Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on December 10, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest.

What is a focus group

Table of contents

What is a focus group, step 1: choose your topic of interest, step 2: define your research scope and hypotheses, step 3: determine your focus group questions, step 4: select a moderator or co-moderator, step 5: recruit your participants, step 6: set up your focus group, step 7: host your focus group, step 8: analyze your data and report your results, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about focus groups.

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research . Observations of the group’s dynamic, their answers to focus group questions, and even their body language can guide future research on consumer decisions, products and services, or controversial topics.

Focus groups are often used in marketing, library science, social science, and user research disciplines. They can provide more nuanced and natural feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large-scale surveys .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

focus group methodology introduction and history

Focus groups are primarily considered a confirmatory research technique . In other words, their discussion-heavy setting is most useful for confirming or refuting preexisting beliefs. For this reason, they are great for conducting explanatory research , where you explore why something occurs when limited information is available.

A focus group may be a good choice for you if:

  • You’re interested in real-time, unfiltered responses on a given topic or in the dynamics of a discussion between participants
  • Your questions are rooted in feelings or perceptions , and cannot easily be answered with “yes” or “no”
  • You’re confident that a relatively small number of responses will answer your question
  • You’re seeking directional information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas
  • Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
  • Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
  • Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

Differences between types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Topics favorable to focus groups

As a rule of thumb, research topics related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. If you are seeking direction, explanation, or in-depth dialogue, a focus group could be a good fit.

However, if your questions are dichotomous or if you need to reach a large audience quickly, a survey may be a better option. If your question hinges upon behavior but you are worried about influencing responses, consider an observational study .

  • If you want to determine whether the student body would regularly consume vegan food, a survey would be a great way to gauge student preferences.

However, food is much more than just consumption and nourishment and can have emotional, cultural, and other implications on individuals.

  • If you’re interested in something less concrete, such as students’ perceptions of vegan food or the interplay between their choices at the dining hall and their feelings of homesickness or loneliness, perhaps a focus group would be best.

Once you have determined that a focus group is the right choice for your topic, you can start thinking about what you expect the group discussion to yield.

Perhaps literature already exists on your subject or a sufficiently similar topic that you can use as a starting point. If the topic isn’t well studied, use your instincts to determine what you think is most worthy of study.

Setting your scope will help you formulate intriguing hypotheses , set clear questions, and recruit the right participants.

  • Are you interested in a particular sector of the population, such as vegans or non-vegans?
  • Are you interested in including vegetarians in your analysis?
  • Perhaps not all students eat at the dining hall. Will your study exclude those who don’t?
  • Are you only interested in students who have strong opinions on the subject?

A benefit of focus groups is that your hypotheses can be open-ended. You can be open to a wide variety of opinions, which can lead to unexpected conclusions.

The questions that you ask your focus group are crucially important to your analysis. Take your time formulating them, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can affect your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

  • Open-ended and flexible
  • Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
  • Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
  • Unbiased and neutral

If you are discussing a controversial topic, be careful that your questions do not cause social desirability bias . Here, your respondents may lie about their true beliefs to mask any socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions. This and other demand characteristics can hurt your analysis and lead to several types of reseach bias in your results, particularly if your participants react in a different way once knowing they’re being observed. These include self-selection bias , the Hawthorne effect , the Pygmalion effect , and recall bias .

  • Engagement questions make your participants feel comfortable and at ease: “What is your favorite food at the dining hall?”
  • Exploration questions drill down to the focus of your analysis: “What pros and cons of offering vegan options do you see?”
  • Exit questions pick up on anything you may have previously missed in your discussion: “Is there anything you’d like to mention about vegan options in the dining hall that we haven’t discussed?”

It is important to have more than one moderator in the room. If you would like to take the lead asking questions, select a co-moderator who can coordinate the technology, take notes, and observe the behavior of the participants.

If your hypotheses have behavioral aspects, consider asking someone else to be lead moderator so that you are free to take a more observational role.

Depending on your topic, there are a few types of moderator roles that you can choose from.

  • The most common is the dual-moderator , introduced above.
  • Another common option is the dueling-moderator style . Here, you and your co-moderator take opposing sides on an issue to allow participants to see different perspectives and respond accordingly.

Depending on your research topic, there are a few sampling methods you can choose from to help you recruit and select participants.

  • Voluntary response sampling , such as posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
  • Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
  • Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
  • Judgment sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Beware of sampling bias and selection bias , which can occur when some members of the population are more likely to be included than others.

Number of participants

In most cases, one focus group will not be sufficient to answer your research question. It is likely that you will need to schedule three to four groups. A good rule of thumb is to stop when you’ve reached a saturation point (i.e., when you aren’t receiving new responses to your questions).

Most focus groups have 6–10 participants. It’s a good idea to over-recruit just in case someone doesn’t show up. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn’t have fewer than 6 or more than 12 participants, in order to get the most reliable results.

Lastly, it’s preferable for your participants not to know you or each other, as this can bias your results.

A focus group is not just a group of people coming together to discuss their opinions. While well-run focus groups have an enjoyable and relaxed atmosphere, they are backed up by rigorous methods to provide robust observations.

Confirm a time and date

Be sure to confirm a time and date with your participants well in advance. Focus groups usually meet for 45–90 minutes, but some can last longer. However, beware of the possibility of wandering attention spans. If you really think your session needs to last longer than 90 minutes, schedule a few breaks.

Confirm whether it will take place in person or online

You will also need to decide whether the group will meet in person or online. If you are hosting it in person, be sure to pick an appropriate location.

  • An uncomfortable or awkward location may affect the mood or level of participation of your group members.
  • Online sessions are convenient, as participants can join from home, but they can also lessen the connection between participants.

As a general rule, make sure you are in a noise-free environment that minimizes distractions and interruptions to your participants.

Consent and ethical considerations

It’s important to take into account ethical considerations and informed consent when conducting your research. Informed consent means that participants possess all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate in the research before it starts. This includes information about benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

Participants should also sign a release form that states that they are comfortable with being audio- or video-recorded. While verbal consent may be sufficient, it is best to ask participants to sign a form.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are too small to provide true anonymity to participants. Make sure that your participants know this prior to participating.

There are a few things you can do to commit to keeping information private. You can secure confidentiality by removing all identifying information from your report or offer to pseudonymize the data later. Data pseudonymization entails replacing any identifying information about participants with pseudonymous or false identifiers.

Preparation prior to participation

If there is something you would like participants to read, study, or prepare beforehand, be sure to let them know well in advance. It’s also a good idea to call them the day before to ensure they will still be participating.

Consider conducting a tech check prior to the arrival of your participants, and note any environmental or external factors that could affect the mood of the group that day. Be sure that you are organized and ready, as a stressful atmosphere can be distracting and counterproductive.

Starting the focus group

Welcome individuals to the focus group by introducing the topic, yourself, and your co-moderator, and go over any ground rules or suggestions for a successful discussion. It’s important to make your participants feel at ease and forthcoming with their responses.

Consider starting out with an icebreaker, which will allow participants to relax and settle into the space a bit. Your icebreaker can be related to your study topic or not; it’s just an exercise to get participants talking.

Leading the discussion

Once you start asking your questions, try to keep response times equal between participants. Take note of the most and least talkative members of the group, as well as any participants with particularly strong or dominant personalities.

You can ask less talkative members questions directly to encourage them to participate or ask participants questions by name to even the playing field. Feel free to ask participants to elaborate on their answers or to give an example.

As a moderator, strive to remain neutral . Refrain from reacting to responses, and be aware of your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows) and the possibility for observer bias . Active listening skills, such as parroting back answers or asking for clarification, are good methods to encourage participation and signal that you’re listening.

Many focus groups offer a monetary incentive for participants. Depending on your research budget, this is a nice way to show appreciation for their time and commitment. To keep everyone feeling fresh, consider offering snacks or drinks as well.

After concluding your focus group, you and your co-moderator should debrief, recording initial impressions of the discussion as well as any highlights, issues, or immediate conclusions you’ve drawn.

The next step is to transcribe and clean your data . Assign each participant a number or pseudonym for organizational purposes. Transcribe the recordings and conduct content analysis to look for themes or categories of responses. The categories you choose can then form the basis for reporting your results.

Just like other research methods, focus groups come with advantages and disadvantages.

  • They are fairly straightforward to organize and results have strong face validity .
  • They are usually inexpensive, even if you compensate participant.
  • A focus group is much less time-consuming than a survey or experiment , and you get immediate results.
  • Focus group results are often more comprehensible and intuitive than raw data.

Disadvantages

  • It can be difficult to assemble a truly representative sample. Focus groups are generally not considered externally valid due to their small sample sizes.
  • Due to the small sample size, you cannot ensure the anonymity of respondents, which may influence their desire to speak freely.
  • Depth of analysis can be a concern, as it can be challenging to get honest opinions on controversial topics.
  • There is a lot of room for error in the data analysis and high potential for observer dependency in drawing conclusions. You have to be careful not to cherry-pick responses to fit a prior conclusion.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

  • Student’s  t -distribution
  • Normal distribution
  • Null and Alternative Hypotheses
  • Chi square tests
  • Confidence interval
  • Quartiles & Quantiles
  • Cluster sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Data cleansing
  • Reproducibility vs Replicability
  • Peer review
  • Prospective cohort study

Research bias

  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Placebo effect
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Affect heuristic
  • Social desirability bias

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

  • Prepare and organize your data.
  • Review and explore your data.
  • Develop a data coding system.
  • Assign codes to the data.
  • Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

The four most common types of interviews are:

  • Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
  • Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

It’s impossible to completely avoid observer bias in studies where data collection is done or recorded manually, but you can take steps to reduce this type of bias in your research .

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

  • Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
  • Your proposed timeline and duration
  • Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
  • Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What is a Focus Group | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/focus-group/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, explanatory research | definition, guide, & examples, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

  • Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Focus group methodology : principles and practices

Available online.

  • Sage Research Methods

At the library

focus group methodology introduction and history

Education Library (Cubberley)

The Education Library is closed for construction. Request items for pickup at another library.

More options

  • Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
  • Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

  • Focus Group Methodology: Introduction and History Focus Group Methodology: Theories and Ethics Focus Group Methodology and Principles Focus Group Methodology and Practical Considerations Conducting Focus Groups and Practicalities The Use of Focus Group Methodology in the Health and Social Sciences Focus Group Methodology and Sensitive Topics and Vulnerable Groups Focus Group Methodology in Cross-Cultural Research Virtual Focus Groups Managing and Making Sense of Focus Group Data In Conclusion.
  • (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

Stanford University

  • Stanford Home
  • Maps & Directions
  • Search Stanford
  • Emergency Info
  • Terms of Use
  • Non-Discrimination
  • Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

  • Technical Support
  • Find My Rep

You are here

Focus Group Methodology

Focus Group Methodology Principle and Practice

  • Pranee Liamputtong - VinUniversity, Vietnam
  • Description

Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate students who are undertaking research, making this an ideal starter text for anyone new to focus group research.

Like her previous book, Researching the Vulnerable, Liamputtong's latest work pays close attention to research ethics and will also be of great interest to researchers who are working with different social groups - such as older people, children and ethnic groups - and anybody who is engaging in cross-cultural research.

Illustrated with case studies and examples throughout this is a perfect introduction to focus group methods for students and new researchers alike.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

'This lucidly written book will appeal to readers ranging from undergraduate students to seasoned academics in the field of social science research. Liamputtong has succinctly provided valuable insights into conducting focus group discussions, not merely as a means of quick data collection but rather as an instrument that can create knowledge for social transformation. In essence, focus group discussions bear consonance with the subtle aims of social science to generate collective consciousness and deepen the understanding of structural contexts of oppression and social change'

This is a very good resource

I have already suggested this text to some of the students on our EdD programme and will be including it on the reading list for the next cohort. Very accessible and full of information.

I enjoyed this text and found it a useful source of information regains the use and purpose of focus group interviewing. I will be using it as suggested adding for the students on our MA Education programme.

A good book offering tutorial exercises so that even the most novice of focus group researchers can become more advanced and familiar with this methodology.

This book is really well laid out and easy to follow. It provides all the essentials for a foundation in focus group methodology

Chapter objectives helped to summarise the chapters of the text. Tutorial activities helped with reflection. Further reading helped to build on learning. Box examples helped put theory into practice

A well thought out approach to the subject matter. I found the concepts and application to practice mirrored each other well. I would recomend to collegues.

This is a useful textbook that informs undergraduate and postgraduate students on issues surrounding the use of focus groups in research.

This text provides detailed instructions on focus group methodology. It is easy to read and maintains the reader's interest. Of particular use for my students was the information on running virtual focus groups.

You are here

Focus Group Methodology

Focus Group Methodology Principle and Practice

  • Pranee Liamputtong - VinUniversity, Vietnam
  • Description

Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate students who are undertaking research, making this an ideal starter text for anyone new to focus group research.

Like her previous book, Researching the Vulnerable, Liamputtong's latest work pays close attention to research ethics and will also be of great interest to researchers who are working with different social groups - such as women, men, older people, children and ethnic groups - and anybody who is engaging in cross-cultural research.

'This lucidly written book will appeal to readers ranging from undergraduate students to seasoned academics in the field of social science research. Liamputtong has succinctly provided valuable insights into conducting focus group discussions, not merely as a means of quick data collection but rather as an instrument that can create knowledge for social transformation. In essence, focus group discussions bear consonance with the subtle aims of social science to generate collective consciousness and deepen the understanding of structural contexts of oppression and social change'

This is a very good resource

I have already suggested this text to some of the students on our EdD programme and will be including it on the reading list for the next cohort. Very accessible and full of information.

I enjoyed this text and found it a useful source of information regains the use and purpose of focus group interviewing. I will be using it as suggested adding for the students on our MA Education programme.

A good book offering tutorial exercises so that even the most novice of focus group researchers can become more advanced and familiar with this methodology.

This book is really well laid out and easy to follow. It provides all the essentials for a foundation in focus group methodology

Chapter objectives helped to summarise the chapters of the text. Tutorial activities helped with reflection. Further reading helped to build on learning. Box examples helped put theory into practice

A well thought out approach to the subject matter. I found the concepts and application to practice mirrored each other well. I would recomend to collegues.

This is a useful textbook that informs undergraduate and postgraduate students on issues surrounding the use of focus groups in research.

This text provides detailed instructions on focus group methodology. It is easy to read and maintains the reader's interest. Of particular use for my students was the information on running virtual focus groups.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters, for instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

  • Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Related Products

Doing Focus Groups

SAGE Research Methods is a research methods tool created to help researchers, faculty and students with their research projects. SAGE Research Methods links over 175,000 pages of SAGE’s renowned book, journal and reference content with truly advanced search and discovery tools. Researchers can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and more.

With SAGE Research Methods, researchers can explore their chosen method across the depth and breadth of content, expanding or refining their search as needed; read online, print, or email full-text content; utilize suggested related methods and links to related authors from SAGE Research Methods' robust library and unique features; and even share their own collections of content through Methods Lists. SAGE Research Methods contains content from over 720 books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks, the entire “Little Green Book,” and "Little Blue Book” series, two Major Works collating a selection of journal articles, and specially commissioned videos.

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

  • All content
  • Dictionaries
  • Encyclopedias
  • Expert Insights
  • Foundations
  • How-to Guides
  • Journal Articles
  • Little Blue Books
  • Little Green Books
  • Project Planner
  • Tools Directory
  • Sign in to my profile No Name

Not Logged In

  • Sign in Signed in
  • My profile No Name

Not Logged In

Focus Groups

  • Edition: 2nd
  • By: David W. Stewart , Prem N. Shamdasani & Dennis W. Rook
  • Publisher: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
  • Series: Applied Social Research Methods
  • Publication year: 2007
  • Online pub date: January 01, 2011
  • Discipline: Anthropology
  • Methods: Focus groups , Moderators , Group dynamics
  • DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781412991841
  • Keywords: discussion groups , group composition , group discussion , group dynamics , group influence , moderator , nominal group technique Show all Show less
  • Print ISBN: 9780761925835
  • Online ISBN: 9781412991841
  • Buy the book icon link

Subject index

Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Second Edition provides a systematic treatment of the design, conduct, and interpretation of focus group discussions within the context of social science research and theory. The book examines every facet of focus group research, from selection and recruitment of group participants, to the selection of a moderator, to conduct of the interviews, through the analysis of focus group data.

Front Matter

  • Preface to First Edition
  • Preface to Second Edition
  • Chapter 1 | Introduction: Focus Group History, Theory, and Practice
  • Chapter 2 | Group Dynamics and Focus Group Research
  • Chapter 3 | Focus Groups and the Research Toolbox
  • Chapter 4 | Recruiting Focus Group Participants and Designing the Interview Guide
  • Chapter 5 | The Focus Group Moderator
  • Chapter 6 | Conducting the Focus Group
  • Chapter 7 | Analyzing Focus Group Data
  • Chapter 8 | Focus Groups in Practice
  • Chapter 9 | Other Group Methods
  • Chapter 10 | Conclusion

Back Matter

  • About the Authors

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

  • Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

  • View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Research Methods has to offer.

  • view my profile
  • view my lists

Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges

  • Open access
  • Published: 16 July 2019
  • Volume 53 , pages 3003–3022, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Julius Sim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-1676 1 &
  • Jackie Waterfield   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9004-7125 2  

179k Accesses

159 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Focus group methodology generates distinct ethical challenges that do not correspond fully to those raised by one-to-one interviews. This paper explores, in both conceptual and practical terms, three key issues: consent; confidentiality and anonymity; and risk of harm. The principal challenge in obtaining consent lies in giving a clear account of what will take place in the group, owing to unpredictability of the discussion and interaction that will occur. As consent can be seen in terms of creating appropriate expectations in the participant, this may therefore be hard to achieve. Moreover, it is less straightforward for the participant to revoke consent than in one-to-one interviews. Confidentiality and anonymity are potentially problematic because of the researcher’s limited control over what participants may subsequently communicate outside the group. If the group discussion encourages over-disclosure by some participants, this problem becomes more acute. Harm in a focus group may arise from the discussion of sensitive topics, and this may be amplified by the public nature of the discussion. A balance should be struck between avoiding or closing down potentially distressing discussion and silencing the voices of certain participants to whom such discussion may be important or beneficial. As a means of addressing the above issues, we outline some strategies that can be adopted in the consent process, in a preliminary briefing session, during moderation of the focus group, and in a subsequent debriefing, and suggest that these strategies can be employed synergistically so as to reinforce each other.

Similar content being viewed by others

focus group methodology introduction and history

Setting the Scene for a New Era of Focus Group Research

focus group methodology introduction and history

Talking to People IV: Focus Groups

Focus groups in triangulation contexts.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The ethics of interview research have been widely discussed. In contrast, ethical aspects of focus group research have received somewhat less detailed attention. Just as the methodology of dyadic interviews may raise ethical issues that do not correspond fully to those raised by one-to-one interviews (Lowton 2018 ), so focus group methodology raises distinct challenges. This paper will examine these challenges, in both conceptual and practical terms, focusing on issues relating to consent, confidentiality, and risk of harm.

1.1 Definition of a focus group

The focus group has its origins in an approach to group interviewing described by Merton et al. ( 1956 ). Since then, it has gained increasing popularity within qualitative research and evaluation. A focus group can be defined broadly as ‘a type of group discussion about a topic under the guidance of a trained group moderator’ (Stewart 2018 : p. 687). Agar and MacDonald ( 1995 ) suggest that a focus group lies somewhere between a meeting (reflecting the fact that it is specifically organized in advance and has a structure) and a conversation (reflecting the fact that the discussion has nonetheless a degree of spontaneity, with individuals picking up on one another’s contributions). It is recommended that data collection, and subsequent analysis, should take account of both the dialogue and the interaction that has occurred within the group (Kitzinger 1994 ; Smithson 2000 ; Halkier 2010 ; Grønkjær et al. 2011 ), and seek to capture the way in which meaning is negotiated and co-produced in the group context (Wilkinson 1998 ). Several detailed accounts of focus group methodology are available (e.g., Morgan 1997 ; Hennink 2007 ; Krueger and Casey 2009 ; Carey and Asbury 2012 ; Barbour 2018 ).

Consent is a central ethical concern in research using human participants. Its specific importance in focus group research is suggested by Green and Hart’s view of this method as one in which participants have a particular vulnerability, as they ‘are not only persuaded by skilled facilitators to disclose intimate views, but also to do this in front of peers’ (Green and Hart 1999 : p. 31).

There are two models of consent: the mental model of consent sees it as the mental state of the person consenting, whereas the performative model sees it as the public act whereby such consent is communicated (Schnüriger 2018 ). On either interpretation, consent serves to legitimize the researcher’s actions. Hence, Walker ( 2018 : p. 131) takes consent to be a form of communication whereby ‘an act that would have been impermissible for some reason is no longer impermissible for that reason.’

The underlying moral ground of consent is centred primarily in the notion of autonomy, on the basis that the consent process can be seen as a means of protecting and supporting autonomous decision making on the part of the research participant (Faden and Beauchamp 1986 ; Beauchamp 2009 ). Additionally, it is supported by the associated principle of respect for persons, which requires one not to use a person merely as a means to an end (Downie and Telfer 1969 ). Consent may be seen as having four essential elements: disclosure (the adequacy of the information given by the researcher); comprehension (the extent to which this information is understood by the participant); competence (the participant’s cognitive or emotional capacity to give or withhold agreement); and voluntariness (the absence of inducement of coercion). Fulfilment of each of these elements is necessary for informed consent to carry its intended moral force (Sim 2010 ).

Lack of information—i.e., inadequate disclosure—is a constraint upon autonomous decision making (Beauchamp 1997 ). The onus is therefore on the researcher to provide a suitable type and quantity of information as a basis for the participant’s choice. In interview-based studies, such information usually states the purpose of the study, gives an outline of the topic(s) to be covered, indicates the way in which the interview will be conducted and how long it is likely to last, draws attention to any potential benefits or risks associated with taking part, and describes what will be done with the data collected. Using the details provided, the participant should be able to foresee or imagine the situation to which he or she is consenting—therefore, the process is perhaps better seen as creating (or perhaps modifying) certain expectations in the mind of the participant rather than as simply the conveying of information . Such expectations will be formed by the manner and context in which information is communicated, and not just by the factual content of this information, and it is therefore more appropriate to think in terms of the message received in the consent process than in terms of the message sent.

2.1 Disclosure and consent

One potentially problematic issue relating to consent in focus groups stems from the degree of disclosure that is possible. In qualitative research generally, the fact that design and methods are to some extent emergent—rather than pre-specified, as they usually are in quantitative research—makes it hard to provide fine-grained detail on what will occur in a study (Wiles 2013 ). This applies even more in focus group research, because what takes place in the group depends in part upon other participants, who may spontaneously raise issues not necessarily intended, or predicted, by the moderator. As Warr ( 2005 : p. 203) puts it, focus groups can be noisy ‘as opinions and anecdotes are shared, challenged, and truncated as participants join in, or drop out of, the discussions taking place.’ Furthermore, individual participants have less control than in a one-to-one interview. Although focus group participants can decline to respond to a particular question—probably more easily than in a one-to-one interview—they may not be able to divert the discussion away from a topic that they find uncomfortable. In effect, they may be unable to foreclose a particular topic in a way that is possible in an individual interview, particularly in the presence of more dominant group members. Footnote 1 Accordingly, to the extent that the discussion in a focus group may take an unanticipated turn, reliance on the disclosure element of consent is thereby weakened.

Turning to the information that is disclosed, as noted earlier this will create particular expectations in participants. Some of these expectations may be inaccurate owing to certain assumptions on the part of participants. For example, they may not appreciate that whilst a focus group may be about exploring a social or health-related problem, it does not necessarily aim to provide solutions to such problems (Carey and Asbury 2012 ). Such a misconception may be encouraged by the ‘consultative’ feel of a group discussion, and the fact that focus groups are sometimes used in service evaluation and quality improvement projects (Smith et al. 1995 ; Schwarz et al. 2000 ). In this connection, for example, Briller et al. ( 2007 –8) argue that it should be made clear to potential participants in a focus group on bereavement that they are not being invited to a support group.

A second issue arises here in relation to the contribution that the participant anticipates making to the group discussion. If the researcher obtains consent on the basis of seeking the participant’s views, there is a responsibility to ensure that the individual has an opportunity to express these views, otherwise the expectation on which consent was based may not be realized. Ensuring that this expectation is fulfilled may require skilful moderation, so as to facilitate participation by all group members. Kitzinger ( 1995 : p. 300) notes that within focus groups ‘the articulation of group norms may silence individual voices of dissent’; however, the moderator may offset this tendency by encouraging contributions from such individuals (Smithson 2000 ). The other side of this coin is that participants should not feel obliged to contribute to a particular line of discussion, and again careful moderation is needed here. Lezaun ( 2007 ) characterizes an underlying principle of the focus group as isegoric —a concern to provide all participants with an equal opportunity to express (or to decline to express) their views. This obligation may be heightened by the expectations created in the consent process.

However, although participants may expect to have their voices heard, they should understand that the predominant insights that emerge from the focus group, and that are subsequently reported, may not reflect their individual views (especially if the issue is controversial, giving a rise to a range of possibly conflicting viewpoints). This is partly because it is not feasible to report each participant’s views, and also because it is not the primary intention of a focus group to do so, given that whilst individual views may be voiced during the meeting, and may be tracked in the analysis (Finch and Lewis 2003 ), these are not readily separable from the interaction occurring within the group. Hence, the analytical focus centres on the co-production of perspectives in the group context, rather than on the perceptions of specific individuals: focus groups ‘are not used to generate multiple accounts of individual perspectives’ (Warr 2005 : p. 201) and are not ‘a collection of individual interviews with comments directed solely through the researcher’ (Finch and Lewis 2003 : p. 171).

A common practice in qualitative research based on interview data is respondent validation (Lincoln and Guba 1985 ). Its purpose is to allow research participants to review and comment on a transcript and/or the researcher’s interpretation of it. In focus group research, however, a decision to provide a transcript to an individual participant entails also providing a written record of other participants’ contributions, as it is hard to extract an individual account from the text in the transcript. Each participant would thereby be provided with a written record of the data provided by the whole group. This may not have been anticipated by other participants, and is therefore something of which they should be made aware in the consent process. Respondent validation would therefore be hard to carry out unless consented to by all participants.

2.2 Consent as revocable

Consent is normally regarded as revocable, such that an individual can withdraw from the study at any point after initially consenting to participate (Faden and Beauchamp 1986 ). It is important to consider the extent to which this option can realistically be exercised in a focus group. Withdrawing from a group discussion is a very public and potentially disruptive act that an individual may find hard to perform. Additionally, in consent documentation the right to withdraw is often stated in terms of not having to give a reason or justification for doing so—this would be difficult in a group situation, as leaving a collective social activity prematurely normally demands some form of explanation. Revoking consent to participation is thus less straightforward in a focus group than in many other research contexts.

This principle that consent is revocable may also be extended to an individual’s data. Just as participants may withdraw their participation in an interview, it is claimed that they may similarly withdraw their data, either from the transcript, or from those parts that are reported as quotations, or from both (Kervin et al. 2006 ). Footnote 2 A withdrawal of consent to the use of quotations presents fewer problems as regards the integrity of a study, as the insights arising from the analysis of the data concerned can still be reported, even though the researcher’s choice of evidence to support them may be restricted. However, withdrawing data from a transcript prior to analysis—which is sometimes proposed (Farquhar 1999 ; Barbour 2018 )—can give rise to particular difficulties in focus group research.

First, if data were to be removed from a transcript prior to analysis, notwithstanding the difficulty of doing so, the inferences that can be drawn from the transcript as a whole may be undermined. Meaning in focus group analysis is derived to a large degree from the dialogue that occurs between participants, rather than from what individual participants, taken singly, have said. The analytical insights that emerge are co-constructed by all the participants, and indeed by the moderator also. Thus, the removal of a section of dialogue may make it hard, or even impossible, to meaningfully interpret subsequent dialogue. Excising material from the transcript may therefore limit the extent to which a coherent analysis can occur.

Second, it follows from the preceding point that if the removal of one person’s data adversely affects the insights that can be gained from a focus group, this affects the extent to which other participants’ contributions to the discussion can play a part in the subsequent analysis. So not only does the withdrawal reduce the contribution of the person whose data they are, but it also denies other participants a full opportunity to make such a contribution.

Probably the only way to resolve this problem is to make it explicit in the consent process that whilst a participant can withdraw from the group, and may ask that his or her data are not quoted when the study is reported, withdrawing data prior to analysis is simply not possible. Accordingly, the inability to retract their data in this way is something to which participants will have consented. There might nonetheless be a concern that limiting individuals’ ability to withdraw their data goes against the fundamental idea that consent is revocable, and thereby fails to respect their autonomy. So, it might be objected that autonomy implies the right to refuse, and that such refusal can occur at any stage in the research process. Three responses can be made to this objection. First, autonomy does not automatically imply that one may change one’s mind. One can make an autonomous choice that one understands to be binding, such as when making a promise or signing a contract. Such a choice is not a sacrifice of autonomy—the commitment that it involves can be seen as an expression of one’s autonomy. Second, given that other participants are likely to have consented to the focus group on the basis of having their views heard and contributing to what is gained from the subsequent analysis of the data, an attempt to respect one individual’s autonomous choice has the consequence of undermining such choice by others. Footnote 3 Third, the detrimental effect on the analysis of withdrawing data in this way is liable to frustrate the moral obligation of the researcher to maximize the value of the insights gained from the study. Together, these three considerations may override what would otherwise be an obligation respect the participant’s wishes. Footnote 4

3 Confidentiality and anonymity

Confidentiality and anonymity are often treated more or less synonymously. Footnote 5 There are, however, important distinctions that can be drawn between these two concepts, and the related notion of privacy. Confidentiality relates to what is done with information once it is in the researcher’s possession, and specifically the extent to which it is disclosed to others. Anonymity, in contrast, is concerned with the attribution of information—can individuals be identified from the data that they provide or from other information relating to them? The fact that some individuals might be concerned about the disclosure of certain information even if they saw no possibility of its being attributed to them—or conversely, that they might not wish their identity as a participant to be disclosed even if no other information relating to them were revealed—demonstrates that confidentiality and anonymity are not equivalent. Whilst confidentiality and anonymity refer to the use and attribution of information, respectively, privacy has to do with initial access to information, and therefore comes into play before considerations of confidentiality and anonymity arise. Footnote 6

As regards data, an assurance can be provided these will be reported anonymously, but if data are declared confidential this would seem to preclude their being directly reported in the form of quotations. Assurances of confidentiality in relation specifically to data are not therefore meaningful (unless anonymity is simply re-expressed in terms of the confidentiality of any identifying information). In terms of information other than data, such as information about the context of the study or biographical details relating to participants, both anonymity and confidentiality are feasible, as such information may either be presented in a form that preserves anonymity, or may not be disclosed at all (particularly if any such disclosure would be hard without thereby breaching anonymity). An important relationship between confidentiality and anonymity is that confidentiality is of greatest concern if anonymity cannot be assured.

The focus group is such that issues of confidentiality and anonymity are acute, especially when the discussion concerns sensitive topics:

The nature of the group setting is such that participants are obliged to express in public what they usually regard as private, and neither the reaction nor the discretion of the group can necessarily be predicted. (Wellings et al. 2000 : p. 256)

3.1 Deductive disclosure and internal confidentiality

An obvious way to preserve anonymity is to ensure that no real names or other directly identifying information are reported. However, individual participants may be identified by other, indirect means through what is referred to as deductive disclosure: ‘A narrative description of what an individual said to a researcher may, with a little collateral information, be sufficient to identify the individual [even] if no clear identifier, such as a name, is attached to the description’ (Boruch et al. 1996 : p. 161). Thus, even if nobody is named, it may be possible to link seemingly innocuous pieces of information together and determine a participant’s identity, particularly in small and/or geographically circumscribed communities. A classic example of this is Carolyn Ellis’s ( 1986 ) ethnographic study of two fishing villages in Chesapeake. Even though no directly identifying information had been used, it emerged that some participants in the study were able to identify themselves and others when the study was published (Ellis 1995 ). Two points about deductive disclosure bear emphasizing. First, the richer and more detailed the data reported, the greater the likelihood of deductive disclosure (Edwards and Weller 2016 ). Second, it may not be clear to the researcher, as an ‘outsider’, which information carries a risk of deductive disclosure; some reported details that appear to have no identifying potential may hold such meaning for others within the community or social group in which the research is centred.

In the context of focus groups, Tolich ( 2009 ) draws a distinction between internal and external confidentiality. Whereas external confidentiality concerns the possible disclosure of information by the researcher, internal confidentiality has to do with information that might be disclosed by members of the group. Footnote 7 Clearly, external confidentiality can normally be assured by the researcher, as he or she is in control of what is reported from the study. Internal confidentiality relies on adherence to ground rules and observance of aspects of the consent process, over both of which the researcher has much more limited control.

It is often recommended that focus groups should be composed of individuals previously unknown to each other, so that pre-existing relationships, and certain assumptions or expectations that these involve, do not influence disclosure (Morgan 1997 ). This assists in preserving anonymity, but if participants are known to one another, their anonymity is clearly harder to maintain. Footnote 8 Additionally, the discussion within the group—and therefore what may be reported—may make reference to existing relationships or a shared history within the group, such that individuals may be recognized by others outside the focus group but within a broader social circle, through deductive disclosure. Bloor et al. ( 2001 : p. 25) suggest that the situation in which participants know one another may lead to a form of third-party breach of confidentiality, whereby a participant may ‘make reference to a personal view or experience of another group member that that individual does not feel comfortable divulging within that particular group setting.’ Kitzinger and Barbour ( 1999 : p. 17) provide an example of such ‘vicarious disclosure’ when noting that in one focus group a participant indicated that another woman had worked as a prostitute. In groups where individuals are already known to one another, information disclosed—and any subsequent failure to observe confidentiality in respect of such information—may have a negative effect on participants’ future relationships (Hofmeyer and Scott 2007 ).

A linked issue to internal confidentiality is that of over-disclosure. Within any form of interview, the rapport that is established between the informant and the researcher, and the efforts of the latter to encourage views or experiences to be expressed, may lead to an individual saying more than he or she might have wished or intended to. Within the specific context of a focus group, not only may the supportive atmosphere that can characterize the group encourage such over-disclosure (Bloor et al. 2001 ), Footnote 9 but the group setting may make it less reparable than in a one-to-one interview. In particular, it is much harder to ‘withdraw’ a comment in the public context of a focus group than in a one-to-one interview (Carey and Asbury 2012 ). Morgan ( 1998 : p. 91) suggests that over-disclosure may be more likely to occur in a focus group involving strangers—‘talking with someone you will never see again can lead to self-disclosure that goes beyond what you would tell your friends or family’—but also argues, in common with Frith ( 2000 ), that the consequences of over-disclosure may be more acute in a focus group in which some or all participants are known to one another, owing to its potential influence on their future relationships. Through careful monitoring of the dialogue and interaction occurring within the group, the moderator can help to minimize the risk of over-disclosure.

The moderator can also minimize deductive disclosure, by omitting certain information about participants in a report, by attributing quotations to categories of participants rather than pseudonymized individuals, or by altering other information that is potentially identifying. In the process, however, the ability of the researcher to present, or the reader to infer, valuable insights from the data may be reduced. Kaiser ( 2009 : p. 1635) notes that ‘unlike changing a specific name, changing additional details to render data unidentifiable can alter or destroy the original meaning of the data.’ Moreover, if measures such as these are taken, it should not be automatically assumed that this is in accordance with participants’ wishes. Whilst they may want their identity to be protected when a study is reported, they may nonetheless disapprove of the use of pseudonyms or categories, such as ‘lone parent’, that might invite negative stereotypes (Corden and Sainsbury 2006 ). Moreover, the unwillingness of some participants to use pseudonyms or to be anonymous may be a means of retaining ‘ownership’ of the meaning of their contributions to the data (Richards and Schwartz 2002 ). Footnote 10 However, although acceding to a request not to use pseudonyms would respect the autonomous wishes of the individual(s) concerned, it might increase the likelihood of deductive disclosure in respect of other participants.

A further means by which anonymity can be protected is to eliminate written records of participants’ true identities. Thus, in a focus group study of relationships between gay and bisexual men in the context of HIV infection and AIDS, O’Brien ( 1993 ) gained approval from an Institutional Review Board for the absence of signed consent forms. Footnote 11

4 Risk of harm

Although in some respects focus groups offer a supportive environment to participants, the group context may also create a sense of public vulnerability:

In individual interviews respondents are protected by the relative intimacy and privacy of the interview situation. In a focus group session, in contrast, respondents are under pressure to perform (and possibly to conform) under the scrutiny of fellow participants. (Ransome 2013 : p. 41)

This form of vulnerability may expose participants to various forms of harm. Thus, social or psychological harm may arise through a breach of confidentiality and/or anonymity. Information that is disclosed may lead to embarrassment, shame, stigmatization, discrimination, disruption of existing social relationships, or adverse employment consequences, and in some cases, participants may face legal action as a result of information that is made public (Warwick 1982 ).

However, harm may potentially arise in other ways than through breaches of confidentiality or anonymity. For example, as noted earlier, participants may mistake a focus group that aims to explore a particular problem for one that seeks to solve such a problem, with the result that unfulfillable hopes are raised and subsequently disappointed. Alternatively, the discussion of particularly sensitive issues within the group context may cause distress or embarrassment. In some situations, such feelings may be directly associated with the topic—such as in a focus group centred on issues to do with sexual behaviour—and may therefore be anticipated. Participants may therefore be considered to have foreseen this possibility when providing consent. Furthermore, as such feelings are likely to result from any discussion of the topic in question, the fact that such discussion occurs within a research context may not raise special concerns. In other instances, however, owing to the way in which the discussion evolves spontaneously, participants may experience distress or embarrassment that they did not predict. The researcher needs to judge whether this is excessive or inappropriate. It is also important to note, however, that focus group discussions can provide a very supportive forum in which participants can express their emotions or anxieties, and thereby have a beneficial rather than a harmful effect. Thus, Ybarra et al. ( 2014 ) found that the use of online focus groups conducted with gay and bisexual adolescents on the topic of HIV prevention led to reduced feelings of isolation and a greater sense of support regarding decisions that some participants had made regarding abstinence. Again, the researcher needs to think carefully about the likely effects on the participants in the group.

Krueger and Casey ( 2009 : p. xiii) maintain that focus group interviewing is ‘about paying attention, being open to what people have to say and being nonjudgmental.’ However, if participants express racist or other discriminatory views, the researcher should consider whether allowing such views to go unchallenged suggests complicity (Longhurst 2016 ). In a one-to-one interview such apparent acquiescence on the part of the researcher may reinforce the views of the individual concerned, but in a focus group it may additionally be construed as some form of public endorsement. In a similar way, harm may arise due to the expression of inaccurate information by a member of the group. The researcher may feel impelled to step out of the researcher role and intervene, or at least address the issue subsequently in a debrief. Hyde et al. ( 2005 ) and Wellings et al. ( 2000 ), for example, talk of the difficulty in staying silent in the face of factually incorrect comments in focus group discussions on HIV, and Kitzinger and Barbour ( 1999 : p. 17) argue that one should not ‘walk away from a group after having silently listened to people convincing each other that HIV can be transmitted by casual contact or that anal intercourse is safer than vaginal intercourse.’

There are two general approaches that the moderator can take in order to avoid or counteract discomfort or distress that may arise from the discussion of sensitive issues: (1) to seek to prevent such issues from arising in the first place, either by declaring them to be ‘off limits’ at the outset, or by averting them by steering the discussion in another direction; and (2) to try to minimize their impact when and if they do arise. The first of these approaches may seem an attractive solution. However, the issues concerned may be integral to the topic of the focus group, and avoiding them at the outset may, at least partly, frustrate the purpose of the research. Additionally, a strategy of avoidance may have the effect of denying certain individuals’ participation. In discussing focus group research in areas related to sexuality, Kitzinger and Farquhar ( 1999 ) suggest that excluding discussion of sexual abuse, and failing to frame any questions on this topic, may marginalize participants who have had such experiences and convey an assumption that nobody could conceivably wish to discuss such issues in a public forum. In a similar way, Kleiber ( 2004 : p. 93) maintains that ‘it is important for the moderator to establish that no opinion or perspective is unacceptable’ and Morgan ( 1992 : p. 185) describes how the moderator can ‘validate the expression of differences within the group.’ The strategy proposed by Kitzinger and Farquhar ( 1999 : p. 170) is that focus group moderators should try to ensure that discussion of sensitive issues is kept at an appropriate level, and ‘should avoid using their power within the research setting either to close off sensitive possibilities or to push them too far.’ Thus, a desire to avoid distress within focus groups—either by foreclosing certain topics at the beginning or by diverting the discussion when an issue arises—should be balanced against the risk of disenfranchising particular categories of individuals or censoring certain views as unacceptable.

