Participants may become distressed because sensitive topics are being discussed, and there is always a risk that some participants might overshare their experiences. The facilitator will need to judge when to stop the discussion if it becomes clear that one or more participants are distressed. 8 Researchers should have a clear protocol developed that provides advice about how to handle distress.

After the f ocus g roup

Once the discussion is concluded, participants should be thanked for their time and contributions. Explain how participants might contact the researcher if they have any questions or would like to provide the facilitator with follow-up information. If the focus group has covered sensitive topics or any participants have become distressed during the discussion, make sure that you spend some time privately with the participant to provide appropriate referrals and follow-up (see Section 6 ). Referrals and follow-up are usually described in the protocol addressing distress.

Data analysis is discussed in Section 4 , but it is important to know what to do immediately after each focus group is completed. Download (or upload) the recording from the audio-recording device to ensure it is saved in a secure location that can only be accessed by people on the research team (see Chapter 34). The recording should be transcribed; that is, reproduced verbatim, for data coding and analysis. The transcription of data is an important step in the analysis process, and it is important to note that this is a highly time-consuming task. Transcribing a 60-minute focus group discussion can take up to 10 hours.

Table 14.3. Examples of focus groups

Focus groups and (individual interviews) are the most common data collection techniques in qualitative research. The success of a focus group depends on the group composition and the effectiveness of the facilitator. It is important to formulate open-ended focus group questions that are understandable and easy for participants to engage with. Setting up the focus group discussion guide, rules and other considerations will enhance the experience of the focus group for the participant and the researchers, as well as the quality of the data collected.

• Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E et al . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J . 2008;204(6):291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
• Gill, P, Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J . 2018;225:668-672. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815
• Soh S-E, Barker AL, Ayton DR et al. What matters most to patients following percutaneous coronary interventions? A new patient-reported outcome measure developed using Rasch analysis. PLoS ONE . 2019;14(9):e0222185. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222185
• Ayton D, Hillman C, Hatzikiriakidis K, et al. Why do students plagiarise? Informing higher education teaching and learning policy and practice. Stud High Educ . Sep 2 2022;47(9):1921-1934. doi:10.1080/03075079.2021.1985103
• Abrams K, Gaiser T. Online focus groups. In: Field N, Lee R, Blank G, eds. The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . Sage Publications, 2016;435–450.
• Moussa Z. Rivers of life. Participatory Learning and Action. Community-based adaptation to climate change, 2009. The International Institute for Environment and Development. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.iied.org/g02828
• The Chatham House rule. Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule#:~:text=The%20Rule%20reads%20as%20follows,other%20participant%2C%20may%20be%20revealed .
• Sim J, Waterfield J. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant. 2019;53:3003-3022. doi/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5
• van der Spek N, Vos J, van Uden-Kraan CF et al. Meaning making in cancer survivors: a focus group study. P LoS ONE . 2013;8(9):e76089. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076089
• Visser E, Den Oudsten BL, Traa MJ et al . Patients’ experiences and wellbeing after injury: a focus group study. PLoS ONE . 2021;1 6(1):e0245198. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245198
• Moynihan R, Sims R, Hersch J et al . Communicating about overdiagnosis: learning from community focus groups on osteoporosis. PLoS ONE . 2017;12(2):e0170142. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170142
• Sabet Sarvestani A, Bufumbo L, Geiger JD et al. . Traditional male circumcision in Uganda: a qualitative focus group discussion analysis. PLoS ONE . 2012;7(10):e45316. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045316

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Tess Tsindos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Qualitative Research:...

Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups

• Related content
• Peer review
• Jenny Kitzinger , research fellow a
• a Glasgow University Media Group, Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8LF

This paper introduces focus group methodology, gives advice on group composition, running the groups, and analysing the results. Focus groups have advantages for researchers in the field of health and medicine: they do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or who feel they have nothing to say.

This is the fifth in a series of seven articles describing non-quantitative techniques and showing their value in health research

**FIGURE OMITTED**

Rationale and uses of focus groups

Focus groups are a form of group interview that capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data. Although group interviews are often used simply as a quick and convenient way to collect data from several people simultaneously, focus groups explicitly use group interaction as part of the method. This means that instead of the researcher asking each person to respond to a question in turn, people are encouraged to talk to one another: asking questions, exchanging anecdotes and commenting on each other's experiences and points of view. 1 The method is particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how they think and why they think that way.

Focus groups were originally used within communication studies to explore the effects of films and television programmes, 2 and are a popular method for assessing health education messages and examining public understandings of illness and of health behaviours. 3 4 5 6 7 They are widely used to examine people's experiences of disease and of health services. 8 9 and are an effective technique for exploring the attitudes and needs of staff. 10 11

The idea behind the focus group method is that group processes can help people to explore and …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Chapter 12. Focus Groups

Introduction.

Focus groups are a particular and special form of interviewing in which the interview asks focused questions of a group of persons, optimally between five and eight. This group can be close friends, family members, or complete strangers. They can have a lot in common or nothing in common. Unlike one-on-one interviews, which can probe deeply, focus group questions are narrowly tailored (“focused”) to a particular topic and issue and, with notable exceptions, operate at the shallow end of inquiry. For example, market researchers use focus groups to find out why groups of people choose one brand of product over another. Because focus groups are often used for commercial purposes, they sometimes have a bit of a stigma among researchers. This is unfortunate, as the focus group is a helpful addition to the qualitative researcher’s toolkit. Focus groups explicitly use group interaction to assist in the data collection. They are particularly useful as supplements to one-on-one interviews or in data triangulation. They are sometimes used to initiate areas of inquiry for later data collection methods. This chapter describes the main forms of focus groups, lays out some key differences among those forms, and provides guidance on how to manage focus group interviews.

Focus Groups: What Are They and When to Use Them

As interviews, focus groups can be helpfully distinguished from one-on-one interviews. The purpose of conducting a focus group is not to expand the number of people one interviews: the focus group is a different entity entirely. The focus is on the group and its interactions and evaluations rather than on the individuals in that group. If you want to know how individuals understand their lives and their individual experiences, it is best to ask them individually. If you want to find out how a group forms a collective opinion about something (whether a product or an event or an experience), then conducting a focus group is preferable. The power of focus groups resides in their being both focused and oriented to the group . They are best used when you are interested in the shared meanings of a group or how people discuss a topic publicly or when you want to observe the social formation of evaluations. The interaction of the group members is an asset in this method of data collection. If your questions would not benefit from group interaction, this is a good indicator that you should probably use individual interviews (chapter 11). Avoid using focus groups when you are interested in personal information or strive to uncover deeply buried beliefs or personal narratives. In general, you want to avoid using focus groups when the subject matter is polarizing, as people are less likely to be honest in a group setting. There are a few exceptions, such as when you are conducting focus groups with people who are not strangers and/or you are attempting to probe deeply into group beliefs and evaluations. But caution is warranted in these cases. [1]

As with interviewing in general, there are many forms of focus groups. Focus groups are widely used by nonresearchers, so it is important to distinguish these uses from the research focus group. Businesses routinely employ marketing focus groups to test out products or campaigns. Jury consultants employ “mock” jury focus groups, testing out legal case strategies in advance of actual trials. Organizations of various kinds use focus group interviews for program evaluation (e.g., to gauge the effectiveness of a diversity training workshop). The research focus group has many similarities with all these uses but is specifically tailored to a research (rather than applied) interest. The line between application and research use can be blurry, however. To take the case of evaluating the effectiveness of a diversity training workshop, the same interviewer may be conducting focus group interviews both to provide specific actionable feedback for the workshop leaders (this is the application aspect) and to learn more about how people respond to diversity training (an interesting research question with theoretically generalizable results).

When forming a focus group, there are two different strategies for inclusion. Diversity focus groups include people with diverse perspectives and experiences. This helps the researcher identify commonalities across this diversity and/or note interactions across differences. What kind of diversity to capture depends on the research question, but care should be taken to ensure that those participating are not set up for attack from other participants. This is why many warn against diversity focus groups, especially around politically sensitive topics. The other strategy is to build a convergence focus group , which includes people with similar perspectives and experiences. These are particularly helpful for identifying shared patterns and group consensus. The important thing is to closely consider who will be invited to participate and what the composition of the group will be in advance. Some review of sampling techniques (see chapter 5) may be helpful here.

Moderating a focus group can be a challenge (more on this below). For this reason, confining your group to no more than eight participants is recommended. You probably want at least four persons to capture group interaction. Fewer than four participants can also make it more difficult for participants to remain (relatively) anonymous—there is less of a group in which to hide. There are exceptions to these recommendations. You might want to conduct a focus group with a naturally occurring group, as in the case of a family of three, a social club of ten, or a program of fifteen. When the persons know one another, the problems of too few for anonymity don’t apply, and although ten to fifteen can be unwieldy to manage, there are strategies to make this possible. If you really are interested in this group’s dynamic (not just a set of random strangers’ dynamic), then you will want to include all its members or as many as are willing and able to participate.

There are many benefits to conducting focus groups, the first of which is their interactivity. Participants can make comparisons, can elaborate on what has been voiced by another, and can even check one another, leading to real-time reevaluations. This last benefit is one reason they are sometimes employed specifically for consciousness raising or building group cohesion. This form of data collection has an activist application when done carefully and appropriately. It can be fun, especially for the participants. Additionally, what does not come up in a focus group, especially when expected by the researcher, can be very illuminating.

Many of these benefits do incur costs, however. The multiplicity of voices in a good focus group interview can be overwhelming both to moderate and later to transcribe. Because of the focused nature, deep probing is not possible (or desirable). You might only get superficial thinking or what people are willing to put out there publicly. If that is what you are interested in, good. If you want deeper insight, you probably will not get that here. Relatedly, extreme views are often suppressed, and marginal viewpoints are unspoken or, if spoken, derided. You will get the majority group consensus and very little of minority viewpoints. Because people will be engaged with one another, there is the possibility of cut-off sentences, making it even more likely to hear broad brush themes and not detailed specifics. There really is very little opportunity for specific follow-up questions to individuals. Reading over a transcript, you may be frustrated by avenues of inquiry that were foreclosed early.

Some people expect that conducting focus groups is an efficient form of data collection. After all, you get to hear from eight people instead of just one in the same amount of time! But this is a serious misunderstanding. What you hear in a focus group is one single group interview or discussion. It is not the same thing at all as conducting eight single one-hour interviews. Each focus group counts as “one.” Most likely, you will need to conduct several focus groups, and you can design these as comparisons to one another. For example, the American Sociological Association (ASA) Task Force on First-Generation and Working-Class Persons in Sociology began its study of the impact of class in sociology by conducting five separate focus groups with different groups of sociologists: graduate students, faculty (in general), community college faculty, faculty of color, and a racially diverse group of students and faculty. Even though the total number of participants was close to forty, the “number” of cases was five. It is highly recommended that when employing focus groups, you plan on composing more than one and at least three. This allows you to take note of and potentially discount findings from a group with idiosyncratic dynamics, such as where a particularly dominant personality silences all other voices. In other words, putting all your eggs into a single focus group basket is not a good idea.

How to Conduct a Focus Group Interview/Discussion

Advance preparations.

Once you have selected your focus groups and set a date and time, there are a few things you will want to plan out before meeting.

As with interviews, you begin by creating an interview (or discussion) guide. Where a good one-on-one interview guide should include ten to twelve main topics with possible prompts and follow-ups (see the example provided in chapter 11), the focus group guide should be more narrowly tailored to a single focus or topic area. For example, a focus might be “How students coped with online learning during the pandemic,” and a series of possible questions would be drafted that would help prod participants to think about and discuss this topic. These questions or discussion prompts can be creative and may include stimulus materials (watching a video or hearing a story) or posing hypotheticals. For example, Cech ( 2021 ) has a great hypothetical, asking what a fictional character should do: keep his boring job in computers or follow his passion and open a restaurant. You can ask a focus group this question and see what results—how the group comes to define a “good job,” what questions they ask about the hypothetical (How boring is his job really? Does he hate getting up in the morning, or is it more of an everyday tedium? What kind of financial support will he have if he quits? Does he even know how to run a restaurant?), and how they reach a consensus or create clear patterns of disagreement are all interesting findings that can be generated through this technique.

As with the above example (“What should Joe do?”), it is best to keep the questions you ask simple and easily understood by everyone. Thinking about the sequence of the questions/prompts is important, just as it is in conducting any interviews.

Avoid embarrassing questions. Always leave an out for the “I have a friend who X” response rather than pushing people to divulge personal information. Asking “How do you think students coped?” is better than “How did you cope?” Chances are, some participants will begin talking about themselves without you directly asking them to do so, but allowing impersonal responses here is good. The group itself will determine how deep and how personal it wants to go. This is not the time or place to push anyone out of their comfort zone!

Of course, people have different levels of comfort talking publicly about certain topics. You will have provided detailed information to your focus group participants beforehand and secured consent. But even so, the conversation may take a turn that makes someone uncomfortable. Be on the lookout for this, and remind everyone of their ability to opt out—to stay silent or to leave if necessary. Rather than call attention to anyone in this way, you also want to let everyone know they are free to walk around—to get up and get coffee (more on this below) or use the restroom or just step out of the room to take a call. Of course, you don’t really want anyone to do any of these things, and chances are everyone will stay seated during the hour, but you should leave this “out” for those who need it.

Have copies of consent forms and any supplemental questionnaire (e.g., demographic information) you are using prepared in advance. Ask a friend or colleague to assist you on the day of the focus group. They can be responsible for making sure the recording equipment is functioning and may even take some notes on body language while you are moderating the discussion. Order food (coffee or snacks) for the group. This is important! Having refreshments will be appreciated by your participants and really damps down the anxiety level. Bring name tags and pens. Find a quiet welcoming space to convene. Often this is a classroom where you move chairs into a circle, but public libraries often have meeting rooms that are ideal places for community members to meet. Be sure that the space allows for food.

Researcher Note

When I was designing my research plan for studying activist groups, I consulted one of the best qualitative researchers I knew, my late friend Raphael Ezekiel, author of The Racist Mind . He looked at my plan to hand people demographic surveys at the end of the meetings I planned to observe and said, “This methodology is missing one crucial thing.” “What?” I asked breathlessly, anticipating some technical insider tip. “Chocolate!” he answered. “They’ll be tired, ready to leave when you ask them to fill something out. Offer an incentive, and they will stick around.” It worked! As the meetings began to wind down, I would whip some bags of chocolate candies out of my bag. Everyone would stare, and I’d say they were my thank-you gift to anyone who filled out my survey. Once I learned to include some sugar-free candies for diabetics, my typical response rate was 100 percent. (And it gave me an additional class-culture data point by noticing who chose which brand; sure enough, Lindt balls went faster at majority professional-middle-class groups, and Hershey’s minibars went faster at majority working-class groups.)

—Betsy Leondar-Wright, author of Missing Class , coauthor of The Color of Wealth , associate professor of sociology at Lasell University, and coordinator of staffing at the Mission Project for Class Action

During the Focus Group

As people arrive, greet them warmly, and make sure you get a signed consent form (if not in advance). If you are using name tags, ask them to fill one out and wear it. Let them get food and find a seat and do a little chatting, as they might wish. Once seated, many focus group moderators begin with a relevant icebreaker. This could be simple introductions that have some meaning or connection to the focus. In the case of the ASA task force focus groups discussed above, we asked people to introduce themselves and where they were working/studying (“Hi, I’m Allison, and I am a professor at Oregon State University”). You will also want to introduce yourself and the study in simple terms. They’ve already read the consent form, but you would be surprised at how many people ignore the details there or don’t remember them. Briefly talking about the study and then letting people ask any follow-up questions lays a good foundation for a successful discussion, as it reminds everyone what the point of the event is.

Focus groups should convene for between forty-five and ninety minutes. Of course, you must tell the participants the time you have chosen in advance, and you must promptly end at the time allotted. Do not make anyone nervous by extending the time. Let them know at the outset that you will adhere to this timeline. This should reduce the nervous checking of phones and watches and wall clocks as the end time draws near.

Set ground rules and expectations for the group discussion. My preference is to begin with a general question and let whoever wants to answer it do so, but other moderators expect each person to answer most questions. Explain how much cross-talk you will permit (or encourage). Again, my preference is to allow the group to pick up the ball and run with it, so I will sometimes keep my head purposefully down so that they engage with one another rather than me, but I have seen other moderators take a much more engaged position. Just be clear at the outset about what your expectations are. You may or may not want to explain how the group should deal with those who would dominate the conversation. Sometimes, simply stating at the outset that all voices should be heard is enough to create a more egalitarian discourse. Other times, you will have to actively step in to manage (moderate) the exchange to allow more voices to be heard. Finally, let people know they are free to get up to get more coffee or leave the room as they need (if you are OK with this). You may ask people to refrain from using their phones during the duration of the discussion. That is up to you too.

Either before or after the introductions (your call), begin recording the discussion with their collective permission and knowledge . If you have brought a friend or colleague to assist you (as you should), have them attend to the recording. Explain the role of your colleague to the group (e.g., they will monitor the recording and will take short notes throughout to help you when you read the transcript later; they will be a silent observer).

Once the focus group gets going, it may be difficult to keep up. You will need to make a lot of quick decisions during the discussion about whether to intervene or let it go unguided. Only you really care about the research question or topic, so only you will really know when the discussion is truly off topic. However you handle this, keep your “participation” to a minimum. According to Lune and Berg ( 2018:95 ), the moderator’s voice should show up in the transcript no more than 10 percent of the time. By the way, you should also ask your research assistant to take special note of the “intensity” of the conversation, as this may be lost in a transcript. If there are people looking overly excited or tapping their feet with impatience or nodding their heads in unison, you want some record of this for future analysis.

I’m not sure why this stuck with me, but I thought it would be interesting to share. When I was reviewing my plan for conducting focus groups with one of my committee members, he suggested that I give the participants their gift cards first. The incentive for participating in the study was a gift card of their choice, and typical processes dictate that participants must complete the study in order to receive their gift card. However, my committee member (who is Native himself) suggested I give it at the beginning. As a qualitative researcher, you build trust with the people you engage with. You are asking them to share their stories with you, their intimate moments, their vulnerabilities, their time. Not to mention that Native people are familiar with being academia’s subjects of interest with little to no benefit to be returned to them. To show my appreciation, one of the things I could do was to give their gifts at the beginning, regardless of whether or not they completed participating.

—Susanna Y. Park, PhD, mixed-methods researcher in public health and author of “How Native Women Seek Support as Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study”

After the Focus Group

Your “data” will be either fieldnotes taken during the focus group or, more desirably, transcripts of the recorded exchange. If you do not have permission to record the focus group discussion, make sure you take very clear notes during the exchange and then spend a few hours afterward filling them in as much as possible, creating a rich memo to yourself about what you saw and heard and experienced, including any notes about body language and interactions. Ideally, however, you will have recorded the discussion. It is still a good idea to spend some time immediately after the conclusion of the discussion to write a memo to yourself with all the things that may not make it into the written record (e.g., body language and interactions). This is also a good time to journal about or create a memo with your initial researcher reactions to what you saw, noting anything of particular interest that you want to come back to later on (e.g., “It was interesting that no one thought Joe should quit his job, but in the other focus group, half of the group did. I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that all the participants were first-generation college students. I should pay attention to class background here.”).

Please thank each of your participants in a follow-up email or text. Let them know you appreciated their time and invite follow-up questions or comments.

One of the difficult things about focus group transcripts is keeping speakers distinct. Eventually, you are going to be using pseudonyms for any publication, but for now, you probably want to know who said what. You can assign speaker numbers (“Speaker 1,” “Speaker 2”) and connect those identifications with particular demographic information in a separate document. Remember to clearly separate actual identifications (as with consent forms) to prevent breaches of anonymity. If you cannot identify a speaker when transcribing, you can write, “Unidentified Speaker.” Once you have your transcript(s) and memos and fieldnotes, you can begin analyzing the data (chapters 18 and 19).

