Electronic Textbook



	EDR725 : The Class : Interviewing : Focus Group II : Electronic Textbook

Electronic Textbook: "Ways and Means:" Focus Group Interviewing Part Two

"Ways and Means:"
Focus Group Interviewing: Part Two

We're headed into the wrap-up of focus group interviewing, dear qualitative scholars! Last time out, we took a more general look at focus group interviews: what they are, where they originated and how they are different from other types of interviews. We concluded with some related population and sampling issues: how many interview subjects to include and how to select them.

This time out, we'll take a more concrete, practical look at planning and conducting focus group interviews. We'll review some tips for setting them up and conducting the sessions. By way of setting the stage, we'll examine some sample introductory comments that a focus group interviewer might make. We'll also take a look at a sample human subjects consent form that the interview subjects might review and sign. Finally, we'll wrap it all up by looking at characteristics of "good" focus group interview questions and examine a sample interview protocol (set of such questions).

So - let's get the word out ... !

I. Strategies for Successfully Planning & Conducting the Focus Group Interview Session

If I had to give you a couple of tips for good strategic planning, they'd be:

Over-recruit and over-remind! Invite a few more subjects than your desired total in case of no-shows. In the delightfully miraculous event that all of the invitees show up, you can make an on-the-spot decision to either:

Include them all (provided this doesn't put you much over the 12 top-line limit we discussed for maximally effective intragroup communication); or
As is common in many such interview sessions, have the "extras" fill out a brief written survey -- i.e., collect some info from them regarding demographics, and maybe even a couple of open-ended written items. Of course, provide them with the meal, snack or whatever incentive as a reward for coming. But then they are free to leave and you would continue the actual focus group interview session with the smaller group! Over-reminding is a good safeguard vs. no-shows in any event. Even if you obtained their initial willingness to participate in person or by telephone, and even followed up with a letter containing the date/time/place of the interviews, it wouldn't hurt to call everyone the day before and remind them of the interview. Ensure that they have directions, a ride there if necessary, etc.

Think "comfort zone." Please remember, from our Qualitative Module # 7, that this is paramount to a 'successful' focus group! You want to establish a comfortable, safe environment in which your interview subjects feel free and welcome to share with you whatever is on their minds regarding the topic at hand: be it "positive" or "negative." Thus, you want to make it as pleasant and comfortable an experience as possible for them all the way around: the surroundings, your own demeanor, convenience and other incentives for them to attend, and so forth.

Table 1, below, contains some additional suggestions for planning and conducting a maximally positive and effective focus group interview session.
Table 1.
Tips for Planning & Conducting Successful
Focus Group Interviews

Arrange for a COMFORTABLE SETTING

Assure subjects that all information is valuable

If possible, obtain subjects' permission to TAPE-RECORD THE INTERVIEW SESSION:
* for accuracy;

* to help you maintain eye contact with them.

PROVIDE ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY ("no names or other key identifiers will be used in the reports")
If possible, WORK IN TEAMS (INTERVIEWER & SCRIPTER)

Maintain "FRIENDLY NEUTRALITY" so as not to bias or lead the subjects in their answers

Draw out "shy" subjects and politely restrict "dominant" ones

Thank subjects for their input & participation

DEBRIEF WITH YOUR INTERVIEW PARTNER SHORTLY AFTER THE INTERVIEW (increases accuracy of reporting the results) or if you're working alone, replay the tapes & re-read your notes

An additional word of caution regarding the tape recorder. It can certainly be perceived as an inhibiting factor in some subjects' views. They may feel a bit uncomfortable with the tape recorder going and thus give somewhat artificial, 'stilted' responses as a result. A lot depends on how you "set up" its use in your opening comments (to be discussed in greater detail shortly). You can put a 'positive spin' on it by indicating it is there to help ensure accuracy - you want to "get what they said exactly right, the way they said it." Thus you are conveying a respect and consideration of their views, in why and how you are choosing to use the tape recorder in the first place. Also, as we'll see, you will assure them that if they wish to say something 'off the record,' they are welcome to turn the tape recorder off. You will not turn it on again until and unless they give you the signal that it is OK with them. Finally, you can reiterate the assurance of confidentiality: no names or other individual identifiers, even if spoken by them, will appear in written or verbal reports. If you feel it is needed, you can even strengthen this assurance by indicating that the tapes will be kept in a locked file cabinet, with only you having the key; and even that you will erase such identifiers before giving the tape to a typist to transcribe. Actually, it has been found in repeated empirical application of focus group interviewing that initial shyness, 'stiltedness,' etc., generally dissipates as the subjects get used to the presence of the tape recorder and are able to forget that it is even there.

Some friends have asked about video-taping. This is certainly an extra assurance of accurately capturing the non-verbal observations -- e.g., proxemics, body language, group-level emotional and other reactions -- and the like. A couple of problems do exist with the use of the video equipment, however. In general it has been found that subjects tend to be even "shier," more aware of its presence, and a bit more uncomfortable in general with video equipment than with the tape recorder. It is obviously more visible and thus "intrusive." The second is that, if there is a particularly 'large' or 'spread out' group, a comment at one end of the table or room may be followed by a comment at the other end. With some video equipment this 'swinging' back and forth can result in the 'watching-tennis syndrome.' The operator must overtly 'swing' the equipment in order to try and keep up with the 'action.' This in turn is somewhat likely to distract the subjects. You want their attention focused on you and one another, but their eye is naturally drawn towards the 'swinging' equipment. To some extent, this one can be overcome with careful planning and prior placement of equipment, as well as expert advice and assistance.

II. Interviewer Introductory Comments

This one requires a careful balancing act! You will have a lot of ground to cover regarding the following general goals:

1. Setting and maintaining a "friendly comfort zone; e.g., confidentiality, no right or wrong answers, all thoughts and opinions are important"

2. At the same time, maintaining "friendly neutrality:" telling the subjects what the study is about in general, while taking pains not to prebias them towards a given direction.

An example from the 'roots' of focus group interviewing - marketing research - might help to clarify Point # 2, above. Suppose you have been hired by Maxwell House Coffee to conduct focus group interviews with consumers to see what they think of the taste, price, packaging, logo, etc., of Maxwell House Coffee. If you tell subjects right off the bat that your goal is to find out "how well they like Maxwell House Coffee," you could very well risk a halo effect!

In some cases it is optimal to let the "true affiliation" sort of "naturally emerge" from the initial question and answer dialogue. For instance, you might say that the goal is to talk about breakfast items. Then you might warm them up with having them tell what they themselves consume in a "typical breakfast." What you're hoping for - and it eventually happens - is that someone will mention 'drinking coffee.' Then you can "specifically probe" for which kinds of coffee again, hoping that Maxwell House will be named as one of the brands. Eureka, the brand you wish to discuss has 'emerged, grounded theory style,' from the subjects' responses themselves - as opposed to being "preimposed by you." Of course, there are no guarantees that this will happen. Nor are there guarantees against bias, halo effect, etc., once you do take the more specific focused line of questioning into Maxwell House coffee. Still, it has been found to be better than your 'tipping your hand too much' at the outset regarding exactly what you are hoping to get out of the interview responses. If, during the opening introductory remarks, you should be asked to reveal more than you think you 'should' about your motives, goals, etc., you can courteously defer that answer to a "post hoc debriefing session."

Table 2 contains an outline of interviewer introductory comments that I developed as a guide for my own research in the formative (ongoing) evaluation of the Arizona Leadership Academy (ALA). As we saw in Table 1, I work with a partner - in this case, Gary Rooker, the Director of the ALA - as an extra measure of reliability and validity. These complementary professional roles are often referred to as "moderator" and "assistant moderator."

Table 2.
Opening Comments by Focus Group Moderator
("setting the stage")

� Introduce self and assistant moderator(s) - e.g., names, affiliations

� Give the general purpose of the discussion - e.g., "We're here to find out your thoughts and opinions regarding the Summer 1994 Arizona Leadership Academy."

� Tell how/why the participants were selected for this interview -- impresses upon them why their thoughts, feelings, recommendations, etc., are valued and important

� Assure participants that "all thoughts and opinions are important:" "there are no 'right or wrong' answers." "Please feel free to jump right in and share your point of view even if it totally differs from what someone else has said." "We're just as interested in negative comments as positive ones and at times the negative -- including suggestions for improvement -- can be more helpful."

� Briefly explain what will be done with the results, who will get them, etc. (Often sets participants' minds at ease: removes any possible feelings of fear and distrust)

� Explain about the tape recorder - "No names or other individual identifiers will be attached to any quotes that we choose to reproduce in the report." The tape recorder is there just to help ensure that we accurately reproduce what they have said, NOT who said it!

Also assure the subjects that if at any time they wish to make a comment "off the record," that is OK. Show them how to come up and turn off the tape recorder if they would like to make a comment in confidentiality. Assure them that if this happens, you will only turn it on again after you have everyone's OK.

� Have each subject read and sign the letter of consent (attached) - offer to answer any questions they may have - it's for their protection as human research subjects. Also go around the room and get everyone's verbal assent "YES" on tape as to whether they understand their rights (the letter of consent) and whether they consent to continue with the interview.

� Get the participants' agreement to some "ground rules" to help ensure as positive and complete an interview session as possible:

1. Only one person should speak at a time (otherwise we'll miss comments if everyone speaks at once -- messages can get garbled!)

2. ***: IMPORTANT ONE, IN OUR EXPERIENCE! Please speak up -- a bit more slowly, and loudly, than you might think sounds "normal!" For the tape recorder, to help ensure that we get every word correctly of what you want to share with us! (and you may have to remind them of this as the session gets underway)

3. We'll be on a first-name basis tonight/today -- establishes a 'comfort zone', we're all equals, partners, etc.

4. Reassure them of complete confidentiality

� "Does anyone have any questions before we begin?" Indicate that you are turning on the tape recorder and begin!

III. An Adjunct to Preparing for the Focus Group Interview: The Human Subjects Consent Form

I'm really including this as a side issue here, for one main reason. This is the importance, as we've seen, of "clearing the Institutional Review Board (IRB)" prior to beginning any data collection involving research done under the auspices of a university (or special subpopulations, such as the Navajo Nation). In my experience in serving on the IRB, one dissertation proposal involving focus group interviews got "kicked back for a rewrite" because the IRB said it needed to see evidence of signed subject consent. The student added a consent form to be read, discussed with, and signed by the subjects prior to the interview session.

I have since wondered whether there weren't other reasons for the IRB being 'this demanding' with this one particular student/applicant: they had reviewed dozens of other applications involving focus group interview procedures and up until then had never insisted on this appended signed subjects' consent form as being a part of the package. Specifically, the student was centering his focus group interviewing around issues of religious affiliation, conviction, beliefs, etc. This could very well have been considered 'rather personal and sensitive.' Thus, the IRB may have needed the assurance of prior consent as an extra measure of safety and comfort to the subjects prior to their commencing such a discussion. Once the student added the consent form, the amended application cleared the IRB with no problems. But since that experience, I've suggested that everyone doing focus group interviewing, or other interviewing for that matter, include a prototype "consent/release" form as an appendix and briefly reference it in his/her IRB application - just as an added safeguard of your overt awareness of protecting the rights of your human subjects.

Before I share with you the prototype consent form that I developed for the focus group formative evaluation interviews for the Arizona Leadership Academy, I do want to pause for a 'brief commercial announcement' here! Since I've returned to the issue of IRB's, rights of human subjects, etc., I want to share with you an excellent, highly readable reference in this area. This little book covers it all: history/rationale/nature of IRB's; dealing with issues of confidentiality; research with 'special subpopulations,' like minors, and extra safeguards that you need to be aware of regarding their informed consent; etc. Its appendices are also chock-full of prototypes such as various sample consent forms. This book is by Joan Sieber and is entitled: Planning Ethically Responsible Research. It is out of the Applied Social Research Methods Series and was published in 1992 by Sage Publications, Inc., of Newbury Park, CA. I urge anyone who might be having special concerns regarding 'clearing the IRB' to at least skim through this valuable resource. For our local friends and partners, I contributed a copy to the special doctoral reserve that Dick Packard and I have established in Cline Library for your express use. This book and others may be found in Cline under EDR 798 - Packard.

For detailed information on the Protection of Human Subjects in Research, open the link below and read the federal regulations/explanations.

Protection of Human Subjects

Now -- here comes my sample!

Table 3.
SAMPLE HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT FORM

I, the undersigned, have consented to participate in a focus group interview (indicate date/time/place) with Gary Rooker and Mary Dereshiwsky, for the purposes of evaluating the Summer 1994 Arizona Leadership Academy.

I understand that all responses will be held in strictest confidence. No names or any other individual identifiers will be attached to any direct quotations which are reproduced in written or verbal reports.

The interview session will be tape-recorded for the sole purpose of helping to ensure accuracy. The only individuals to have access to these data will be the typist/transcriber and the evaluation researcher. The tapes will be maintained in a locked file cabinet at the Arizona State Dept. of Education. The evaluator, Dr. Mary Dereshiwsky, will follow similar procedures regarding the transcribed word processed narrative which she will use to compile the evaluation report.

I also understand that I am free at any time to terminate my participation in this interview session without penalty.

(signature line) (date)

Here a more examples of some release and consent forms used by other researchers.

Sample consent form

Another sample consent form

IV. Tips for Planning Good Focus Group Interview Questions

Here, too, just some general guidelines for success before we proceed to a listing of more specific tips:

1. Think "funnel:" a general-to-specific flow. For our Research Design partners, in our third learning module we visited the visual analogy of the "inverted triangle" with regard to organizing a "good" Chapter Two literature review. The same image applies here. The questions should be written and sequenced to flow from general to very specific.

This should include ample opportunity for lots of very specific follow-ups as needed. These are called probes. They could include the following:

"Can you please give me a more specific example of what you meant by that?"

"I don't understand; can you please explain?"

"In what way[s] have you experienced [shared emotion or feeling]?"

"What did everyone do about that [in response to a shared problem or difficulty]?" "How well did that solution work, in your opinion?" "What other ways might you have solved that problem?"

2. Don't overplan - except to plan to "go with the flow" if needed! This one kind of emanates from our prior lesson packet. The tendency for novice researchers and interviewers - not altogether 'bad' in and of itself! - is to want to 'overplan.' Careful organization, rehearsal and general preparedness are indeed important to success: make no mistake about it. However, given the advice in # 1, above, I would suggest to you that it's far more prudent to plan fewer general questions but also more individual probes. The danger in having too many general areas is that you'll find yourself running out of time midway through the interview and feel stressed that you can't cover everything that you intended. Probes are a natural extension of fleshing out the details of the general areas you want to understand. Furthermore, they "feel more natural" to the subjects - more along the lines that people naturally converse - than abrupt-seeming changes in general topics. Thus, not only do the probes have high face validity;they are less likely to lead to 'stilted,' biased, artificial response effects.

I once participated in a focus group interview session with a moderator-partner. She (moderator) had planned a lengthy and rather ambitious set of focus group interview questions. Luckily, she and I were already planning to use the first scheduled group of that day as the pilot test session - highly recommended, as we discussed in Point# 7, for road-testing your process and product beforehand! We got two rather loud-and-clear messages from that pilot test session:

1. We definitely had planned too many questions for a single session! In fact, we barely got through 1/4 of our list! and

2. As an interesting side issue (for it may help you to pare down your own lists), we also learned that some of the information we were asking the subjects to tell us in the focus group interview was actually already easily available in other forms, such as archival documents. In essence, we were squandering precious time (and busy subjects' patience!) with such questions, when in fact we could have obtained that information ourselves outside of the actual interview session.

Finally, related to this point is the desirability of "going with the flow:" being confident, relaxed and alert enough as an interviewer to be prepared to follow your subjects down 'surprise' (to you, at least!) yet interesting and relevant discussion paths. This may involve just listening as they pick up the trail, or it may necessitate your readiness to ask unplanned but relevant questions: what Richard Krueger refers to as serendipitous questioning. In any event, it represents a glorious opportunity to "let grounded theory emerge." Here, too, by not overplanning, you are more relaxed and open to such possibilities - as are your subjects. This is in contrast to your trying to frantically rush through a rather lengthy, fixed 'laundry list' of predetermined topics. Your interview subjects may very well pick up on your nervousness and dogged determination to "stay on task:" and as a result they may be reluctant to initiate such spontaneous, yet rich and revealing, serendipitous discussion with you.

Here, then, are some general tips for writing 'good' focus group interview questions! We've actually discussed most of these already; so this listing is for your "review convenience!"

