See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227685170

Focus Group Discussions: Three Examples from Family and Consumer Science
Research

Article  in  Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences · July 2009

DOI: 10.1177/1077727X99274004

CITATIONS READS
9 24,433

6 authors, including:

Sarah Pierce Diane D. Sasser

Louisiana State University Louisiana State University
23 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   160 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cooperative Extension Service System Response for Stress and Families View project

train up a child in the way...A qualitative study of how Black Church influences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diane D. Sasser on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FAMILY AND
Garrison et al. /CONSUMER
FOCUS GROUP
SCIENCES
DISCUSSIONS
RESEARCH JOURNAL

Focus Group Discussions:

Three Examples From Family
and Consumer Science Research

M. E. Betsy Garrison
Sarah H. Pierce
Pamela A. Monroe
Diane D. Sasser
Amy C. Shaffer
Lydia B. Blalock
Louisiana State University
and LSU Agricultural Center

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the usefulness of focus group discussions (FGDs) in
family and consumer sciences research. First, we briefly describe the FGD methodology in terms
of question development, group composition and recruitment, interview protocol and logistics,
and data analysis. Then, we show how we applied that methodology in three specific examples
from our work with family and consumer sciences research projects. Our examples include (a)
the consumer behavior of working female adolescents, (b) the work readiness of adult males with
low educational attainment, and (c) the definition of parental involvement by mothers with
young children.

In recent years, research in the family and consumer sciences has

evolved from a heavy reliance on quantitative methods toward the
use of more qualitative ones. Many researchers are finding that a very
useful qualitative method is focus group discussions (FGDs). A focus
group is a distinctive type of group in terms of purpose, size,

Authors’ Note: The research was supported in part by the Schools of Human Ecology
and Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, LSU; and by the Louisiana Cooperative Extension
Service and the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center. Approved for publication by the Director of the Louisiana Agri-
cultural Experiment Station as manuscript 98-25-0110. Correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to M. E. Betsy Garrison, School of Human Ecology,
LSU, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (e-mail: hcgarr@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu.).

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, June 1999 428-450
© 1999 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

428
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 429

composition, and procedures. Participants are selected because they

possess certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic or
theme of the research. Focus group interviews, originating in market-
ing research, were developed in the late 1930s out of necessity. Social
scientists began exploring the value of nondirective individual inter-
viewing as an improved method of collecting information. The inves-
tigations stemmed from doubts about the accuracy of traditional
information-gathering techniques, specifically the excessive influ-
ence of the interviewer and the limitations of an interview that used
predetermined, closed-ended questions. The traditional individual
interview had a major disadvantage: The respondent was limited by
the responses offered, and therefore, the findings could be uninten-
tionally influenced by the interviewer, by error, or by omission.
The open-ended approach used by FGD methodology allows the
participants considerable opportunities to comment, to explain, and
to share experiences and attitudes as opposed to a structured and di-
rective interview that is led by the interviewer (Babbie, 1998; Berg,
1998; Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1997; Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996;
Neuman, 1997). As compared to individual interviews, group inter-
views are inexpensive, data rich, flexible, stimulating to participants,
recall-aiding, and cumulative and elaborative (Frey & Fontana,
in press).
The purpose of the current article is to present three examples of
family and consumer science research projects that have used the
focus group methodology. The focus of our article is the concrete
application of the focus group methodology to family and consumer
sciences rather than a general description of FGDs or of other qualita-
tive methodologies. For more in-depth information on qualitative
methods in general, we suggest several recent works, including Den-
zin and Lincoln (1994), Lofland and Lofland (1995), Mason (1996),
Morse (1997), and Silverman (1997), as well as the 46-volume series of
qualitative research methods published by Sage. For more in-depth
information on FGDs in particular, we suggest several new works on
FGDs including Morgan (1997) and the 6-volume kit by Morgan and
Krueger (1998). Our description of FGD methodology, then, is meant
to provide a foundation on which to present our applications from
family and consumer sciences. To establish this foundation, we draw
primarily from Krueger (1994) and Morgan and Krueger (1998). In
our general description, we emphasize common focus group tech-
niques rather than idiosyncratic procedures.
430 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

FOCUS GROUP PROCEDURES

In this section, we briefly describe the typical procedures of focus

group research. The basic procedural categories include question
development, group composition and recruitment, interview protocol
and logistics, and data analysis (Krueger, 1994; Morgan & Krueger,
1998).

