Focus Groups - Science topic
A method of data collection and a qualitative research tool in which a small group of individuals are brought together and allowed to interact in a discussion of their opinions about topics, issues, or questions.
Questions related to Focus Groups
What are the future research hotspots of battery management? At present, I am engaged in the research of battery state estimation, and I want to expand the research content. I can see that some research groups focus on fault diagnosis, the research of battery internal short circuit, and some focus on the energy management of the whole vehicle. In addition, there are battery balance, thermal management and other directions.
Many of the interview software packages, like Dragon Speak, will record and transcribe the interview and seem to work all right with a one-on-one interviews but seem to break down when there is a focus group with multiple speakers.
Does anyone have any suggestions on software that will work well with recording and transcribing a focus group?
I am finding it hard to categorise my current research study as there are 4 participants and I am using an arts-based method, so I can't decide which method it is?
Kind request to receive some templates on interviews, surveys, questionnaires for the fieldwork related to the Impact of land-use changes on soil erosion intensity?
We are planning to use standard methodologies for the assessment of Soil erosion on the field. In addition to that, we will use some photo materials (repeat photography), google maps, google earth...
We are looking for some good examples you implemented earlier for collecting data using interview techniques, questioners, working with Focus Groups.
It is not a problem to include interested parties to be with our team one of the authors, being interested to participate in the preparation of the interview techniques, questioners, working with Focus Groups (online ZOOM with us); including the analysis of the received inputs.
Looking forward to your reply,
Dr. Sc. Velibor SPALEVIC
1, Novaka Miloseva, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
Mobile/Viber/WhatsApp: +382 67 201 222
If a study has received ethical approval on the basis that it will employ indepth interviews and during the course of the implementation, we find that a focus group would be more practical given the homogeniety of the participants and the time constraints of waiting for each respondent to agree for an interview. Can the research team switch to conducting a focu group without gaining re-approval from the Ethics board again? I understand that it is ideal that re-approval be taken, but can some discretions be practised by the researchers to switch without involving ethics committee again, provided that the FGDs will be conductd follwing all ethical principles?
We have organised three focus groups with homogenous sample. Each group consisted of maximum 4-5 people (in total for three groups 13 people). After the third group, we consider to stop as we received overall the same results in all three groups.
Should we be concerned for the total number of participants or for the number of focus groups?
I mostly find references for the number of focus groups and the number of people within a group, but not for the total number.
To add here, that the participants were not an easily accessible population, this was the reason of small focus groups.
I am preparing focus groups with health professionals.
The content in general is not going to touch on any sensitive topics.
However, please state your opinion on how to react if someone reports that he/she was a target of bullying, harassments, or was verbally abused by line manager/supervisor/co-worker etc...
What can I should I do if something like that is reported?
Should I suggest contacting occupational psychologist? Talking to someone else from the supervision/management?
In general what guidance could I use to help those people who reveal content suggesting they have suffered at work and what is my role as a moderator for that?
Please share your experience and perhaps some examples from literature.
Many thanks in advance
I'm looking for tips and tricks for efficient qualitative data coding in collaboration. We, two researchers, have data from about 8 focus groups and 3 interviews, 60-80 minutes each. We talked about what respondents do to make effective use of executive functions to solve a difficult problem or pursue a complex task. E.g.: what do you do to keep your focus when you’re studying a difficult topic for you thesis? Our goal is to make a list of 'all' possible strategies to use executive functions through coding, using Atlas.ti. So, we do have kind of a framework which consists of every executive function, but every EF can be considered as a category for which we do not have specific codes yet: these codes for ‘EF-strategies’ will emerge from the data. We aim to code in tandem or parallel. How to do this efficiently? I wonder for example: what if I'm a lumper and my partner is a splitter, while we work in the same project (Atlas.ti). We would then definitely use different codes. How can we manage this in an efficient manner? Any tips or literature are highly appreciated!
I selected 30 respondents for focus group interview. Now I wish to know reliability of the raters ( Respondents). Please suggest me qualitative and quantitative methods for testing reliability of respondents of focus group interview.
I'm running an exploratory study at a hospital, involving different groups of staff that come in contact with a patient; such as surgeons, anaesthetists, junior doctors (interns and HMOs), nurses, ward receptionists, interpreters and patient service assistants. Each focus group will be homogeneous to the field/job title of the staff. Group sizes will be between 4-6 participants, with a degree of flexibility, and staff who are interested to participated and cannot attend a focus group due to schedule difficulties (e.g. surgeons), will be offered one on one interviews.
I understand an exploratory study will continue until saturation is reached. But I need some literature to point me towards potential sample sizes to aim for (required for the ethic application).
Should I aim for 1 group in each field. Or should I aim to balance the sample sizes between each field (eg medical, nursing, other hospital staff)?
The literature that I've read has been inconsistent, suggesting anywhere between 1-10 groups may be enough.
I have planned to do a qualitative reaserch based on health belief model on betal chewing using focus groups. I have collected few data. In the ibnterpretationj how am I to analyse this. My plan was to get constructs of the theory as themes and find matching codes from the transcripts. Is that deductive apparoch or am I wrong?
Due to time constraints, My team had to shelve our plans to publish the protocol for systematic review and focus groups that are currently going on (current status: data analysis completed for review and data collection phase completed for the focus group ). Does any journal accept a protocol paper on on-going studies or studies that are on its last phase? If yes, which journals accepts it?
Domain : Health psycology & Occupational health and safety
I am looking for methods to analyze participants perception on future outcomes collected through a survey followed by qualitative data collected through focus groups. How do I combine data from these two sources and conduct a mixed methodology (Qualitative + Quantitative)? Is there any other better approach than the mixed methodology?
Thank you in advance for reading my inquiry.
I am in the process of developing an energy behaviour maturity model for organisations in my PhD. So far, I have conducted expert interviews and focus groups on developing factors and maturity level descriptions (for 5 maturity levels against the factors). The structure of the findings so far is given below.
As the final step, I am going to develop the tool further as an assessment tool. Therefore, I am seeking ways of assigning weights for each main factor and sub-factor (Reason: The main factors/subfactors identified seem to have different impact levels for the energy behaviour maturity. Therefore, if I can assign weights that can be reflected in the results of the maturity assessments conduct using this model in the future)
Note: There are no subfactors for some of the main factors. Altogether, under the 3 Areas, 15 main factors and 5 subfactors are available. If required, the 3 areas can also be assigned with weights.
The structure of the current findings is as follows:
- Main factor 1.1
- subfactor 1.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
- Main factor 2.1
- subfactor 2.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
- Main factor 3.1
- subfactor 3.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
I would be grateful if you could provide your thoughts on this matter.
Hi friends! Who knows taxi drivers? (traditional cab drivers, not Uber of Lyft). Our team is recruiting taxi drivers to participate in focus groups about technological changes in driving jobs and the future impact of autonomous vehicles on workforce. Whoever successfully particpated in the focus group can receive a $50 gift card. More information can be found at: <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWEAVENSF%2Fposts%2F180149620718317&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="737" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>
In the literature, why has attribute (or monetary attribute) non-attendance been over-researched, although important attributes have always been included in the labeled discrete choice experiments after conducting focus groups, observations, and discussions with the decision-makers? However, why don’t we also shift our attention to alternatives’ non-attendance, a paradigm shift, specifically in a labeled discrete choice experiment with more alternatives, assumedly eight to nine alternatives, including none-of-these alternative, and then check convergent validity of respondents’ preferences and WTP values?
I agree that if some respondents don’t attend (or ignore) some attributes (or even a monetary attribute) even after being very well pre-tested and eventually included in a choice card, then in a similar way, it is also logical that respondents may also ignore (or don’t attend) some competing alternatives, if their number is higher, as I said eight to nine or probably less attractive for some respondents! Please remember, I am not talking about comparing small (say 5 alternatives) and large choice cards (say 8-9 alternatives) using a labeled discrete choice experiment.
Musharaf A. Talpur
I am working on my PhD research proposal, which is an exploratory design. Due to the insufficient existing study on the related issue, I plan to develop hypotheses and concepts through grounded theory (from both academic & non-academic resources, including magazines and articles from notable media) to serve as the guideline for the focus group. While the transcript of the focus group will then be analysed through thematic analysis to confirm the hypotheses built from the grounded theory.
Does this appear to be appropriate?
I am designing a new project and want to use participatory methods with children. I want the children to consider the questions and ask them in focus groups with other children. I know of a number of research projects that have carried this out successfully with young people (11+) but I am wanting to carry this project out with children between the ages of 5-11 yrs. Can anyone recommend any research where this has been attempted and discussed?
I have conducted one focus group and one interview where the same questions were asked. Could I analyse both data sets together using thematic analysis?
I hope that all is well with you
I am a PhD qualitative novice researcher
I have to interview, focus group, journal tools and demographics questionnaire (asking about gender, age, language level, motivation, anxiety)
My aim of having a focus group is to triangulate the findings with the interview.
I am intended to analyse my data by using thematic analyses for each individual and then classifying them based on different gender, age, motivation, and so on
As one of my research aims is to compare participants’ experiences with using data-driven learning in online classrooms, with different age, gender, motivation, and learners’ proficiency.
However, I am confused with some issues in collecting and analyse focus group data which are as the following:
What is the most suitable way of conducting and analyse the focus group?
Should I conduct a homogenous focus group ( same age, gender, motivation, learners proficiency)?
I am thinking about this but I am not sure that I will find the participants who all share the same characteristics
Should I conduct a heterogeneous focus group ( different age, gender, motivation, learners’ proficiency)?
Regarding the analysis
I am thinking if I conduct a homogenous focus group, I will analyse each group separately and compare between them, however as I mentioned before I am not sure that I will be able to specify group sharing all same characteristics ( age, gender, motivation, learners’ proficiency),
On the other hand, If I conduct a heterogeneous focus group, I am confused about how can I analyse them regarding different participants’ characteristics
Also, I read about some arguments about analysis focus group data as individuals or as groups, but I am not sure how can I decide each one of them
Thanks in advance
Ok ,so here is another question about qualitative studies. In my dissertation IRB I included the following:
- Video recordings of mentor/intern meetings
- Virtual focus group meetings with mentors and interns
- Individual interviews after focus group meetings as necessary to address unanswered questions from above related to my research questions.
- Reflections from interns over the course of the study with specific prompts
My question is, if the interns and mentors do not want to do all the items listed above, is it okay to allow them to only participate in focus groups. If they don't want to do focus groups with other mentors/interns would it be okay to just have interviews with mentor/interns that work together (in pairs). I think some of the mentors are hesitant to participate with others (not sure why exactly other than possibly the comfort level). Do you think this strays too far even if it can help answer my research questions? Should I turn in an amended IRB? I know I will have to rewrite parts of my chapter 3 but I have heard/understand things like this happen in qualitative studies and sometimes you get a completely different set of data than you originally planned for because of what you learn/gain throughout the study. I love the idea of qualitative studies and learning from participants, but I struggle because sometimes I think too much in black/white pictures. I am a "rule follower" of sorts.
Does anyone have suggestions on software that has been particularly helpful in transcribing and analyzing data recorded during focus groups? We have some money from a grant that can be used to purchase licenses. Any insight would be helpful. Thank you.
Looking for an online focus group software that has mixed-method capabilities. So in addition to having video/audio capabilities for discussion, would like to be able to deploy questions to participants and have the data in an identifiable format after the focus group. Any suggestions?
I am looking for recommendations for good resources or guidelines for developing surveys specifically focused on targeting user's opinions or a needs-analysis in the context of engineering design of new technology?
As we are all aware, we are moving away from direct person to person meetings towards online communications, conferences, etc.
Do you think there are some ethical considerations to be acknowledged when running focus groups online (video conferencing) contrary to more 'traditional' settings - meeting at one table etc.
Wonder if the two situations (contexts) differ in anyway in terms of running research and ethics...
Please share your opinions and ideas, any of them would be appreciated.
I am thinking to build a mobile application that may help to increase the paper's citations of any author using different techniques such as:
- Author account (Publications, keys, etc.)
- Add suggested authors from your country (you can choose any country), your university, similar research interests, etc.
- create focus group (a group with similar research interests)
- Add your research keys (recommend them to your group)
- you can share your work with others before they submit their papers (related to your work)
Could you please add more ideas that may help to improve this application?
I will be conducting a qualitative research into well-being and help-seeking behaviour in elite coaching and I'm trying to think of new/creative ways how to do this rather than just conducting interviews. For example, I was considering utilizing personal diaries. I'm open to interviews and focus groups as well, but would like to add a new dimension to it.
Could anyone recommend some alternative methods or interesting books/research papers to look at?
There are different ways of evaluating the effectiveness of a training program on health education; one being pre and post asssessment, qualitative evaluation via focus groups or a mixed method analysis?
Are there other means of evaluating the effectiveness?
Do you list all questions you asked in the journal article or you just mention that you use focus group interview as a research method? Thank you very much!
I have completed a study investigating the influence of feedback provided to junior doctors on their development of competence in performing a specific procedural skill in both workplace and simulation based assessment. Qualitative data was collected via surveys and a focus group. There were four themes that I found in my analysis of the data with one of the themes being feedback itself. I have been told that a theme cannot be the same as your topic under investigation so now am stuck trying to find another descriptor for 'feedback'. Any thoughts on a theme and the topic sharing the same name or on another word to describe feedback.
I am conducting a research degree and for my ethics I am required to provide an sample size for participants.
In one study I will look at the reliability of a screening tool(s) where two (potentially groups) of raters watch a performer conduct an action and give it a score.
I therefore need to work out how many raters I need and how many participants I need.
For example, it will be easier to get more participants rather than raters, so could I have say 100 participants and 2 raters, as this would give more data points than 10 raters and 10
However, the issue is…I do not know what screens I will be using as of yet, as these screens will be decided as part of the research (a focus group with experts). Therefore, I do not know if the scoring system on one screen might be 0-10, and on another screen it might be 0-3. I believe that this might affect any calculation?
Any advice on where to start would be great.
What do you think, is it legit to campare focus groups that were conducted online with focus groups conducted "face-to-face"? Both online and face-to-face focus groups were held by same moderator using the same guidline (or a similar set of questions), all groups were transcribed vebatim and then categorized by means of a "narration analysis". Additional "field notes" for non-verbal sings were taken. However, I do have some concers, because face-to-face focus groups allowed more insights into non-verbal communication and interactions of participants, compared to online FGs. Thank you for your answers.
Running a new group for those diagnosed with both ADHD and ASD as adults. How can I evaluate the impact of the group and perhaps compare to the ASD only and ADHD only only groups?
I'm doing research to explore students perceptions on why they choose to or not to pursue a career in fluroscopy
Trying to find out external and internal factors. However i am not sure how to conduct the research, my approach is ground theory
I was going do questionaires first then focus group interviews
I hope you can give me some insight
Hello: Can you recommend any literature regarding discussion groups and focus groups held online? I am interested in the methodological and ethical aspects and the discussion of the limits and possibilities of these. Thank you very much.
In Qualitative research how many focus groups we can add? For example one focus group comprise of age 30 to 40 and 5 volunteer members, other group; age 40 to 50 and 5 members, last group; age 50 to 60 and 5 member. can we increase members in one group or it should be total 10 to 12 all collectively?
I am currently working on my doctoral research proposal. I am attempting to further justify using interviews versus focus groups to conduct qualitative research about a topic that is sensitive in nature. I would appreciate any literature or experiences regarding this choice. Thank you kindly!
For my Bachelor thesis, I am aiming to research how the quality of life is perceived by village residents as well as their unfulfilled needs in this living environment.
Hence, they all live in the same area, but to get a response that hopefully reflects the response of a village as a whole, I want all possible demographics covered by the attendees; increasing reliability of their shared answers.
Any advice on how to approach this best?
Students/participants who always use measurement or numbers in understanding all phenomena may require more effort in convincing them about the importance and processes of qualitative research.
My name is John Kirst and I am a doctoral learner at Grand Canyon University (GCU). I am humbly requesting your help in locating a home healthcare agency willing to be a part of a study.
My proposed study titled Home Healthcare Workers’ Utilization of Mobile Technology is at the proposal stage currently being reviewed. The healthcare organization who originally agreed to be a part of the study decided to not participate. In order to complete my study, I need to recruit another home healthcare organization.
The study is a qualitative case study consisting a survey, focus group and individual interviews. If approved by GCU and the home healthcare agency, the survey can either be manual or through Survey Monkey. The focus group and individual interviews can be completed either in person or through a video conference software such as Zoom. Although I am a novice researcher, I will work on minimizing the home healthcare companies time and people involvement.
If you have or know of a home healthcare agency willing to participate in the study, please let me know. I can be reached at email@example.com or (903) 941-8612.
Thank you for reviewing my request and I hope to hear from you soon.
Should I ALWAYS do a qualitative research (e.g. in-depth interviews, focus group and cetera) before conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)? Many thanks and kind regards.
In our qualitative research focus groups, the first 3 groups got through all 3 of the research design questions. The 4th group however only got to one of the 3 questions. Should we exclude the results from the 4th group because the information is incomplete?
If not how do we account for the discrepancy in the methods, results and discussion of our paper?
Since face to face is not an option, what virtual platform would you recommend using to conduct a focus group with students during this pandemic?
3. Blackboard Collaborate
I have quantitative data from phase 1 and 2 and qualitive focus groups as phase 3. I would like to consider few focus groups as control and other focus groups as study ones where I will introduce the quantitative findings from phase 1 and 2 to the study focus groups then check for their responses while leaving the control focus groups with normal discussion. Is that legitimate intervention?
I am involved in qualitative research and at the time working on the methodological background. My colleague, which was doing the interviews, brought to me they did some focus group interviews. Now I am looking at the numbers of focus group interviews (3 in total) my colleague did and two times only 2 people and 1 time only 3 people took part. My question is: can this be mentioned as a focus groud study ? Or is there any other kind of "interview - style" more compatible when it comes to describing the sample and method ?
In the literature it a group is mostly described as 3 + participants.
Due to the Corona virus I will be doing realtime focus groups with ageing disabled people instead of face-to-face focus groups. I am interested in people's experiences with conducting this type of online research. What are do''s and don'ts?
Among the various methods of data collection in qualitative research, some are most frequently used like focus group. Frequently used methods of data collection in qualitative research.
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, we've had to postpone several (physical) workshops we had planned in Europe. We're considering virtual workshops, but want to know what platforms we could use to host these workshops, which involve focus groups with visual materials and ranking exercises, in order to get as close to the "real thing" as possible.
I have quantitative data from phase 1 and 2 and qualitive focus groups as phase 3. I would like to consider few focus groups as control and other focus groups as study ones where I will introduce the quantitative findings from phase 1 and 2 to the study focus groups then check for their responses while leaving the control focus groups with normal discussion. Is that legitimate intervention?
My PhD supervisor wants me to add a focus group to test the face validity of my research findings. The findings are from a quantitative study in a field of training for those working in organisations, and I am in the phase of writing the thesis.
After studying the literature, I decided not to do qualitative research because of my own worldview or ontology, which is post-positivist. Also, the literature in the field was mostly qualitative, anecdotal reports of personal experiences and that dominant approach had not been productive for developing the field. My decision was to do something different, and therefore quantitative.
Now, my supervisor wants me to do a focus group at the end, to organize a group, present my findings and see if they agree. Their reasoning is that this is what the department is familiar with and has come to expect over time.
My view is that a focus group at this stage and in this particular world is methodologically unsound, and that my research results would never lead to choosing such a method. What to do now?
I am working on a mulitdisciplinary project focused on environmental behaviour and attitudes towards protected areas and we need literature about focus groups that would be accesible and clear for researchers of various backgrounds (sociology, social psychology, environmental economy). What would you recommend?
Currently, I am on the writing phase of this project, and I used children and their caregiver oral health perception questionnaire, but I didn't find enough resources in terms of studies that examined the quality of life in a large cohort, the majority of them were case studies on different treatment approaches.
Also, as part of the study, we made a structured interview (Focus Group) with adults who had finished their oral rehabilitation treatment and examined how the treatment change their quality of life.
This is for my dissertation research.
I will be using semi- structured interviews with 10 participants (individual interviews) and a 7 participant focus group.
Starting this stage by early feb. 2020
Does anyone have experience with the feature "coding focus groups" in ATLAS.ti 8? I have data of focus groups to analyse (Grounded Theory) and I am wondering about what might be the advantages of this feature in the software. Is it about having direct links between quotes and speaker?
I'm currently pulling together the Appendices for my thesis and I was unclear as to whether the transcript from the focus group should be included or not. I already have all the questions which were asked in a separate appendix named "Focus group questions" from the case study protocol. Also, I've removed the codes associated with the transcript so it just reads like a conversation. Should I leave the codes in the document as part of the transcript?
We are analyzing data from a qualitative research study in which we conducted focus groups. However, for one focus group, only one person showed up. We went ahead and did the focus group, but can we include this in our analysis? What factors do I need to consider about whether or not to include it?
I am currently doing a qualitative study with individual interviews (with stroke survivors) and focus groups (health professionals) to verify themes found in the individual interviews. My research questions are to identify the barriers and motivators that influence stroke survivors to make lifestyle modifications. The trouble is that I did not do the individual interviews and conducted the focus groups only.
I am having difficulty understanding the paradigms and my position in the research since I did take over someone else's project and they chose to look at their data inductively, therefore, that is what I did too. What I have figured out that it is a post positivist approach (correct me if I am wrong!), however, I read that post positivism only approaches data deductively... Can someone please help me identify what paradigm my research is and whether post-positivism research be inductive? Thank you!
Have to run some focus groups across a very diverse (government, industry and academia) and sometimes contentious collaborative project.
The objective is to find out what each different stakeholder group really thinks about the collaboration and where they might 'fit in' after this pilot finishes.
For this reason I have planned to run them specific to each stakeholder group so they can provide candid feedback, but have now had a request for people from one stakeholder group to attend all focus groups.
My sense is this is a bad idea, but have not grounds for this opinion. Anyone able to point me to any research or practitioner observations on this, it would be really appreciated.
I am planning to conduct a mixed methods study in which gender is a main variable. I want to do a focus group and because of the gender segregation the focus group with female students is not possible as they do not favor to have their answers recorded. My inquiry is that can I do a focus group to male students and administer an open-ended questionnaire to female students for the same objective and compare their answers where the same questions and themes will be asked? I have also another quantitative questionnaire for both male and female students. Thanks
I trying to understand conflict in community policing, therefore I need the broader community perceptions and the views of the experts in community policing.
I'm going to be up front with this, I am not super confident when it comes to quantitative data analysis. The study I am working on uses a series of Likert-style questions to generate data (including a basic BFAS questionnaire) which I am using to highlight potential areas of interest before I conduct my primary analysis using qualitative data analysis. I have two focus groups (the first N=31 and the second n= 13) with two equally large control groups randomly selected from the remaining sample that did not qualify for the focus groups.
Anyway, that's more than you all probably needed to know - my issue is that I'm not sure what all information I need to put into my quantitative report, especially since that data is just basically a discussion starter for my Qual analysis. I've run (r) on the appropriate values, and computed (d) between the focus and control groups. Is there anything else you all would suggest I do?
Thanks in advance for the help. We English studies types don't do much in the way of quantitative studies.
I am doing an Msc which focuses on an intervention supporting at risk adolescent females in their school environment. There are three phases to the research.
1. Quantitative - Likert style survey with all participants
2. Qualitative - Ketso mapping workshops with some of the participants
3. Focus groups with some of the participants
4. Focus groups with teachers and parents.
Each stage influences the next stage. ie the quantitative survey provides the backdrop for the qualitative phases. But is this also a transformative paradigm as it uses different methods to generate and capture their voice around an intervention which attempted to empower them.
What is the process of combining the information collected from various points i.e. focus groups / interviews to inform Delphi questions? Does anyone have a suitable reference. I did a quick search but couldn't find much.
Many thanks in advance.
