Abstract
Recently there has been renewed interest in cross-cultural qualitative research underscoring the epistemological and methodological pitfalls implied in this kind of research. In particular, focus groups, because of their intrinsically relational nature, require an accurate analysis of how the setting influences interpersonal exchanges and people’s attitudes toward participation and, thus, the results achieved. In this chapter, the authors consider how the data collection medium framed the results of a study involving 16 focus groups on HIV/AIDS, 8 conducted with Italians and 8 with Canadians aged 18 to 25. The focus groups were designed to reflect four techniques (face-to-face, online forum, online chat, online forum+chat) and were distributed equally in the two countries. Data were analysed using software-based content analysis (T-lab), psychosocial discourse analysis, software-based discourse analysis (Atlas.ti), and conversational analysis. The different techniques had specific influences on the findings production, which were fairly consistent between the two countries. The authors discuss the importance of these findings in cross-cultural qualitative studies, as researchers frequently make situated choices regarding data gathering in various settings according to their research objectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Al-Kodmany, K. (2000, Winter). Women’s visual privacy in traditional and modern neighbor-hoods in Damascus. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(4), 283–303.
Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (1994). Reflexive methodology: Interpretation and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the inter-vention of self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304–325.
Baarnhielm, S., & Ekblad, S. (2002). Qualitative research, culture and ethics: A case discussion. Transcultural Psychiatry, 39(4), 469–483.
Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Benkert, H. (2002). Liberating insights from a cross-cultural sexuality study about women. American Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 45(8), 1197–1207.
Bhopal, K. (2001). Researching south Asian women: Issues of sameness and difference in the research process. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 279–286.
Birbili, M. (2000). Translating from one language to another. Social Research Update, 31. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU31.html. Cited 5 Nov 2007.
Bosio, A. C., & Graffigna, G. (2008). Discorsi sociali e discorsi dei media: Come i contesti dello scambio sociale orientamento la fruizione della comunicazione mediale sulla salute? [Social discourses and media discourses: How do social exchange contexts orient the use of mass-media health campaigns messages?] In B. Mazzara (Ed.), Discorsi dei media [Media dis-courses], pp. 265–286. Roma, Italy: Carocci.
Bosio A. C., Graffigna G, Lozza E. (2006). The influence of setting on findings produced in face to face and online focus groups [Published abstract]. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Method s, 5, (6). http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/english/engframeset.html Accessed 16 Nov 2007.
Bosio, A. C., Graffigna, G., & Olson, K. (2007, September). Determining the territory conditions of qualitative research: Which balance between “theory of methods ” and “theory of tech-niques” ? Paper presented at AQM 2007: The Advance in Qualitative Methods Conference, Banff, Canada.
Bosio, A. C., Graffigna, G., & Lozza, E. (2008). Online focus groups: Toward a theory of tech-nique. In T. Hansson (Ed.), Handbook of digital information technologies: Innovations and ethical issues . Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. L., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data analysis: Complementary strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology . London: Sage Publications.
Eide, P., & Allen, C. B. (2005). Recruiting transcultural qualitative research participants: A con-ceptual model. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(2), Article 4. http://www.ual-berta.ca/ijqm/backissues/4_2/pdf/eide.pdf. Cited 5 Nov 2007.
Graffigna, G., & Bosio, A. C. (2006). The influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative health research: A comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about HIV/ AIDS. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (3), Article 5. http://www.ualberta.ca/ijqm/5_3/pdf/graffigna.pdf. Cited 5 Nov 2007.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth-generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338 - 403). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hoosen, S., & Collins, A. (2005). Sex, sexuality and sickness: Discourse of gender and HIV-AIDS among KwaZulu-Natal women. South African Journal of Psychology, 34(3), 487–505.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversational analysis . Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Lancia, F. (2004). Strumenti per l’analisi dei testi . Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
Laverack, G. R., & Brown, K. M. (2003). Qualitative research in a cross-cultural context: Fijian experiences. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 333 –342.
Liamputtong, P. (Ed.) (2006). Health research in cyberspace: Ethical, methodological and practi-cal issues . New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Lonkila, M. (1995). Grounded theory as an emerging paradigm for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis (pp. 41 –51). London: Sage Publications.
Mangen, S. (1999). Qualitative research methods in cross-national settings. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 109–124.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching on-line . London: Sage Publications.
Monshi, B. & Zieglmayer, V. (2004). The problem of privacy in transcultural research: reflections on an ethnographic study in Sri Lanka. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 305 –312.
Munet-Vilarò, F. (1988). The challenges of cross-cultural nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(1), 112 – 116.
Nevid, J. S., & Maria, N. L. S. (1999). Multicultural issues in qualitative research. Psychology and Marketing, 16(4), 305–325.
Nieben, M. (1982). Qualitative aspects in cross-national comparative research and the problem of functional equivalence. In M. Niessen & J. Peschar (Eds.), International comparative research: Problems of theory, methodology, and organization in Eastern and Western Europe (pp. 83 –104). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology . London: Sage Publications.
Ryen, A. (2003). Cross-cultural interviewing. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), I nside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 429 – 448). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sandelowski, M.(2004). Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,14, 1366–1386.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
Scheuch, E. K. (1968). The cross-cultural use of sample-surveys: Problem of comparability. In S. Rokkan (Ed.), Comparative research across culture and nations (pp. 176–209). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Smith, R. A., & Stephen, F. D. (2007). The psychologist as detective: An introduction to conduct-ing research in psychology, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
Temple, B., & Edwards, R. (2002). Interpreters/translator and cross-language research: Reflexivity and border crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1( 2), Article 1. www.ualberta.ca/ijqm./ Cited 5 Nov 2007.
Tsai, J. H.-C., Choe, J. H., Lim, J. M. C., Acorda, E., Chan, N. L., Taylor, V., et al. (2004). Developing culturally competent health knowledge: Issue of data analysis of cross-cultural, cross-language qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (4), Article 2. http://www.ualberta.ca/iiqm/backissues/3_4/pdf/tsai.pdf . Cited 5 Nov 2007.
Underhill, C., & Olmstead, M. G. (2003). An experimental comparison of computer mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 506 –512.
Ungerson, C. (1996). Qualitative methods. In L. Hantrais & S. Mangen (Eds.), Cross-national research methods in social sciences (pp. 63 – 65). London: Pinter.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Graffigna, G., Bosio, A.C., Olson, K. (2008). Face-to-Face versus Online Focus Groups in Two Different Countries: Do Qualitative Data Collection Strategies Work the Same Way in Different Cultural Contexts?. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Doing Cross-Cultural Research. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8566-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8567-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)