143 the analysis of focus groups in published research articles

143LA REVUE CANADIENNE D'ÉVALUATION DE PROGRAMME

Abstract:

Résumé:

Corresponding author: Geoffrey S. Wiggins, College of Urban and PublicAffairs, University of New Orleans, Lakefront Campus, 2000 Lakeshore Drive,New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 70148; <[email protected]>

The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation Vol. 19 No. 2 Pages 143–164ISSN 0834-1516 Copyright © 2004 Canadian Evaluation Society

THE ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUPS INPUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLES

Geoffrey S. WigginsUniversity of New OrleansNew Orleans, Louisiana

This article examines 72 published research articles that uti-lize a focus group methodology from the fields of health, sociol-ogy, and education. The articles are assessed in terms of whattype of focus group analysis is conducted on the transcripts, howthe methodology is specified, and whether the coding schemesused were emergent or pre-ordinate. Fewer than half of the ar-ticles use a coding scheme in order to analyze the transcripts,while more than half simply utilize interesting quotations fromthe focus groups in order to represent the discussion or else tocorroborate other quantitative findings. It was found that 14%of the articles utilize some sort of quality check such as inter-rater reliability in order to ensure accuracy in the focus groupdata analysis. Most of the articles utilizing a quality check arefrom the health field. Results are discussed in terms of implica-tions for evaluation practice and ongoing research.

Cet article examine 72 articles de recherche publiés qui com-portent la méthodologie de groupe de discussion, provenant desdomaines de la santé, de la sociologie, et de l’éducation. Les ar-ticles sont évalués en fonction du type d’analyse des transcrip-tions des groupes de discussion, de la description de laméthodologie, et du système de codage utilisé, si émergent oudéterminé d’avance. Moins de la moitié des articles utilisent unsystème de codage afin d’analyser les transcriptions, alors queplus de la moitié utilisent simplement des extraits intéressantsdes groupes de discussion afin de présenter le contenu des dis-cussions ou pour valider d’autres résultats quantitatifs. Les ré-sultats montrent que 14% des articles utilisent des tests dequalité tel que la fidélité inter-juges pour assurer la rigueur del’analyse des données. La plupart des articles utilisant des testsde qualité proviennent du domaine de la santé. La discussionporte sur les résulatats en tant qu’implications pour la prati-que de l’évaluation et de la recherche continue.

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PROGRAM EVALUATION144

Focus groups are used in a wide variety of disciplines asa qualitative method of inquiry gathering data not yielded by quan-titative approaches. Researchers in disciplines such as evaluationresearch, education, sociology, marketing, public health, and politi-cal science utilize focus group methodology (Morgan, 1996). Whilethey are used in these disciplines as a method to generate knowl-edge about phenomena of interest in the social and health sciences,as are other many social science methods, focus groups are alsowidely used by evaluators who are typically interested in providingprogram or context specific knowledge.

A focus group is a planned discussion to investigate opinions in anonthreatening environment (Krueger & Casey, 2000). A typical fo-cus group involves a moderator leading a discussion on a topic ofinterest with 6 to 12 participants (Folch-Lyon & Trost, 1981). Thiscan be done with the help of an interview guide, designed to focuson topics of interest without using specifically worded questions(Patton, 2001). Focus groups provide much data, often more quicklythan would a survey. In addition, the synergy that transpires be-tween participants during the course of the focus group contributesto a wide range of information, including a deeper understanding ofthe respondents’ opinions (Basch, 1987). Focus groups can providericher data than a survey. When participants have similar back-grounds they are more likely to feel at ease discussing the issue athand. Researchers can learn not only the views of respondents, buthow they relate to differing views within the group (Kitzinger, 1994).Flores and Alonso (1995) recommend the use of focus groups in edu-cation research because of the relaxed atmosphere, the gained con-fidence of respondents in sharing their views, and the encouragementgiven from hearing similar opinions of other respondents.

Focus group data can be used alone or in conjunction with quantita-tive data. When combined with quantitative data, findings from focusgroup studies can improve the depth of understanding (Vaughn,Schumm, & Siagub, 1996). Denzin (1998) calls this methodologicaltriangulation. This triangulation enhances the validity of results asfindings from focus groups help support those from surveys. Morganand Spanish (1984) suggest that focus group findings may convincethose more quantitatively-oriented of the value added by a qualitativeresearch technique. Quantitatively-oriented researchers wishing toelaborate on survey research findings or collect richer data often turnto focus groups as a way of adding to findings. Focus groups conductedbefore a survey can help identify effective survey questions.


The analysis of focus group data differs depending on the research-er’s goals and expertise (Bers, 1989). Bertrand, Brown, and Ward(1992) reported that most focus group research is carried out with-out any systematic method of analysis. However, they were of theview that useful findings have still been produced. Kitzinger (1995)points out importantly that reporting the frequencies and percent-ages of statements given during focus group discussions is not ap-propriate, as respondents are not sampled randomly and differentfocus groups produce differing opportunities for discussion. In re-cent years, computer-assisted analysis of focus group transcripts hasbeen an increasingly popular method of analysis (Stewart &Shamdasani, 1990). Depending on the technique chosen, findingsare reported differently, varying from sample transcript excerpts tofrequencies of phrases and themes. A natural question that arisesis how researchers make the choice as to which method of analysisto use.

Despite the multitude of analytic techniques available, I am una-ware of any attempt to categorize the methods used in focus groupanalysis. The aim of this exploratory study is to investigate the typeof analytic techniques researchers are using in analyzing focus groupdata. This article contributes to the evaluation field by examiningthe different methods of analyzing focus group data that are cur-rently practiced. Understanding the current state of social scienceresearch issues will assist evaluators in their own use of focus groupmethods and analyses of data. Evaluators stand to benefit from un-derstanding what is currently being done in focus group research toensure that their own evaluation methods are appropriate, useful,and optimally productive.

METHOD

To identify published articles on research that use focus groups as amethod, I searched articles in education, sociology, and health edu-cation using the Ebsco and Lexis Nexis journal search engines. Thesedatabases were used because they contained the majority of jour-nals from the fields of interest at the University of Maryland library.The search terms used were “focus,” “group,” and “groups.” The ele-ments searched were abstracts, keywords, and article titles. Arti-cles that contained the search terms but did not use focus groups asa part of their methods were discarded. Two methodological articleswere likewise not included. A total of 72 peer-reviewed articles re-main. Twenty-nine of these are from the health education field, 22


from sociology, and the remaining 21 from education. The articleswere then read to determine what method of analysis was used onthe focus group data.

The first element searched in each of the articles was whether thefocus group was being conducted as the only research tool, or whetherit was being conducted in conjunction with other quantitative orqualitative methods. This information was sought from the methodsection of each of the articles.

Reading the articles did not always make it clear how data wererecorded from the focus groups. Typical ways of recording data rangefrom an audio or video recording of the focus groups to handwrittenfield notes. Thus the ensuing analysis might have employed eithertranscripts or field notes as raw data. This study focuses not on thetype of transcription that took place, but instead on the analysis ofthe data that was performed on either the transcripts or the fieldnotes. The type of method used was recorded for each of the articlesas explicit, vague, or not specified, depending on how well the methodsection of each article described the focus group analytic procedure.

The application of the methodology was then examined in terms offocus group analysis type. The two possibilities were either the useof a coding scheme or simply the use of interesting quotations fromthe focus groups to exemplify what had been said or to provide aunique example. If the articles used a coding scheme, then it wasnoted whether this coding scheme was developed before the focusgroups had been conducted (pre-ordinate), after (emergent), or a com-bination of both.

Some of the authors mentioned in their articles the use of multiplereaders of the transcripts in order to ensure reliability in finding im-portant ideas and themes arising from the focus group discussions.These articles were noted for having a quality check in their analysis.The use of multiple readers is an important choice with regard to thereliability of analyses, and thus it is worth knowing the number ofresearchers using this technique from the 72 articles.

FINDINGS

Table 1 summarizes the findings from examination of the 72 arti-cles employing a focus group method. The author and date of publi-cation are found in the “Study” column. The “Method Selection”


column indicates whether the focus groups were the only method ofanalysis or were used in conjunction with other qualitative meth-ods, or whether the study used both a qualitative and quantitativemethodology (mixed method). The “Method Specification” columnindicates the extent to which the author(s) indicated the type ofanalysis performed on the focus group data. The column titled “Ap-plication” indicates whether the authors used a coding scheme orsimply quotations in their focus group analysis. Whether the codingscheme was emergent or pre-ordinate is indicated in the “CodingScheme” column. The “Quality Check” column indicates whether theauthors used an interrater reliability check when analyzing theirfocus group transcripts. Finally, “Area of Study” indicates whetherthe article was from the health, education, or sociology field.

Table 1Summary of Focus Group Article Findings

Method Method Coding Quality Area ofStudy selection specification Application scheme check study

Anderson et al. Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Health(2001) groups schemeArcher & Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No EducationHutchings (2000) groupsBakopanos & Focus Vague Coding Emergent No HealthGifford (2001) groups schemeBarlow, Shaw, & Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes HealthHarrison (1999) groups schemeBooth & James Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No Education(2001) methodBrandwein & Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No SociologyFiliano (2000) groupsBreen, Lindsay, Focus Not specified Coding Emergent No EducationJenkins, & Smith groups + scheme(2001) QualitativeBurke et al. (1999) Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No Health

method schemeCaffarella & Barnett Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Education(2000) groups + scheme

QualitativeCagampan, Barth, Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No HealthKorpi, & Kirby (1997) methodDeem & Brehony Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No Education(2000) groups +

Qualitative (continued on next page)


Table 1 (continued)


Denscombe (2000) Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No Educationmethod

Dryburgh (1999) Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No Educationgroups +Qualitative

Erwin & Stewart Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No Education(19997) groupsFentiman, Hall, & Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No EducationBundy (1999) methodForrest, Austin, Focus Explicit Quotations N/A No HealthValdes, Fuentes, & groupsWilson (1993)Freeman (1998) Mixed Not specified Coding Emergent No Education

method schemeFullilove & Fullilove Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No Health(1999) groupsGabhainn et al. (1999) Focus Explicit Coding Pre-ordinate No Health

groups schemeGandara (2000) Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No Education

methodGilson, Cramer, Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Sociology& DePoy (2001) groups schemeGoodfellow & Focus Vague Quotations N/A No EducationSumsion (2000) groupsGrogan & Richards Focus Vague Coding Emergent No Sociology(2002) groups schemeHanks (2001) Focus Vague Coding Emergent No Sociology

groups + schemeQualitative

Harper & Focus Explicit Coding Pre-ordinate Yes HealthEllertson (1995) groups scheme + EmergentHarvey, Beckman, Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes HealthCastle, & Coeytaux groups scheme(1995)Havanon, Knodel, Mixed Not specified Quotations N/A No Sociology& Sittitrai (1992) methodHenderson & Focus Not specified Quotations N/A No HealthKitzinger (1999) groups +

QualitativeHibbert, Bissell, Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Health& Ward (2002) groups + scheme

Qualitative


Table 1 (continued)


Hughes-Bond (1998) Focus Explicit Quotations N/A No Sociologygroups +Qualitative

Hurtes (2002) Focus Vague Quotations N/A No Sociologygroups +Qualitative

Kegler, Cleaver, Focus Explicit Coding Pre-ordinate No Health& Yazzie-Valencia groups scheme + Emergent(2000)Kezar (2000) Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No Education

method schemeKinsman et al. Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Education(2001) methodKitzinger (2000) Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociology

groupsKloep, Hendry, Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No SociologyIngebrigtsen, methodGlendinning, &Espnes (2001)Knodel (1997) Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Education

methodKnodel, Havanon, Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Health& Pramualratana groups(1984)Knodel, Havanon, Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Education& Sittitrai (1990) methodKuiper, Miller, Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent Yes HealthMartinez, Loeb, & method schemeDarney (1997)Kwan & Holmes Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Health(1999) groupsLamanna (1999) Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Sociology

groups + schemeQualitative

Landry & Camelo Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Health(1994) groupsLarkey et al. (1999) Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes Health

groups schemeLazenbatt, Lynch & Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent Yes HealthO’Neill (2001) method schemeMarkham, Featherstone, Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No HealthTaket, Trenchard- method schemeMabere, & Ross (2001) (continued on next page)


Table 1 (continued)


Matei & Ball-Rokeach Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociology(2001) methodMayeda, Chesney- Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes SociologyLind, & Koo (2001) groups schemeMcLaughlin, Liljestrom, Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent Yes EducationLim, & Meyers (2002) method schemeMitchell, Nakamanya, Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No HealthKamali, & Whitworth method scheme(2001)Napoles-Springer Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No Healthet al. (2000) method schemeO’Sullivan, Meyer- Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes SociologyBahlburg, & Watkins groups scheme(2001)Osborne & Collins Focus Explicit Coding Emergent Yes Education(2001) groups schemeOswald (2000) Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Sociology

groups schemePearlmutter & Bartle Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociology(2000) groupsPlumridge, Fitzgerald, Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociology& Abel (2002) groupsPotsonen & Kontula Focus Explicit Quotations N/A No Health(1999) groupsPower & Hunter Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Health(2001) methodPritchard, Morgan, Focus Vague Quotations N/A No SociologySedgley, Khan, & groupsJenkins (2000)Richmond, Kehoe, Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No HealthHailstone, Wodak, method& Uebel-Yan (1999)Sanchez, Nock, Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No SociologyWright, & Gager groups(2002)Sargent (2000) Focus Explicit Coding Pre-ordinate No Sociology

groups + scheme + EmergentQualitative

Saulnier & Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No HealthWheeler (2000) methodSelwyn, Marriott, & Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No EducationMarriott (2000) groups scheme


Application

Forty of the 72 articles (56%) employ a focus group analytic methodwithout using any type of coding scheme. This type of analysis ismanifest as a series of representative quotations and ideas from thefocus group discussion. Use of this type of analysis is exemplified bythe following extracts: “Typical comments include …” (Richmond,Kehoe, Hailstone, Wodak, & Uebel-Yan, 1999, p. 1516) and “Sev-eral participants said that the main problem was …” (Pearlmutter& Bartle, 2000, p. 161). In these articles, the authors tend to implythat the quotations reported are representative.

Typical expressions of findings from an analysis simply using quo-tations include: “Compared to the Asian samples, the Whites seemless cautious when it comes to …” (Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2001, p.559); “One woman commented …” (Fullilove & Fullilove, 1999, p.1119); and “Among ethnic minority respondents, particular empha-sis was placed on …” (Archer & Hutchings, 2000, p. 561). These fo-cus group data findings are presented as being representative ofthe discussions that took place as a whole or the views of particularsubset groups.

Table 1 (continued)


Shively (1992) Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociologymethod

Stone & Waszak Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Sociology(1992) groupsTangenberg (2000) Focus Explicit Coding Emergent No Health

groups schemeWalden, Mwangulube, Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Health& Makhumula- methodNkhoma (1999)Warner-Smith & Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No SociologyBrown (2002) methodWilson & Bagley Mixed Not stated Quotations N/A No Education(1999) methodYounger, Warrington, Focus Not stated Quotations N/A No Education& Williams (1999) groupsZsembik & Bonilla Mixed Explicit Coding Emergent No Health(2000) method scheme


This type of methodology can be used to support quantitative find-ings from a survey. An example of this is “Focus group interviewssupported these findings …” (Cagampan, Barth, Korpi, & Kirby,1997, p. 112). There is often no attempt to express the degree towhich focus group data support the quantitative findings. They areinstead supported by the quotations extracted from the transcripts.

The other 32 articles (44%) utilize a methodology employing a cod-ing scheme to analyze the focus group transcripts. This can involveeither a manual coding on the part of the authors, where transcriptsare examined for common themes, or the use of a software packagedesigned to code verbatim transcripts.

Researchers employing a manual coding procedure review the tran-scripts and keep count of how many times certain words, phrases,or themes appear. This coding is done without the use of a computerprogram. Here is a description of the approach:

This consisted of generating a list of key ideas, words,phrases and verbatim quotes; using ideas to formulatecategories and placing ideas and quotes in appropriatecategories; examining the contents of each category forsubtopics; and selecting the most frequent … illustra-tions for the various categories. (Burke et al., 1999, p.274)

Other authors using manual coding describe the procedure: “A fre-quency count of the statements for each code was performed”(McLaughlin, Liljestrom, Lim, & Meyers, 2002, p. 219), and “Thenumber of groups identifying a particular theme is reported”(Markham, Featherstone, Taket, Trenchard-Mabere, & Ross, 2001,p. 146). Some authors explicitly state that the “manual coding” pro-cedure was used; others allude to it in their description of the find-ings: “The following four areas of responsibility were mentioned withequal weight by these grandparents” (Hanks, 2001, p. 663).

Some authors describe their method of analyzing the focus groupdata using a computerized coding scheme: “The authors analyzedthe focus group data using the computer program QSR NUD*IST”(Gilson, Cramer, & DePoy, 2001, p. 225), and “Subsequent transcriptswere coded according to these themes and organized using the quali-tative software package NUD*IST” (Mitchell, Nakamanya, Kamali,& Whitworth, 2001, p. 414).


Quality Check

Out of the 72 articles in the study, 10 (14%) used a method of check-ing the quality of their coding scheme involving multiple readers ofthe focus group transcripts. At least two readers analyze and codethe transcripts, and the reliability of their coding is subsequentlyassessed either using a reliability coefficient or a simple calculationof percentages.

Here is a description of the simpler interrater reliability technique:“members met to compare the initial analysis and to reread relevantportions of the transcripts when any discrepancies were found. De-cisions regarding meaning were reached through group consensus”(Saulnier & Wheeler, 2000, p. 422). In this article, there is no men-tion of a reliability coefficient or a formal indicator of inter-raterreliability. There are simply multiple transcript readers and a sub-sequent comparison of their findings. A similar example states,“Analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Highinter-rater agreement (96%) was achieved in the identification ofthemes and categories” (Barlow, Shaw, & Harrison, 1999, p. 601). Apercentage indicates level of agreement between readers.

The following two examples demonstrate more sophisticated inter-rater reliability techniques:

To establish the reliability of the coding, a graduate-levelresearch assistant was trained by the first author to codethe excerpts using a small sample of randomly selectedexcerpts. The first author and trained rater then codedseparately an additional 20% of the excerpts. Theinterrater reliability was calculated and indicated con-sistency in rating of excerpts between the two raters(Kappa = 0.81; N = 72 excerpts). (O’Sullivan, Meyer-Bahlburg, & Watkins, 2001, p. 276)

This demonstrates the use of a formal process for establishing a re-liability coefficient for the analysis of focus group transcripts. An-other example of a reliability coefficient calculation from multiplereadings of focus group transcripts follows:

The three Ardoyne sets of rankings were analyzed sepa-rately to assess the extent of agreements amongst the“judges” (the GP team, the PRA team and the commu-


nity) by utilizing Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.This analysis of the rank-order data employs a non-para-metric statistical technique to examine the level of agree-ment between each of a set of judges. These individualshave to rank order their priorities in each of the selectedcategories and their scores are compared with each otherwithin a category, and the lowest score denotes the high-est priority. (Lazenbatt, Lynch, & O’Neill, 2001, p. 576)

It is interesting to note that more than half of the articles (55%)using a reliability check were from the health field, even thoughthey only represented 40% of the total number of articles includedin this study.

DISCUSSION

Most authors of the focus group articles studied chose to analyze theirtranscripts without the use of a coding scheme. Although this couldbe seen as the easiest form of analysis, since it does not involve anyfrequencies or computer analysis, it should really be reserved forthose with previous experience in conducting focus groups. Withoutthe use of numerical counts of themes and ideas, it would be difficultto select quotations that are in fact representative of the focus groupdiscussion that took place. Additionally, the use of only interestingquotations as analysis is best suited to corroborating quantitativefindings. In this manner, the more quantitative findings can be en-riched by providing additional qualitative evidence in the form ofverbatim, illustrative quotations from focus group transcripts.

The use of coding schemes in the analysis of focus groups is a usefultool for organizing the transcripts. Computer software such asNUD*IST is especially useful when trying to analyze lengthy focusgroup discussions, as the computer assists in organizing the data. Itis also appropriate to use when testing a conceptual idea, as theresearcher may not be aware of the types of information that will beproduced during the focus group discussions.

When manual coding is performed, categories that are determinedbefore analyzing the transcripts (pre-ordinate) are appropriate whena well-developed conceptual framework is used as a guide to theresearch. Sometimes this can be determined from similar focusgroups that had been conducted in the past and can provide someidea of the discussion that is going to ensue. Conversely, when the


focus group involves an unfamiliar topic or phenomenon, it wouldbe prudent to go with emergent categories in the coding scheme tobe determined from reading through the transcripts.

In order to ensure accuracy and enhance the validity of conclusions,it would be wise to employ some sort of quality check when analyzingfocus group data. This can be done with the use of multiple readers,providing a basis for developing a measure of consistency betweenthe two analysts. Researchers using focus groups in all disciplinesshould consider a quality check when analyzing data. I found that adisproportionately larger number of health researchers use a qual-ity check than those in the education and sociology fields, althoughit is unclear whether they would be more apt to be dealing withscientific data and thus more prone to rely on quantitative meas-ures of reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Focus groups have proven to be a useful tool in revealing in-depthopinions and the reasoning behind opinions in a wide variety of dis-ciplines in the social and health sciences. In analyzing the transcriptsfrom focus groups, numerous options are available. These optionsshould be considered by evaluators as well as researchers interestedin producing disciplinary knowledge. The choice in technique shoulddepend on the goals of the study. If used only to corroborate quanti-tative findings, it might be argued that there is no need for the useof a formal and sophisticated coding scheme. This pattern seemedto be the case in the sample that I investigated. If, on the otherhand, the study is using focus groups as the primary source of data,then a coding scheme should be utilized along with a quality checkto ensure accuracy of the coding process.

Evaluators are increasingly relying on the use of program logic mod-els to understand and operationalize program theory (Porteous,Sheldrick, & Stewart, 2002). Such models are well suited to empiri-cal tests to establish the extent to which programs are being imple-mented as intended, for example. When focus groups are employedfor such tests, perhaps a sophisticated computerized analysis maybe warranted, using specialized software to sort and organize thedata from the transcripts. Certainly, the logical model can easilyserve as a basis for developing a pre-ordinate coding scheme. Theuse of computer software may also be appropriate when a largenumber of focus groups are being analyzed.


Of course, a combination of methods might be most appropriate ofall, so that the frequencies of ideas and themes can be analyzed,multiple readers can minimize bias in interpretation, and unusualand useful comments made during the focus group can be presented— a triangulation, perhaps, within the focus group process itself.My study found that researchers are divided almost equally withregard to their choice of either developing a coding scheme or sim-ply finding interesting quotations from the transcripts. Again, evalu-ation and research questions and the rationale for the choice to usefocus groups should play a key role in deciding the extent to whichthe analyst relies on more sophisticated analytic techniques.

Finally, future research in this area might examine the use of focusgroup data analysis techniques from other fields beyond health edu-cation, sociology, and education, such as marketing and political af-fairs. Studies of the reasoning behind the choice of techniques couldexamine variables that are not often presented in the articles them-selves, such as the ideological disposition of the author. Such infor-mation could be captured in more direct ways including telephoneinterviews or e-mail exchanges with the authors or researchers.

The present study focused on social and health sciences studies pub-lished in peer-reviewed outlets. It would be interesting to examinecurrent practices within the domain of evaluation itself. Although itmight be more difficult to track down evaluation reports using focusgroup methods, it would be interesting to compare analytic prac-tices against those of social and health sciences researchers pub-lishing in refereed articles and outlets. Observed differences mightbe interpreted in terms of the differing needs and demands of evalu-ation and research (see, e.g., Levin-Rozalis, 2003).

Focus group studies are a useful qualitative tool for evaluators seek-ing to elicit the opinions of a non-representative sample of the popu-lation in order to find in-depth perceptions of respondents. Inanalyzing the resulting transcripts, different information is gaineddepending on the analytic methods. Evaluators should endeavourto ensure that data analysis method choices are maximally usefuland credible when analyzing focus group data. Careful considera-tion of focus group analyses needs to take place in order to ensureappropriate reporting of findings.


REFERENCES

Anderson, A.S., Guthrie, C., Alder, E.M., Forsyth, S., Howie, P.W., &Williams, F.L.R. (2001). Rattling the plate: Reasons and rationalesfor early weaning. Health Education Research, 16(4), 471–479.

Archer, L., & Hutchings, M. (2000). Bettering yourself? Discourses of risk,cost and benefit in ethnically diverse, young working-class non par-ticipants’ constructions of higher education. British Journal of So-ciology of Education, 21(4), 555–574.

Bakopanos, C., & Gifford, S.M. (2001). The changing ties that bind: Issuessurrounding sexuality and health for Greek parents and their Aus-tralian-born sons and daughters. Journal of Family Issues, 22(3),358–385.

Barlow, J.H., Shaw, K.L., & Harrison, K. (1999). Consulting the “experts”:Children’s and parents’ perceptions of psycho-educational interven-tions in the context of juvenile chronic arthritis. Health EducationReview, 14(5), 597–610.

Basch, C.E. (1987). Focus group interview: An underutilized research tech-nique for improving theory and practice in health education. HealthEducation Quarterly, 14(4), 411–448.

Bers, T.H. (1989). The popularity and problems of focus-group research.College and University, 3, 260–268.

Bertrand, J.T., Brown, J.E., & Ward, V.M. (1992). Techniques for analyzingfocus group data. Evaluation Review, 16(2), 198–209.

Booth, K.M., & James, B.W. (2001). Interactive learning in a higher edu-cation Level 1 mechanics module. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 23(9), 955–967.

Brandwein, R.A., & Filiano, D.M. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: Thevoices of battered women. Affilia, 15(2), 224–243.

Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Jenkins, A., & Smith, P. (2001). The role of infor-mation and communication technologies in a university learning en-vironment. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 95–114.

Burke, V., Giangiulio, N., Gillam, H.F., Beilin, L.J., Houghton, S., &Milligan, R.A.K. (1999). Health promotion in couples adapting to ashared lifestyle. Health Education Research, 14(2), 269–288.


Caffarella, R.S., & Barnett, B.G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to be-come scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving cri-tiques. Society for Research into Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.

Cagampan, H.H., Barth, R.P., Korpi, M., & Kirby, D. (1997). Educationnow and babies later (ENABL): Life history of a campaign to post-pone sexual involvement. Family Planning Perspectives, 29(3), 109–114.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K.J. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to researchcultures: Are some more unequal than others? Studies in HigherEducation, 25(2), 149–165.

Denscombe, M. (2000). Social conditions for stress: Young people’s experi-ence of doing GSCEs. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3),359–374.

Denzin, N.K. (1998). The research act: A theoretical introduction to socio-logical methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dryburgh, H. (1999). Work hard, play hard: Women and professionalizationin engineering – Adapting to the culture. Gender & Society, 13(5),664–682.

Erwin, L., & Stewart, P. (1997). Gendered perspectives: A focus-group studyof how undergraduate women negotiate their career aspirations.Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 207–220.

Fentiman, A., Hall, A., & Bundy, D. (1999). School enrolment patterns inrural Ghana: A comparative study of the impact of location, gender,age, and health on children’s access to basic schooling. ComparativeEducation, 35(3), 331–349.

Flores, J.G., & Alonso, C.G. (1995). Using focus groups in educational re-search. Evaluation Review, 19(1), 84–101.

Folch-Lyon, E., & Trost, J.F. (1981). Conducting focus group sessions. Stud-ies in Family Planning, 12(12), 443–449.

Forrest, K.A., Austin, D.M., Valdes, M.I., Fuentes, E.G., & Wilson, S.R.(1993). Exploring norms and beliefs related to AIDS preventionamong California Hispanic men. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(3),111–117.


Freeman, M. (1998). Video conferencing: A solution to the multi-campuslarge class problem? British Journal of Educational Technology,29(3), 197–210.

Fullilove, M.T., & Fullilove, R.E., III. (1999). Stigma as an obstacle to AIDSaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(7), 1113–1125.

Gabhainn, S.N., Kelleher, C.C., Naughton, A.M., Carter, F., Flanagan, M.,& McGrath, M.J. (1999). Socio-demographic variations in perspec-tives on cardiovascular disease and associated risk factors. HealthEducation Research, 14(5), 619–628.

Gandara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in thepost-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1), 1–13.

Gilson, S.P., Cramer, E.P., & DePoy, E. (2001). Redefining abuse of womenwith disabilities: A paradox of limitation and expansion. Affilia,16(2), 220–235.

Goodfellow, J., & Sumsion, J. (2000). Transformative pathways: Field-basedteacher educators’ perceptions. Journal of Education for Teaching,26(3), 245–257.

Grogan, S., & Richards, H. (2002). Body image: Focus groups with boysand men. Men and Masculinities, 4(3), 219–232.

Hanks, R.S. (2001). “Grandma, what big teeth you have!” Journal of Fam-ily Issues, 22(5), 652–676.

Harper, C., & Ellertson, C. (1995). Knowledge and perceptions of emer-gency contraceptive pills among a college-age population: A qualita-tive approach. Family Planning Perspectives, 27(4), 149–154.

Harvey, S.M., Beckman, L.J., Castle, M.A., & Coeytaux, F. (1995). Knowl-edge and perceptions of medical abortion among potential users.Family Planning Perspectives, 27(5), 203–207.

Havanon, N., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1992). The impact of family sizeon wealth accumulation in rural Thailand. Population Studies, 46(1),37–51.

Henderson, L., & Kitzinger, J. (1999). The human drama of genetics: “Hard”and “soft” media representations of inherited breast cancer. Sociol-ogy of Health and Illness, 21(5), 560–578.


Hibbert, D., Bissell, P., & Ward, P.R. (2002). Consumerism and profes-sional work in the community pharmacy. Sociology of Health andIllness, 24(1), 46–65.

Hughes-Bond, L. (1998). Standing alone, working together: Tensions sur-rounding young Canadian women’s views of the workplace. Genderand Education, 10(3), 281–297.

Hurtes, K.P. (2002). Social dependency: The impact of adolescent femaleculture. Leisure Sciences, 24, 109–121.

Kegler, M.C., Cleaver, V.L., & Yazzie-Valencia, M. (2000). An explorationof the influence of family on cigarette smoking among American In-dian adolescents. Health Education Research, 15(5), 547–557.

Kezar, A. (2000). Higher education research at the millennium: Still treeswithout fruit? Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 443–468.

Kinsman, J., Nakiyingi, J., Kamali, A., Carpenter, L., Quigley, M., Pool,R., & Whitworth, J. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive school-based AIDS education programme in rural Masaka, Uganda. HealthEducation Research, 16(1), 85–100.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance ofinteraction between research participants. Sociology of Health andIllness, 16(1), 103–121.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal,311, 299–302.

Kitzinger, J. (2000). Media templates: Patterns of association and the(re)construction of meaning over time. Media, Culture, & Society,22, 61–84.

Kloep, M., Hendry, L.B., Ingebrigtsen, J.E., Glendinning, A., & Espnes,G.A. (2001). Young people in “drinking” societies? Norwegian, Scot-tish, and Swedish adolescents’ perceptions of alcohol use. HealthEducation Research, 16(3), 279–291.

Knodel, J. (1997). The closing of the gender gap in schooling: The case ofThailand. Comparative Education, 33(1), 61–86.

Knodel, J., Havanon, N., & Pramualratana, A. (1984). Fertility transitionin Thailand: A qualitative analysis. Population and DevelopmentReview, 10(2), 297–328.


Knodel, J., Havanon, N., & Sittitrai, W. (1990). Family size and the educa-tion of children in the context of rapid fertility decline. Populationand Development Review, 16(1), 31–62.

Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide forapplied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuiper, H., Miller, S., Martinez, E., Loeb, L., & Darney, P. (1997). Urbanadolescent females’ views on the implant and contraceptive deci-sion-making: A double paradox. Family Planning Perspectives, 29(4),167–172.

Kwan, S.Y.L., & Holmes, M.A.M. (1999). An exploration of oral health be-liefs and attitudes of Chinese in West Yorkshire: A qualitative in-vestigation. Health Education Research, 14(4), 453–460.

Lamanna, M.A. (1999). Living the postmodern dream: Adolescent wom-en’s discourse on relationships, sexuality, and reproduction. Jour-nal of Family Issues, 20(2), 181–217.

Landry, D.J., & Camelo, T.M. (1994). Young unmarried men and womendiscuss men’s role in contraceptive practice. Family Planning Per-spectives, 26(5), 222–227.

Larkey, L.K., Alatorre, C., Buller, D.B., Morrill, C., Buller, M.K., Taren,D., & Sennott-Miller, L. (1999). Communication strategies for di-etary change in a worksite peer educator intervention. Health Edu-cation Research, 14(6), 777–790.

Lazenbatt, A., Lynch, U., & O’Neill, E. (2001). Revealing the hidden “trou-bles” in Northern Ireland: The role of participatory rapid appraisal.Health Education Research, 16(5), 567–578.

Levin-Rozalis, M. (2003). Evaluation and research: Similarities and dif-ferences. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18(2), 1–31.

Markham, W.A., Featherstone, K., Taket, A., Trenchard-Mabere, E., &Ross, M. (2001). Smoking amongst UK Bangladeshi adolescents aged14–15. Health Education Research, 16(2), 143–156.

Matei, S., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (2001). Real and virtual social ties. Ameri-can Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 550–564.

Mayeda, D.T., Chesney-Lind, M., & Koo, J. (2001). Talking story with Ha-waii’s youth: Confronting violent and sexualized perceptions of eth-nicity and gender. Youth and Society, 33(1), 99–128.


McLaughlin, H.J., Liljestrom, A., Lim, J.H., & Meyers, D. (2002). LEARN:A community study about Latino immigrants and education. Edu-cation and Urban Society, 34(2), 212–232.

Mitchell, K., Nakamanya, S., Kamali, A., & Whitworth, J.A.G. (2001). Com-munity-based HIV/AIDS education in rural Uganda: Which chan-nel is most effective? Health Education Research, 16(4), 411–423.

Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.

Morgan, D.L., & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for quali-tative research. Qualitative Sociology, 7(3), 253–270.

Napoles-Springer, A.M., Grumbach, K., Alexander, M., Moreno-John, G.,Forte, D., Rangel-Lugo, M., & Perez-Stable, E.J. (2000). Clinical re-search with older African Americans and Latinos: Perceptions fromthe community. Research on Aging, 22(6), 668–691.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of thescience curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal ofScience Education, 23(5), 441–467.

O’Sullivan, L.F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., & Watkins, B.K. (2001). Mother-daughter communication about sex among urban African Americanand Latino families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 269–292.

Oswald, R.F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and familyritual. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 349–368.

Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Pearlmutter, S., & Bartle, E.E. (2000). Supporting the move from welfareto work: What women say. Affilia, 15(2), 153–172.

Plumridge, E.W., Fitzgerald, L.J., & Abel, G.M. (2002). Performing cool-ness: Smoking refusal and adolescent identities. Health EducationResearch, 17(2), 167–179.

Porteous, N., Sheldrick, B.J., & Stewart, P.J. (2002). Introducing programteams to logic models: Facilitating the learning process. CanadianJournal of Program Evaluation, 17(3), 113–142.


Potsonen, R., & Kontula, O. (1999). Adolescents’ knowledge and attitudesconcerning HIV infection and HIV-infected persons: How a surveyand focus group discussions are suited for researching adolescents’HIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudes. Health Education Research,14(4), 473–484.

Power, R., & Hunter, G. (2001). Developing a strategy for community-basedhealth promotion targeting homeless populations. Health EducationResearch, 16(5), 593–602.

Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedgley, D., Khan, E., & Jenkins, A. (2000).Sexuality and holiday choices: Conversations with gay and lesbiantourists. Leisure Studies, 19, 267–282.

Richmond, R.L., Kehoe, L., Hailstone, S., Wodak, A., & Uebel-Yan, M.(1999). Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of brief interven-tions to change excessive drinking, smoking, and stress in the po-lice force. Addiction, 94(10), 1509–1521.

Sanchez, L., Nock, S.L., Wright, J.D., & Gager, C.T. (2002). Setting theclock forward or back? Covenant marriage and the “divorce revolu-tion.” Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 91–120.

Sargent, P. (2000). Real men or real teachers? Contradictions in the livesof men elementary teachers. Men and Masculinities, 2(4), 410–433.

Saulnier, C.F., & Wheeler, E. (2000). Social action research: Influencingproviders and recipients of health and mental health care for lesbi-ans. Affilia, 15(3), 409–433.

Selwyn, N., Marriot, N., & Marriott, P. (2000). Net gains or net pains?Business students’ use of the internet. Higher Education Quarterly,54(2), 166–186.

Shively, J. (1992). Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of western filmsamong American Indians and Anglos. American Sociological Review,57(6), 725–734.

Stewart, D.W., & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus groups theory and prac-tice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stone, R., & Waszak, C. (1992). Adolescent knowledge and attitudes aboutabortion. Family Planning Perspectives, 24(2), 52–57.


Tangenberg, K. (2000). Marginalized epistemologies: A feminist approachto understanding the experiences of mothers with HIV. Affilia, 15(1),31–48.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, S.J., & Siagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews ineducation and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walden, V.M., Mwangulube, K., & Makhumula-Nkhoma, P. (1999). Meas-uring the impact of a behaviour change intervention for commercialsex workers and their potential clients in Malawi. Health Educa-tion Research, 14(4), 545–554.

Warner-Smith, P., & Brown, P. (2002). “The town dictates what I do”: Theleisure, health and well-being of women in a small Australian coun-try town. Leisure Studies, 21, 39–56.

Wilson, V., & Bagley, L. (1999). Learning at a distance: The case of thecommunity pharmacist. International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 18(5), 355–369.

Younger, M., Warrington, M., & Williams, J. (1999). The gender gap andclassroom interactions: Reality and rhetoric? British Journal of So-ciology of Education, 20(3), 325–341.

Zsembik, B.A., & Bonilla, Z. (2000). Eldercare and the changing family inPuerto Rico. Journal of Family Issues, 21(5), 652–674.

Geoffrey S. Wiggins, M.A., is a doctoral student and graduate fac-ulty member of the College of Urban and Public Affairs at the Uni-versity of New Orleans. This article was completed as part of hismaster’s degree in measurement, statistics, and evaluation at theUniversity of Maryland at College Park. His research interests in-clude program evaluation, quantitative and qualitative methods, andhousing.

Date post:	13-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lyhanh
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

143 the analysis of focus groups in published research articles

Documents