For my thesis project i am doing research on sexual consent specifically within the Dutch context and different generations of men who have experiences with heterosexual sex. In my focus groups i would like to apply the items of the Sexual Consent Scale-(R) (SCS-R; Humphreys, 2004; Humphreys & Brousseau, in press; Humphreys & Herold, 2007), in an intergenerational dialogue on the meaning, definition and practice of consent. I am wondering if people have experience with using the SCS(-R) in focus groups and what are your experiences. Kindly, Rosa
Can you use the same questions for interview, questionnaire, and focus group in a qualitative descriptive study?
I was wondering whether asking the participants of a focus group to agreeing on an outcome would be an interesting way to make them (intensively) discuss the scenarios (intensifying and mitigating arguments).
- Has this been done before? I have been looking for it but so far haven't found any source.
Would it be better to:
1. Survey the participants' decision on a particular scenario before its discussion.
2. Discussion with the other participants
3. Another survey to see whether decisions have changed?
Or should I just not do anything and let them discuss naturally each scenario?
Thank you in advance,
I want to understand how social media was accepted by an organisation regarding the "classical" TAM model (Davis, 1989) in qualitative way. I understood from the literature review that most studies used TAM were conducted in the quantitative paradigm.
However, because my sample size is small a quantitative approach is not an appropriate choice. Instead I have in mind to conduct focus groups with a topic guide related to the original TAM questions (Davis, 1989).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Please can both focus groups and individual interviews be used in phenomenology study. I have conducted the individual interview and I want to follow-up with a focus group interview. I am I right.
I am doing my methods chapter (Qualitative - Social Sciences) and am facing a question.
1) In regards to stimulate a focus group discussion ( through vignettes):
How do I know whether I should vary the conditions (scenarios)? within or between each focus group so that you can provoke that variation? Or should I use the same condition and use an outcome measure question and then work backwards from those groups?
Quite confused right now.
Thank you all!
I'm doing my MSc. dissertation on the social representations of pacifism within American society following an increase in nationalist policies.
I'm wondering are there any scales that you would recommend to measure attitudes towards pacifism? I'm starting off with focus groups but will utilise quantitative measures post data-collection/analysis.
Thanks in advance!
I suggested the use of IPA to analyse my data when I get to the analysis stage of my research. My paper relates to 'parental active engagement in secondary school'. I have very little knowledge of IPA and would like to connect with someone or a group who can provide guidance with the data collection and analysis. I am currently working on my methodology and is making use of recommended resources (e.g. Smith, Larkin, Flowers etc) as seen in similar questions that were posed. I expect to start collecting data in April and will need some help formulating the questions for the semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews. I want to ensure the questions meet IPA guidelines. Any help or suggestions of sessions I could attend will be greatly appreciated.
I would like to know what is the relevant aggregation method regarding conducting Focus Group to select an alternative in Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Focus Group includes Domain Experts and Academic Experts to address the problem of selecting the best alternative of available techniques. Normally, there are two fundamentally accepted aggregation methods within AHP, the Aggregation of Individual Judgments (AIJ) and the Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP). So, I would appreciate sharing knowledge about the relevant aggregation method and the justification for using this method. Additionally, is there any online software that could perform this aggregation automatically? Thank you.
In the past decade, with the boom and expansion of Blockchain-based applications, governments and regulators are legislating new laws and regulations to take a control over the revolutionary technology. In some cases, these approvals are not in line with the ideas and interests of the Blockchain Activists, which results in the formation of a Game of Interests. Recently, after issuance of a statement by the National Bank of Iran, entitled “The Requirements and Standards of the Cryptocurrencies”, the Blockchain community has conducted a qualitative research, aimed at reducing the conflict between the interests of the state and the activists. The question arises here that which model does best fit this research? We aim to analyze the data gathered from the interviews and focus groups, using a standard framework. We call for methods and frameworks applied in the literature to find the best practice for qualitative coding process.
I'm currently at the research method of my undergrad dissertation, my adviser is asking for the type of research instrument to go along the heuristic approach in research, and since my adviser insisted on having the researcher themselves (in this case it is only me) would be the participant, meaning there would not be a need to have a sampling of population to do interviews/questionnaires on. Since I am my own participant, the process would that in a heuristic approach, which is bases it on the researcher’s experience, exploration, and understanding of the topic.