Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus Group Method

Doing Research Inclusively and Supporting Social Inclusion

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Social Inclusion

  • 199 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter relates to the inclusive or democratic turn in social science research. Increasingly, researchers are seeking to shift the dynamics of research production away from doing research on people, mining them for information, and towards researching with participants and recognizing that research needs to be purposeful and beneficial for participants. One important way of doing this is by creating vibrant interactive spaces in which best use can be made of participants’ potential not just to contribute, but to learn from each other’s contributions and come to know themselves and their own situation a little better. Focus groups can create these spaces, especially when the researcher is alert to their inclusive and transformative potential and open to the idea of hybrids of focus groups and other methods. Taking a Freirean approach to the focus group method, the authors have been using focus groups to support participants’ power in the research process. This comes through embracing the praxis of defining their focus collaboratively and by embedding the research authority in the interactive space between individuals. The chapter shows how focus groups can be political or playful as a means of co-production. This will be illustrated using data from studies involving people with intellectual disabilities, where the mutual support among those in dialogue is evident. The authors argue that the experience of taking part in focus groups enhances the social inclusion of those involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldridge, J. (2006). Picture this: The use of participatory photographic research methods with people with learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 22(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayrton, R. (2018). The micro-dynamics of power and performance in focus groups: An example from discussions on national identity with the south Sudanese diaspora in the UK. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagnoli, A., & Clark, A. (2010). Focus groups with young people: A participatory approach to research planning. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(1), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. R. (2012). Focus groups. In I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall, & R. De Vries (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative methods in health research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. R. (2017). Setting the scene for a new era of focus group research. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blühdorn, I., & Butzlaff, F. (2020). Democratization beyond the post-democratic turn: Towards a research agenda on new conceptions of citizen participation. Democratization, 27(3), 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollard, M. (2008). Going to the doctor’s: The findings from a focus group with people with learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(2), 156–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, L. (2009). Reflections on doing participatory research in health: Participation, method and power. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(5), 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury-Jones, C., & Taylor, J. (2015). Engaging with children as co-researchers: Challenges, counterchallenges and solutions. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caretta, M. A., & Vacchelli, E. (2015). Re-thinking the boundaries of the focus group: A reflexive analysis on the use and legitimacy of group methodologies in qualitative research. Sociological Research Online, 20(4), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae-Young, K., Sheehy, K., & Kerawalla, L. (2017). Developing children as researchers: A practical guide to help children conduct social research. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chown, N., Robinson, J., Beardon, L., Downing, J., Hughes, L., Leatherland, J., Fox, K., Hickman, L., & MacGregor, D. (2017). Improving research about us, with us: A draft framework for inclusive autism research. Disability & Society, 32(5), 720–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, J., & Vickers, T. (2019). The contingent challenges of purposeful co-production: Researching new migrant employment experiences in the north east of England. Area, 51, 396–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colucci, E. (2007). “Focus groups can be fun”: The use of activity-orientated questions in focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1422–1433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darbyshire, P. (2000). Guest editorial: From research on children to research with children. Neonatal, Paediatric and Child Health Nursing, 3(1), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J., Trathen, A., Wittenberg, R., Mays, N., Wistow, G., & Knapp, M. (2019). Funding and planning for social care in later life: A deliberative focus group study. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(5), 687–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, L., Piatelli, D., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2007). Researching inequality through interpretive collaborations: Shifting power and the unspoken contract. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(6), 821–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrera, M. J., Feinstein, R. T., & Walker, J. (2016). Embedded mistrust then and now: Findings of a focus group study on African American perspectives on breast cancer and its treatment. Critical Public Health, 26(4), 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankena, T. K., Naaldenberg, J., Cardol, M., Garcia Iriarte, E., Buchner, T., Brooker, K., Embregts, P., Joosa, E., Crowther, F., Fudge Schormans, A., Schippers, A., Walmsley, J., O’Brien, P., Linehan, C., Northway, R., van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H., & Leusink, G. (2019). A consensus statement on how to conduct inclusive health research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 63(1), 1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, B., & Waight, M. (2007). Reflections on conducting focus groups with people with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical issues. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C., Spencer, R., Weinberg, M. K., & Bertsch, T. (2003). On the listening guide: A voice-centered relational method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 157–172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., & Speed, E. (2012). Varieties of co-production in public services: Time banks in a UK health policy context. Critical Policy Studies, 6(4), 402–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennink, M. M. (2017). Cross-cultural focus group discussions. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkes, C. (2020). Conducting focus groups in a global pandemic. https://ijsrm.org/2020/08/10/conducting-focus-groups-in-global-pandemic/

  • Holland, S., Renold, E., Ros, N., & Hillman, A. (2008). Rights, ‘Right On’ or the right thing to do? A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative social work research, NCRM working paper series 07/08, http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/460/1/0708%2520critical%2520exploration.pdf

  • Holt, L., Jeffries, J., Hall, E., & Power, A. (2019). Geographies of co-production: Learning from inclusive research approaches at the margins. Area, 51(3), 390–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887–907). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellett, M., Forrest, R., Dent, M., & Ward, S. (2004). ‘Just teach us the skills please, we’ll do the rest’: Empowering ten-year-olds as active researchers. Children and Society, 18(5), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesby, M. (1999) Beyond the representational impasse? Retheorising power, empowerment and spatiality in PRA praxis, unpublished working paper, University of St Andrews, http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/∼mgk

  • Kiernan, C. (1999). Participation in research by people with learning disabilities: Origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. (1998). Focus group: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeHoux, P., Poland, B., & Daudelin, G. (2006). Focus group research and “the patient’s view”. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2091–2104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lijadi, A. A., & Schalkwyk, G. J. (2015). Online Facebook focus group research of hard-to-reach participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobe, B. (2017). Best practices for synchronous online focus groups. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835–850). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, P., & Frawley, P. (2019). From ‘on’ to ‘with’ to ‘by:’ People with a learning disability creating a space for the third wave of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 382–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Qualitative research methods series) (Vol. 16, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analysing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 718–722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (2012). Focus groups and social interaction. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 161–176). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (2017). Conclusions: A call for further innovations in focus groups. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D., Fellows, C., & Guevara, H. (2008). Emergent approaches to focus groups research. In N. S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 189–205). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M. (2014). What is inclusive research? London: Bloomsbury.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., & Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2014). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2016). Creative interactions with data: Using visual and metaphorical devices in repeated focus groups. Qualitative Research, 16(1), 9–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., Kilburn, D., & Wiles, R. (2015). Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: Teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 561–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2016). Research methods for pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (1997). Emancipatory research: Realistic goal or impossible dream? In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Doing disability research (pp. 15–31). Leeds: Disability Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pain, R., Kesby, M., & Askins, K. (2011). Geographies of impact: Power, participation and potential. Area, 43(2), 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, A., & Bartlett, R. (2018). Self-building safe havens in a post-service landscape: How adults with learning disabilities are reclaiming the welcoming communities agenda. Social & Cultural Geography, 19, 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prades, A., Espluga, J., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2017). Hybrid focus groups as a means to investigate practical reasoning, learning processes and indigenous activities. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puigvert, L., Christou, M., & Holford, J. (2012). Critical communicative methodology: Including vulnerable voices in research through dialogue. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(4), 513–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripat, J., Woodgate, R. L., & Bennett, L. (2020). Attitudes faced by young adults using assistive technology as depicted through photovoice. Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive technology, 15(3), 314–321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, E., Anderson, R., & Botkin, J. R. (2015). Deliberative discussion focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 734–740.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Seaton, E. E. (2017). A kaleidoscope of voices: Using focus group in a study of rural adolescent girls. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, B. (2017). Stress as experienced by people with dementia: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Dementia, 18(4), 1427–1445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C., Lewis, D. J., & Taylor, S. J. C. (2017). The use of video recording in longitudinal focus groups research. In R. S. Barbou & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, F. (2007). Are methodologies for children keeping them in their place? Children’s Geographies, 5(3), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2007). The methodology of students-as-researchers: Valuing and using experience and expertise to develop methods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treseder, P. (1997). Empowering children and Young people. London: Save the Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities past, present and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1994). Empowerment through photo Novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 171–186.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, G. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. (1999). Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. (2016). In-person versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis of data quality. Quality Health Research, 26(6), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Education School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Melanie Nind

  2. Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Alex Kaley

  3. School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

    Edward Hall

Authors
  1. Melanie Nind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex Kaley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie Nind .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Nind, M., Kaley, A., Hall, E. (2021). Focus Group Method. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Social Inclusion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48277-0_57-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48277-0_57-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48277-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48277-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation