Transcript Focus Groups II: Analysing Results

Focus Groups II:
Analysing Results
Outputs from FGs



Order out of Chaos?
Writing up qualitative results is challenging
because it is not an exact science – yet should
inform your research design, your hypotheses
and your independent/dependent variables.
Much attention in the qualitative methods
literature on how to set up focus groups but
very little on how to interpret results.
Different approaches







What worked and what didn’t?
Were you asking the right questions?
What other questions were raised by the
groups?
Key words
Key themes
Key emotions
Key ideas
Challenges to interpreting FG
results





Lengthy texts
Groups rambled or (more rarely) failed to engage
Moderator talked to much or diverted the flow of the
conversation
People were reluctant to express their real opinions
Hard to categorise or organise the proceedings –
particularly when there are a large number of groups
Ideas for organising FG analysis



Transcripts are probably necessary.
Categorization via words, ideas, themes or
whatever seems appropriate
Sometimes quite simple ideas will work fairly
well.
Interpretive approach



1) Break proceedings down into text
segments
2) Allocate under themes and headings
3) Themes and headings can be
inductive (from what arises) or deductive
(imposed by the researcher initially) or mix
of both
Holistic approach
Script annotation (through listening or
reading, writing interpretive thoughts.
Transcript is considered as a whole rather
than set of discrete responses; allows
social scientist to consider each
proceedings as a whole, rather than
discrete responses. You can reexperience the group, body language and
tone of the discussion.
Qualitative market researchers distance
themselves from approaches to data (cognitive,
journalistic, discursive) in which data from
groups are taken largely at face value and
responses may be counted. By comparison,
'good' qualitative research involves a
therapeutic or clinical interpretation or the
cracking of cultural codes
Phases of a group





Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Mourning (or adjourning)
Forming
Considerable anxiety, testing. Assessing what help
will come from facilitator; what behaviours are
appropriate or inappropriate.
 Storming
Conflict emerges among sub-groups; the authority
and/or competence of individuals is challenged.
Opinions polarize. Individuals react against
efforts of the others to control them
 Norming
The group begins to harmonize; experiences
group cohesion or unity for the first time. Norms
emerge as those in conflict are reconciled and
resistance is overcome. Mutual support
develops.






Performing
The group structures itself or accepts a
structure, which fits most appropriately its
common task. Roles are seen in terms functional
to the task and flexibility between them
develops.
Mourning
The group must accept that the project is
complete and disband gracefully. There may be
a sense of loss and anxiety at having to breakup.
Modified from a web page from the University of Queensland Department of Anthropology and Sociology,
see http://planet.tvi.cc.nm.us/idc/Documents/FormingStorming.htm
The paradox of group dynamics
Most important asset in
promoting discussion amongst
participants
 YET
 Biggest threat to open
discussion of issues by all
participants

How valuable is FG interaction?


Some argue that while focus groups can
provide insight into the experiences of
individual participants, the real value of group
data is to be found from analysing the
interaction between participants.
See Schindler’s conclusions about the failure
of Coke to understand focus group reactions to
New Coke (and why it would fail)
Source

Schindler, R.M. (1992), "The Real Lesson
of New Coke: The Value of Focus Groups
for Predicting the Effects of Social
Influence," Marketing Research, 4
(December), 22-27. – Available
electronically via the University of
Glasgow library
Snapshots vs. moving picture
Cut and paste approaches, manual or computer,
can fail to capture or even recognize the following
events in the unfolding story of the focus group:
VS
Annotating-the-scripts approach -- more likely to
capture the whole moving picture of the unfolding
script or story that is the focus group discussion.
Good article on FGs

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/6.html
Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. (1997) 'Focus Group Data
and Qualitative Analysis Programs: Coding the Moving
Picture as Well as the Snapshots'
Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1,
Benefits to ‘moving picture’




Sequence
See participants change views, think out
loud, react
Expand on experiences recounted
earlier
Interactive pattern is far clearer.
‘Coding’ over ‘interpreting’

Social scientists who employ focus groups
have a much more positive attitude to
coding, cutting and pasting data, counting
words or text segments, and using
computers to assist with analysis
Analysis of interaction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Shared language
The beliefs and myths about the topic that are shared, taken for
granted, and which ones are challenged
The arguments which participants call upon when their views
are challenged
The sources of information people call upon to justify their
views and experiences and how others respond to these.
The arguments, sources and types of information that stimulate
changes of opinion or reinterpretation of experiences.
The tone of voice, body language, and degree of emotional
engagement is involved when participants talk to each other
about the topic.
Mixed coding




Define key terms
Read through and annotate scripts.
Add in more primary and secondary terms as
you go
Organise key comments onto MS Word table
with five categories.
Word table for FG analysis






Item number
Group
Participant number
Keyword 1
Keyword 2
Comment