Table 4.
QUALITIES OF GOOD ROUTING QUESTIONS
FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

� OPEN-ENDED ("all attitudes are important!")

� Flow FROM GENERAL TO SPECIFIC

� "Think back" questions put the interview subject back into the situation (get richer detail in answer)

� DON'T ask "WHY?" (replace with "What made you (think, feel, act, believe) that way?")

� PROBE if necessary FOR CLARIFICATION ("Can you please give me an example?")

� FEEL FREE TO DEPART FROM YOUR PREPARED QUESTIONING ROUTE:

a) to follow the interview subjects' direction of discussion;

b) to ask a spontaneous ("serendipitous") question that occurs to you during the interview itself

Table 5 contains a sample preplanned (with, again, awareness of the need to 'go with the flow' and serendipitously depart from the fixed course!) listing of potential interview questions for the Arizona Leadership Academy formative evaluation sessions. Please recall that such listings of potential focus group interview questions are also known as questioning routes, interview protocols, or interview guides. You might also note that I've (slightly) 'broken the rule of 10' (questions max). That 'rule of 10' of Richard Krueger's is a thumbnail reminder of Point # 2, above: don't over-plan. This is just the first draft, however. Other survey experts have advised that for the first draft at least, it's better to 'have more than you'll eventually keep.' You might choose to take these to a pilot test and have the judges comment on which one(s) they might eliminate in the interests of time if need be. Or you yourself might 'serve as your own editor,' perhaps with the 'outside pair of eyes' of your assistant moderator, in weeding out some items on the second round. And that final opportunity for grounded theory ('anything else you'd like to add, that we haven't already discussed!') is vitally important! It's possible to get some lucrative and revealing data that way!

Table 5.
Sample Focus Group Questioning Route/
Interview Protocol

Go around the room and have everyone introduce themselves and tell their professional affiliatioin ("ice-breaker;" gets them comfortable talking into the tape recorder)
Think back to when you first decided to attend the Arizona Leadership Academy. What did you expect to get out of your participation?

Probe: ... in terms of professional development goals?

Probe: ... in terms of student learning goals?

Probe: ... in terms of team building goals?
Please describe for us any "pre-Academy" contacts or activities that you took place in (e.g., getting info on registration).
Probe: ... in what way(s) was that helpful?

Probe: ... what could we do differently or better to prevent [a shared problem] in the future?
Think back to your first day at the ALA. How would you describe it? What stands out most in your mind?
Probe: ... What could have been done differently? Better?
(for specific activities; e.g., True Colors or Change Game):
1. Describe the activity - how it went and your role in it.
2. What did you like best about it? Least? why?
3. Could it be changed or improved in some way?
4. ***: KEY ONE: How are you using what you learned from it in your job? with students? staff? principals?
5. (if not using or applying) Why or why not? Is there some other way the ALA could have helped you get more useful information about:
1. Team building;
2. Student learning;
3. Professional development;
4. Other goals?
How have your goals changed as a result of your participation in the Summer '94 ALA:
1. in terms of team building;
2. in terms of student learning;
3. in terms of your own professional development;
4. other goals?
In what specific ways are you applying what you have learned?
PROBE: if not, why not? What could we do differently/better to help you get more practical and useful information?
If you could change three things about the ALA, what would they be? Why/how?
If you could keep three things about the ALA, what would they be? Why/how?
If I had to sum up my summer 1994 ALA experience in a single word (or sentence) it would be :
Anything else you'd like to add about the 1994 ALA that I haven't asked you about? or, that hasn't come up for discussion?
(Thank you's for participating, closing comments)

* * *

Believe it or not, cyber-partners, we've only scratched the surface of possibilities regarding focus group interviewing! I hope that the last couple of packets have at the very least given you a 'flavor' of what it is, how it works, and especially its potential rich applicability to the types of social-behavioral educational research that we do! I strongly urge those who might be interested in applying focus group interviewing to their own dissertation research to read Richard Krueger's excellent 'primer' on the topic. (The complete reference is provided at the outset of our Qualitative Module # 7, Focus Groups, Part One.)

'Till next time, keep on being joyfully serendipitous .. !

Once you have finished you should:

Go back to Group Interviewing Part II

E-mail M. Dereshiwsky at statcatmd@aol.com
Call M. Dereshiwsky at (520) 523-1892