Transcript No Slide Title

Focus Groups
Definition
Procedure
A focus group exercise consists in a facilitated
discussion on a focal topic among a small
group of people.
FG average size is 6-8 participants (as a
group) plus a facilitator, and last 11/2 -2 hours.
The facilitator seeks a focused interaction,
which is audio/video recorded. Ideally, a full
range of viewpoints should be raised within the
group. Transcripts are systematically analysed.
The aim is to gain insight into:
• the group’s norms, meanings, and values;
• the underlying factors that may shape them;
• and even engage the group with a
participative research or policy process
This technique has been widely used in marketing
since the 70s just to elicit people preferences.
Other variants are e-focus groups (via internet)
and Integrated Assessment (IA)-focus groups, a
more policy-oriented procedure
An example
Facilitator role
At the difference of a controller or an ethnographer, the
facilitator encourages and allows to the different
positions to express, and be clarified. The facilitator
promotes deeper exploration with the respondents own
categorisations. He/she should avoid over-domination
by particular individual members. The facilitator
introduces and debriefs also the experience
The EU-funded project PABE (Public Perceptions of
Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe) used tworounds FGs as part of a multi-method design including
in-depth interviews and national workshops with key
actors. The main purpose was to study underlying
frameworks of meaning and interconnections through
which members of the public in shape their views of
GMOs. The research reveals what usually remains
invisible or under-researched when using solely
quantitative methods like Eurobarometer (where
surface expressions of acceptance, for instance, hides
underlying concerns).
The project shows how wider social dimensions, such
as lifestyle orientations or institutional contexts are
entangled with risk perceptions. Institutional behaviour
appears to be a crucial factor. The researchers found,
unexpectedly, few differences between the countries
studied, since sharing a similar institutional approach
to GMOs at the time.
Rationale
Opinions are frequently more complex than
quantitative methods can reflect: contextdependent, ambiguous, multi-layered…
Often, they are even shaped in the very act of
thinking with others. Focus Groups (FG)
allows to deal with this interactive nature of
the process of opinion building and helps to
articulate what is underlying or implicit; to
explore how people think and why they think
as they do. Furthermore, since it is the very
respondent who identifies the processes at
work in independently driving interaction with
peers, FG prevents against researchers’
artefacts.
Prompts serve as an ice-breaker, but mainly
to keep on focus : open-ended questions,
ranking exercises, describing cards, comment
on news or other media support, vignette,
photos interpretation…
An abridged version of the first-round FG protocol of the PABE
project
Part 1 – INTRODUCTION (10 minutes)
1.1 Introduction by moderator
1.2 Warm-up question to participants: "Will you each introduce
yourself and say a little about who is responsible for buying and
preparing food in your household."
+
• Documenting the processes through which
groups meanings are shaped, elaborated and
applied, as an alternative to ethnography
• Let room for unanticipated topics or
arguments, and new research concepts
–
• Representativity as such cannot be claimed,
but saturation by widening the diversity of
participants and conducting additional FG
may be envisioned
• Individual behaviour and group’s deviances
are more likely underreported than, for
example, in in-depth interviews
Applicability
FG are usually found in a multi-method
design, to complement,
prepare for, or extend other work. For
example, in the following functions:
• Exploratory: to generate preliminary
information on new or under-researched
norms concepts and values
• Interpretative aid or test of survey findings
• Extended peer review, critical reappraisal
• Public perceptions of complex issues
Part 2 – FOOD (15-20 minutes)
"Thinking about the changes that have taken place in the way that
food is produced, would you each think of one way in which food
has changed for the better and one aspect that you are not happy
about or which has caused you concern." (Go around the room)
Practicalities
• A pilot FG can be useful in order to pretest the exercise and even to construct or
refine the prompts
• FG are a rather time consuming and
labour intensive procedure. A 90-minutes
standard FG means 8 hours for audiotranscription and 100 pages to be
analysed. Think, therefore, to limit the
number of groups and participants to the
bare minimum. The more segmented the
groups, the more groups will be necessary
• Payment: at least an attendance
allowance (25-40 euro), and/or
psychological incentives
• Reconvening exactly the same group may
be difficult but later groups can also be
informed by experiences in earlier ones
and different groups can intervene and
inform at different levels
• Deliberate overecruitment must be
considered. Think also to reminders.
"What do you feel has been gained and what has been lost as a
result of these changes?". "Where do you see these changes
heading? Where do you think the food industry will be in ten years
time?"
Part 3 –GM CROPS AND FOODS (15 minutes)
"What images or associations does the term 'genetically modified
food' raise for you?" Make a list and probe to find out what
associations and meanings images have.
Part 4 –EXAMPLES OF GM FOODS (35-40 minutes)
"Let's look at some of the food products that might use these
genetically modified crops." Show examples on display board and
discussion
Probe: If labelling not raised spontaneously move onto labelling by
asking: Do you think such products should be labelled? Why?
Part 5 – TRUST (20 minutes)
"Now we are going to talk about genetically modified maize again:
the type that has been modified to be resistant to an insect pest.
This is how some people might talk about the new product."
General discussion
Part 6 – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AGENCY (10 minutes)
"Do you feel that, at present, members of the public have any role
or influence in making decisions about these new developments?"
Part 7 – FEEDBACK AND CLOSE (5 minutes)
To go further…
PABE: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs.html; http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/focus_analysis.html; R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds.) (1999): Developing Focus Groups
Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, London: Sage; M. Bloor, J. Frankland, M. Thomas and K. Robson (2001): Focus Groups in Social Research, London: Sage
Luis Aparicio, INRA-TSV
Poster edited by Luis Aparicio and Delphine Ducoulombier