The second approach—dealing with potential distress as it arises—relies on a prompt response on the part of the moderator. Owen ( 2001 : p. 657) provides an example from her research on women’s mental health problems:

Whilst the women were permitted to discuss their painful and emotional experiences, the discussion was moved on if it was evident that the women were becoming distressed. As far as possible this was done sensitively by waiting for a suitable break in the self disclosure, openly acknowledging the woman’s contribution, and posing another question to the group. More general questions were usually introduced at the end of each group in an attempt to lighten the atmosphere.

In some instances, distress can be prevented at an earlier stage, by managing the composition of the group. Thus, Bloor et al. ( 2001 : p. 35) advise avoiding groups made up of ‘individuals with such conflicting views that the resultant discussion might cause distress to individual members.’ It would, however, be important to balance this strategy against the need to obtain whatever range of views is important for the aims of the research.

4.1 Challenges in assessing harm

Underlying assessment of the risk of harm are three fundamental difficulties. The first is that both predicting and identifying harm are not straightforward in qualitative social research. In medical research, by way of contrast, the nature of possible harms may be foreseen—for example, known complications or side-effects of a pharmacological or surgical intervention. Furthermore, such effects may be recognized promptly, as participants may be under prolonged observation or monitoring by clinicians who know what to look for. In qualitative research, however, whilst some potential harms may be obvious and predictable, foreseeing others might depend on knowledge of individual participants’ psychological characteristics or biography—information that the researcher may not possess, at least initially. It is important for the researcher to be alert to both verbal and nonverbal signs of potentially harmful emotions (Kavanaugh and Ayres 1998 ). However, in some respects, harm may be less readily identified in a focus group than in a face-to-face interview: firstly, because the public context of the group may make participants less willing to display feelings of distress or embarrassment, and secondly because the moderator’s attention is less closely focused on a particular participant than in a one-to-one interview.

The second difficulty springs from the fact that, as Wiles ( 2013 ) points out, apparently innocuous topics can unexpectedly cause some individuals distress, and as Hammersley and Traianou ( 2012 ) indicate, what is a harm to one person may be a benefit to another. This has particular relevance in a group setting. For example, if the discussion in a focus group were to turn to matters of bereavement or sexual harassment, this might cause distress to some participants who had had such experiences, but for others in the group with these experiences the discussion might be welcome, by virtue of providing an opportunity to express feelings that they are rarely able to share and to seek support or validation from others (Dyregrov 2004 ; Butler et al. 2018 ); a similar observation by Ybarra et al. ( 2014 ) was noted earlier. Madriz ( 1998 : p. 116) refers to this notion of validation when discussing her research on fear of crime with Latina women, and suggests that focus groups may provide ‘collective testimonies… [that] provide women with the possibility of breaking the wall of silence that has suppressed the expression of their ideas and emotions.’ Similarly, avoiding reference to sexual orientation or gender identity may prevent discomfort to some group members, but for any who are members of the LGBT community this may eliminate ‘the opportunity for the particular needs of those individuals to be identified’ (Dodd 2009 : p. 478). It should also be borne in mind that a focus group may draw on its own resources to limit potential harm (Kitzinger and Barbour 1999 ; Barbour 2018 ), especially if participants are previously known to one another and can enlist existing supportive relationships.

The third difficulty is a conceptual one—that of distinguishing ‘harm’ from other unpleasant feelings and experiences, and thereby determining whether a moral wrong has been committed. Footnote 12 Hitherto, we have used ‘harm’ in fairly broad sense. A more specific definition comes from Feinberg ( 1984 : p. 34), who defines a harm as the ‘thwarting, setting back, or defeating of an interest’ (p. 33), where one’s interests comprise ‘all those things in which one has a stake.’ Accordingly, ‘[o]ne person harms another… by invading, and thereby thwarting or setting back, his interest’ (p. 34). These interests represent important aspects of a person’s well-being. However, not everything that is disliked or gives rise to negative emotions is harmful. Here, Feinberg refers to what he calls offences:

Passing annoyance, disappointment, disgust, embarrassment, and various other disliked conditions such as fear, anxiety, and minor (“harmless”) aches and pains, are not in themselves necessarily harmful. (Feinberg 1985 : p. 1)

A harm, on these definitions, is clearly harder to justify morally than an offence. Indeed, an offence may promote rather than undermine a person’s interest. If a discussion in a focus group causes a person to feel distress or embarrassment, this may be cathartic or lead to greater self-insight, which would presumably be in that person’s interest. Thus, Hutchinson et al. ( 1994 ) and Cook and Bosley ( 1995 ) outline some of the psychological benefits that may potentially occur through participating in interview research, even on sensitive topics, and Hollway and Jefferson ( 2013 : pp. 90–91) point to a psychoanalytical model of research whose theoretical principles:

stress that well-being depends on making the causes of distress conscious… According to this model, it is not necessarily harmful if research raises painful and distressing experience, though it may be discomforting.

Accordingly, it should not be assumed that all expressions of embarrassment, distress or other negative feelings within a focus group are necessarily harms and therefore a matter of moral concern. Footnote 13

4.2 Justifying harm

A common means of justifying risk of harm in research is to point to a greater countervailing benefit that may likely be gained through a study. Footnote 14 This rests upon the assumption that harms and benefits are commensurable, and thereby capable of being offset, the one against the other (Macintyre 1982 ). There are, however, a number of important caveats to this justification. First, the magnitude of some harms may be so great that no resulting benefits could justify them—though such harms might be very rare in social research (Diener and Crandall 1978 ). Second, steps must previously have been taken to minimize the risk of harm, and it must be inherent to the topic and the nature of the research; risk of harm due to poor conduct of a study—such as insensitively worded questions or inattention to participants’ emotional reactions—cannot be justified. Third, a precondition for any justification is that participants should have been informed about, and consented to, the possibility of harm (to the extent to which previously noted limitations of the consent process allow). The harms in question, if they occur, must be assumed by participants, not imposed upon them. For example, Iphofen ( 2009 : p. 54) suggests that a possible social harm resulting from focus group participation might be that:

the time taken to invest, say, in attending a focus group… may lead to participants being unable to attend a regular social event in their community or family which is vital to their acceptance and/or status within that community.

If a justification were required for this, it might point to the participant’s autonomous choice of one activity (the group discussion) over another (the social event).

Fourth, in addition to taking account of the relative magnitude of harms and benefits, these should also be weighed in probabilistic terms; using a remote chance of benefit to justify a likely risk of harm, other things being equal, would be questionable. Fifth, the type of harm and benefit should be considered. If a focus group study were to be carried out on aspects of self-harm in adolescents, the findings might have tangible medical or social benefits for adolescents in general, even if not necessarily for the specific participants in the study. Conversely, the same type of practical benefit might not be identifiable in a study on a topic where a more theoretical understanding is sought, yielding a more abstract value. Justifying a risk of harm in the second example might be harder than in the first. Footnote 15

Finally, at a more conceptual level, such a weighing of harms against benefits—except when the harms and benefits affect the same individuals—relies to a large measure on an aggregate view; the fact that benefits, averaged across certain individuals, outweigh harms, averaged over other individuals, serves to justify these harms. Such a notion underlies Hennink’s view that focus group researchers ‘need to continually weight the potential social benefits of the information sought against the potential risk of harm to participants’ (Hennink 2007 : p. 38). A different view of the matter would suggest that the welfare of individuals cannot so readily be subsumed under considerations of overall social benefit, and would reject, or at least set limits to, such a trade-off between harms and benefits. This view would suggest that harms and benefits should be individuated—such that it matters whose harm it is and whose benefit it is, and these cannot readily be traded off between individuals. Footnote 16

Thus, whilst harms and benefits may in principle be commensurable, they may less readily be aggregated across individuals. For example, a series of focus groups might be run with parents who had suffered the perinatal loss of a child. If it were anticipated that some participants might become acutely distressed, this might be justified if it were believed that such feelings might be cathartic for the individuals in question and assist in the grieving process. The risk of harm would be balanced against the possibility of benefit for those same individuals. If, however, the justification rested upon future improvements in policy and practice in perinatal care—affecting future parents—the fact that harms and benefits would be distributed between, not within, individuals makes the process of justification more challenging.

5 Practical strategies

There are a number of ways in which the potentially problematic issues outlined hitherto can be avoided or mitigated, and some have already been touched upon. These strategies will be explored further in relation to the consent process, briefing prior to the focus group, the conduct and moderation of the focus group, and debriefing after the focus group.

The consent process : If the researcher provides information with a suitable level of detail and with due clarity, in principle this will help focus group participants to frame appropriate expectations of what will occur during the discussion. The purpose of the focus group can be explained and examples given of the sorts of questions that will be asked. Clarification can also be provided on what will be done with the data to be collected and the steps to be taken to preserve confidentiality and/or anonymity. Thus, certain assurances can be given, though these can strictly only relate to those aspects of the focus group over which the researcher has a degree of influence (Carey and Asbury 2012 ). Morgan ( 1998 ) and Tolich ( 2009 ) provide suggested content for informed consent documentation. Briefing: In addition to giving information in advance of a focus group, researchers normally discuss and negotiate a set of ground rules immediately prior to starting the discussion (Kevern and Webb 2001 ; Kleiber 2004 ; Breen 2006 ), especially in the case of sensitive topics (Farquhar 1999 )—though Krueger ( 1998 : p. 23) suggests that using a less formal term than ‘ground rules’ may be helpful so as not to stifle discussion. The researcher can emphasize the public nature of a focus group and the need for confidentiality and anonymity, and provide guidance on subjects that might be felt unsuitable to be raised during the discussion, subject to the caveats discussed earlier. The briefing also allows participants’ expectations of the group to be managed, for example by pointing out that the group seeks to discuss a particular health or social problem, not to provide a solution to such a problem. Importantly, the collective nature of the briefing allows the individual to reflect on his or her decision to take part in a situation that is closer than the formal consent process to the context of such participation. Furthermore, if at this point a participant has reconsidered the decision to take part in the study, the briefing can create an opportunity to withdraw less obtrusively than once the discussion has begun. Conduct of the focus group: Although the moderator’s influence over what happens in a focus group may be limited, he or she can nonetheless try to ensure that all members of the group have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, without being under pressure to do so if unwilling, and that one or more individuals do not dominate the group. Additionally, the moderator can be alert to distress, breaches of confidentiality, or over-disclosure, and seek to turn the discussion in another direction if appropriate. Footnote 17 If sensitive or emotionally difficult topics have been discussed, it may be helpful to finish the discussion on a more neutral or positive note (Finch and Lewis 2003 ; Briller et al. 2007 –8). It is also important to ensure, when discussion of such sensitive topics is intended or anticipated, that the moderator can respond appropriately. Even if not qualified to provide psychological therapy, the moderator can offer emotional support (Rosenblatt 1995 ), and can take appropriate steps to ensure prompt access to qualified therapy through clinical referral (Carey and Asbury 2012 ). Debriefing : After the focus group has finished, and its content summarized to participants, the moderator can reiterate key messages around confidentiality and anonymity, and clarify or comment upon any potentially sensitive or problematic issues that were raised during the discussion, where it was not appropriate to do so at the time. Participants can also be invited to discuss their reactions to such issues (Smith 1995 ). The moderator can stay in the room for a while at the end of the focus group, or otherwise make him- or herself available, to give individual participants the opportunity to address any issues or concerns (Bloor et al. 2001 ; Sherriff et al. 2014 ).

The first two of the above approaches—the process of obtaining consent and the briefing prior to the discussion—are means of providing information and giving certain assurances as to what is and what is not intended or foreseen. Martin Tolich, however, is pessimistic regarding the researcher’s ability to provide assurances to focus group participants:

…let the researcher, the participants and the ethics committee beware that the only ethical assurance that can be given to focus group participants is that there are few ethical assurances. (Tolich 2009 : p. 99)

He acknowledges the role of the moderator, but suggests that one should not rely unduly on the moderator’s skill in controlling the group, and has similar reservations regarding the use of ground rules or a debriefing session. Instead, Tolich’s central strategy is one of ‘caveat emptor’:

Taking part in focus groups involves risk and the participants’ [sic] must have these risks identified for them, explicitly, and then be willing to absorb those risks. (Tolich 2009 : p. 106) Footnote 18

In Tolich’s approach to the ethics of focus groups, the principal emphasis is accordingly on the quality of the consent process and participants’ autonomous assumption of certain risks, rather than on measures to mitigate ethical problems as they arise:

Ethical assurances, rather than safety techniques, should be at the fore. These assurances should be communicated to the potential participant in the recruitment phase of the research with such transparency that they allow the research participant to read in advance how the researcher plans to contend with the two endemic ethical flaws [relating to confidentiality and consent] in focus group research. Transparency is manifest in both an explicit description of the endemic flaws and an honest statement on the limitations of any ethical assurances. (Tolich 2009 : p. 106)

On this basis, Tolich provides detailed suggestions as to the information that should be included in an informed consent form, building on earlier suggestions by Morgan ( 1998 ).

However, as a general strategy, it may be unwise to rely so heavily on the consent process as a means of addressing ethical challenges in focus groups. First, as an empirical issue, providing information to participants as part of the consent process is only of value if this information is understood and recalled, and if it creates appropriate expectations of what will take place in the focus group. However, as noted earlier, the specific issues that are discussed in a focus group, and the way in which participants interact and behave during the discussion, are to a large degree unpredictable, and participants’ expectations based on prior information may not be realized. Moreover, whilst its generalizability to social research may be questioned, evidence from the medical literature of poor recall and comprehension of consent information may caution us against over-reliance on some aspects of the consent process (Corrigan 2003 ; Dawson 2009 ). Second, at a more philosophical level, whilst consent may be a necessary condition for involving an individual in a study, it is not a sufficient condition—the researcher’s moral responsibility does not end with ensuring that participants make an informed and autonomous choice as regards participation. The focus group participant may well consent to the possibility of distress during the discussion or the risk of a breach of confidentiality, but there are separate obligations on the part of the researcher—based on an independent notion of non-maleficence—to mitigate such risks as the discussion takes place. If these obligations are not discharged, the involvement of the participant may be morally unjustified, regardless of the apparent quality of the consent process.

A more effective approach, perhaps, is to enlist all four of the strategies outlined above in approximately equal measure, so that one strategy may reinforce, or compensate for, another in a synergistic manner. In this way, the pre-discussion briefing can reiterate and re-emphasize information given in an information sheet as part of the consent process, and address any questions that may have subsequently arisen in participants’ minds. The briefing can also raise issues regarding the conduct of the group—including ground rules—that might be less effectively conveyed by an information sheet. Moreover, such ground rules may be more effective if mutually negotiated by the group, rather than being stated in the consent documentation. Similarly, raising such issues at the level of the group, as opposed to when raised at an individual level in the consent process, may place them more clearly in the context to which they apply.

The process of moderation can attempt to deal with sensitive and potentially distressing issues that arise—perhaps unpredictably—through the dynamics of the interaction within the focus group. For example, Owen ( 2001 ) relates an incident in which a woman unexpectedly gave an account of her partner’s suicide and her feelings of loss and betrayal, and Seymour et al. ( 2002 : p. 523) relate an incident in a focus group on end-of-life care where a woman stated ‘I’ve done euthanasia’—in both cases the moderator felt the need to take action to deal with the situation. If appropriate, at certain junctures in the discussion the moderator can also give reminders of matters of confidentiality outlined in the consent documentation and encourage observance of agreed ground rules. Finally, a debriefing after the group discussion can not only reinforce elements within each of the previous strategies, but may also provide an opportunity for individual participants to raise concerns that may have been difficult to address during the group discussion.

6 Conclusion

In this paper we have attempted to identify and analyse some of the principal ethical issues that may arise within focus group research, and suggest practical approaches to managing these issues. Many of these issues stem from, or are given a particular emphasis by, the nature of focus group methodology. Thus, the spontaneous and at least partially unpredictable nature of the dialogue between participants may give rise to problems to do with harm or confidentiality, and also limits the extent to which such problems can be identified in advance during the consent process. The dynamics within the group may lead to some individuals dominating the discussion and thereby denying the expression of others’ views. The group context also complicates matters by creating multiple, intersecting interests. What may cause distress to one participant may give voice to, or provide a sense of validation to, another participant. Similarly, steps taken to protect anonymity or confidentiality in respect of some participants may undermine the contribution of others. Further issues arise when a focus group takes place within the context of existing social or professional relationships.

Some of the ethical challenges posed by focus groups can be addressed through the consent process, provided that appropriate expectations have been expressed and received, but steps should also be taken to supplement and reinforce these issues closer to the actual context of the focus group: in a briefing immediately prior to the discussion, during the discussion itself, and in a debriefing immediately after the focus group. However, the dynamic context of the focus group demands more than this. The moderator needs to make on-the-spot judgements; for example, on whether or not some individuals are at risk of harm from the nature of the discussion taking place, or on whether a particular topic can be closed down without thereby depriving some participants of their voice.

It is commonly recommended that participants within a focus group should be homogeneous (Morgan 1997 ; Krueger and Casey 2009 ), so as to minimize differences in status or power and to prevent the discussion being dominated by higher-status members of the group. However, if such differences in status or power nonetheless occur, they may further limit the ability of some members to influence the discussion.

In both cases, unless all dialogue in the focus group has been accurately ascribed to identifiable individuals—which may be challenging, given Warr’s view ( 2005 : p. 203) that focus group interaction may sometimes be ‘disorderly and noisy’—it may not be possible to omit the data relating to any one such individual. Perhaps a more serious problem is that another’s data could be removed by mistake.

A similar issue may arise with regard to the audio-recording of the group discussion. Hennink ( 2007 : p. 36) suggests that participants should be told that they can ask for audio-taping equipment to be turned off at any time; any such request may not reflect the wishes of all participants.

In contrast, it might be argued that considerably more significant interests are at stake in terms of protecting a participant’s anonymity, and it would therefore be much harder to justify opposing a request for quotations to be withheld from the report. It should also be noted that a refusal to withdraw data on the basis of what was stated by the researcher in the consent process requires that this message had been clearly explained and was understood.

For example: ‘Participants need to be assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their comments’ (Hennink 2007 : p. 41); ‘participants must be guaranteed that they will not be identified by name or otherwise, referred to as anonymity or confidentiality’ (Lincoln 2009 : p. 152); ‘The primary method researchers use to preserve anonymity and confidentiality is the use of pseudonyms for participants and also for the location of the research. In addition, other practices, such as changing the reported characteristics of participants (such as gender or occupation) are also used by some researchers to conceal identities and thereby maintain the confidentiality of the data provided by participants.’ (Crow and Wiles 2008 , p. 2); ‘Confidentiality means we are obliged to protect each participant’s identity, places and the location of the research’ (Ryen 2016 : p. 33).

Tolich ( 2016 ) argues against the usefulness of the concept of anonymity in qualitative research. However, he appears to construe anonymity solely in terms of what the researcher knows about the participant’s identity, whereas the more pressing issue is what others know. In focus groups, and in qualitative research more generally, the core issue is not whether data are gathered anonymously from participants, but whether they are stored and presented anonymously.

Rather confusingly, Tolich defines internal confidentiality in a different way in an earlier paper (Tolich 2004 : p. 101), as: ‘the ability for research subjects involved in the study to identify each other in the final publication of the research.’ This interpretation is closer to the notion of deductive disclosure, and we will follow the definition offered in the later paper (Tolich 2009 ).

A common means of preserving anonymity is to use pseudonyms or other anonymized identifiers. If participants in a focus group are hitherto unknown to one another, pseudonyms can be used within the group discussion (Wong, 2008 ); this anonymizes both the dialogue and the resulting transcript. Using pseudonyms in a focus group where participants are already acquainted effectively only serves to anonymize the transcript and may lead to a rather unnatural flow of dialogue. If data have not yet been anonymized, at the point of analysis pseudonyms or other anonymous identifiers can be substituted for real names, and these can be carried forward into the written research report.

Guest et al. ( 2017 ) found that certain sensitive themes or personal disclosures were more likely in focus groups than in individual interviews.

Perry ( 2011 ) points out that, in some communities, the changing of names may have negative cultural associations. Writing about social research in Sudan, she notes that forced name-changing was historically a means of repressing minorities.

The focus in this section has been on the protection of confidentiality. In some circumstances, however, there may be a moral or legal obligation on researchers to breach confidentiality by disclosing certain information—e.g., a moral obligation to protect a third party from harm, or a legal obligation to report certain types of illegal activity (Bennett 2007 ). Such possibilities should, wherever possible, be included in the information given during the consent process.

Thus, on this definition to harm somebody is to wrong him or her, but to cause that person distress does not necessarily do so.

An additional question that we do not address here, for reasons of space, is causal responsibility for harm. Hammersley and Traianou ( 2012 ) provide a detailed discussion of this issue.

We used this argument earlier as part of our justification of resisting any requests for data to be withdrawn prior to analysis.

Crucially, this is not to denigrate or underestimate the value of theoretical understanding, but merely to suggest that such benefit may have limited force in specific relation to the justification of risk of harm. See Hammersley and Traianou ( 2012 ) and Hammersley and Atkinson ( 2019 ) for a defence of the non-instrumental value of qualitative research.

The first line of moral reasoning outlined here is essentially a consequentialist one and the second essentially a deontological one (Scheffler 1982 ; Kamm 2013 ).

Seymour et al. ( 2002 ) describe how presenting potentially sensitive topics in a PowerPoint presentation assisted the moderator in switching the group’s focus if the discussion became deeply personal.

He reflects this view in the information that he proposes as part of the consent documentation provided to participants: ‘There are risks in taking part in focus group research and taking part assumes that you are willing to assume those risks’ (Tolich 2009 : p. 103).

Agar, M., MacDonald, J.: Focus groups and ethnography. Hum. Organ. 54 (1), 78–86 (1995)

Article   Google Scholar  

Barbour, R.: Doing Focus Groups, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London (2018)

Google Scholar  

Beauchamp, T.L.: Informed consent. In: Veatch, R.M. (ed.) Medical Ethics, 2nd edn, pp. 185–208. Jones and Bartlett, Boston (1997)

Beauchamp, T.L.: Autonomy and consent. In: Miller, F., Wertheimer, A. (eds.) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice, pp. 55–78. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bennett, R.: Confidentiality. In: Ashcroft, R.E., Dawson, A., Draper, H., McMillan, J.R. (eds.) Principles of Health Care Ethics, 2nd edn, pp. 325–332. Wiley, Chichester (2007)

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K.: Focus Groups as Social Research. Sage, London (2001)

Book   Google Scholar  

Boruch, R.F., Dennis, M., Cecil, J.S.: Fifty years of empirical research on privacy. In: Stanley, B.H., Sieber, J.E., Melton, G.B. (eds.) Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach, pp. 129–173. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1996)

Breen, R.L.: A practical guide to focus-group research. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 30 (3), 463–475 (2006)

Briller, S.H., Schim, S.M., Meert, K.L., Thurston, C.S.: Special considerations in conducting bereavement focus groups. Omega 56 (3), 255–271 (2007–8)

Butler, A.E., Hall, H., Copnell, C.: Bereaved parents’ experiences of research participation. BMC Palliat. Care 17 , 122 (2018)

Carey, M.A., Asbury, J.-E.: Focus Group Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek (2012)

Cook, A.S., Bosley, G.: The experience of participating in bereavement research: stressful or therapeutic? Death Stud. 19 (2), 157–170 (1995)

Corden, A., Sainsbury, R.: Exploring ‘quality’: research participants’ perspectives on verbatim quotations. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 9 (2), 97–110 (2006)

Corrigan, O.: Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociol. Health Illn. 25 (3), 768–792 (2003)

Crow, G., Wiles, R.: Managing anonymity and confidentiality in social research: the case of visual data in community research: NCRM Working Paper Series 8/08. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Southampton (2008)

Dawson, A.: The normative status of the requirement to gain an informed consent in clinical trials: comprehension, obligations and empirical evidence. In: Corrigan, O., McMillan, J., Liddell, K., Richards, M., Weijer, C. (eds.) The Limits of Consent: A Socio-ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine, pp. 99–113. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

Diener, E., Crandall, R.: Ethics in Social and Behavioural Research. Chicago University Press, Chicago (1978)

Dodd, S.-J.: LGBTQ: protecting vulnerable subjects in all studies. In: Mertens, D.M., Ginsberg, P.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 474–488. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)

Downie, R.S., Telfer, E.: Respect for Persons. George Allen & Unwin, London (1969)

Dyregrov, K.: Bereaved parents’ experience of research participation. Soc. Sci. Med. 58 (2), 391–400 (2004)

Edwards, R., Weller, S.: Ethical dilemmas around confidentiality and anonymity in longitudinal research data sharing: the death of Dan. In: Tolich, M. (ed.) Qualitative Research Ethics in Practice, pp. 97–108. Routledge, London (2016)

Ellis, C.: Fisher Folk: Two Communities on Chesapeake Bay. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington (1986)

Ellis, C.: Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 24 (1), 68–98 (1995)

Faden, R.R., Beauchamp, T.L.: A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York (1986)

Farquhar, C.: Are focus groups suitable for ‘sensitive’ topics? In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 47–63. Sage Publications, London (1999)

Feinberg, J.: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume 1: Harm to Others. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1984)

Feinberg, J.: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume 2: Offense to Others. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1985)

Finch, H., Lewis, J.: Focus groups. In: Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, pp. 170–198. Sage Publications, London (2003)

Frith, H.: Focusing on sex: using focus groups in sex research. Sexualities 3 (3), 275–297 (2000)

Green, J., Hart, L.: The impact of context on data. In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 21–35. Sage Publications, London (1999)

Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C., Delmar, C.: Analysing group interaction in focus group research: impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qual. Stud. 2 (1), 16–30 (2011)

Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., McKenna, K.: Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 20 (6), 693–708 (2017)

Halkier, B.: Focus groups as social enactments: integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qual. Res. 10 (1), 71–89 (2010)

Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 4th edn. Routledge, Abingdon (2019)

Hammersley, M., Traianou, A.: Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. Sage Publications, London (2012)

Hennink, M.M.: International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

Hofmeyer, A.T., Scott, C.M.: Moral geography of focus groups with participants who have pre-existing relationships in the workplace. Int. J. Qual. Methods 6 (2), 69–79 (2007)

Hollway, W., Jefferson, T.: Doing Qualitative Research Differently: A Psychosocial Approach, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London (2013)

Hutchinson, S.A., Wilson, M.E., Wilson, H.S.: Benefits of participating in research interviews. Image J. Nurs. Sch. 26 (2), 161–166 (1994)

Hyde, A., Howlett, E., Brady, D., Drennan, J.: The focus group method: insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents. Soc. Sci. Med. 61 (12), 2588–2599 (2005)

Iphofen, R.: Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide. Macmillan, Houndmills (2009)

Kaiser, K.: Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 19 (11), 1632–1641 (2009)

Kamm, F.M.: Nonconsequentialism. In: LaFollette, H., Persson, I. (eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, 2nd edn, pp. 261–286. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester (2013)

Kavanaugh, K., Ayres, L.: “Not as bad as it could have been”: assessing and mitigating harm during research interviews on sensitive topics. Res. Nurs. Health 21 (1), 91–97 (1998)

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J., Okely, T.: Research for Educators. Thomson/Social Science Press, South Melbourne (2006)

Kevern, J., Webb, C.: Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ. Today 21 (4), 323–333 (2001)

Kitzinger, J.: The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol. Health Illn. 16 (1), 103–121 (1994)

Kitzinger, J.: Introducing focus groups. Brit. Med. J. 311 (7000), 299–302 (1995)

Kitzinger, J., Barbour, R.S.: Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 1–20. Sage Publications, London (1999)

Kitzinger, J., Farquhar, C.: The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in focus group discussions. In: Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 156–172. Sage Publications, London (1999)

Kleiber, P.B.: Focus groups: more than a method of qualitative inquiry. In: deMarrais, K.B., Lapan, S. (eds.) Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences, pp. 87–102. Routledge, New York (2004)

Krueger, R.A.: Moderating Focus Groups. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A.: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)

Lezaun, J.: A market of opinions: the political epistemology of focus groups. Sociol. Rev. 55 (2 suppl), 130–151 (2007)

Lincoln, Y.S.: Ethical practices in qualitative research. In: Mertens, D.M., Ginsberg, P.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 150–169. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)

Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1985)

Longhurst, R.: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford, N., Cope, M., Gillespie, T., French, S. (eds.) Key Methods in Geography, pp. 143–156. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)

Lowton, K.: He said, she said, we said: ethical issues in conducting dyadic interviews. In: Iphofen, R., Tolich, M. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, pp. 133–147. Sage Publications, London (2018)

Macintyre, A.: Risk, harm and benefit assessments as instruments of moral evaluation. In: Beauchamp, T.L., Faden, R.R., Wallace, R.J., Walters, L. (eds.) Ethical Issues in Social Science Research, pp. 175–189. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1982)

Madriz, E.I.: Using focus groups with lower socioeconomic status Latina women. Qual. Inq. 4 (1), 114–128 (1998)

Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., Kendall, P.L.: The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. Free Press, Glencoe (1956)

Morgan, D.L.: Designing focus group research. In: Stewart, M., Tudiver, F., Bass, M.J., Dunn, E.V., Norton, P.G. (eds.) Tools for Primary Care Research, pp. 177–193. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1992)

Morgan, D.L.: Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1997)

Morgan, D.L.: The Focus Group Guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

O’Brien, K.: Improving survey questionnaires through focus groups. In: Morgan, D.L. (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, pp. 105–117. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1993)

Owen, S.: The practical, methodological and ethical dilemmas of conducting focus groups with vulnerable clients. J. Adv. Nurs. 36 (5), 652–658 (2001)

Perry, K.H.: Ethics, vulnerability, and speakers of other languages: how university IRBs (do not) speak to research involving refugee participants. Qual. Inq. 17 (10), 899–912 (2011)

Ransome, P.: Ethics and Values in Social Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills (2013)

