The Challenges of Virtual Focus Groups: An Outline (original) (raw)
Related papers
Advantages of and Considerations for Conducting Online Focus Groups
SAGE Research Methods Cases, 2022
This case study explores the advantages and limitations of conducting focus groups online. Though virtual focus groups have long been positioned as supplemental or inferior alternatives to in-person focus groups, this case study emphasizes the flexibility, accessibility, and possibility of conducting focus groups virtually. Providing examples from virtual focus groups conducted during a qualitative research course, this case study first discusses positive aspects of online focus groups, such as easy incorporation of complementary technology and participation access for a diversity of participants. The case study then explores the challenges and limitations of virtual focus groups, including the facilitators’ technological knowledge and participants’ internet reliability. This case study ends by acknowledging that there are a range of logistical concerns that will inevitably shape online focus groups, including facilitators’ and participants’ familiarity with online platforms and dependability of technology and internet access. However, despite these challenges, there are a range of advantages, such as accommodating participants’ unique needs, offering multiple modes of participation, and providing reasonably equitable access to any media used in the interactions. Ultimately, the authors argue that like any research method, moving focus groups online does not make them inherently better or worse; it does, however, require some new considerations and strategies for implementation, which offer substantial opportunities for focus group research.
An Experimental Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Focus Groups
Social Science Computer Review, 2003
Conducting focus groups via computers is becoming an increasingly popular method for collecting data. The main benefits of Internet-based focus groups include lower cost, no travel expenses, automatic capture of the discussion data, and the ability to reach remote populations for participation. Although Internet-based focus groups are popular, little research has been done to compare the quantity and quality of the information obtained from traditional face-to-face focus groups and computerbased focus groups. This study compared the quantity and quality of information gained from face-toface and two computer-based focus group conditions. Results indicated conducting focus groups using a computer produces similar amounts of information. Most important, the quality of the information obtained from computer-based focus groups is not significantly different from information obtained from face-to-face groups. Varying the levels of social interaction to cause different levels of perceived social presence did not produce differences in the quality or quantity of information.
Advancing Telephone Focus Groups Method Through the Use of Webinar
Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2015
Focus groups are widely used to collect qualitative data in a group setting and are traditionally conducted face-to-face. For the past decade, researchers have used other means to conduct focus group discussions, such as Internet and telephone (Fox, Morris, & Rumsey, 2007; Gothberg et al., 2013; Krueger & Casey, 2009). Telephone focus groups emerged as a method in health research to explore views and experiences of patients and health professionals regarding preventive health services, treatment options, and other topics, such as employment experiences after diagnosis of cancer (
Improving Data Quality and Avoiding Pitfalls of Online Text-Based Focus Groups: A Practical Guide
Despite the fact that there are several practical advantages of online typed focus groups, this type of group questioning has not spread as widely as had been expected when it appeared as a new research option. One of the reasons for that might be that a major risk of these text-based focus groups is inadequate data quality. Unless certain measures are taken to prevent this, an analysis can face the problem of not being rich enough and not digging deep enough – which are often important criteria for good qualitative analysis. This article discusses how to deal with the problem and other possible pitfalls of this type of group discussion, and gives practical advice on how to obtain the best results from such discussions. It also gives suggestions which can be useful if a free chat platform is being used to conduct these groups. It argues that even nowadays with other online techniques available, online text-based focus groups can be useful – if executed properly.
Going virtual: adapting in-person interactive focus groups to the online environment
Emerald Open Research
Restrictions on social interaction and travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic have affected how researchers approach fieldwork and data collection. Whilst online focus groups have received attention since the 2000s as a method for qualitative data collection, relatively little of the relevant literature appears to have made use of now ubiquitous video calling software and synchronous, interactive discussion tools. Our own experiences in organising fieldwork aimed at understanding the impact of different ‘future-proofing’ strategies for the European agri-food system during this period resulted in several methodological changes being made at short notice. We present an approach to converting in-person focus group to a virtual methodology and provide a checklist for researchers planning their own online focus groups. Our findings suggest data are comparable to in-person focus groups and factors influencing data quality during online focus groups can be safeguarded. There are several key s...
2012
The purpose of this study was to examine the equivalence or non-inferiority for comparisons of telephone focus group venue to face-to-face focus group venue, Internet video-based focus group venue to face-to-face focus group venue, and Internet videobased focus group venue to telephone focus group venue. Research questions examined the equivalence and non-inferiority of five variables reported in the literature as fundamental reasons a researcher would choose focus groups as a data collection tool. The five variables were: participant interactions, breadth of conversation, depth of conversation, disclosure of sensitive information, and adherence to the topic. Variables were measured using content and linguistic analysis. Outcomes from these analyses were tested using two one-sided t tests (TOST) to test for equivalence. If TOST indicated equivalence or non-inferiority between venues, a stricter one-tailed t test was conducted to confirm the findings. Research was conducted on focus groups (n = 18) from extant evaluation data measuring the self-determination outcomes of students with disabilities. This allowed for the analysis of disclosure of sensitive information with questions targeted at living with a disability. Students participated (n = 64) from three different states. The original evaluation employed a 3 × 3 Latin square design to control for gender, state, and focus group venue. Results revealed face-to-face focus group venues are unequaled in the area of participant interactions. The telephone venue provided a second choice for research projects whose goal is to extract depth of conversation or keep participants on-topic. However, if the main goal is to access sensitive information, the telephone venue appeared the most suitable. The Internet video-based focus group venue may provide a viable option to explore breadth or depth of information. Nonetheless, the Internet video-based venue only proved equivalent to the telephone focus group venue for participant interactions. Findings suggest a researcher needs to carefully consider the potential effects of focus group venue. Further, the researcher needs to allow the research question and design to guide how a focus group venue is chosen. This study provides practical insight regarding the use of telephone and Internet video-based focus group venues and offers much potential for future research. Copyright by June E. Gothberg 2012 iv her husband Bruce, my niece Sarah, and her husband Chuck, you all made me feel like I could really accomplish this. To my mother June Watters, I miss you more than words can say; thank you for being the wind beneath my wings. To my dad, Michael Jones, thank you for the faithful letters and phone calls of encouragement. To my Gothberg parents and family
Online Focus Groups: Selecting a Platform
The evaluator in an online environment must make deliberate choices: she must craft a space and a mode of engagement that will elicit good information from participants. Whereas face-to-face focus groups draw on participants' innate and rich capacity to exchange language and meaning in close proximity to each other, online focus groups must conceive of "proximity" and "exchange" in new ways. Moreover, in a world where technologies are constantly evolving, it is difficult to separate passing technology fads from lasting tools and trends. With these considerations in mind, this paper offers a framework for selecting an online focus group platform. It gives examples of both free and proprietary services that online evaluators may want to consider. It also emphasizes that the technology landscape is constantly evolving, and offers dimensions for selecting platforms that will be relevant across time, as platforms continue to evolve.
Dematerialized participation challenges: Methods and practices for online focus groups
Frontiers in Sociology, 2023
This study explores the limitations and benefits of di erent approaches to conducting online focus groups and illustrates an online focus group protocol used within the Value for Schools project in Italy. According to the project evaluation design, online focus groups were organized, with the participation of teachers and school principals. The protocol setup, incorporation, and reorganization of the indications have been discussed in the literature, addressing the methodological and practical issues, such as the selection of participants and preliminary communication with them; the web conference platform (Zoom Business); timing, as well as access times and mode; the roles of the researchers involved (moderator, co-host technical assistant, co-host-observer, co-hostanimator) and their integration spaces; technological support; and animation tools. The recording and transcription tools and subsequent analysis of the textual corpus are presented. Finally, the authors discuss the validation and reliability of online focus group protocols.