Advanced: Focus Groups on Sensitive Topics

Throughout this chapter, I have recommended against raising sensitive topics in focus group discussions. As an introvert myself, I find the idea of discussing personal topics in a group disturbing, and I tend to avoid conducting these kinds of focus groups. And yet I have actually participated in focus groups that do discuss personal information and consequently have been of great value to me as a participant (and researcher) because of this. There are even some researchers who believe this is the best use of focus groups ( de Oliveira 2011 ). For example, Jordan et al. ( 2007 ) argue that focus groups should be considered most useful for illuminating locally sanctioned ways of talking about sensitive issues. So although I do not recommend the beginning qualitative researcher dive into deep waters before they can swim, this section will provide some guidelines for conducting focus groups on sensitive topics. To my mind, these are a minimum set of guidelines to follow when dealing with sensitive topics.

First, be transparent about the place of sensitive topics in your focus group. If the whole point of your focus group is to discuss something sensitive, such as how women gain support after traumatic sexual assault events, make this abundantly clear in your consent form and recruiting materials. It is never appropriate to blindside participants with sensitive or threatening topics .

Second, create a confidentiality form (figure 12.2) for each participant to sign. These forms carry no legal weight, but they do create an expectation of confidentiality for group members.

In order to respect the privacy of all participants in [insert name of study here], all parties are asked to read and sign the statement below. If you have any reason not to sign, please discuss this with [insert your name], the researcher of this study, I, ________________________, agree to maintain the confidentiality of the information discussed by all participants and researchers during the focus group discussion.

Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________

Researcher’s Signature:___________________ Date:______________________

Figure 12.2 Confidentiality Agreement of Focus Group Participants

Third, provide abundant space for opting out of the discussion. Participants are, of course, always permitted to refrain from answering a question or to ask for the recording to be stopped. It is important that focus group members know they have these rights during the group discussion as well. And if you see a person who is looking uncomfortable or like they want to hide, you need to step in affirmatively and remind everyone of these rights.

Finally, if things go “off the rails,” permit yourself the ability to end the focus group. Debrief with each member as necessary.

Further Readings

Barbour, Rosaline. 2018. Doing Focus Groups . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Written by a medical sociologist based in the UK, this is a good how-to guide for conducting focus groups.

Gibson, Faith. 2007. “Conducting Focus Groups with Children and Young People: Strategies for Success.” Journal of Research in Nursing 12(5):473–483. As the title suggests, this article discusses both methodological and practical concerns when conducting focus groups with children and young people and offers some tips and strategies for doing so effectively.

Hopkins, Peter E. 2007. “Thinking Critically and Creatively about Focus Groups.” Area 39(4):528–535. Written from the perspective of critical/human geography, Hopkins draws on examples from his own work conducting focus groups with Muslim men. Useful for thinking about positionality.

Jordan, Joanne, Una Lynch, Marianne Moutray, Marie-Therese O’Hagan, Jean Orr, Sandra Peake, and John Power. 2007. “Using Focus Groups to Research Sensitive Issues: Insights from Group Interviews on Nursing in the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles.’” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6(4), 1–19. A great example of using focus groups productively around emotional or sensitive topics. The authors suggest that focus groups should be considered most useful for illuminating locally sanctioned ways of talking about sensitive issues.

Merton, Robert K., Marjorie Fiske, and Patricia L. Kendall. 1956. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures . New York: Free Press. This is one of the first classic texts on conducting interviews, including an entire chapter devoted to the “group interview” (chapter 6).

Morgan, David L. 1986. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:129–152. An excellent sociological review of the use of focus groups, comparing and contrasting to both surveys and interviews, with some suggestions for improving their use and developing greater rigor when utilizing them.

de Oliveira, Dorca Lucia. 2011. “The Use of Focus Groups to Investigate Sensitive Topics: An Example Taken from Research on Adolescent Girls’ Perceptions about Sexual Risks.” Cien Saude Colet 16(7):3093–3102. Another example of discussing sensitive topics in focus groups. Here, the author explores using focus groups with teenage girls to discuss AIDS, risk, and sexuality as a matter of public health interest.

Peek, Lori, and Alice Fothergill. 2009. “Using Focus Groups: Lessons from Studying Daycare Centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina.” Qualitative Research 9(1):31–59. An examination of the efficacy and value of focus groups by comparing three separate projects: a study of teachers, parents, and children at two urban daycare centers; a study of the responses of second-generation Muslim Americans to the events of September 11; and a collaborative project on the experiences of children and youth following Hurricane Katrina. Throughout, the authors stress the strength of focus groups with marginalized, stigmatized, or vulnerable individuals.

Wilson, Valerie. 1997. “Focus Groups: A Useful Qualitative Method for Educational Research?” British Educational Research Journal 23(2):209–224. A basic description of how focus groups work using an example from a study intended to inform initiatives in health education and promotion in Scotland.

• Note that I have included a few examples of conducting focus groups with sensitive issues in the “ Further Readings ” section and have included an “ Advanced: Focus Groups on Sensitive Topics ” section on this area. ↵

A focus group interview is an interview with a small group of people on a specific topic.  “The power of focus groups resides in their being focused” (Patton 2002:388).  These are sometimes framed as “discussions” rather than interviews, with a discussion “moderator.”  Alternatively, the focus group is “a form of data collection whereby the researcher convenes a small group of people having similar attributes, experiences, or ‘focus’ and leads the group in a nondirective manner.  The objective is to surface the perspectives of the people in the group with as minimal influence by the researcher as possible” (Yin 2016:336).  See also diversity focus group and convergence focus group.

A form of focus group construction in which people with diverse perspectives and experiences are chosen for inclusion.  This helps the researcher identify commonalities across this diversity and/or note interactions across differences.  Contrast with a convergence focus group

A form of focus group construction in which people with similar perspectives and experiences are included.  These are particularly helpful for identifying shared patterns and group consensus.  Contrast with a diversity focus group .

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 3
• Data collection in qualitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• David Barrett 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1130-5603 Alison Twycross 2
• 1 Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Hull , Hull , UK
• 2 School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Dr David Barrett, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK; D.I.Barrett{at}hull.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102939

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Qualitative research methods allow us to better understand the experiences of patients and carers; they allow us to explore how decisions are made and provide us with a detailed insight into how interventions may alter care. To develop such insights, qualitative research requires data which are holistic, rich and nuanced, allowing themes and findings to emerge through careful analysis. This article provides an overview of the core approaches to data collection in qualitative research, exploring their strengths, weaknesses and challenges.

Collecting data through interviews with participants is a characteristic of many qualitative studies. Interviews give the most direct and straightforward approach to gathering detailed and rich data regarding a particular phenomenon. The type of interview used to collect data can be tailored to the research question, the characteristics of participants and the preferred approach of the researcher. Interviews are most often carried out face-to-face, though the use of telephone interviews to overcome geographical barriers to participant recruitment is becoming more prevalent. 1

A common approach in qualitative research is the semistructured interview, where core elements of the phenomenon being studied are explicitly asked about by the interviewer. A well-designed semistructured interview should ensure data are captured in key areas while still allowing flexibility for participants to bring their own personality and perspective to the discussion. Finally, interviews can be much more rigidly structured to provide greater control for the researcher, essentially becoming questionnaires where responses are verbal rather than written.

Deciding where to place an interview design on this ‘structural spectrum’ will depend on the question to be answered and the skills of the researcher. A very structured approach is easy to administer and analyse but may not allow the participant to express themselves fully. At the other end of the spectrum, an open approach allows for freedom and flexibility, but requires the researcher to walk an investigative tightrope that maintains the focus of an interview without forcing participants into particular areas of discussion.

Example of an interview schedule 3

What do you think is the most effective way of assessing a child’s pain?

Have you come across any issues that make it difficult to assess a child’s pain?

What pain-relieving interventions do you find most useful and why?

When managing pain in children what is your overall aim?

Whose responsibility is pain management?

What involvement do you think parents should have in their child’s pain management?

What involvement do children have in their pain management?

Is there anything that currently stops you managing pain as well as you would like?

What would help you manage pain better?

Interviews present several challenges to researchers. Most interviews are recorded and will need transcribing before analysing. This can be extremely time-consuming, with 1 hour of interview requiring 5–6 hours to transcribe. 4 The analysis itself is also time-consuming, requiring transcriptions to be pored over word-for-word and line-by-line. Interviews also present the problem of bias the researcher needs to take care to avoid leading questions or providing non-verbal signals that might influence the responses of participants.

Focus groups

The focus group is a method of data collection in which a moderator/facilitator (usually a coresearcher) speaks with a group of 6–12 participants about issues related to the research question. As an approach, the focus group offers qualitative researchers an efficient method of gathering the views of many participants at one time. Also, the fact that many people are discussing the same issue together can result in an enhanced level of debate, with the moderator often able to step back and let the focus group enter into a free-flowing discussion. 5 This provides an opportunity to gather rich data from a specific population about a particular area of interest, such as barriers perceived by student nurses when trying to communicate with patients with cancer. 6

From a participant perspective, the focus group may provide a more relaxing environment than a one-to-one interview; they will not need to be involved with every part of the discussion and may feel more comfortable expressing views when they are shared by others in the group. Focus groups also allow participants to ‘bounce’ ideas off each other which sometimes results in different perspectives emerging from the discussion. However, focus groups are not without their difficulties. As with interviews, focus groups provide a vast amount of data to be transcribed and analysed, with discussions often lasting 1–2 hours. Moderators also need to be highly skilled to ensure that the discussion can flow while remaining focused and that all participants are encouraged to speak, while ensuring that no individuals dominate the discussion. 7

Observation

Participant and non-participant observation are powerful tools for collecting qualitative data, as they give nurse researchers an opportunity to capture a wide array of information—such as verbal and non-verbal communication, actions (eg, techniques of providing care) and environmental factors—within a care setting. Another advantage of observation is that the researcher gains a first-hand picture of what actually happens in clinical practice. 8 If the researcher is adopting a qualitative approach to observation they will normally record field notes . Field notes can take many forms, such as a chronological log of what is happening in the setting, a description of what has been observed, a record of conversations with participants or an expanded account of impressions from the fieldwork. 9 10

As with other qualitative data collection techniques, observation provides an enormous amount of data to be captured and analysed—one approach to helping with collection and analysis is to digitally record observations to allow for repeated viewing. 11 Observation also provides the researcher with some unique methodological and ethical challenges. Methodologically, the act of being observed may change the behaviour of the participant (often referred to as the ‘Hawthorne effect’), impacting on the value of findings. However, most researchers report a process of habitation taking place where, after a relatively short period of time, those being observed revert to their normal behaviour. Ethically, the researcher will need to consider when and how they should intervene if they view poor practice that could put patients at risk.

The three core approaches to data collection in qualitative research—interviews, focus groups and observation—provide researchers with rich and deep insights. All methods require skill on the part of the researcher, and all produce a large amount of raw data. However, with careful and systematic analysis 12 the data yielded with these methods will allow researchers to develop a detailed understanding of patient experiences and the work of nurses.

• Twycross AM ,
• Williams AM ,
• Huang MC , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ ,
• Dickinson WB ,
• Leech NL , et al
• Twycross A ,
• Emerson RM ,
• Meriläinen M ,
• Ala-Kokko T

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

• Accessibility
• Skills Training
• Skills Training Calendar

Collecting qualitative data: Interviews and Focus Groups, online

Communication Skills Research Skills

Thursday, 07 November 2024 to Friday, 08 November 2024, 9.30am - 12.30pm

This course is aimed at anyone planning to collect qualitative data using interviews or focus groups. Delivered over 2 half-days, this course will equally suit people new to qualitative research, and those who wish to develop additional skills in data collection.

You are expected to attend two sessions:

• Thursday 7 November, 09:30 - 12:30
• Friday, 8 November 09:30 - 12:30

COURSE CONTENT

Through a dynamic combination of lectures, practical exercises, and group discussion students will gain knowledge of the core principles for designing and running interviews and focus groups.

• We will consider the differences (and similarities) between interviews and focus groups, and in which context each may be used.
• We will focus on the crucial role of question design in qualitative data collection; including generating awareness of the effect of certain question designs, including ‘leading questions’ and ‘compound questions’.
• We will review and critique existing topic guides for qualitative interviews and focus groups
• Throughout the session we will consider the active role of the researcher in co-creating data with participants (rather than as a passive observer), and introduce the concept of ‘reflexivity’ to provide practical methods to manage this.
• We will also consider the practicalities of running effective focus groups and interviews, including necessary equipment, and procedures, drawing in the concept of ‘fair dealing’.
• Participants will have opportunity to practice designing their own interview (or focus group) questions, and to pilot these during the course.

Please note, this course does not cover issues around participant recruitment or sample size, which are available in “Primary qualitative research made simple”.

Teaching Methods:

• Practical exercises
• Group discussion

  COURSE OBJECTIVES

Key Learning outcomes:

• Understand the differences between qualitative interviews and focus groups, and in which context each may be used
• Review the different methods for doing qualitative interviews, including structured, semi-structured, and Think Aloud interviews
• Learn about the role of question design in generating responses
• Be aware of the co-constructed nature of qualitative data
• Practice skills in question design

PARTICIPANT NUMBERS

Attendance certificate on survey completion.

It is now a requirement that you complete the three short questions in the survey you receive after attending the course. Once you have submitted the survey, you will be sent an email with a link to your attendance certificate. This is to ensure we receive the feedback we need to evaluate and improve our courses. Survey results are downloaded and stored anonymously.

Booking Instructions

Step-by-step guidelines on how to book a Skills Training course.

Terms & Conditions

These terms and conditions apply to all MSD Skills training courses attendees.

Events from across the University

RSL will be hosting a series of workshops exploring different hardware and apps to help with academic reading, writing, and the responsible use of AI technology in academic work. More information can be found here .

Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.

Top qualitative data analysis techniques for focus groups.

Home » Top qualitative data analysis techniques for focus groups

Focus Group Insights play a crucial role in understanding the underlying motivations of participants during discussions. These insights are invaluable in identifying trends, pain points, and unique perspectives that emerge from group interactions. As businesses aim to make data-driven decisions, capturing the essence of these discussions can significantly inform product development, marketing strategies, and overall customer satisfaction.

Effective analysis of focus group data requires various qualitative techniques to uncover hidden patterns. By systematically exploring participant feedback, organizations can derive actionable insights that lead to enhanced services and improved user experiences. Understanding how to implement these analysis techniques is essential for maximizing the value of focus group discussions.

Common Qualitative Analysis Methods

In qualitative research, analyzing data from focus groups yields valuable insights into participants’ perceptions and experiences. Common qualitative analysis methods help researchers interpret these focus group insights effectively. Thematic analysis is one such approach, where researchers identify and analyze key themes that arise from the discussions. This method focuses on patterns across participant responses, allowing for a nuanced understanding of shared experiences and differences.

Another significant method is content analysis, which entails a systematic examination of verbatim transcripts. In this process, researchers code and categorize responses to uncover underlying meanings and trends. Additionally, narrative analysis can be employed to explore individual stories and how they relate to broader themes within the group. By employing these qualitative analysis methods, researchers can ensure that focus group insights are thoroughly examined and translated into actionable findings that inform decision-making and strategy.

Thematic Analysis for Focus Group Insights

Thematic analysis plays a critical role in deriving meaningful Focus Group Insights from qualitative data. This method allows researchers to identify, analyze, and report patterns or themes within the data gathered from focus group discussions. By systematically organizing the wealth of information gathered, thematic analysis offers a clearer understanding of participant sentiments, behaviors, and pain points.

To effectively conduct thematic analysis, consider these key steps: First, familiarize yourself with the data by reading through transcripts thoroughly. Then, generate initial codes that capture important features of the content. Next, search for themes by collating related codes into overarching themes. After that, review the themes to ensure they accurately represent the data. Finally, define and name each theme, providing insights and context to draw actionable conclusions. This structured approach ensures that your Focus Group Insights not only reflect participants' voices but also provide valuable information for making informed decisions.

Content Analysis Techniques

Content analysis techniques provide an effective means to interpret focus group insights. By systematically examining conversation transcripts, researchers can identify patterns and recurring themes that emerge from discussions. This approach not only aids in synthesizing large volumes of qualitative data but also enhances understanding of participants' perspectives, enabling deeper insights into their motivations and experiences.

Several techniques stand out in the realm of content analysis. First, thematic analysis involves categorizing data into themes for further examination. Next, sentiment analysis gauges emotional tone, providing additional context to participants’ feelings on specific topics. Additionally, coding responses can efficiently aggregate similar ideas, allowing for a clearer visualization of dominant views. Ultimately, implementing these techniques will transform raw focus group insights into actionable intelligence that informs decision-making and strategy development.

Advanced Focus Group Insights

Advanced Focus Group Insights can illuminate key patterns and themes from gathered data. Analyzing qualitative data from focus groups requires structure to uncover action-oriented insights. Focus Group Insights enable researchers to dive deep into participants' sentiments, behaviors, and underlying motivations. By rigorously categorizing these insights, professionals can identify significant trends and themes that inform strategic decisions.

To extract valuable outcomes from focus groups, consider key techniques. First, pinpoint themes by reviewing participant interactions, analyzing quotes for context. Next, create a synthesis of insights tied to specific goals, such as customer retention and engagement. Finally, attribute insights to individual participants for accuracy and deeper understanding. By focusing on these elements, researchers can ensure clarity and precision in their analysis, leading to actionable Findings that truly reflect participant views and experiences. This approach not only enriches the insights gathered but also enhances the overall quality of qualitative research.

Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded Theory Approach is an analytical method that seeks to generate theories from qualitative data rather than testing existing hypotheses. In focus groups, this approach allows researchers to develop insights based on participants' experiences and perspectives. This is invaluable for understanding the nuances of group dynamics and collective viewpoints.

In applying this approach, researchers typically follow several key steps. First, they collect data through focus group discussions, ensuring rich and varied contributions from participants. Next, they engage in open coding, a process where they identify themes, concepts, and patterns within the dialogue. Subsequently, axial coding connects these categories, revealing relationships and deeper meanings behind participants' comments. Finally, selective coding helps in forming a cohesive narrative that encapsulates the overarching themes derived from Focus Group Insights. Through this iterative process, researchers can effectively build theories that are rooted in participants’ lived experiences, enhancing the overall understanding of the subject matter.

Narrative Analysis for Focus Groups

Narrative analysis for focus groups delves into how participants convey their thoughts and experiences. This technique emphasizes understanding the stories shared during discussions, revealing deeper insights that might otherwise go unnoticed. By examining the narrative structure, researchers can uncover themes that resonate throughout the group, offering valuable focus group insights.

In narrative analysis, it is vital to consider three main aspects: context, content, and meaning. First, understanding the context in which the narratives are shared helps researchers grasp the motivations and emotions behind participants' responses. Second, analyzing the content ensures that the specific words and phrases used are carefully considered, as they can highlight unique perspectives. Lastly, exploring the underlying meanings reveals attitudes and beliefs that influence participants' behaviors, enriching the overall understanding of the topic at hand. This comprehensive approach not only amplifies the focus group insights but also fosters a more nuanced interpretation of qualitative data.

Conclusion on Harnessing Focus Group Insights

Harnessing Focus Group Insights provides organizations with a deeper understanding of their target audience’s perspectives. By analyzing qualitative data from focus groups, teams can uncover motivations, pain points, and preferences that guide decision-making processes. Each insight, backed by compelling quotes or evidence, allows for a more informed recruitment strategy or product development approach, ultimately driving customer satisfaction.

Additionally, the ability to identify behavioral patterns and desires enables organizations to tailor their offerings effectively. This thoughtful analysis encourages continuous improvement and innovation, helping businesses not only meet but exceed the expectations of their clients. Embracing Focus Group Insights transforms raw data into meaningful action that resonates with the audience.

Turn interviews into actionable insights

On this Page

Coding for qualitative research: AI-powered tools

You may also like, benefits of real time speech analytics in call centers.

Best speech analytics solutions to drive business growth

Best call center voice analytics software for small businesses.

Unlock Insights from Interviews 10x faster

• Request demo
• Get started for free

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online

Gregory Guest , PhD, MA, Emily Namey , MA, Amy O'Regan , MS, Chrissy Godwin , MSPH, and Jamilah Taylor .

Affiliations

• Copyright and Permissions

Structured Abstract

Background:.

Online focus groups (FGs) and individual interviews (IDIs) are increasingly used to collect qualitative data. Online data collection offers benefits (eg, geographic reach), but the literature on whether and how data collection modality affects the data generated is mixed. The limited evidence base suggests that data collected via online modalities may be less rich in terms of word count, but more efficient in terms of surfacing thematic content. There is also limited evidence on the comparative costs of online vs in-person data collection.

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to compare data generated from FGs and IDIs across 4 data collection modalities: (1) face-to-face; (2) online synchronous video-based; (3) online synchronous text-based; and (4) online asynchronous text–based. We also aimed to compare participant experience and data collection costs across modalities.

We used a cross-sectional quasi-experimental design. We systematically assigned participants to 1 of the 4 modalities (according to a rolling sequence) on enrollment and randomly assigned them to either IDIs or FGs. We held constant the interviewer and question guide across 24 FGs (n = 123 participants) and 48 IDIs, conducted between September 2016 and October 2017. Participants also completed a brief survey on their experiences of data collection. A team of 3 analysts performed inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, generating and applying emergent theme-based codes. We also used a priori codes to tag sensitive information across modalities. Analysts were not masked to data type, but all transcripts were coded independently by 2 analysts and compared to reach final consensus coding. We operationalized data richness in terms of volume of participant data, measured by word count, and thematic content, measured by the number of thematic codes applied per modality. Using time and expense data from the study, we calculated average cost per data collection activity.

Visual (face-to-face and online video) modalities generated significantly greater volume of data than did online text-based modalities; however, there were no significant qualitative differences in the thematic content among modalities for either IDIs or FGs. Text-based online FGs were more likely to contain a dissenting opinion ( P = 0.04) than visually based FGs, although this level of significance should be interpreted cautiously due to multiple comparisons. Participant ratings of data collection events were generally in the moderate to high range, with statistically significant differences in participant experience measures by modality for FGs: participants rated online video FGs lower than others on several measures. Without travel, online video data collection had the highest average costs for both IDIs and FGs; however, if estimated travel costs are included, then in-person data collection was more expensive.

Conclusions:

Among our sample, online modalities for conducting qualitative research did not result in substantial or significantly different thematic findings than in-person data collection. We did not find that online modalities encouraged more sharing of personally sensitive information, although we observed more instances of dissenting opinions in online text-based modalities. The homogeneity of the sample—in terms of sex, race, educational level, and computer skills—limits the wider generalizability of the findings. We also did not have a geographically distributed sample, which prevented us from having actual travel expenses for the cost analysis; however, the findings from this study were largely consistent with previous comparative research.

Qualitative research refers to research that generates and/or uses non-numeric data, most typically text, 1 , 2 and is characterized by open-ended questions and inductive probing. Given its inherent ability to allow people to respond to questions in their own words, in an open-ended way, qualitative inquiry excels at capturing individual perspectives in rich detail. Qualitative research is therefore employed across a broad range of health topics and in various settings to answer “how” and “why” type questions that are difficult to assess using closed-ended survey responses.

Two of the most common qualitative research methods are in-depth individual interviews (IDIs) and focus groups (FGs). 3 , 4 IDIs, as the name implies, generate personal narratives from individuals. They are conducted one-on-one, last from 30 minutes to an hour, and are aimed at understanding processes and/or eliciting a participant's experiences, beliefs, or opinions on a specific topic.

Similar to in-depth IDIs, FGs use open-ended questions and an inductive probing pattern, but the group environment offers the opportunity to observe and draw on interpersonal dynamics. Ideally, FGs are constructed and conducted to take advantage of the group dynamic to stimulate discussion and a broad range of ideas. FGs usually range in size from 6 to 12 individuals (who are similar to one another in some way that is related to the research topic) and are conducted by a moderator and an assistant. FGs typically run from 1.5 to 2.5 hours and are well suited for evaluating products and programs and for gathering information about group norms or processes. 5 , 6 One key difference between IDIs and FGs is that response independence cannot be assumed in an FG setting; therefore, the group is typically the unit of analysis when data are collected via FGs.

FGs and IDIs are employed in all fields of research, including patient-centered studies. These qualitative data collection methods are co-evolving with technology 7 and are increasingly conducted online. 8 An often-cited advantage of online data collection is that a researcher can collect data from individuals across multiple locations without needing to travel, 9 , 10 reducing both time and costs. 11 , 12 More specifically, online approaches can extend to stakeholders whose input would be lost if only face-to-face techniques were used, including populations for whom travel might be difficult. Online qualitative data collection modalities have been shown, for example, to work well with patient populations facing unique health challenges such as traumatic brain injury, 13 autism, 14 multiple sclerosis, 15 and children with chronic conditions. 16

Online qualitative data collection modalities can be categorized along 2 dimensions. One dimension refers to the nature of the communication medium: text-based or video-based. In a text-based modality, questions and responses are typed via computer. Video-based modalities use online video (with audio) technology, and questions/responses are spoken. The other dimension pertains to temporality: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous methods are conducted in real time through text or video-conference platforms. 17 Conversely, asynchronous methods do not occur in real time; they are typically conducted through venues such as discussion and bulletin boards, email, and listservs, where a question can be posted and respondents answer at their convenience. 18 Synchronous methods tend to be relatively fast-paced with a conversational back-and-forth communication flow, whereas asynchronous methods allow participants more time to consider and respond to questions. The latter are purported to generate richer and deeper data. 17 , 19

The sampling benefits of online data collection, in terms of geographic and logistical flexibility, have been at least anecdotally documented among several patient populations. The effects of data collection modality on the information generated, however, have not been rigorously investigated. The limited number of comparative studies that exist suggest that online techniques, in general, generate a smaller volume of information—measured in terms of time and quantity of textual data 20 , 21 —than their face-to-face (ie, in-person) incarnations, and that face-to-face techniques generate “richer” data than online techniques. 15 , 16 , 20 A study by Campbell and colleagues further observed that the face-to-face context “caused some participants to hold back from discussing information that they felt was too personal or potentially embarrassing” 10 ; Woodyatt and colleagues also found slightly more discussion of sensitive topics in online versus face-to-face focus groups. 22 This phenomenon—whereby participants are more likely to be open and discuss personal information online—is known as the online disinhibition effect . 23

These few studies are important but lack the necessary rigor to provide a foundational evidence base. None of the studies employed an experimental design. The majority did not control for instrument or interviewer variation, had very small sample sizes, and lacked systematic and transparent analytic procedures. The 2 studies that compared richness of data, for example, did so without operationalizing the term or describing how they identified and compared this construct. It is therefore difficult to assess the validity of the comparisons. Another limitation of previous research is that studies focused on comparing only 2 data collection modalities or used only asynchronous techniques as the online context. Additionally, earlier studies failed to compare relative modality costs, an important research planning component. Finally, few of the referenced studies addressed the larger question of participant satisfaction with data collection modalities, which is critical for developing rapport and participant comfort for valid and successful qualitative inquiry.

Based on the state of the evidence, our study had 3 primary objectives:

• To systematically compare differences in data generated among 4 data collection modalities: face-to-face, online synchronous video-based, online synchronous text-based, and online asynchronous text-based.
• To compare patient experiences of the data collection process across the 4 data collection modalities.
• To compare the average per-event cost of data collection modalities.

This research was funded by PCORI, which requires reporting according to its methodology standards. 24 We consider PCORI Methodology Standards 1 and 3, covering standards for formulating a research question and for data integrity and analysis, respectively, as most directly applicable to this methods-related research. Accordingly, we identified gaps in the literature and then developed a study protocol. Regarding the selection of appropriate interventions and comparators, we describe the different arms of our study (though not health/patient related) in this section, and we also define and operationalize our outcome measures. Data analysis procedures are also outlined in this section.

Study Population

Given our methodological objectives, large sample requirements, and stratified participant assignment to data collection modality, we sought to define a study topic and population that was relatively ubiquitous (not too narrowly circumscribed) and could provide a wide pool of potential participants. We also wanted to generate data that could be useful in informing patient–provider interactions in an area of maternal health; after discussion with local obstetrical colleagues, we focused the topic of our data collection efforts on pregnant women's thoughts about medical risk and Zika. Our study population included women in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina over age 18 who had been pregnant between 2013 and 2016 and who were hoping to become pregnant again in the next 3 years, at the time of enrollment. Additionally, women enrolled had to have internet access and reasonable typing skills and had to agree to random assignment to either an IDI or FG and assignment to either online or in-person data collection. Analytically, we viewed sample homogeneity as a relative strength, in that it was one less potential confounder of our comparisons between modalities. We therefore did not set explicit demographic diversity criteria.

We recruited participants through a combination of local community events, magazine advertisements, radio announcements, flyers posted near establishments that serve pregnant and postpartum women, online classifieds, and online social networking groups. We also asked study participants to refer other women to the study website and recruiter. Once women contacted the study recruiter, they were screened for eligibility and provided informed consent if eligible.

Each study participant was provided an incentive of a webcam (worth about $15) and an Amazon gift card initially worth $40, and later raised to $80. (The monetary incentive was increased approximately halfway through the study, to increase enrollment rates. This increase was made after a round of data collection was completed, to keep any effect the same across arms.) An additional $30 reimbursement was offered to participants who indicated a need for childcare because they had to leave their homes for face-to-face data collection.

Study Design and Study Setting

This was a cross-sectional, quasi-experimental qualitative study with 8 arms, distributed as per Table 1 . Study research questions and data analysis methods are summarized by objective in Table 2 .

Eight Study Arms by Data Collection Method and Modality.

Study Objectives, Research Questions, and Data Analysis Methods.

Randomly assigning women to modality was logistically challenging given the limited availability of the study population; instead, to limit participant selection bias among arms, we systematically assigned women to a modality and then randomly assigned the data collection method ( Figure 1 ). As women consented to participate and were enrolled in the study, the first 15 women were assigned to the “scheduling pool” for the face-to-face modality. The next 15 women to enroll were assigned to the online video modality, and so on through each of the 4 modalities for the first round of data collection. From each distinct group of 15 women, 2 were randomly selected (according to a computer-generated sequence provided by a study statistician) to take part in an IDI. The other 13 were assigned to the focus group for that arm, an intentional over-recruitment to ensure that 6 to 8 participants from the group could attend on the same date and time. Any women who were assigned to an arm but not scheduled (due to availability conflicts) were rolled over into the next open scheduling list and rerandomized. The process was repeated for all subsequent rounds. Women were masked to their assignment until they were scheduled. We scheduled most events during usual business hours (Monday through Friday between 9 am and 5 pm ), while maintaining some flexibility for synchronous events to occur on evenings or weekends, if necessary, to accommodate participants' schedules.

Systematic Assignment of Participants to Modality and Method.

Data Collection Process and Modalities

The study was reviewed and approved by FHI 360's Protection of Human Subjects Committee, and verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, individually, before initiation of data collection. Data were collected from September 2016 to October 2017.

The data collector (E.N., an experienced qualitative researcher) and the question guide were held constant across all modalities. Procedures, aside from technical connection requirements, were also kept consistent within each modality. Instrument questions were open-ended and asked in the same order, to enhance comparability. 3 , 25 As with any qualitative inquiry, the data collector inductively probed on participant responses to seek follow-up clarifications or expansions on initial answers. 3

Questions explored women's perceptions of what is “safe” and “unsafe” during pregnancy, considerations regarding preventive medical interventions along this continuum (eg, vaccines), and willingness to participate in clinical research while pregnant (see Appendix A ). Before implementation, the data collection instrument was pilot-tested among an in-person focus group of 5 study-eligible, consented participants to enhance clarity and validity of questions. (These participants were excluded from later data collection events.)

At the end of each data collection event, participants completed a brief anonymous questionnaire containing several structured questions with Likert-scale response options on their perceptions of the event. We included questions on rapport, the feeling of a safe/comfortable space to share, and convenience ( Appendix B ). In the FG contexts, the structured questions were completed individually and independently from the group.

With permission from participants, we digitally audio-recorded all face-to-face and video-conferencing data collection activities. These audio recordings of FGs and IDIs were transcribed verbatim using a standardized transcription protocol. 29 , 30 Transcripts for the text-based FGs and IDIs were automatically generated as part of the data collection process.

Modality Descriptions

As described above, we intentionally kept key elements of the data collection process the same to minimize possible confounders. The modalities required some differences in the conduct of data collection, in accordance with best practices for each modality, 8 as described below and summarized in Table 3 . The duration refers to the time we asked participants to set aside for the activity; actual time averages are presented in the Results section.

Data Collection Methods by Modality.

Face-to-face and online synchronous modality procedures

The face-to-face modality for FGs and IDIs followed traditional qualitative data collection procedures. 3 , 26 All face-to-face FGs and IDIs were conducted in a conference room at the study office. In-person focus groups also included an assistant who helped with greeting participants and providing refreshments.

All synchronous online activity (video and text) participants used internet-connected computers, at their homes or other convenient locations, to sign in to a private “chat room” at a designated date and time to participate in the FG or IDI. The synchronous video events involved web-connected video through this platform, along with audio over a telephone conference call line. Participants could see the moderator, other participants (for FGs), and themselves. For synchronous text-based activities, the moderator typed questions and follow-ups while participants typed their responses, all in real time. Additional time was allowed for the synchronous text-based IDIs to accommodate the delays generated by typing back and forth. FG sessions were conducted in “group mode,” where participants could see each other's responses as they were entered and respondents could type responses simultaneously. These 3 synchronous modalities are subsequently referred to as face-to-face, online video, and online chat.

Online asynchronous modality procedures

Asynchronous, text-based data collection modalities used an online discussion board platform (FGs) or email (IDIs). For FGs, the moderator posted a series of 3 to 5 questions on the discussion board each day over several days. Participants could sign in at their convenience, complete the day's questions, and read and comment on each other's postings. The moderator reviewed all responses and posted follow-up questions, as appropriate, to which participants could again respond. The same procedure was followed for asynchronous IDIs, except that the medium for correspondence was email—the interviewer emailed the participant a series of 3 to 5 questions to which the participant responded in 24 to 48 hours. The interviewer's next email would contain follow-up questions on responses and the next series of new questions. Participants were prompted to complete unanswered questions before moving on to the next question. We allowed 5 to 10 days for each data collection event to be completed via this modality, depending on the pace of the participants. The asynchronous modality is subsequently referred to as email-based or online posts, for IDIs and FGs, respectively.

Analytical and Statistical Approaches

Coding process.

The qualitative data generated through IDIs and FGs were coded using an analytic strategy that integrated 2 distinct approaches to qualitative data: inductive and a priori thematic analyses. Inductive thematic analysis is a set of iterative techniques designed to identify categories and concepts that emerge from the text during analysis. 27 The analytic process entails reading through verbatim transcripts and identifying possible themes. An inductive approach is exploratory in nature; themes are not predetermined before analysis but rather emerge from the data as analysis progresses. 27 , 28 We developed an inductive codebook using a standardized iterative process. 29 Emergent themes were noted as 2 data analysts (E.N. and C.G.) read through the transcripts. As the data collector was also an analyst, this process commenced after all data had been collected, to avoid influencing data collection activities. All inductive codes were explicitly defined in the codebook using the template outlined by MacQueen et al. 30 Analysts (C.G., A.O., and E.N.) then used NVivo 11 (QSR International) to apply content codes to the text of each transcript. More than 1 content code could be applied to any one segment of text.

In an a priori thematic analysis, analytic themes are established before analysis and instances of those themes are sought out and coded for in the data. 31 , 32 For this study, we created a priori codes for “sensitive/personal” themes, so that we could assess if data collection modalities vary in terms of their capacity to generate these types of themes. We defined “sensitive” disclosures as containing information about one's own experience that is highly personal, taboo, illegal, or socially stigmatized in nature, which we would reasonably expect people to be reluctant to disclose to a stranger(s). We also created a “dissenting opinion” code for FG data, to capture instances when a participant expressed an opinion opposite to an opinion expressed by another participant earlier in the discussion. We included both explicit (eg, “I disagree”) and subtle (eg, stating a different opinion without framing it as a disagreement) statements of disagreement.

Two data analysts independently coded all transcripts. Analysts performed inter-coder agreement checks on each transcript, comparing all coding and discussing any coding discrepancies. A master transcript was created to reflect the agreed-upon coding. The inductive codebook was revised, as necessary, after each successive transcript had been coded, to reflect any changes to code definitions.

Data “richness”

To assess our first hypothesis in objective 1, that face-to-face modalities would generate richer data than online modalities, we operationalized data richness in 2 ways. First, we considered data richness in terms of the volume of information offered by the participants, operationalized as the number of words contributed by the participant(s) within each transcript. Second, we considered data richness in terms of the meaning and content of the information contributed by participants, using thematic code frequency as an indicator of thematic content . Our methods for measuring data richness for each approach are summarized in Table 4 .

Operationalization of Data Richness as It Relates to Objective 1.

Sensitive/personal themes and dissenting opinions

To assess our second hypothesis in objective 1, that online modalities would generate more sensitive disclosures than would face-to-face modalities, we assessed the data coded as “sensitive” and recoded it to reflect the nature of the unsolicited sensitive/personal themes disclosed. We summed and compared the number of unique transcripts in which sensitive themes appeared and were coded.

To assess whether participants may be more willing to offer a dissenting opinion in an online vs face-to-face FG, we focused on FG data from a question that asked about the effect of Zika on women's personal views on abortion. The responses to this question were analyzed by (a) whether any member of the group dissented from the stated opinion of others in the group who had already answered the question (dissension); and (b) number/percentage of participants choosing to abstain from answering this question, either by remaining silent or explicitly deferring response (abstention). These data were then examined by modality of focus group.

Participant experiences

We assessed participants' experiences of data collection both quantitatively and qualitatively. Participants' responses to a series of questions with Likert-scale response options were tabulated by modality. Comments provided in an open text box associated with each question were reviewed and summarized to augment interpretation of the quantitative data.

Costs to conduct

We considered many time and cost inputs related to data collection across modalities, as summarized in Table 5 . For staff-related costs, we used illustrative hourly rates; for all other nontravel costs, we used averaged actual costs as documented during the project. Note that we performed recruitment, scheduling, data collection, and data formatting in-house; we contracted online hosting platforms and transcription services. Regarding data preparation for analysis, the live-generated transcripts from the 2 online text-based modalities required some post hoc formatting. Although our project did not include travel for in-person data collection, we included estimated travel expenses based on the literature. 33 For both IDIs and FGs, we assumed 4 hours of round-trip travel time. For the IDIs, we divided travel cost and time by 4 to assess per-event costs, assuming that 4 IDIs could be completed on a single trip.

Time and Cost Inputs Relevant to Data Collection for Each Modality .

Statistical analyses

We tested all outcome measures for differences by modality, separately for FGs and IDIs. For some analyses, we also considered audiovisual methods (face-to-face and online video) compared with text-based online methods, where the visual connection of the method might have been more important than whether it was online or offline. For the continuous outcome measures—word count and total thematic codes generated—we used 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honest significance tests. Further, in order to control for the number of participants per group in the word count analyses of focus group data, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test was used. The ANCOVA test allowed us to examine a continuous outcome (word count) using both continuous (number of participants) and categorical (modality) covariates in our model. For the dichotomous outcomes—sensitive disclosure and dissenting minority opinion—we used a chi-square test; for the responses on a Likert scale we used a Kruskal-Wallis test.

Participant Characteristics

We enrolled 171 women, who were randomly assigned to either the FG or IDI arm and systematically assigned to data collection modality ( Table 6 ).

Number of Participants per Study Arm.

Our study sample was fairly similar across modalities: mostly white well-educated working women, in their early 30s, and within a relatively high-income bracket ( Table 7 ). Of note, we did not find evidence that systematic allocation to modality resulted in statistically different subsamples.

Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants by Modality.

Objective 1 Results

Objective 1 sought to systematically compare differences in data generated across the 4 data collection modalities: face-to-face, online video, online chat, and email/online post. The primary hypothesis predicted that data generated from face-to-face modalities would be richer than data generated from online modalities, with a secondary hypothesis stating that online techniques would elicit more sensitive/personal information than would face-to-face techniques.

Data Richness: Participant Information Sharing

Table 8 presents word-based measures of data richness by modality. Comparing IDIs, the online video and face-to-face modalities produced the richest data in terms of how active participants were in contributing to the discussion. The mean number of words contributed by participants per IDI differed significantly between audiovisual and text-based interviews: Face-to-face and online video modalities produced significantly larger numbers of words spoken by participants than did online text-based modalities.