Richards, H.M., Schwartz, L.J.: Ethics of qualitative research: are there special issues for health services research? Fam. Pract. 19 (2), 135–138 (2002)

Rosenblatt, P.C.: Ethics of qualitative interviewing with grieving families. Death Stud. 19 (2), 139–155 (1995)

Ryen, A.: Research ethics and qualitative research. In: Silverman, D. (ed.) Qualitative Research, pp. 31–46. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)

Scheffler, S.: The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1982)

Schnüriger, H.: What is consent? In: Müller, A., Schaber, P. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent, pp. 21–31. Routledge, Oxford (2018)

Schwarz, M., Landis, S.E., Rowe, J.E., Janes, C.L., Pullman, N.: Using focus groups to assess primary care patients’ satisfaction. Eval. Health Prof. 23 (1), 58–71 (2000)

Seymour, J., Bellamy, G., Gott, M., Ahmedzai, S.H., Clark, D.: Using focus groups to explore older people’s attitudes to end of life care. Ageing Soc. 22 (4), 517–526 (2002)

Sherriff, N., Gugglberger, L., Hall, C., Scholes, J.: “From start of finish”: practical and ethical considerations in the use of focus groups to evaluate sexual health service interventions for young people. Qual. Psychol. 1 (2), 92–106 (2014)

Sim, J.: Conflicts in research ethics: consent and risk of harm. Physiother. Res. Int. 15 (2), 80–87 (2010)

Smith, J.A., Scammon, D.L., Beck, S.L.: Using patient focus groups for new patient services. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Improv. 21 (1), 22–31 (1995)

Smith, M.W.: Ethics in focus groups: a few concerns. Qual. Health Res. 5 (4), 478–486 (1995)

Smithson, J.: Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 3 (2), 103–119 (2000)

Stewart, D.W.: Focus groups. In: Frey, B.B. (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, vol. 2, pp. 687–692. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2018)

Tolich, M.: Internal confidentiality: when confidentiality assurances fail relational informants. Qual. Sociol. 27 (1), 101–106 (2004)

Tolich, M.: The principle of caveat emptor: confidentiality and informed consent as endemic ethical dilemmas in focus group research. Bioeth. Inq. 6 (1), 99–108 (2009)

Tolich, M.: Are qualitative research ethics unique? In: Tolich, M. (ed.) Qualitative Research Ethics in Practice, pp. 33–47. Routledge, London (2016)

Walker, T.: Consent and autonomy. In: Müller, A., Schaber, P. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent, pp. 131–139. Routledge, Oxford (2018)

Warr, D.J.: “It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things”: analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qual. Inq. 11 (2), 200–225 (2005)

Warwick, D.P.: Types of harm in social research. In: Beauchamp, T.L., Faden, R.R., Wallace, R.J., Walters, L. (eds.) Ethical Issues in Social Science Research, pp. 101–124. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1982)

Wellings, K., Branigan, P., Mitchell, K.: Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data: using focus groups to research sensitive topics. Cult. Health Sex. 2 (3), 255–267 (2000)

Wiles, R.: What are Qualitative Research Ethics? Bloomsbury, London (2013)

Wilkinson, S.: Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-production of meaning. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum 21 (1), 111–125 (1998)

Wong, L.P.: Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singap. Med. J. 49 (3), 256–261 (2008)

Ybarra, M.L., DuBois, L.Z., Parsons, J.T., Prescott, T.L., Mustanski, B.: Online focus groups as an HIV prevention program for gay, bisexual, and queer adolescent males. AIDS Educ. Prev. 26 (6), 554–564 (2014)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK

School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, EH21 6UU, UK

Jackie Waterfield

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julius Sim .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sim, J., Waterfield, J. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant 53 , 3003–3022 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5

Download citation

Published : 16 July 2019

Issue Date : November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Focus groups
  • Confidentiality
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Focus Group Methodology: Introduction and History: Chapter Objectives

    focus group methodology introduction and history

  2. Focus Group: What It Is & How to Conduct It + Examples

    focus group methodology introduction and history

  3. Focus Groups

    focus group methodology introduction and history

  4. Steps of the Focus Group Method (taken from Dubovicki, 2017, 208

    focus group methodology introduction and history

  5. Focus Group Method

    focus group methodology introduction and history

  6. PPT

    focus group methodology introduction and history

VIDEO

  1. 001 Strategic Studies Program Lecture 1 Social Scientific Methodology of Strategic Studies

  2. Methodology

  3. Focus Group Review

  4. FOCUS GROUP

  5. Research

  6. What is a focus group? ($100 side hustle!)

COMMENTS

  1. PDF 1 Focus Group MethodoloGy: Introduction and history

    In this chapter you will learn about: An introduction to the focus group method. The nature of focus group research. Why the focus group is used in the health and social sciences. Some criticisms about the focus group method. History and development of focus group methodology. Focus groups employed in market research and social research.

  2. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice

    Focus Group Methodology is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews to analysing data and presenting the findings. It also includes discussions on cross-cultural and virtual focus group. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate ...

  3. [PDF] Focus Group Methodology: Introduction and History Chapter

    The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. J. Kitzinger. Sociology. 1994. TLDR. Focus group methodology is introduced, ways of conducting such groups are explored and what this technique of data collection can offer researchers in general and medical sociologists in particular are examined.

  4. PDF Focus Group History, Theory, and Practice

    history of focus groups is also replete with the enriching effects of interdisci-plinary collaboration in the early days, as well as the migration of researchers from one field (e.g., clinical psychology) to another (marketing research). Consequently, the theoretical underpinnings of focus group methodology

  5. PDF Focus Group History, Theory, and Practice

    Introduction Focus Group History, Theory, and Practice Among the most widely used research tools in the social sciences are group depth interviews, or focus groups. Originally called "focussed" interviews (Merton & Kendall, 1946), this technique came into vogue after World War II and has been a part of the social scientist's tool kit ever ...

  6. PDF 1 Introduction to focus group research

    The purpose of this book is to guide readers through the procedures, prac-tices and challenges in conducting focus group research in varying research contexts, with a particular emphasis on applying the method in developing country settings. An underlying objective of the book is to describe the conduct of focus group research which takes into ...

  7. What is a Focus Group

    Published on December 10, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023. A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest.

  8. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice

    The focus group method for data collection was chosen for this study based on several factors: the mothers having limited time for interviews due to daily programming, the reported preference of ...

  9. Focus Group Methodology : Principle and Practice

    Focus Group Methodology is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews to analysing data and presenting the findings. It also includes discussions on cross-cultural and virtual focus group. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate ...

  10. Focus group methodology : principles and practices

    Publisher's summary. "Focus Group Methodology" is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews to analysing data and presenting the findings. It also includes discussions on cross-cultural and virtual focus group. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in ...

  11. Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups

    Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. This paper introduces focus group methodology, gives advice on group composition, running the groups, and analysing the results. Focus groups have advantages for researchers in the field of health and medicine: they do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage ...

  12. PDF Methodology Brief: Introduction to Focus Groups

    Barry Nagle Nichelle Williams. This methodology brief outlines a five-stage process for conducting focus groups and reporting on the results. The five stages are: Using this five-stage process as a guide will contribute to the completion of an impactful focus group. This brief serves as an introduction to focus groups.

  13. Focus Group Methodology: Introduction and History

    Ana Estrada-Jaramillo Mike Michael Hannah Farrimond. Sociology. 2022. During the COVID 19 pandemic, Online Asynchronous Focus Groups (OAFG) through WhatsApp were conducted to explore women's experiences in the context of Congenital Syphilis prevention in Colombia. This….

  14. Focus Group Methodology

    Focus Group Methodology. is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews and analyzing data to presenting the findings.. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate students who are undertaking research, making this an ideal starter ...

  15. Focus Group Methodology : Principle and Practice

    Focus Group Methodology is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews to analysing data and presenting the findings. It also includes discussions on cross-cultural and virtual focus group. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate ...

  16. UCSF Guides: Qualitative Research Guide: Focus Groups

    Focus groups are "a carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment" (Krueger and Casey, 2000, p. ... Methodology Brief: Introduction to Focus Groups. A detailed description with instruction and tips for focus group research from the Center for ...

  17. A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research

    KEY WORDS: Focus-group methodology, interviews, students, research methods, student experience Introduction Qualitative data collection and analysis is always messy. It is useful, therefore, to start by ... it made the best use of the key attributes of focus-group methodology for a key purpose of pedagogic research: to generate ideas for the ...

  18. Focus Group Methodology : Principle and Practice

    Focus Group Methodology is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews and analyzing data to presenting the findings. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and postgraduate students who are undertaking research, making this an ideal starter ...

  19. Focus Group Methodology

    Focus Group Methodology. is an introductory text which leads readers through the entire process of designing a focus group study, from conducting interviews to analysing data and presenting the findings.. It also includes discussions on cross-cultural and virtual focus group. Liamputtong presents clear, practical advice in simple terms which will be appropriate for undergraduate and ...

  20. Sage Research Methods

    Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Second Edition provides a systematic treatment of the design, conduct, and interpretation of focus group discussions withi ... Methods: Focus groups, Moderators, Group dynamics; DOI: https: ... Introduction: Focus Group History, Theory, and Practice. Chapter 2 ...

  21. Focus Group Research: An Intentional Strategy for Applied Group Research?

    Quantitative and Mixed Methods Perspectives on Focus Group Research. When focus groups are used within mixed or quantitative research, they tend to be employed as part of instrument development (Nagel & Williams, Citation n.d.).These focus groups are positioned as an adjunct to the quantitative data collection, and appear to be centered on task-focused aims (Department of Health and Human ...

  22. Focus group discussions.

    Focus Group Discussions addresses the challenges associated with conducting and writing focus group research. It provides detailed guidance on the practical and theoretical considerations in conducting focus group discussions including: designing the discussion guide, recruiting participants, training a field team, moderating techniques and ethical considerations. Monique Hennink describes how ...

  23. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges

    Focus group methodology generates distinct ethical challenges that do not correspond fully to those raised by one-to-one interviews. This paper explores, in both conceptual and practical terms, three key issues: consent; confidentiality and anonymity; and risk of harm. The principal challenge in obtaining consent lies in giving a clear account of what will take place in the group, owing to ...