Focus Group Discussion

The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a qualitative research tool in which a

purposively selected set of participants discuss their issues, opinions and concerns
on key themes and questions pre-decided by the researcher/facilitator. This
qualitative research technique was originally developed to give marketing
researchers a better understanding of the data from quantitative consumer surveys.
As an indispensable tool for marketing researchers (Krueger 1988), the focus group
discussion has become extremely popular because it provides a fast way to learn
from the target audience (Debus 1988; US Department of Health and Human
Services 1980). Marketing and media studies have shown that the focus group
discussion is a costeffective technique for eliciting views and opinions of
prospective clients, customers and endusers. In services, focus groups have been
used to obtain insights into target audience perceptions, needs, problems, beliefs,
and reasons for certain practices.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

The researcher/facilitator uses a discussion guide that lists all the key
themes/questions to keep the session on track and prevent the participants from
deviating from the topic. The number of questions/topics/probes is kept to a
minimum to prevent the participants from getting confused or worn out by a long
discussion. The questions should focus only on relevant issues and move from
general to specific.

The steps for developing a FGD guide are:

1. Formulating research questions

a. A clear and specific purpose statement is required in order to develop
the right questions and elicit the best information from FGDs. Ex: to
identify the healthcare needs of individuals suffering from tuberculosis,
to assess the relevance of a program in a particular geographical
setting etc.
b. The research questions thus formulated need to focus narrowly on the
key issues otherwise the data that one gets may be qualitatively
diffused leading to confusion and making data analysis difficult.
c. The research questions also need to be broken down further into very
specific discussion points or themes. Ex: reporting of dental problems,
worries about accessing CIs health services etc.

2. Developing probe questions

a. Probe questions are questions that seek more detail on an issue or
concern. Ex: suppose a participant responded you services are nice.
A probe question would then be to know what does nice mean. Good
probe questions are very important in eliciting relevant details from the
participants.
b. There should not be any confusion between clarifying questions and
probe questions. A clarifying question would put the first draft of a
respondents answer for us on the table. It basically provides the nuts
and bolts to develop probe questions. For example, a clarifying
question could be how much time does the treatment take? The
respondent might answer a long time. In such a case the probe
question would be what do you mean by a long time? Please tell us in
minutes/hours?
c. A probe question is nothing but a question that asks for clarification.
One of the most effective ways of asking probe questions is through
repetition. Example: where did you go? Why did you go? etc.
d. The purposes of probe questions are:
i. Clarification on what the participants say. Ex: what do you
mean by.., so it seems that you want to say etc. It is
important to note here that every time we rephrase what the
participant said, we need to ensure that we are doing it
correctly. This can be done by asking the participant if what we
have rephrased captures exactly what they meant.
ii. Get the rationale/thought process of participants. Ex: why is
this important for you?, why does it matter?, what about this
is significant to you? etc.
iii. Eliciting relevant details from participants. Ex: give me an
example of such and such, tell us more about it, how should
an intervention look like?, what does your neighbor do? etc.
iv. Getting relevant details about variations. This part of probe
questions helps us get details of participants reactions in
various circumstances. Ex: do you always do this?, do you
always feel like this?, how have we changed over time?, why
did you do it differently? etc.
v. Testing the participants ideas with a counterfactual. Ex: if a
participant says that she wants solution A to a problem, we
need to ask if she would be ok with solution B to the same
problem. For example, a family might complain that they want
money for transportation to visit CIs health clinic. A
counterfactual to this solution would be providing transportation
and not money or vice-versa.
vi. Accounting for other influences we would also like to know
what are the possible factors that are making our participants
behave or not behave in a certain manner. In the above
example, we saw that providing money for transportation or
providing transportation itself can be a solution. However, we
would also like to know how providing transportation/money
would influence their behavior. For example: the participants
may want money so that they can readily access our clinic at
their discretion or they may want transportation as they find it
 difficult to find a vehicle that plies between CI clinic and
community. Another example could be using our health services
vs. using private clinics.

3. Recruiting participants
a. Participants are recruited usually on the basis of their involvement in
the research topic. The researcher/facilitator is interested in hearing
the opinions and concerns of only this group of participants. In CIs
case, it could be youth or parents/caregivers of 6 year old children or
parents/caregivers of children enrolled in our nutrition program.
b. In a situation where we do not have relevant details of participants,
snowball method is quite effective. For example, we may not know how
many 6 year old children in our population are suffering from diarrhea
or how many caregivers are suffering from tuberculosis at present. In
such scenarios, snowball technique works best.