ANOVA/ANCOVA Comparisons of Participant Word Count by Modality.

A similar but more nuanced trend held for the FGs. The face-to-face and online video modalities generated the greatest mean numbers of words spoken by participants per FG and were not significantly different from each other, after controlling for the number of participants per group. The mean number of words spoken by participants in the face-to-face modality was significantly larger than the means observed for either of the text-based modalities. There was also a significant difference in mean participant word counts between online video and online chat modalities, but not between the online video and the online message board groups.

Data Richness: Overall Thematic Content and Code Application

Across the aggregate data set, 85 thematic codes were developed to categorize women's opinions and experiences (see Appendix C ). The same 85 themes were present in both the IDI and FG data sets, with only small differences in thematic content, as measured by thematic code application across modalities ( Table 9 ). Within the IDI data set, 79 thematic codes were applied in the online video IDIs, compared with 77 in the face-to-face interviews and 73 in each of the online text-based (chat and email) interviews. Among the FGs, the face-to-face modality had the highest number (80) of unique codes applied, followed by online chat (79), online posts (77), and online video (75). For both FGs and in-depth IDIs, no significant differences emerged in the mean number of codes used for each modality ( P = 0.39 and P = 0.15, respectively).

Frequency of Thematic Code Application by Modality.

Variations in frequency of thematic code application were present across modalities (as indicated by shading in Appendix C ), more so than which codes were applied. The clearest differences among theme/code presence across modality came from low-frequency codes (ie, codes that did not appear often in the data set). There were 10 codes in the IDI data set that were used in only 2 modalities, and 3 codes used in only 1. Where these codes were applied, they were used in only 1 to 2 interviews per subsample (representing approximately 8%-17% of the subsample). Similarly, for the FG data set, 2 codes were used in only 2 modalities and 6 codes were used in only 1 modality. Here again, the codes in question were primarily lower-frequency codes, appearing usually in only 1 focus group within the modality (representing approximately 17% of the subsample). However, 1 discernable pattern emerged in the FG data: None of the 8 codes that were used in only 1 or 2 modalities were present in the online posting FG data.

Sensitive Disclosures

We thematically recoded data coded at the a priori “sensitive” code to reflect the nature of the sensitive disclosures ( Appendix B ). Topics of sensitive disclosures included the following:

• Drinking some amount of alcohol while pregnant
• Taking medication for anxiety, depression, or other mental health condition
• Smoking cigarettes while pregnant
• Being exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke while pregnant
• Having had a previous abortion

We did not directly solicit information on these topics. Frequencies of all disclosures are described at the individual level for IDIs and at the group level for FGs (because there is no response independence in a group, we count only the first disclosure).

Across the IDI data, 4 of these types of sensitive disclosures were present ( Table 10 ). Personal experience with alcohol use during pregnancy was mentioned by interviewees in all modalities, with slightly more disclosures in the face-to-face and online chat modalities. Sensitive disclosures were made by the greatest number (42%) of participants in the face-to-face IDIs.

Frequency of Disclosure of Sensitive Themes by Method and Modality.

The FG data showed less variation across modalities. Disclosures of alcohol use and medication for a mental health condition were present consistently across all modalities. Differences appeared in those disclosures that occurred rarely—exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke, personal tobacco use, and having had an abortion previously—and were spread across the 4 modalities. At least 1 sensitive disclosure was made in 5 of 6 FGs (88%) for each modality. There were no statistically significant differences in overall sensitive disclosures by modality for either FGs or IDIs.

Dissenting Opinions

This analysis included FGs only and looked at 1 question on abortion to see whether women might be more comfortable offering a dissenting opinion in text-based online modalities where others in the group could not see them. In both online text-based modalities (chat and discussion board posts), at least 1 participant expressed a dissenting opinion on abortion in nearly all (5 of 6) groups ( Table 11 ). In contrast, a dissenting opinion was raised in just half of the online video groups and one of the face-to-face groups. The nonvisual, online text-based focus groups were 2.8 (95% CI, 1.2-6.8) times more likely to contain a dissenting opinion ( P = 0.01) than the “visual” face-to-face and online video focus groups.

Frequency of Dissenting Opinions Within Focus Groups and Abstentions Among Participants.

We also assessed how many participants in each FG modality abstained from this question. The percentage of abstaining participants was highest (21%) in the online discussion board posts, followed by the online video FGs (18%) and online chat FGs (12%). No one abstained from offering an opinion in the face-to-face groups. The differences in the rates of participants abstaining from the question on abortion were not statistically significant.

Objective 2 Results

Participant perceptions of modality.

Using a brief exit survey, we collected women's perceptions of the data collection modality in which they had participated. No significant differences were identified in participant perceptions of rapport, safe space, comfort, or convenience among the IDI sample, while varying levels of statistically significant differences were observed in participant perceptions of the same characteristics of FGs ( Table 12 ). Across nearly all domains, women who participated in the online video FGs reported relatively lower levels of satisfaction.

Participant Perceptions of Data Collection Modality.

A majority (73%) of women who participated in a face-to-face interview felt that rapport during the interview was high, with perceptions of a high level of rapport decreasing across the modalities from online video to online chat and email (25%). This differed from the FG context, where both face-to-face and online discussion board post participants reported feeling high levels of rapport, and most of both online video and online chat participants reported moderate rapport. No participants reported feeling no rapport in any of the IDI modalities, although 3 women felt no rapport during an online video FG. One respondent said, “It was hard to build rapport online for me,” while another, who noted moderate rapport, stated that “there was a good bit of rapport, but I would say technical issues (like audio cutting in and out, video freezing) really disrupted it.”

Nearly all participants in IDIs across modalities agreed or strongly agreed that the interview environment felt like a safe space in which to talk and express their feelings. The exception was one woman in an email-based interview; she disagreed, stating, “I wasn't sure who or where these emails were going; I spoke my mind but was hesitant.” In the FGs, the reported perceptions were similar; nearly all women agreed or strongly agreed that the FG environment provided a safe space. Among the online video FG participants, 2 women disagreed. The reason provided by one pointed to the group composition and topic, rather than the modality, per se: “One respondent was strongly against abortion and made me feel really uncomfortable about discussing my own feelings.”

Comfort answering questions and willingness to share

Nearly all IDI participants felt at least moderately comfortable answering questions across modalities; only 1 woman in an email interview (same as above) felt not at all comfortable, citing uncomfortable questions. FG participants also reported high levels of comfort across modalities, with the exception of the online video FGs, where the majority of respondents reported moderate comfort and 2 felt “only slightly comfortable.” Few comments were provided, but one woman's response suggests the discomfort came from the nature of the questions as much as the modality: “It was still challenging to share opposing views, even knowing I would likely not see these women again, and even though everyone acted respectful [sic] during the video chat.”

Relatedly, women shared their perceptions on how the modality of data collection affected their willingness to share. Women who participated in online text-based IDIs were generally split between finding that the modality made them more willing or had no effect on their willingness to share their experiences. Most women in face-to-face IDIs felt the modality made them more willing to share, while most online video IDI participants felt the medium had no effect on their willingness to share.

Within FGs, most participants in the online chat (84%) and discussion board post (76%) text-based modalities reported that the mode of communication made them more willing to share. Women in face-to-face and online video FGs were more evenly split between reporting more willingness and no effect on sharing. However, 23% of online video FG participants (and 7% of discussion board post participants) also thought the modality made them less willing to share, as summarized by one woman: “I did the online [video] focus group. If it had been just a telephone focus group, I would have been more open to sharing, but seeing the other participants made me more nervous to be open.”

Convenience

Most women in all modalities reported that IDI participation was moderately or very convenient. One woman in the face-to-face sample and 2 in the online video sample felt the interview was less convenient; the only comment provided stated the participant, as a full-time working mother of a toddler, felt she had no extra time for anything. The online text-based FG participants generally reported those modalities as very or moderately convenient, while a greater proportion of face-to-face and online video FG participants found the modalities slightly to moderately convenient.

Objective 3 Results

Cost comparison.

We considered many time and cost inputs related to data collection across modalities, as summarized in Table 13 . For staff-related costs, we used illustrative hourly rates; for all others, we used actual costs. Regarding the data processing required to prepare data for analysis, the face-to-face and online video modalities required transcription of audio recordings, while the 2 online text-based modalities had live-generated transcripts that required post hoc formatting.

Time and Group-size Inputs for Cost Calculations.

Based on a combination of average and actual times and expenses, we calculated the total cost of data collection for each modality by method ( Table 14 ). Among the IDIs, email-based interviews had the lowest average cost per interview, while the online video IDIs had the highest average cost per interview, with a difference of $182. For the FGs, the online video modality was again most expensive in average cost per data collection event and was $732 more costly per FG than the face-to-face focus groups (even when the number of participants in each modality are standardized).

Data Collection Costs by Modality and Method.

Advances in telecommunications technology and access provide more opportunities to conduct qualitative research. This study addressed questions about how changes in the modality of data collection might affect the data collected, in terms of thematic content and participants' willingness to discuss sensitive/personal experiences or information. We also assessed the comparative cost of different data collection modalities and participants' experience of them.

Effects of Modality on Data, Cost, and Participant Experience

The small amount of existing literature addressing differences in online vs face-to-face qualitative data collection suggested that online techniques, in general, would generate a smaller volume of information (textual data) 19 , 21 than their face-to-face incarnations. This was confirmed by our data for IDIs if we consider both in-person and online video modalities as “face-to-face,” as in both cases there is an audiovisual connection allowing for nonverbal as well as verbal communication and there is no need to type responses. Together, these modalities accounted for the greatest volume of text and the greatest proportion of participant text. The trends, though less clear, held for the FG sample as well, with significant differences in the total amount and proportion of participant text (after controlling for number of participants per group) between the audiovisual and text-based modalities. In both cases, the larger volume of data produced by the audiovisual modalities likely reflects the ease and speed of speech relative to typing. Consider that the average conversation rate for an English speaker is about 150 words per minute, while average typing speed is about 40 words per minute. At those rates, we might expect audiovisual (or simply audio) modalities to generate more than 3 times the amount of text as typing-based modalities. This was also why we extended the time allowed for online chat interviews—it simply took longer to get through the same questions, not because there was more discussion, but because the act of thinking and typing took longer than speaking. However, the significant difference within the FG sample between the synchronous and asynchronous text-based modalities suggests that not only typing ability but also real-time engagement with the moderator and other participants might have affected the volume of participant responses.

While our findings related to the volume of participant text are informative, the more salient measure of data “richness” relates to the content of the textual data generated across modalities, particularly since qualitative research aims to discover the meanings in participant responses rather than simply the number of words used to convey those meanings. According to our thematic code operationalization of richness, we found no significant differences in thematic content across modalities for either method (IDI or FG). Had we conducted only face-to-face or only online chat data collection, for example, the resultant thematic reports would have been nearly identical, based on the shared thematic content generated. It may be that the necessity of composing a written/typed response in online text-based modalities forces participants to condense and organize their thoughts before responding, or to be less “effusive,” resulting in reduced data volume but similar data content. Our operationalization of richness, however, does not consider the depth of discussion of particular themes. One might subjectively assess a narrative with fewer themes but greater depth as “richer” than one that superficially covers a larger number of themes. Although we did not perform subjective assessments of richness, earlier studies that have more qualitative assessed richness 10 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 34 , 35 indicate that in-person (or online video) FGs are “richer” than text-based ones, because of the perception of more context/illustration. However, nearly all those studies also find that in-person FGs include more off-topic commentary. 10 , 15 , 16 , 20

We also found mixed evidence of an online disinhibition effect regarding participants' sharing of sensitive/personal information across modalities. In terms of unsolicited sensitive/personal disclosures, we found no statistically significant differences across modalities for either method. Yet when presented with a sensitive topic (abortion), online text-based FG participants—those who could not see each other—offered more dissenting opinions than did participants in the visual modalities (face-to-face and online video). This aligns with data on participant perceptions of the data collection modalities, which showed that the online video FGs in particular were viewed as less comfortable and safe than the other methods. Greater proportions of women in the online text-based FG modalities, particularly the message board option, also reported that the mode of data collection made them more willing to share.

These findings may reflect general use and familiarity with some modes of communication over others. The face-to-face IDIs and FGs both scored consistently high, with participants remarking on the conversational tone and ease of interpersonal exchange, even when discussing a sensitive topic. Given the similarity between in-person face-to-face data collection and online video-based forms, in terms of the spoken conversation, visual connection, and ability to read nonverbal cues, it is perhaps surprising that online videos consistently received the lowest proportion of women reporting strong feelings of rapport, comfort, and safety. As participant feedback indicated, some of this relative discomfort was associated with the topics of discussion, but the technology (freezing video, connection challenges) also interrupted the flow of conversation, and women seemed to “warm up” to each other less when connected via video vs in person. The pre–focus group small talk that happens in a conference room did not typically happen in online video contexts; such small talk may help participants “read” one another, identify similarities and connections, and set a more relaxed tone. Online video FGs offered a chance to virtually meet the other participants (and often to see into their homes), but the technical troubleshooting and connection at the start of each FG meant that the audio wasn't joined until the group was convened and the moderator ready to start. Seeing oneself live on a computer screen among 5 to 6 others was also likely uncomfortable or distracting for some women. Conversely, the relatively anonymous online discussion post modality scored high for the FGs in terms of rapport and comfort, perhaps reflecting women's use of and familiarity with social media and posting platforms in other areas of their lives. We did not consider telephone (audio-only) data collection as part of this study because telephone-based focus groups are uncommon, but the literature suggests that the benefits of geographic reach and privacy, paired with speech, may make them a suitable option in some cases. 36 , 37

In terms of cost to conduct, our findings generally mirror those of Rupert and colleagues, 33 who found that virtual FGs do not appear to cost less or recruit participants faster than in-person groups. The highest average cost per data collection event, without travel, for both IDIs and FGs was the online video modality. For IDIs, the online asynchronous (email) modality cost least on average, while for FGs, the least costly average data collection event was the in-person modality, despite the extra cost categories of refreshments and assistant time. Online methods are often touted as less expensive because they save on the cost of researcher travel to reach a geographically distributed sample, 11 , 12 and our data are limited in that we did not have actual travel expenses. Rather, we used estimated travel expenses to provide illustrative cost implications for data collection. Including travel raised the average per-event cost of in-person data collection considerably, making it the most expensive for both IDIs and FGs. As inputs for each study will differ, we suggest reference to Tables 5 and 14 for cost comparison calculation considerations.

Limitations

As with any research, our findings come with qualifications. First, our sample was relatively homogeneous, limiting the generalizability of our findings. Given our methodological objectives (objectives 1 and 2 in particular) and stratified participant assignment to data collection modality, we viewed sample homogeneity as a relative strength, in that it was 1 less potential confounder of our comparisons between modalities. Also, the homogeneity of the sample population should be positively associated with the thematic saturation rate; groups that are alike on multiple dimensions are more likely to think in similar ways and have similar experiences, allowing for earlier thematic saturation. 38 The more homogeneous sample therefore allows us to be more confident that our sample size allowed us to reach thematic saturation for our comparison of thematic content. Nonetheless, one of the potential benefits of online research is the ability to include geographically scattered populations, and our sample was geographically circumscribed. Future research with more diverse populations—in terms of socioeconomic status, race, computer/literacy, and mobility—would help to broaden the findings.

Relatedly, all study participants were required to have internet access/computer in their homes and basic typing skills, because of the systematic assignment into face-to-face or online modalities. We recognize that these eligibility criteria may also introduce bias into the study vis-à-vis generalizability—that women who have home computers and can type are not representative of the general population of women who could benefit from remote data collection. However, given the nature of the study objectives and experimental design, this limitation was unavoidable. Interpretations should be made with awareness of this limitation. Regarding the relative costs of data collection, it should be noted that we used estimated travel costs. Additionally, some researchers may rely on free or open platforms for online video- or text-based data collection to defray those costs, but such platforms potentially raise data privacy and confidentiality concerns. As the inputs for each study will differ, we suggest reference to Tables 5 , 13 , and 14 for cost comparison calculation considerations.

• Conclusions

Selection of a modality for conduct of qualitative research will continue to hinge on several factors, including the type and location of the participant population, the research topic, and the project budget. A major caveat related to research population is that technology-based online approaches usually require computer and internet access, which may be barriers for populations already experiencing other access or inequity issues. Our findings on the elicitation of sensitive disclosures and expressions of dissenting opinions suggest that there may be an online disinhibition effect for nonvisual online data collection modalities, but that for some topics, the social atmosphere created by an in-person group of similar participants could work equally well. Regarding cost, online and face-to-face modalities incur different types of expenses, and priorities within the time/cost/quality resource allocation triangle will dictate which costs are the most efficient use of resources. However, most importantly, our methodological findings based on a rigorous comparative research design confirm some earlier findings 16 , 22 —that conducting qualitative research via online modalities does not result in substantial or significantly different thematic findings than conducting IDIs and FGs in person. Despite differences in interpersonal dynamics between individual interviews and focus groups, our data suggest that the effect of modality on data generated is similar across both methods. This opens opportunities for broadening the reach and inclusion of sampling to a wider geographic scope, as researcher and participant(s) need not be in the same place; it also provides opportunities to include populations with mobility or transport issues, who may not be able to travel to a study location. For researchers examining the relative strengths and trade-offs of traditional vs online qualitative data collection, we have contributed many empirical data points for consideration in research design and decision-making.

• Related Publications
• Acknowledgment

Research reported in this report was [partially] funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®) Award (#ME-1403-11706) Further information available at: https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2014/comparing-interview-and-focus-group-data-collected-person-and-online

Appendix A.

Summary of research objectives/questions and analysis methods (PDF, 539K)

Appendix B.

Data collection guide for the RAMP-UP mixed-modality qualitative study (PDF, 341K)

Appendix C.

Post-data collection event participant experience survey (PDF, 668K)

Appendix D.

Abbreviated codebook for the RAMP-UP study (with number of uses per code) (PDF, 689K)

Appendix E.

Sensitive codes used in the RAMP-UP study (PDF, 651K)

Suggested citation:

Guest G, Namey E, O'Regan A, Godwin C, Taylor J. (2020). Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online . Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PCORI). https://doi.org/10.25302/05.2020.ME.1403117064

The [views, statements, opinions] presented in this report are solely the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License which permits noncommercial use and distribution provided the original author(s) and source are credited. (See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

• Cite this Page Guest G, Namey E, O'Regan A, et al. Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online [Internet]. Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2020 May. doi: 10.25302/05.2020.ME.1403117064
• PDF version of this title (2.4M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• PCORI Final Research Reports

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• How does qualitative data collection modality affect disclosure of sensitive information and participant experience? Findings from a quasi-experimental study. [Qual Quant. 2022] How does qualitative data collection modality affect disclosure of sensitive information and participant experience? Findings from a quasi-experimental study. Namey E, Guest G, O'Regan A, Godwin CL, Taylor J, Martinez A. Qual Quant. 2022; 56(4):2341-2360. Epub 2021 Sep 2.
• Virtual Versus In-Person Focus Groups: Comparison of Costs, Recruitment, and Participant Logistics. [J Med Internet Res. 2017] Virtual Versus In-Person Focus Groups: Comparison of Costs, Recruitment, and Participant Logistics. Rupert DJ, Poehlman JA, Hayes JJ, Ray SE, Moultrie RR. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 22; 19(3):e80. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
• Advancing qualitative rare disease research methodology: a comparison of virtual and in-person focus group formats. [Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022] Advancing qualitative rare disease research methodology: a comparison of virtual and in-person focus group formats. Dwyer AA, Uveges M, Dockray S, Smith N. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022 Sep 11; 17(1):354. Epub 2022 Sep 11.
• Review Evidence Brief: The Effectiveness Of Mandatory Computer-Based Trainings On Government Ethics, Workplace Harassment, Or Privacy And Information Security-Related Topics [ 2014] Review Evidence Brief: The Effectiveness Of Mandatory Computer-Based Trainings On Government Ethics, Workplace Harassment, Or Privacy And Information Security-Related Topics Peterson K, McCleery E. 2014 May
• Review Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature. [JBI Database System Rev Implem...] Review Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature. Eddy K, Jordan Z, Stephenson M. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr; 14(4):96-137.

Recent Activity

• Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers