Focus Groups

Advantages and Disadvantages

ADVANTAGES

Socially oriented research procedure.

Format allows the moderator to probeflexibility to explore unanticipated issues.
High face validity.
Relatively low-cost.
Relatively fast results.
Unlike structured interviews, increasing the sample size requires minimal time and resource
investment.
DISADVANTAGES
Less experimental control.
Data more difficult to analyze.
Requires carefully trained interviewers.
Groups may vary considerably.
Groups may be difficult to assemble.
Discussion must be conducted in an environment that is conducive to conversation.
VALIDITY IN FOCUS GROUPS
How much confidence can you have in the data?
High potential for leading and bias
Face validity
Moderator is critical
WHEN TO USE FOCUS GROUP METHODS
Insights are needed into a new area of research.
Our purpose is to investigate topics where opinions or attitudes are conditional.
Researcher needs additional information to prepare for a larger scale study.

WHEN NOT TO USE FOCUS GROUP METHODS

When the discussion could become emotionally charged.
When the researcher loses control over the project and relinquishes control to a biased third
party.
Statistical projections are needed.
Other methods would produce better quality information.
Confidentiality is compromised (n.d., Qualitative Research: Focus Groups)
(http://hccedl.cc.gatech.edu/documents/120_Fisk_focus%20group%20research%202004.pdf)
(TITLE- Qualitative Research:Focus Groups)

Advantages and disadvantages

As can be inferred from the above description, the focus group format has several
advantages: it is relatively inexpensive. What is more, individuals are more likely to provide
candid responses. Through facilitated discussion, participants build on each others ideas
through piggybacking; in this way, the focus group is very useful for needs assessment and
project evaluation purposes. Given their qualitative nature, focus groups allow researchers to
look beyond the facts and numbers that might be obtained via survey methodology
researchers can learn or confirm the meaning behind the facts.1,3,4
At the same time, focus group methodology has its limitations. The focus group relies heavily
on assisted discussion to produce results; consequently, the facilitation of the discussion is
critical. The quality of the discussion depends on the skill of the moderator, who should be
well trained and preferably from the target population, yet not affiliated with the researchers
(to ensure impartiality). Focus group discussions should be audiotaped or videotaped in
addition to the recording of field notes. All data should be transcribed verbatim. However,
these large volumes of qualitative data might be dhard
Difficult to analyze. While a focus group format prevents the dangers of a nominal group
process, outspoken individuals can hijack and dominate a discussion. A further weakness
inherent to the focus group format is its participant selection systemparticipants are selfselected and study results are therefore harder to generalize to the larger population. (Savithiri,
2009)
(Savithiri, R. (2009). Spotlight on focus groups. Canadian Family Physician,55(2), 218219.)

Why Use Focus Group Interview?

Pros
There are several advantages in using focus group interview:

It is comparatively easy to conduct

It is economically efficient
It generates opportunity to collect data from the group interaction
It gives speed in the supply of the results
It allows a relatively large sample size for a qualitative study (n.d., National Center for Postsecondary
Improvement)

(http://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/unspecified/student_assess_toolkit/focusGroups.html)

Strengths and Weaknesses

Pulling together the various strands from these discussions reveals a
pattern of strengths and weaknesses for focus groups as a technique for
collecting qualitative data. Focus groups are no different from any other
method. qualitative or quantitative. in this regard-there are some cases in
which they will be preferred and others in which they should be avoided.
This summary will argue that both the strengths and the weaknesses of
focus groups flow directly from their two defining features: the reliance on
the researcher's focus and the group's interaction.
The strength of relying on the researcher's focus is the ability to produce
concentrated amounts of data on precisely the topic of
This
strength was clear in comparison to participant observation because focus
groups not only give access to reports on a wide range of topics that may
not be observable but also ensure that the data will be directly targeted to
the researcher's interests. This strength is one source of focus groups'
reputation for being "quick and easy." The other source of this reputation
is their relative efficiency in comparison to individual interviews. at least
in terms of gathering equivalent amounts of data.
Some accounts of focus groups' ability to gather data efficiently make

it sound as if they have an almost magical "synergy" that makes them

superior to individual interviews. My own preference is to be much more
explicit about the aspects ofgroup interaction that can provide insights into
participants' opinions and experiences. Morgan & Krueger. 1993; Morgan &Spanish, 1984).
Furthermore. the one
study (Fern, 1982) that has used a controlled experiment to compare
individual interviews and focus groups showed that group interviews did
not produce significantly more or better ideas than an equivalent number
of individual interviews. As Fern notes, however. other claims about the
supposed superiority of group interaction for purposes other than "idea
generation" remain untested-and some are so vague as to be untestable.
A more concrete demonstration of the strength that focus groups offer
through concentrated observations on the researcher's interests is the
conclusion that two eight-person focus groups would produce as many
ideas as 10 individual interviews (Fern, 1982). Given the amount of time
that it would take not only to conduct 10 interviews but also to analyze

working with two focus groups would clearly be more efficient. That
does not mean, however, that focus group projects are uniformly easier to
accomplish than gathering the equivalent amount of data with individual
interviews. Crabtree. Yanoshik. Miller. and O'Connor(l993) point out that
logistical factors are often the critical consideration. For example, it may
not be practical for some participants to travel to a focus group. or it may
be very difficult to assemble enough of the right people for a group.
Therefore. there are a number of circumstances in which the logistics
would make it more efficient to do individual rather than group interviews.
The fact that focus groups are driven by the researcher's interests can

also be a source of weakness. however. The fact that the researcher creates
and directs the groups makes them distinctly less naturalistic than participant
observation so there is always some residual uncertainty about the
accuracy of what the participants say. In particular, there is a very real
concern that the moderator, in the name of maintaining the interview's
focus, will influence the group's interactions. This problem is hardly
unique to focus groups because the researcher influences all but the most
unobtrusive social science methods. In reality, there is no hard evidence
that the focus group moderator's impact on the data is any greater than the
researcher's impact in participant observation or individual interviewing.
Indeed, the dyadic nature of individual interviewing would seem to create
at least as many opportunities for researcher influence. My own sense is
that what makes the issue of the researcher's influence on the data so
prominent in focus groups is the moderator's heightened visibility in
conducting the interview as opposed to the tendency to remove the interviewer
from many accounts of individual interviewing. The researcher's
influence on the data, however, is an issue in almost all qualitative research,
and those who rely on focus groups must attend to it because it does affect
the quality of the data. Even if the concern about the influence of focus
group moderators is unreasonably magnified, it is one of those perceptions
that can be "real in its consequences"; therefore, focus group researchers
must be prepared to respond to this potential criticism.
The second broad source of strength for focus groups is their reliance on
interaction in the group to produce the data. As Morgan and Krueger (1993)
note, the comparisons that participants make among each other's experiences
and opinions are a valuable source of insights into complex behaviors
and motivations. Furthermore, in an era when issues of consensus and

diversity are of intense interest to social scientists, the discussions in focus

groups can provide direct data on these exact issues.
This too produces a corresponding weakness, however, because the
group itself may influence the nature of the data it produces. The question
of how interacting in a group influences what each individual will contribute
to the group is a classic issue in social psychology (e.g., Janis, 1982).
The concerns for focus groups include both a tendency toward conformity,
in which some participants withhold things that they might say in private,
and a tendency toward "polarization," in which some participants express
more extreme views in a group than in private (Sussman, Burton. Dent,
Stacy, & Flay. 1991). As noted previously, the differences between dyadic
interviews versus moderated group discussions is an area that requires
much more exploration. It is clear. however. that for some types of participants
discussing some types of topics. the presence of a group will affect
what they say and how they say it. This is an inevitable aspect of focus
groups that should be considered as a potential source of f weakness for any
given research project.
The group's influence on the discussion can also raise questions about
the ability of any particular set of participants to discuss a particular topic.
One set of problems involves topics in which the participants' level of
involvement is either too low or too high. If the participants have little
involvement with a topic, the researcher may collect only scattered instances
of the desired material, but if the participants are highly in volved
with the topic the moderator may have to work hard to control the discussion.
A related set of problems arise if the topic is highly controversial or
if there is a real potential for disagreement among the participants. This
should not, however, leave the impression that topics for focus groups are

limited to bland discussions about common topics. In fact, focus groups

are routinely used to discuss issues such as family planning (e.g., Knodel
et al. 1984) and sexually transmitted diseases (O'Brien, ]993). One simple
way to determine whether a topic will work in a focus group setting is to 16 17
pretest. In this case, the "tone" of the group discussions provides clues
about the appropriateness of focus groups. Fortunately, social scientists
have taken on the task of investigating the issues involved in working with
sensitive topics, especially when cultural differences may be important
(e.g. Jarrett, 1993). We have much to learn, however, about the range of
practical topics for focus groups, and only further experience will provide
better insights into this issue.
Summarizing the strengths of focus groups, we find that what they do
best is produce an opportunity to collect data from groups discussing
topics of interest to the researcher. This combination of strengths is
notably different from the strengths of either participant observation or
individual interviews. Because the researcher defines the discussion topics,
,focus groups are more controlled than participation observation, and because
of the participant-defined nature ofgroup interaction the focus group
setting is less controlled than individual interviewing. Morgan and Spanish
(1984) noted that this compromise between the comparative strengths
and weaknesses of the other two techniques bears a resemblance to
Howard Becker's (1958) two dimensions for classifying qualitative
data. On the first dimension, Becker distinguishes between data that are
vol unteered by informants and data that are requested by the researcher. The
second dimension distinguishes whether the data are publicly presented in
the presence of other informants or shared with the researcher alone. The
naturalistic advantage of participant observation is that it produces volunteered

information in groups, whereas individual interviews emphasize the

control available through private contact between the researcher and the
participant.
In the case of focus groups, the typical presence of the researcher as a
moderator in a focused discussion of a preselected topic means that the data
lean toward the researcher-directed and publicly stated poles of the continuum.
Focus groups thus offer something of a compromise between the
strengths of participant observation and individual interviewing. As a
compromise between the strengths and weaknesses of these other two
qualitative techniques, focus groups are not as strong as either of them is
within their specialized domain. The respective weaknesses of participant
observation and individual interviewing, however, allow focus groups to
operate across traditional boundaries. This flexibility may be the greatest
strength of focus groups. None of this, however, is meant to overstate the
strengths of focus groups and, given their potential weaknesses, there are
many cases in which focus groups would not be the preferred method. (Morgan) (FOCUS
GROUPS AS
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
DAVID L. MORGAN
Portland State University
Qualitative Research Methods Series
Volume 16
Second Edition) ( https://www.kth.se/social/upload/6566/Morgan.pdf)

The advantages of focus groups

The Authority Role Of The Moderator
The face-to-face involvement of a qualified moderator can ensure that the conversation is always on
track, and encourage participants engagement without one individual dominating the meeting.

 The Ability Of Group Participants To Interact With Each Other

When participate are stimulated to discuss, the group dynamics can generate new thinking about a
topic which will result in a much more in-depth discussion.
The Dynamic Nature Of The Methodology
Due to the dynamic environment the moderator can modify the topics, which are prepared before the
session to make the topic more suitable for the purpose.
The Ability To Involve The Client Personnel In The Research Process
In traditional focus groups it is possible for the client personnel to watch the whole discussion behind
a one-way mirror. The client personnel can provide their thinking to the moderator, which may help
the moderator better handle the direction of discussion, and improve the quality of output.
The Capability To Utilise Non-Verbal Behavior As A Research Input
The expression, attitude of individual, the intensity of the conversation etc. can be perceived by the
researcher, which can modify the moderators decision and also can be counted in the research result.
The Level Of Participant Involvement In The Research
Because every participant is under observation by the moderator and everybody know the process has
been videotaped, it is easy to make participants fully engage even during non-discussion time.
The Greater Security Associated With Traditional Focus Group Research
The possibility to screen each participant, lets the researcher know who have been involved. This
ensures that for example your competition is not involved.
Top

The disadvantages of focus groups

Focus groups are not the optimal technique for all research situations, the criticisms below have been
mentioned by people who promote some other qualitative research methods.

Focus Groups Tend To Become Influenced By One or Two Dominant People In The Session
Thus Making the Output Very Biased
The moderator plays an essential role in handling the situation, but if the moderator is not
experienced enough, it is very easy for the whole discussion to be dominated by a few people.
Focus Groups Are Not As Effective As IDIs In Dealing With Sensitive Topics
It is difficult to have the participants share their real feelings towards some sensitive topics publicly.
This can in turn influence the output data.
Focus Group Output Is Not Projectable
If a great deal of consistency in the results from a series of focus groups have been identified and it is
very likely that the results from these sessions probably can represent a larger number of people. We
cant expect focus groups to be projectable in the same way as quantitative study findings can be.
Furthermore, traditional focus groups can only be held in a few cities, unlike some internet and
telephone focus groups which could be organized in various situations without limitation of time and
location. This also makes data from focus groups less representative of the total universe.

Focus Groups Are A Very Artificial Environment Which Can Influence The Responses That Are
Generated
Focus Groups Are A Very Artificial Environment Which Can Influence The Responses That Are
Generated
This is frequently the argument that ethnographers will use when recommending their methodology
versus focus groups. Because researchers using the ethnographic technique will situate themselves in
the real environment, that is unreachable for focus groups. In focus groups people are collected in a
meeting room thus they might behave differently from how they behave when they are not watched
and it will effect the quality of research results. (n.d., Focus Groups: Issues Regarding Advantages and
Disadvantages)(http://focusgroups.pbworks.com/w/page/5677430/Issues%20including%20advantage
s%20and%20disadvantages)

The advantages of focus group research are as follows;

In a face to face interview, moderator can keep the discussion under control and focus on the
areas of interest as described in the moderator discussion guide.

Free and open discussion among the respondents results in generation of new ideas which can
be very useful for business decision making.

A focus group is not static. The moderator can bring any changes in order to better facilitate
the discussion during the group discussion. This dynamism allows better results in terms of
information derived by a focus group.

Fully equipped modern focus group facilities enables clients personnel to observe the
discussion in order to better understand the research findings and also to quality control the
whole process.

Expressions other than those in verbal form such as gestures and stimulated activities can
provide researcher with useful insights.
(http://myics.org/marketing/focus-group-research-features-advantages-and-disadvantages/)

(FEBRUARY 10, 2012 BY INSTITUTE OF CONSUMER STUDIES. PAGE-ICS INSTITUTE OF CUSTOMER SERVICES)

Strengths and weaknesses of focus groups

Strengths:
1. allows observation of group interaction in controlled setting
2. good for less structured themes/topics
3. very helpful for exploratory research
4. allows the researcher to produce concentrated data on a precise
topic

5. quick and easy to conduct

6. participants can often exert more influence over the discussion than
in one-to-one interviews, so less of a power imbalance
7. can provide rich and in-depth data
8. is a flexible method

Weaknesses:
1. relies entirely on group interaction
2. not naturalistic - created by a researcher
3. may not work for all topics
4. participants may steer discussion in directions not relevant to the
research
5. some participants may dominate discussion
6. raises ethical issues about confidentiality - everything said is shared
with other participants, taping invades privacy, who will hear tapes?
7. may not be suitable for people lacking confidence or relatively
inarticulate
8. may prove difficult to recruit participants (Deem, 1997)
(HTTP://WWW.EDU.PLYMOUTH.AC.UK/RESINED/INTERVIEWS/FOCUSGROUPS.HTM) (Focus

groups

(Professor Rosemary Deem, Lancaster University, Department of Educational

Research, 1997)

Strengths of focus groups

Useful for exploring ideas and concepts.
Provides window into participants internal thinking.
Can obtain in-depth information.
Can examine how participants react to each other.

 Allows probing.
Most content can be tapped.
Allows quick turnaround.
Weaknesses of focus groups
Sometimes expensive.
May be difficult to find a focus group moderator with good
facilitative and rapport building skills.
Reactive and investigator effects may occur if participants feel they are being
watched or studied.
May be dominated by one or two participants.
Difficult to generalize results if small, unrepresentative samples
of participants are used.
May include large amount of extra or unnecessary information.
Measurement validity may be low.
Usually should not be the only data collection methods used in a
study.
Data analysis can be time consuming because of the open-ended nature of data.
(n.d., http://www.southalabama.edu)
(http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/oh_master/Ch6/SWFOCUSG.pdf)
(TITLE- Bonus Table 6.D
Strengths and Weaknesses of Focus Groups)
(Silverman, 2004)

Deem, R. (1997). http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from

http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/interviews/focusgroups:
Morgan, D. L. (n.d.). Focus groups as qualitative research. Retrieved December 5, 2014,
from https://www.kth.se/social/upload/6566/morgan.pdf
n.d. (n.d.). Focus Groups: Issues Regarding Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved
December 5, 2014, from
http://focusgroups.pbworks.com/w/page/5677430/Issues%20including%20advantages
%20and%20disadvantages
n.d. (n.d.). http://www.southalabama.edu. Retrieved december 5, 2014, from
http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/oh_master:
http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/oh_master/Ch6/SWFOCUSG.pdf
n.d. (n.d.). National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. Retrieved December 5, 2014,
from National Center for Postsecondary Improvement: Tools for Qualitative
Researchers: Focus Groups Method:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/unspecified/student_assess_toolkit/focusGroups.ht
ml)
n.d. (n.d.). Qualitative Research: Focus Groups.
http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/interviews/focusgroups.htm Retrieved
December 5, 2014, from http://hccedl.cc.gatech.edu:qualitative research focus groups:
http://hccedl.cc.gatech.edu/documents/120 Fisk
focus%20group%20research%202004.pdf
Savithiri, R. (2009). spotlights on focus groups. canadian family physician, 218-219.
Silverman, D. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman, Qualitative Research Theory,
Method and Practice (pp. 177-200). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.