Question Development

Unlike unstructured interviews, the questions put to respondents

are carefully outlined, selected, and ordered in FGDs. Suggestions for
developing questions include the general advisability of (a) the
sequencing of questions from general to specific, (b) using open-
ended questions instead of dichotomous ones, and (c) focusing the
participants on specific personal experiences. Several different types
of questions are used for focus groups, each of which has a distinct
purpose. The types of questions include the opening question, intro-
ductory questions, transition questions, key questions, and the end-
ing questions.
The opening question is one that everyone answers at the begin-
ning of the focus group. It is designed to elicit only a brief response as
an icebreaker and to identify characteristics that the participants have
in common. Introductory questions introduce the topic of discussion
in a general manner, are intended to promote conversation and inter-
action among the participants, and are generally not critical to the
analysis. Transition questions shift the conversation into the key
questions and propel the research toward its substantive domain,
help the participants visualize the topic in the larger scheme of things,
and function as the link between the introductory questions and the
key questions. The key questions, usually two to five in number, drive
the study in that they are generally the first questions to be developed
and command the greatest attention in the resulting analysis.
Ending questions bring closure to the discussion, enable partici-
pants to reflect on previous comments, and are also critical to the
analysis. Some formats for ending questions include (a) an “all things
considered” question, (b) a summary question, and (c) a final ques-
tion. Response to the “all things considered” question allows the par-
ticipants to declare their final views on critical areas of concern, to
consider all the comments shared in the discussion, and to clarify
their positions. This question is usually posed to each participant
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 431

individually. After a very brief oral summary of the key questions

and main ideas that emerged during the session, the moderator might
ask, “Is this an adequate summary?” Following the summary ques-
tion, the moderator may give a short overview of the purpose of the
study and may ask, “Have we missed anything?” The summary and
final question bring closure to the FGD.

Group Composition and Recruitment

By design, focus groups are typically composed of people who are

similar to each other. Homogeneity can be broadly or narrowly
defined, depending on the nature of a particular study. It is often pref-
erable for the participants to be relatively unfamiliar with each other
as well as the research team because familiarity tends to inhibit disclo-
sure and has the potential to bias responses. Homogeneity is typically
sought with respect to the past use of a program or service, occupa-
tion, education level, age, gender, or family characteristics.
For most studies, the ideal FGD size is six to nine participants. In
terms of the number of groups, the minimum recommended number
is three, but this recommendation is qualified by at least three condi-
tions: (a) the nature of the study; (b) the diversity of the participants’
exposure to the topic; and (c) social, ethnic, or geographic differences.
A helpful rule is to conduct interviews until theoretical saturation has
been reached. Theoretical saturation occurs when no new or relevant
themes emerge; that is, each concept under investigation has been
saturated.
Recruiting people for FGDs can be a difficult task, and experienced
researchers have found that invitations should be personalized as
much as possible. Overrecruitment is usually required for studies
that do not have a captive audience. Recommended invitation and
notification procedures include (a) establishing meeting times that do
not conflict with existing community activities or functions, (b) con-
tacting potential participants via phone 10 to 14 days prior to the FGD,
(c) sending a personalized invitation via the postal service 7 days
before the session, and (d) calling each person the day before the
interview.
Incentives are recommended with focus group research. Money is
the most common incentive, and immediate cash payments are pre-
ferred. The amount of the incentive should be based on the time and
effort expended by the participants as well as their socioeconomic-
demographic characteristics. Stipends between $20 and $50 are
432 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

considered acceptable. In cases where money is inappropriate or ille-

gal, the incentive may be some in-kind token. Appropriate in-kind
incentives include food, gifts, or gift certificates. Food offered as part
of the FGD has the additional benefit of promoting group conversa-
tion and communication.

Interview Protocol and Logistics

Commonly, the research team consists of a moderator and an assis-

tant moderator or recorder. The moderator is primarily focused on
the interviewing process; that is, directing the discussion, keeping the
conversation moving, and taking a few notes. If practical, the modera-
tor should be sufficiently familiar with the FGD questions so that she
or he can lead the conversation without frequent reference to notes.
The assistant moderator or the recorder is usually responsible for (a)
taking comprehensive notes of both verbal and nonverbal communi-
cation, (b) operating the tape recorder or video equipment, (c) han-
dling environmental conditions and logistics, and (d) responding to
unexpected interruptions.
FGDs are recorded primarily by audiotaping and by written notes,
although some researchers also include videotaping. Immediately
following the interviews, a debriefing session of the research team is
usually conducted. The research team uses this time to record impor-
tant themes that emerged during the interviews while the informa-
tion is still fresh in their minds and to discuss any factors that
appeared to influence the responses of the participants.
The logistics of FGDs include location and scheduling of the FGDs.
The location for the interviews ideally is a place that is easy for the
participants to find and to access. Within this location, the room used
should have a neutral environment that is free of internal and external
distractions. If food is served, it is usually done at the beginning of the
session.

Data Analysis

Unlike the numerical data collected in quantitative research, the

data collected in research using FGDs are words, specifically, the par-
ticipants’ statements made during the discussions. The most common
methods used to collect the word data include audiotapes, video-
tapes, the moderator’s and assistant moderator’s written notes, and
any written activities that the participants are asked to do. After the
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 433

data are collected, the audiotapes are usually transcribed verbatim.

The data, including any written notes, are coded and analyzed for
emerging themes, trends, and patterns in the responses. Often, more
than one researcher independently identifies the major themes and
subthemes for each focus group to establish reliability. Software
packages, such as NUD*IST, are available to aid the researcher with
data analysis. For each of the following examples, we discuss in more
detail the specific data analysis strategies that were used.

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCE

RESEARCH EXAMPLES

In this section, family and consumer science researchers at a single

university discuss the specific FGD strategies they used in three quite
different research projects. The three projects were selected for this
report to demonstrate the versatility of the FGD methodology within
the discipline of family and consumer sciences and because they
involved different target audiences and topics. The three studies
include (a) the consumer behavior of working female adolescents
(Sasser, 1998), (b) the work readiness of adult males with low educa-
tional attainment (Monroe, Blalock, & Vlosky, 1999), and (c) the defi-
nition of parental involvement by mothers with young children
(Shaffer, Pierce, & Burts, 1998).

Example 1: Working Female Adolescents

A study of the consumer behavior of working females adolescents

was conducted using FGDs because the employment of high school
students has been growing steadily since the mid-1960s and very few
studies have been conducted to address the topic. Thus, the use of
FGD was considered both an appropriate and effective methodology.
The purpose of the study was to (a) examine the spending and saving
patterns of working female adolescents, (b) examine sources and
amounts of income received by female adolescents in the workforce,
and (c) identify the cognitive strategies (concrete versus formal
operations) used by working female adolescents to decide their con-
sumer behavior.

Question development. Based on both cognitive development and

consumer behavior theories, a series of transition and key questions
434 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

were developed to ensure orderly and logical sequencing of ques-

tions given the large number of constructs under investigation
(Appendix A). The questions were intentionally designed to opera-
tionalize the major constructs of both theories to ensure that the study
was driven by the theories. The constructs under investigation
included the stage of cognitive development (older children’s “con-
crete” thinking versus “formal operational” thinking; Piaget, 1972,
1976) and the constructs of affect, cognition, behavior, and environ-
ment that make up the theoretical framework of consumer behavior
(Peter & Olsen, 1996). The participants also were asked to draw a pic-
ture of themselves as part of the FGD so that the researcher might bet-
ter understand some of the more intangible and abstract concepts and
processes at work in the female adolescents’ decision making.

Group composition and recruitment. A total of 12 focus groups with

four to five participants in each group was targeted for this research.
The researcher decided to meet with the female adolescents in
smaller-than-usual groups because they were younger than the typi-
cal adult FGD participant. The targeted characteristics of the popula-
tion included employed adolescent females, which means the age
range of the target audience was between 15 and 18 years. To ensure
homogeneity, employment was strictly defined as formal labor force
participation and did not include informal or seasonal employment
arrangements.
After officials at the selected school agreed to participate, school
administrators, counselors, and teachers were contacted to recruit
participants. School officials were asked to assist in identifying which
students were employed at least part-time and which ones would
take seriously their participation in a research project. A personalized
letter to the students followed the initial contact. Each participant was
contacted by telephone 1 day before the focus group meeting to serve
as a reminder.
As an incentive, participants in this study were treated to a pizza
party a few days after the interviews took place. A cake and a plant
were delivered to the school’s administrative office as tokens of
appreciation, and one of the members of the research team later pre-
sented an in-service stress management seminar to the faculty of the
participating school.
The final sample comprised 12 FGDs with a total of 40 participants.
All of the participants attended the same high school. Although
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 435

permission was secured to recruit at three other high schools, recruit-

ment efforts were not successful. At these three schools, either stu-
dents did not volunteer to participate or their parents failed to sign
the required permission form. Interestingly, the students that attend
these schools are, generally, from families whose socioeconomic
status (SES) is either middle or upper level. It may have been that the
topic itself, consumer behavior, including monetary matters, was a
particularly sensitive or taboo subject for them.

Interview protocol and logistics. To cultivate her moderating skills,

the moderator of the focus group interview team conducted FGDs
with undergraduate students and observed and assisted with several
other FGDs conducted at the same university. A faculty member who
had attended national workshops on the procedures of conducting
focus group interviews offered guidance to the moderator during this
period of preparation. The assistant moderator or recorder was a
female undergraduate student trained by the moderator in the skills
required to record FGD data accurately. In addition, three pilot tests
of the FGD procedures were conducted.
The moderator chose the school’s library as the site of the inter-
views because it was considered a neutral place with a minimal
number of distractions. The interviews were completed during one
class period. School officials called the students to the library at the
appropriate time. At the beginning of the discussion, the participants
completed a short registration form that requested information
regarding demographic characteristics, including amount of income
from their employment, and private characteristics that should not be
discussed within a group setting. The FGDs were audiotaped.

Data analysis. The moderator and recorder conducted debriefing

sessions immediately following the focus group interviews. Their
discussion included a comparison-and-contrast analysis among pre-
viously completed FGDs. Later, the moderator coded and analyzed
the word data from the fieldnotes and the transcripts of the audio-
tapes. The audiotapes were transcribed using word processing soft-
ware. Both the moderator and the recorder reviewed the typed tran-
scripts and written notes to ensure accuracy.
To determine interrater reliability, two researchers used prepared
analysis sheets independently to review the transcripts and field-
notes and to identify major themes and subthemes for each focus
436 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

group. They resolved any differences by reviewing analysis sheets,

transcripts, or audiotapes together and agreeing on the best coding
choice.

Overview of results. The majority of the 40 adolescents participating

in the FGDs on the consumer behavior of working adolescent females
were 16 years old. The participants were in the 11th grade, and most
were African American. The predominantly middle-SES female ado-
lescents were employed primarily in fast-food establishments and
worked 16 to 20 hours per week, earning $151 to $200 biweekly.
Almost all of the respondents were enrolled in the college prepara-
tory curriculum in their high school, and their GPAs ranged from 2.0
to 2.4. More than half of the young women had missed 1 to 5 days of
school in a school year because of work.
Most of the participants reported that they felt comfortable work-
ing with adults on the job and were treated as equals. Some of the
female adolescents kept records of their income only by collecting
their paycheck stubs. Several respondents spent all of their earnings.
By far, the participants’ most expensive purchases were apparel
items, ranging in price from $40 to $160. Desire for merchandise
drove the selections for most of the adolescents. Most of the adoles-
cents received extra income from their parents, usually in the form of
allowances or financial assistance. Taking their income and allow-
ance together, the participants saved some money and spent some
money. The majority of the adolescents reported that, to their knowl-
edge, their parents paid mostly for shelter and food. Based on an a pri-
ori developed list of responses by level of cognitive development, all
of the participants were found to exhibit concrete, rather than formal
operational thinking. The researchers concluded that although
female adolescents work in an adult world, they do not exhibit the
level of thinking ability usually associated with adulthood.

Example 2: Adult Males With Low Educational Attainment

An FGD strategy was used to explore key issues around the need to
provide jobs for rural women making the transition from welfare to
work. As part of this larger study, we targeted a small, traditionally
male-dominated industry in a 10-county rural region and conducted
lengthy personal interviews with employers and more brief FGDs
with employees. The FGDs are described below.
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 437

The FGD strategy was appropriate for several reasons. First, the
study was exploratory, in that we were attempting to uncover barri-
ers to job development for women in this industry. The researchers
were not driven so much by explicit theory as by our interest in
exploring an emerging concept we called work readiness. There was lit-
tle literature available to guide the development and use of this con-
cept, making focus groups an excellent vehicle for generating discus-
sion on the topic. Second, the topic is a sensitive one in an era of
concern for employment discrimination: Why were so few women
working in this industry at present, given that nearly every work site
had jobs that were well within the physical capacity of adult women?
Finally, the researchers wanted to talk with men employed in these
jobs, and these men were likely to be very skittish. They have little
education, change jobs frequently, are very close-mouthed to
employers and coworkers, often work in a cash economy, may have
legal or criminal problems in their past, and generally live in the shad-
ows of remote rural regions. Furthermore, these men typically have
little contact with educated, middle-class women such as those who
composed the research team. Again, FGDs were an appropriate tool
for this population.

Question development. The focus group questions are included in

Appendix B. The wording and the intent of each question is simple
and direct, designed for participants with very low education levels.
The FGD questions were designed to mirror the questions asked of
employers in the earlier interviews. This triangulation of methods
(i.e., a multimethod assessment approach that includes collecting
both qualitative and quantitative data) allows full coverage of the
domain of interest, a goal suggested by King, Keohane, and Verba
(1994) in their excellent work on qualitative research.

Group composition and recruitment. Eleven employers in the tar-

geted industry were interviewed by the senior researcher on this proj-
ect. At the end of the interviews, the researcher described FGD meth-
odology and asked permission to conduct an FGD “with a few
employees.” This request was made at every site where the workforce
was large enough to contribute FGD participants without shutting
down operations and where the product being made was typical of
the industry. No employer who was asked refused the request for an
FGD. Two of the FGDs were conducted on the spot immediately on
438 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

completion of the employer interviews, and two FGDs were sched-

uled and conducted on another day.
Four FGDs were conducted: One group had 3 participants, two
groups had 4 participants each, and one group had 5 participants, for
a total of 16 participants. No incentives were offered, but no coercion
of any kind was used to prompt participation, nor were there any
costs for participants. Some men clearly viewed the FGD as an oppor-
tunity to sit and talk while on their employer’s time clock, so this fac-
tor probably was an incentive for some of the men.
Low- to semiskilled workers were targeted because they are most
representative of the potential labor pool for entry-level positions in
this industry. The education level of participants generally ranged
from second grade to high school or GED. Most of the men had per-
formed a wide variety of unskilled or low-skilled jobs, almost always
involving physical labor. Very few had vocational or trade school
training; they had learned their current skills on the job.

Interview protocol and logistics. A single moderator and two research

associates made up the research team for these FGDs. The moderator
was the senior researcher, who has extensive interviewing experience
with marginalized people as well as FGD training and experience.
Both research associates hold graduate degrees and have excellent
training and experience in a variety of data collection techniques.
The FGDs were held on-site but without observation by the
employer. In three of the four FGDs, the researchers entered the
employees’ break room around lunchtime when all workers were
gathered. They were introduced to the workers by the employer, who
encouraged the men to participate. These settings were neither pris-
tine nor neutral but instead were clearly the participants’ turf. The
research team members settled quickly into a comfortable and
friendly manner to put the men at ease and to demonstrate positive
regard for their work environment. The fourth FGD was held at a
company with a large workforce. Researchers described to the
employer the type of employee desired for the FGD (people similar to
the participants in the other three FGDs), and the employer recruited
four men. This FGD was held in a clean, quiet, on-site training room
very familiar to the men.
After assurances of confidentiality and offers to answer any ques-
tions, the moderator simply asked all who were willing to introduce
themselves. Any man who did not answer in turn, even after some
gentle encouragement, was not pressed further to join in. All who
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 439

answered the initial question were included as participants, without

any further recruitment efforts by the moderator. No personal infor-
mation or written data were collected, and the men were asked only
their first names.
The FGDs were audiotape-recorded, and two research associates
made extensive notes of the discussions. As the men introduced
themselves, the research associates quickly assessed the group and
quietly agreed on which men each of them would take notes about. In
these noisy workplace settings, the written notes were an especially
important supplement to the tapes. All notes and tapes were com-
bined in the final transcriptions. Each FGD lasted about an hour.

Data analysis. The data from the fieldnotes and the transcripts were
coded and analyzed with word processing software. Both the mod-
erator and the research associates reviewed the typed transcripts and
written notes to ensure accuracy. The data were analyzed initially by
looking for themes and variations in the comments from participants.
Key issues had been previously identified by the researchers. In addi-
tion, the participants’ comments were analyzed for their similarity or
disparity with the comments of their employers. The research team
members detected enough similarity of comments in the FGDs to
determine that saturation was achieved. Further analysis will be con-
ducted with a programmed software package for qualitative data
analysis.

Overview of results. From the analysis, clear themes emerged, and

clear areas of agreement between employers and employees were
identifiable. These themes are too numerous to detail here, but the
researchers were most interested in whether women workers would
be successful in this industry. Most of the workers indicated that they
had no problem whatsoever with women in their workplace as long
as they did the job. The men in the FGDs seemed equally disdainful of
a man who would slack off as of a woman who did the same; they
indicated that they would make such a man as uncomfortable work-
ing there as they would make a woman. Some employees expressed
reservations about a woman’s ability to handle the strenuous physi-
cal aspects of the job but indicated that some men would not be able to
do the work either. The larger study will serve as a basis for policy rec-
ommendations concerning rural economic development as well as
for welfare-to-work programs in the state.
440 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Example 3: Mothers of Children in Pre-Kindergarten

Through Fourth Grade

The existing research that examines the effects of parent involve-

ment in their children’s educations is filled with inconsistent find-
ings. The inconsistent findings are due in part to the absence of a clear
definition of parent involvement. The purpose of the research project
was to contribute to the development of a more clearly delineated
definition of parent involvement than presently found in the theoreti-
cal and empirical literature. The researchers believed the FGD meth-
odology was appropriate to pursue the research question because it
has been fruitfully used in exploratory and preliminary studies, in the
evaluation of education programs, in the clarification of the definition
of technical terms (Krueger, 1994), and by applied researchers in the
fields of market research, health, and education (Gilmore, Campbell, &
Becker, 1989; Ward, Bertrand, & Brown, 1991). Therefore, we used
FGDs as a direct source of information on the specific types of parent-
involvement activities in which mothers participated and on moth-
ers’ perceptions of parent involvement.

Question development. The 10 focus group questions are included in

Appendix C. The purpose of the question list was to guide the partici-
pants through a relaxed discussion of parent-involvement activities,
and a written listing activity was developed to prompt the partici-
pants’ recall. Literature guided both the content and format of the ques-
tion construction. We developed questions based on the definitions of
parent involvement outlined by Langenbrunner and Thornburg (1980)
and by Morrison (1991).

Group composition and recruitment. A sample of mothers of young

school-age children was selected to examine the research question.
Our choice of young versus older children was guided by cognitive
development theory. An important aspect of Piaget’s theory is that
children’s thought processes become increasingly organized across
time, and therefore, the importance of direct adult guidance or parent
involvement decreases. There is also some research evidence that par-
ent involvement has greater effects on younger children’s schooling
than on older children’s schooling (Reynolds, 1989). Our choice of
mothers was guided by the fact that mothers remain the primary care-
givers of young children, and we reasoned that they would be the
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 441

logical group with which to begin the defining process. We defined

mother as any female who accepts the role of parent and provides
basic care, support, protection, and guidance for the child.
To prepare for the study, the researchers familiarized themselves
with the research setting, a master-planned community with a popu-
lation of about 47,000. Eight elementary schools serve the families of
4,645 children. Although the schools contain children from a variety
of ethnic and social backgrounds, the population is predominately
White and middle class. Seven of the eight principals agreed to par-
ticipate in the study. The 248 teachers at the participating schools
were asked to send letters inviting the mothers of the children to par-
ticipate. From 128 volunteer parents (2.75% of the total population),
60 mothers were randomly selected to participate in the FGDs. Of the
60 randomly selected volunteer mothers, 37 actually participated in
the FGDs. The 23 nonparticipants had scheduling conflicts or an ill-
ness in the family at the time of their scheduled FGD. As an incentive,
participants were given a $10 gift certificate to a local school supply
store. Both 1 week prior to each FGD and the night before each FGD,
the researchers contacted each mother by phone.
The 37 participants in six FGDs included 33 biological mothers, an
aunt, a great-aunt, and two step-mothers. After each successive FGD,
the moderator compared and contrasted the summaries from the pre-
vious FGDs and reviewed the cumulative results. Ongoing analysis
of the data revealed a saturation point of themes after six sessions had
been conducted.

Interview protocol and logistics. A single moderator and assistant

moderator conducted the FGDs. The moderator and assistant mod-
erator prepared for the research project by a careful reading of the
Krueger text (1994), by reviewing literature that used FGD research
(Reed, 1996), by viewing videotapes of examples of FGDs, by inten-
sive instruction from an experienced FGD researcher, and by pilot
testing.
The FGDs took place in a regional public library’s small conference
room. The sessions were about 1.5 hours long and began with a brief
introduction by the moderator. The moderator explained the rules of
the FGD to the mothers, and they were assured that their responses
would be kept confidential. At the beginning of each FGD, each par-
ticipant was asked to introduce herself and give a brief background of
the family. Participants were served snacks and drinks while they
442 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

completed a consent form and a background questionnaire. All the

FGDs were held on Saturday mornings from 10 to noon. Child care
was also provided.
All of the sessions were audiotaped and videotaped. Immediately
following each focus group session, the moderator reviewed the
assistant moderator’s notes during a debriefing session, and the assis-
tant moderator provided clarification when necessary.

Data analysis. We used a three-step process to compile the data

for each discussion group. First, from the debriefing notes and par-
ticipants’ written responses, we prepared a discussion group sum-
mary of each session. Second, we viewed the videotapes and made
an abridged transcript of each session. Third, we prepared a bul-
leted summary for each of the six questions for each session (36 bul-
leted summaries) from the discussion group summaries and
abridged transcripts. A second researcher coded the bulleted sum-
maries for two randomly selected focus group sessions to establish
reliability.

Overview of results. The primary findings outlined five categories of

parent involvement that could facilitate the delineation of the defini-
tion of parent involvement and prove useful in conducting research
and in communicating with educators and parents. A crucial finding
was that parental involvement must be seen as multidimensional; as
one mother put it, “it involves much more than cutting out animal
shapes and baking cookies.” Another important finding was the
generation of a category not previously found in the parent-
involvement literature: Parents as Teachers and Preparers (PATP).
According to the mothers, PATP is the most important category of
parent involvement. However, the mothers also stressed that activi-
ties at the PATP level are often taken for granted by teachers and
school personnel. One mother questioned the moderator about
teacher preparation, implying that teachers may not know enough
about the families of the children, when she asked, “Do teachers
even take a class on families?” The question spurred a discussion of
teacher education, and the mothers suggested that students major-
ing in education should be required to take courses on family com-
position and development.
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 443

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of our article was to present three examples of family

and consumer science studies that used focus group methodology.
The three studies contained similarities and differences in the use of
the chosen methodology. One of the general similarities was that we
all chose research topics that are understudied. For the three topics,
only a few studies or few current studies exist, and no studies using
focus group methodology were found. One of the most striking dif-
ferences was the target audience of the three studies. Two of the stud-
ies involved adult participants, and the third project involved adoles-
cents. This shows the usefulness of FGD methodology across age
groups. The method also proved useful for sharply contrasting types of
adults: middle-class mothers as well as low status, marginalized males.
More specific similarities and differences were found among the
procedural categories of question development, group composition
and recruitment, interview protocol and logistics, and data analysis.
In terms of question development, the questions for the three studies
were guided by theory or emerging theoretical constructs. The con-
cepts and constructs investigated were consumer behavior, cognitive
development, work readiness, and parent involvement. In two of the
studies, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was used but for
different purposes. In the study involving working female adoles-
cents, the theory was used as a foundation to develop the questions.
In the study involving mothers of young children, Piaget’s theory was
used to frame the target audience.
The number of questions of each study varied as did the use of
written activities. In two of the studies, moderators asked about 10
questions. The other study used more than 30 questions, although
these questions were very detailed. In addition to the oral questions,
two of the studies incorporated a written activity into the FGDs. Two
of the studies included the use of a registration form to obtain back-
ground information.
The forms of the groups in the three studies also varied. Group
composition of the studies ranged from 3 to 7 participants in 4 to 12
groups with 16 to 40 total participants. In all three studies, the
researchers identified theoretical saturation after 4 to 6 groups. It is
probably not a coincidence, however, that the study with more ques-
tions required more groups before saturation was reached.
444 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Recruitment for the research project involving female adolescents

was more difficult than for the two projects that involved adults. The
difficulty of recruitment may have had as much to do with the topic as
with the target audience. In addition, research involving adolescents
younger than the age of 18 requires two types of consent; permission
must be secured from the participants as well as from their parents. In
retrospect, it is likely that the level of support by the school principal
may have been the most important factor in recruitment. The school
in which recruitment was highly successful was the school in which
the principal fully supported the research project.
The three studies each followed the common suggestion to con-
struct groups with participants who are as homogeneous as possible.
Homogeneity of participants is especially important for the character-
istics of interest—in our examples, female adolescents, men working in
a particular industry, and mothers of young children. The partici-
pants in the three projects were also largely homogeneous in terms of
race, SES, and geographic location, which is an additional recommen-
dation. It is interesting to notice, however, that the groups of female
adolescents and male workers were primarily convenience samples
drawn from those two populations of interest. Although only the
group of mothers of young children approached a random sample,
the sampling procedures for all three studies yielded rich, useful, and
heuristic information. We found this flexibility of FGD methodology
to be one of its greatest strengths. It allowed us to examine questions
in a much less limited way than would be allowed by the restrictions
of quantitative methods.
Two of the studies used incentives to recruit participants. The
study that involved mothers used an in-kind incentive, gift certifi-
cates; the study that involved female adolescents used food, a pizza
party. In the third study, lengthening their paid lunch break by talk-
ing with the researchers appeared to function as an incentive for the
men who participated.
With respect to interviewing protocol and logistics, two projects
involved both a moderator and a recorder, whereas one project used
two recorders. All but one of the members of the three research teams
were females. Each research team used a debriefing session after each
FGD and found the sessions to be a valuable part of the data
collection.
Logistically, the studies involved four different settings: a school
library, a factory break room, a work-site training room, and a public
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 445

library. All three research projects conducted the FGDs during the
day to accommodate the target audiences. Two of the studies sched-
uled the FGDs on weekdays, and the third study held the FGDs on
Saturday mornings. The study involving mothers accommodated the
participants by providing child care. All of the projects audiotaped
the FGDs, and one of the projects both audiotaped and videotaped the
interviews.
In terms of data analysis, two of the studies transcribed the tran-
scripts via computer word processing software; the other project pre-
pared abridged transcripts from the audio- and videotapes. In each of
the three projects, the reliability of the themes, patterns, and trends
was verified by other researchers.
We concluded that in family and consumer science research, the
FGD methodology can be a useful qualitative data collection strategy.
In this article, we demonstrated the applicability of FGDs to three dif-
ferent areas of family and consumer science research. We suggested
FGDs as an effective methodology with a variety of populations and
across age groups: teens or adults, males or females, low- or middle-
SES, and people in roles as consumers, employees, or parents. We
found that FGDs were an effective strategy in a variety of settings,
including both institutional and industrial sites. In sum, the method-
ology yielded rich data for the researchers and proved comfortable
for the participants, who may have little contact with the world of
research and academia.
Future studies from the three research projects are planned. Fol-
lowing the first project, we have planned another study with the same
methodology involving male adolescents. Following the second proj-
ect, we plan to compare the male employees’ data with the employ-
ers’ data, as well as with data collected during interviews with rural,
welfare-reliant women making the transition to paid work. Following
the third project, we are operationalizing the five levels of parent
involvement and are working on instrumentation for quantitative
assessment of the levels.
As scholars originally trained in quantitative methodologies, we
encourage other researchers to design their studies to include FGDs,
especially in efforts to improve triangulation. As the evolution of
qualitative methodologies continues, we anticipate that many more
family and consumer science research projects will use FGDs, alone
or in conjunction with other qualitative and quantitative methodolo-
gies. We look forward to this evolution.
446 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

APPENDIX A

Question List for the Study

of Working Adolescent Females
Opening Question
What is your name, and what is one of your hobbies or interests?
Introductory Questions
Where do you work? (on card to be completed by participants as registra-
tion form)
Tell me about your job. What do you like about it? What do you not like
about it?
How many hours per week do you work? (on registration form)
Are you paid by the week, biweekly, or by month? (on registration form)
Transition Question
How do you feel about working and making money?
Key Questions
How do you feel about combining work, school, and your social life?
(Probe: What influences how you balance work, school, social life?)
How do you balance work, school, social life? (Probe: Why? What is the
most difficult thing about balancing work, school, and social life?)
Transition Questions
Do you keep a record of how much money you make, spend, and save?
Do you save any of your money?
Key Questions
How does that make you feel? About how much money do you save per
paycheck if you do?
Who taught you to save? Where are you putting savings? How did you de-
cide where to put your savings?
How do you plan your savings?
Transition Questions
What items do you spend your money on? How much do you spend on
those items?
Do you have a credit card? What kind? Is this yours or your parent’s? Who
pays for it and items you charge on it?
Key Questions
How do you feel when you go shopping?
Think of the last purchase you made and how you felt when: looking at op-
tions, making decisions, making the final purchase.
What was the largest expenditure you’ve ever made? How did you feel
about that purchase?
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 447

Draw a picture of yourself. It can be a simple stick figure if you prefer.

Think of the last purchase you made. Draw an arrow toward your head in the
picture, and beside that write what you were thinking, what steps you were
taking to make that purchase. Draw an arrow to your heart in the picture.
Write what you were feeling. Draw an arrow to your hand. What was the pur-
chase? Why did you make that purchase? In a few minutes, we’ll discuss your
answers to these questions.
Who were you with on last purchase?
Where were you shopping?
What influenced your largest expenditure? What steps did you take for
that purchase? (Give example of purchase of overcoat and considerations for
cost, weather, color, etc.) Who was with you at the time, who did you discuss
the purchase with before or after the purchase?
Transition Questions
How much money do you make per paycheck? (to be asked on registration
form)
Do you have any other sources of income (parents, etc.)?
Key Questions
If so, what are they? How much? What is that money spent on?
How do you feel about parents’ financial support?
What do parents pay for?
Of the money that comes from other sources, what is that money spent on,
by you, by your parents?
Ending Questions
Where do you see yourself financially in 5 years? In 10 years?
Describe what you think your finances will be like as an adult.
If you had one minute to teach people younger than yourself how to han-
dle their money, what advice would you offer to them?
Is this an adequate summary? (Follows summary given by moderator)
Have we missed anything?

APPENDIX B

Question List for the Study of Adult Males

With Low Educational Attainment
Opening Question
Tell me a little about your educational background and work history; what
kind of work do you do here?
448 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Transition Questions
Can a person do this kind of job without a high school education or the
ability to read and write?
What kind of skills are required for the work that you do?
Were there people here who helped you learn these skills?
Key Questions
What makes this a good place to work? Why do you come to work here?
What motivates you?
Are there other benefits—incentives, insurance, retirement—that would
be important to you?
Some people do not work to support their families. What makes you come
to work every day? What gives you motivation?
In about a year, a lot of people will be put off welfare. Have you ever
worked with women, and how do you feel about working with women?
Ending Question
Do you have anything else you want to tell me about working here, any-
thing else that is important?

APPENDIX C

Question List for the Study of Mothers of Children

in Pre-Kindergarten Through Fourth Grade
Opening Question
Going around the room one by one, begin by telling us your children’s
names, ages, and the schools they attend.
Introductory Question
What is the first thing that comes to mind when I say “parent involvement”?
Transition Question
Thinking back to last year, what was the most fulfilling parent-
involvement activity?
Key Questions
List all of the parent-involvement activities that you participated in last
year.
In an attempt to describe parent-involvement activities, experts have de-
veloped three categories. (Show participants a chart with Langenbrunner
and Thornburg’s [1980] categories of parent involvement.) Do these catego-
ries accurately reflect your perception of parent-involvement activities?
What changes or additions would you make? (Probe: How would you clarify
Garrison et al. / FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 449

them? Would you move anything around? Would you change any of the
phrases or words?) (Revise the categories to suit this particular group.)
In which category do you feel the most/least comfortable? What features
of that category make it more/less desirable?
Who should be responsible for developing parent-involvement activities?
What factors should be taken into consideration when developing
parent-involvement activities?
Ending Question
What advice would you give to new parents concerning parent involvement?
The moderator closed by restating the purpose of the FGD—to explore the
mothers’ perceptions of parent involvement—and by asking if there were
any additional comments.

REFERENCES

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth.
Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (in press). The group interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilmore, G., Campbell, M., & Becker, B. (1989). Needs assessment strategies for health edu-
cation and health promotion. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in
qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langenbrunner, M. R., & Thornburg, K. R. (1980). Attitudes of preschool directors,
teachers, and parents toward parent involvement in the schools. Reading Improve-
ment, 17, 286-291.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Monroe, P. A., Blalock, L .B., & Vlosky, R. P. (1999). Work opportunities in a nontradi-
tional setting for women exiting welfare: A case study. Journal of Family and Eco-
nomic Issues, 20(1).
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, G. (1991). Early childhood education today (95th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Morse, J. M. (1997). Completing a qualitative project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences (5th ed.).
New York: St. Martin’s.
 450 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Peter, J. P., & Olsen, J. C. (1996). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy (4th ed.). Chi-
cago: Times Mirror Higher Education Group.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Develop-
ment, 15, 10-12.
Piaget, J. (1976). The development of formal thinking and creativity in adolescence.
Adolescence, 11, 609-617.
Reed, D. B. (1996). Focus groups identify desirable features of nutrition programs for
low-income mothers of preschool children. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 96, 501-503.
Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structural model of first-grade outcomes for an urban, low
socioeconomic status, minority population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
594-603.
Sasser, D. S. (1998). An exploratory study of the consumer behavior of working adolescent
females. Unpublished dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Shaffer, A., Pierce, S. H., & Burts, D. (1998). Developing a definition of parent involvement
for children in pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. Unpublished manuscript.
Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ward, V., Bertrand, J., & Brown, L. (1991). The comparability of focus group and survey
results: Three case studies. Evaluation Review, 15, 266-283.

View publication stats