4. Size of the group

a. The ideal size of a group of participants in an FGD is 12 to 15.
b. If the group is too small, the discussion tends to be dominated by one
or two people. Moreover, a small group may fail to provide adequate
insight into the problem.
c. If the group is too large, all the participants may not participate
adequately. A large group also tends to give rise to a number of
smaller sub groups of 2-3 people who engage in side conversations.
d. The number of participants depends upon the need of the research. If
the researcher needs to talk about an issue that requires intensive
participation or when the researcher wants answers from each and
every person, smaller groups of 5-6 people are ideal.

5. No. of FGDs
a. The no. of FGDs to be conducted depends upon the purpose and scale
of research as well as the heterogeneity of the group.
b. To determine the no. of sessions to be conducted it is best to observe
the concept of saturation i.e. to continue conducting focus group
sessions until there is no new information that is being shared.

6. Heterogeneity and homogeneity of the group

a. Heterogeneity of the group is important to enhance the discussion,
however, it may also backfire i.e. the participants may feel
uncomfortable sharing their opinions. But, it is usually considered a
good practice to maintain some diversity in the group to enhance
discussion.
b. Homogeneity of the group on the other hand may help the researcher
capitalize on the participants shared experiences. For example it
would be better to conduct separate sessions with 12 year old youth
and the caregivers of 6 year olds as 12 year olds may not be able to
 relate to caregivers of 6 year olds or 12 year olds may be reserved to
sharing their experiences in front of the elderly.

7. Role of moderator
a. Ideally two people are required to conduct focus group discussions
one as a moderator and the other as note taker.
b. Focus group moderators are session leaders. Their responsibility is not
only to ensure that the discussions are going along the desired path
but also to maintain the decorum of the group.
c. When some participants try to dominate the session, it is the duty of
the moderator to address questions to the participants who are
reluctant to talk.
d. The note takers duty is to capture as accurately as possible what the
participants say.
e. Non-verbal expressions should also be noted.
f. A sketch of the seating arrangement is ideally required i.e. which
participant was sitting at which place during the discussion.

8. Conduction of sessions
a. The FGD should begin with a welcome.
b. The moderator then introduces himself/herself and the note taker.
c. The moderator then sets the ground rules for participation and gives a
brief overview of what they are going to discuss and duration of the
discussion.
d. Convey the expectation from the discussion and from each participant.
e. The moderator then asks the participants to introduce themselves. To
maintain confidentiality, the moderator may ask the participants to use
a pseudonym for themselves.
f. Assure the participants that all their opinions are valuable and
confidentiality will be maintained.
g. Emphasize that there are no correct or wrong answers and the
participants are free to share their opinions.
h. Use clarifying questions and probe questions in tandem.
i. It is important for the moderator to summarize the discussion on a
particular topic before moving on to another topic and get the
summary validated from the participants.

9. Data analysis and report

a. The first step in analyzing the data from a FGD is to develop a
verbatim transcript of the entire discussion.
b. If the FGD has happened in a language different from the language in
which the analysis takes place, the transcription must be translated.
c. The transcription should then be compared to the hand written notes
taken during the FGD to ensure that each and every point has been
covered.
 d. Once the transcription is done, the next step is coding the data. The
coding can be done manually by cutting and pasting the data or by
using computer software such as Atlas.ti, NVivo etc.
e. The researcher is responsible for the analysis.
f. Coding is just a process to facilitate data analysis.
g. The actual data analysis can be classified into two types :
i. Basic level a descriptive account of the data. What was said.
No assumptions made.
ii. Interpretative involves creating links between themes,
demonstrating how these themes emerged and using a theory
to illustrate the reciprocal influences and relationships between
these themes.
h. It is usually advised to treat a qualitative data qualitatively i.e. not to
attach any numerical value to any data. However, some qualitative
data can be dealt with in a quantitative way i.e. how often a particular
theme appears or how many people have answered the same way.
i. It should also be noted that the sample size of the FGD is not large
enough to represent the whole population. So, the findings may not be
representative of the whole population unlike in a survey.

10. Advantages and disadvantages

a. Advantages:
i. An excellent way to collect qualitative data where the
respondents are able to build upon one anothers comments.
ii. It stimulates thinking among participants and helps them come
up with new ideas and opinions.
iii. It can produce high quality qualitative data because the
moderator can probe the participants for clarification as well as
answer their questions in detail.
iv. A FGD may help the researcher come up with a hypothesis if
he/she is exploring a new area of concern. This hypothesis can
then be used for a survey.
b. Disadvantages:
i. FGD can be biased and the opinions can be swayed in a positive
or negative direction by a few participants. This is a FGDs
primary problem.
ii. Wastage of time if the discussion wavers from the desired path.
This may lead to confusing data.
iii. Difficulty in assembling people for a FGD.