Focus Groups in Triangulation Contexts

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In some cases, focus groups are used as a stand-alone method, but they are also frequently combined with other approaches. When designing a study, a combination of focus groups and individual interviews may be selected because they afford access to different aspects of the phenomenon under study (with focus groups being included in order to provide insights into collective construction of social knowledge and everyday knowledge). This can give rise to different sorts of data with varying possibilities and outcomes. Analysis, thus, goes beyond simply comparing the content of individual interviews and of focus groups, as analysis can also focus on processes, drawing on the various theoretical perspectives (i.e. social interactionism and subjective reconstruction) adopted by researchers. Using focus groups with a view to triangulation does more than simply make the data more complete; it also affords a better understanding of a phenomenon under study. For example, analyzing apparently ‘unremarkable’ data in group discussions about ecological risks led to the identification of what could be termed a ‘false consensus’. Thus, it is argued, focus groups can make a valuable, indeed, unique contribution when employed in mixed methods studies – not just in terms of the data generated, but also the insights.

Keywords

Triangulation Collective construction Mixed methods 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Acocella, I. (2012) ‘The focus groups in social research: Advantages and disadvantages’. Qualitative and Quantitativ, 46: 1125–1136. doi:  10.1007/s11135-011-9600-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, R. (2007) Doing focus groups. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour, R. (2014) ‘Analyzing Focus Groups’, in U. Flick (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (1999) ‘Towards a paradigm for research on social representations’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(2): 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (2008) ‘Social representations theory: A progressive research programme for social psychology’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(4): 335–353. doi:  10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caillaud, S., Bonnot, V., Ratiu, E., & Krauth-Gruber, S. (2016) ‘How groups cope with collective responsibility for ecological problems: Symbolic coping and collective emotions’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(2): 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caillaud, S., & Kalampalikis, N. (2013) ‘Focus groups and ecological practices: A psychosocial approach’. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 10(4): 382–401. doi:  10.1080/14780887.2012.674176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caillaud, S., Kalampalikis, N., & Flick, U. (2012) ‘Penser la crise écologique: Représentations et pratiques franco-allemandes’. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 87(3): 621–644.Google Scholar
  9. Debucquet, G., Cornet, J., Adam, I., & Cardinal, M. (2012) ‘Perception of oyster-based products by french consumers. The effect of processing and role of social representations’. Appetite, 59: 844–852. doi:  10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. (1970) The research act. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000) ‘Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research’, In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edition (8). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  12. Farr, R., & Tafoya, E. (1992) Western and Hungarian Representations of Individualism: A Comparative Study Based on Group Discussions and Social Dilemmas (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  13. Flick, U. (1992) ‘Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(2): 175–197. doi:  10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00215.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flick, U. (2014) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 5th edition. London: Sage. (1st edn, 1998.)Google Scholar
  15. Flick, U. (2018) Triangulation. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. Thousands Oaks, California: Sage Publication, pp. 444–461.Google Scholar
  16. Flick, U., Fischer, C., Neuber, A., Walter, U., & Schwartz F.W. (2003) ‘Health in the context of being old - representations held by health professionals’. Journal of Health Psychology, 8(5): 539–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flick, U., Garms-Homolova, V., Herrmann, W., Kuck, J., & Röhnsch, G. (2012) ‘“I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it…” using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation’. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2): 97–110. doi:  10.1177/1558689812437183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, J., & Hart, L. (1998) ‘The impact of context on data’, In R. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (eds.), Developing Focus Groups Research. Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
  19. Greenwood, J. (2000) ‘Individualism and the social in early american social psychology’. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 36(4): 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haas, V., & Masson, E. (2006) ‘La relation à l’autre comme condition à l’entretien’. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 71: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halkier, B. (2010) ‘Focus groups as social enactments: integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data’. Qualitative Research, 10(1): 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995) The Active Interview. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalampalikis, N. (2004) ‘Les focus groups, lieux d’ancrages’. Bulletin de Psychologie, 57(3): 281–289.Google Scholar
  24. Kalampalikis, N. (2011) ‘Um instrumento de diagnóstico das representações sociais: O grupo focal’. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 11(33): 435–467.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplowitz, M., & Hoehn, J. (2000) ‘Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?’ Ecological Economics, 36(2): 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelle, U. (2006) ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: purposes and advantages’. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(4): 293–311.Google Scholar
  27. Kelle, U., & Erzberger, C. (2004) ‘Qualitative and quantitative methods: not in opposition’, In U. Flick, E Von Kardorff & I. Steinke (eds.), A companion to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. pp. 172–177.Google Scholar
  28. Kidd, P., & Parshall, M. (2000) ‘Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus groups research’. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3): 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitzinger, J. (1994) ‘The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants’. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1): 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitzinger, J., Markova, I., & Kalampalikis, N. (2004) ‘Qu’est-ce que les focus groups?’ Bulletin de Psychologie, 57(3): 237–243.Google Scholar
  31. Kvale, S. (2007) Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Lambert, S., & Loiselle, C. (2008) Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2): 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas, K., & Lloyd, B. (1999) ‘Starting smoking: Girls’ explanations of the influence of peers’. Journal of Adolescence, 22: 647–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus groups in media and communications research’. Journal of Communication, 46(2): 79–93. doi:  10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01475.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markova, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M., & Salazar Orvig, A. (2007) Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. McGrath, J. & Johnson, B. (2003) ‘Methodology makes meaning: how both qualitative and quantitative paradigms shape evidence and its interpretation’, In P. Camic, J. Rhodes & L. Yardleay (Eds), Qualitative research in Psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington: American Psychological Association. pp. 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merton, R. (2001) ‘The focussed interview and focus groups. Continuities and discontinuities’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51: 550–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michell, L. (1999) Combining Focus Groups and interviews: telling how it is; telling how it feels. In R. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds), Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice. Sage: London. pp. 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgan, D. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moscovici, S. (1961) La Psychanalyse, Son Image et Son Public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  41. Orfali, B., & Markova, I. (2002) ‘Analogies in focus groups: From the victim to the murderer and from the murderer to the victim’. European Review of Applied Psychology, 52(3–4): 263–271.Google Scholar
  42. Pearce, J., & Charman, E. (2011) ‘A social psychological approach to understanding moral panic’. Crime, Media, Culture, 7(3): 293–311. doi:  10.1177/1741659011417607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sommer, C. M. (1998). ‘Social representations and media communications’, In U. F. (ed.), Psychology of the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–195.Google Scholar
  44. Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Watts, M. (1987) ‘More than the sum of the parts: Research methods in group interviewing’. British Educational Research Journal, 13, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  2. 2.University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations