Advertisement

Face-to-Face versus Online Focus Groups in Two Different Countries: Do Qualitative Data Collection Strategies Work the Same Way in Different Cultural Contexts?

  • Guendalina Graffigna
  • Albino Claudio Bosio
  • Karin Olson
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 34)

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.

Online focus group Face-to-face focus group Chat Forum HIV/AIDS and risk research Italy and Canada The Internet Generalisability Theory of technique Moderation style 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (1994). Reflexive methodology: Interpretation and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the inter-vention of self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baarnhielm, S., & Ekblad, S. (2002). Qualitative research, culture and ethics: A case discussion. Transcultural Psychiatry, 39(4), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benkert, H. (2002). Liberating insights from a cross-cultural sexuality study about women. American Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 45(8), 1197–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhopal, K. (2001). Researching south Asian women: Issues of sameness and difference in the research process. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. L., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data analysis: Complementary strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology . London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth-generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversational analysis . Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Lancia, F. (2004). Strumenti per l’analisi dei testi . Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  23. Laverack, G. R., & Brown, K. M. (2003). Qualitative research in a cross-cultural context: Fijian experiences. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 333 –342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liamputtong, P. (Ed.) (2006). Health research in cyberspace: Ethical, methodological and practi-cal issues . New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Mangen, S. (1999). Qualitative research methods in cross-national settings. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching on-line . London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Munet-Vilarò, F. (1988). The challenges of cross-cultural nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(1), 112 – 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nevid, J. S., & Maria, N. L. S. (1999). Multicultural issues in qualitative research. Psychology and Marketing, 16(4), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology . London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Sandelowski, M.(2004). Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,14, 1366–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ungerson, C. (1996). Qualitative methods. In L. Hantrais & S. Mangen (Eds.), Cross-national research methods in social sciences (pp. 63 – 65). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  43. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guendalina Graffigna
    • 1
  • Albino Claudio Bosio
    • 1
  • Karin Olson
    • 2
  1. 1.Facoltà di PsicologiaUniversità Cattolica di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of NursingInternational Institute for Qualitative MethodologyEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations