The word focus group in a sentence

icon forward

To prepare yourself to conduct the focus group you need to.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

In the reporting period, the Institute sponsored 45 conferences,

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

За отчетный период Институт финансировал проведение 45 конференций,

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

During the first half of 2007,

UNHCR coordinated the Geneva Focus Group meetings.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

В ходе первой половины 2007

года УВКБ координировало женевские совещания Фокус-группы.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

and South-West Asia was undergoing rapid urbanization.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

что в Южной и Юго-Западной Азии происходит быстрая урбанизация.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

We will hire a PR firm, using a focus group to find the right words.

context icon

Мы наймем пиарщиков, используем фокус-группу, чтобы найти нужные слова.

Each focus group had between one and five virtual webinars or conference calls.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Каждая фокус-группа провела от одного до пяти виртуальных веб- семинаров или сеансов конференционной связи.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

Key words: pupils; media competence; focus group; media culture.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Ключевые слова: учащиеся, медиакомпетентность, фокус-группа, медиакультура.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

Come to the focus group and see the birth of my favorite child.

context icon

Пойдем в фокус-группу и посмотрим на рождение моего любимого детища.

context icon

Таблица i: участники фокус-групп в разбивке по регионам.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

The average age of the focus group participants was 22.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

context icon

Quantitative results are supplemented by in-depth interviews and focus group studies.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Количественные результаты дополняются глубинными интервью и исследованиями фокус-групп.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

context icon

context icon

context icon

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

Focus group of the project is children with disabilities,

graduates from specialized boarding schools.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Фокусная группа проекта- дети инвалиды выпускники специальных школ- интернатов.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

After the prayer they became our focus group for discussion.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

Conduct a focus group discussion on the Tajik workshop.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Провести обсуждение семинара в Таджикистане в форме фокус группы.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

The facilitator begins by reviewing the agenda and conducts the focus group.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Фасилитатор начинает с обзора плана обсуждения и руководит работой фокус группы.

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Student leaders from the SCUSD Student Advisory Council facilitated the second,

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

context icon

Ученики- лидеры совета по рекомендациям SCUSD организовали вторую,

icon https://st.tr-ex.me/img/material-icons/svg/open_in_new/baseline.svg

For a more detailed overview on our Online Focus Group services please click here.

context icon

Для более подробного обзора наших услуг по онлайновым фокус-группам, пожалуйста, нажмите здесь.

context icon

Results: 261,
Time: 0.0368

English

Russian

Russian

English

In-person focus group image

A focus group is a group interview involving a small number of demographically similar people or participants who have other common traits/experiences. Their reactions to specific researcher/evaluator-posed questions are studied. Focus groups are used in market research to understand better people’s reactions to products or services or participants’ perceptions of shared experiences. The discussions can be guided or open. In market research, focus groups can explore a group’s response to a new product or service. As a program evaluation tool, they can elicit lessons learned and recommendations for performance improvement. The idea is for the researcher to understand participants’ reactions. If group members are representative of a larger population, those reactions may be expected to reflect the views of that larger population.[1][2][3] Thus, focus groups constitute a research or evaluation method that researchers organize to collect qualitative data through interactive and directed discussions.[4]

A focus group is also used by sociologists, psychologists, and researchers in communication studies, education, political science, and public health.[4] Marketers can use the information collected from focus groups to obtain insights on a specific product, controversy, or topic.[5] Used in qualitative research, the interviews involve a group of people who are asked about their perceptions, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and views regarding many different topics (e.g., abortion, political candidates or issues, a shared event, needs assessment). Group members are often free to talk and interact with each other. Instead of a researcher/evaluator asking group members questions individually, focus groups use group interaction to explore and clarify participants’ beliefs, opinions, and views. The interactivity of focus groups allows researchers to obtain qualitative data from multiple participants, often making focus groups a relatively expedient, convenient, and efficacious research method.[6] While the focus group is taking place, the facilitator either takes notes and/or records the discussion for later note-taking in order to learn from the group. Researchers/evaluators should select members of the focus group carefully in order to obtain useful information. Focus groups may also include an observer who pays attention to dynamics not expressed in words e.g., body language, people who appear to have something to add but do not speak up.

History[edit]

Focus groups first started in the 1940s as a research method in the context of market research concerning radio soap operas.[7] During the Second World War, Robert K. Merton set out to analyze the effectiveness of propaganda with the use of focus groups.[8] Merton devised a procedure in which twelve participants at a radio studio would respond to negatively associated content by hitting a red button or positively associated information by hitting a green button. From there, Merton created an interviewing procedure to gain further insight into the subjective reactions of focus-group participants.[7] He later established focus groups for the Bureau of Applied Social Research.[9] The use of focus groups by sociologists gained popularity in the 1980s when Merton published a report on focused interviews.[4] Paul Lazarsfeld had also received a government contract to get insight into individuals’ responses to war radio propaganda.[7]

Psychologist and marketing expert Ernest Dichter coined the term «focus group» itself before his death in 1991.[10]

Use in disciplines[edit]

Library and information science[edit]

In disciplines of library and information science, when librarians intend to work on a library’s collection, they consult patrons.[11] The focus groups librarians organize are helpful in identifying patrons’ needs. In addition, teachers, other professionals, and researchers can also be recruited to participate in focus groups to ascertain those individuals’ library-related needs. Focus groups can also help librarians better understand patron behavior and the impact of services on the library use.[11]

[edit]

In the social sciences and in urban planning, focus groups allow interviewers to study people in a more natural conversational pattern than typically occurs in a one-to-one interview. In combination with participant observation, focus groups can be used for learning about group attitudes and patterns of interaction. An advantage of focus groups is their fairly low cost compared to surveys because focus groups allow a researcher to obtain results relatively quickly and increase the sample size by including several people at once.[12] Another advantage is that a focus group can allow participants to learn from one another as they exchange views and to understand research as an enriching experience. The nature of the focus group contrasts with the more typically extractive nature of traditional social science research which seeks to «mine» participants for data (with few benefits for participants); this difference is especially important for indigenous researchers who employ focus groups to conduct research on their own ethnic group.[13]

Marketing[edit]

In marketing, focus groups are seen as an important tool for acquiring feedback regarding new products and other marketing-related topics. Focus groups are usually employed in the early stages of product or concept development, when organizations are trying to determine the overall direction of a marketing initiative. Participants are recruited on the basis of their similarity to members of the demographic groups targeted as potential consumers of the product. Focus groups allow companies wishing to develop, package, name, or test market a new product to get the perspective of potential consumers before the product is made available to the public. Focus groups can thus provide valuable information about the potential for consumer acceptance of the product.[14]

The focus group interview is conducted informally and as naturally as possible. Participants are free to give views about any aspect of the product. These focus groups should not be confused with in-depth interviews. The moderator uses a discussion guide that has been prepared in advance of the focus group to maintain the discussion on course. Generally, the discussion moves from overall impressions of a brand or product category and becomes more specific as the discussion progresses. Stakeholders such as members of a design team are not involved in the focus group, to avoid potential bias. However, they may attend the focus group, either through video cameras or by watching through a one-way mirror.

Focus groups can provide accurate information and are less expensive than other forms of marketing research. However, there can be significant costs. For example, if a product is to be marketed on a nationwide basis, it would be helpful to conduct focus groups in various localities because the desirability of a new product may vary from place to place. Conducting focus groups in different areas of the country would require considerable expenditure on travel and lodging for moderators.

Usability engineering[edit]

In usability engineering, a focus group can be used to collect the feedback of software or website users. Focus groups can be applied to computer products to better understand the motivations of users and their perceptions of the product.

Types[edit]

Variants of focus groups include:

  • Two-way focus group — one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusion
  • Dual moderator focus group — one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered
  • Dueling moderator focus group (fencing-moderator) — two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion
  • Respondent moderator focus group — one and only one of the respondents is asked to act as the moderator temporarily
  • Client participant focus groups — one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly
  • Mini focus groups — groups are composed of four or five members rather than 6 to 12
  • Teleconference focus groups — telephone network is used
  • Creativity groups
  • Band obsessive group
  • Online focus groups — computers connected via the internet are used
  • Phone/ web focus groups — live group conducted over the phone and online with 6 to 8 participants.

General guidelines on how to conduct focus-group discussions[edit]

When conducting a focus-group discussion where the topic being discussed is of a sensitive nature, it is recommended that the participants be of the same sex, age-range, and socio-economic background. It is also desirable that the participants do not know each other prior to the discussion.[15]

Informed consent must be granted before beginning the discussion. In addition, before the discussion is to begin potential group members should be briefed about the topic of discussion and informed about their rights, including the confidentiality (e.g., that their identities will not be revealed in any report or publication).[16]

Important considerations are the homogeneity of the group members, settings, and the nature of open-ended questions, which are hoped to encourage the members to talk more freely.[15] The discussion must be held in a relaxed setting, with the entire session recorded (audio or visual). There should also be a note-taker who writes down all important aspects of the discussion, but who is not a part of the discussion. This note-taker must have in-depth knowledge about the topic at hand, should be trained in observing verbal and non-verbal feedback (for example, noting facial expressions), and whose duty is to translate the notes taken during session into data for analysis.[15]

Areas of interest to be discussed during the session need to be specified by the moderators and organizers prior to the session. The moderator makes sure that all these areas are covered during the discussion. He or she introduces new topics, directs the conversation and encourages participation while trying to minimize bias.[15]

The moderator should create an environment that encourages members to share their views, while keeping track of the discussion and preventing it from drifting from the topic at hand.[17] Because the participants often do not know each other, the moderator must ensure that everyone feels comfortable and there is good rapport. The purpose and format of the discussion should be made clear at the beginning of the session. All participants should be encouraged to participate, share their views, and be told that divergent views are welcome.[16]

Flick writes that a formal explanation of the procedure should be given to the participants.[17] Expectation-setting is an essential component in this step. Expectations can include being involved in the discussion, arguing about certain topics, and collective problem-solving. Introducing the members to one another and having a «warm up» can help prepare the participants for the discussion. The moderator must establish common ground for the participants in order to facilitate community feeling. The actual discussion takes place following «discussion stimuli,» which may be in the form of a provocative thesis, a short film, lecture on a text, or unfolding of a concrete problem for which a solution needs to be found.

The questions should be open ended. However, there should be a smooth transition from one question to the next. The session should ideally start with introductory questions to address the general topic, helping the participants to understand the broader context. The general questions should be followed by questions designed to elicit the specific information sought. The focus group should end with efforts to summarize the opinions of the participants.[18]

Online focus groups[edit]

Focus groups typically are conducted face-to-face, but the development of new technologies has enabled investigators to conduct qualitative research online.[19] Two types of online methods, synchronous and asynchronous, have emerged. Synchronous methods allow researchers to conduct live discussions. Synchronous online discussions attempt to mimic in-person focus groups.[19] Barriers to the success of synchronous online focus groups include the problem of arriving at a convenient time for all participants and lack of accessibility for some participants.[20]

Asynchronous methods collect participant information through online communication such as forums and email lists.[19] Asynchronous online focus groups have a number barriers to success. These barriers include sporadic participation over time, making the research less timely. The benefits of online both synchronous and asynchronous focus groups include the absence of a need for transportation and ease of access.[20]

A major advantage of online focus groups is that they allow geographically diverse individuals to participate.[19][21] A disadvantage is a reduced capacity to assess non-verbal behavior; assessing non-verbal behavior can be helpful to qualitative researchers.

Discussions[edit]

  • Group discussion can produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group setting. The idea is that listening to one individual’s description of his or her experiences stimulates ideas and memories of experiences in fellow participants. This process is also known as the group effect; group members engage in «a kind of ‘chaining’ or ‘cascading’ effect; talk links to, or tumbles out of, the topics and expressions preceding it» (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 182)[22]
  • Group members discover a common language to describe similar experiences. This enables the capture of a form of «native language» or «vernacular speech» to understand the situation
  • Focus groups also provide an opportunity for disclosure among similar others in a setting where participants are validated. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, targeted employees often find themselves in situations where they experience a lack of voice and feelings of isolation. Use of focus groups to study workplace bullying, therefore, serves as both an efficacious and ethical venue for collecting such data (see, e.g., Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006)[23] Of course, collecting data on workplace bullying requires the research team to protect the members of the group and put an end to the bullying.
  • The interactive, discussion-based context of focus groups can illustrate how meanings are produced intersubjectively.[24] Meaning production is naturally a socially shared process, making focus groups a useful method for researching the attitudes, experiences, and understandings of individuals and groups.[24]

Advantages of focus groups[edit]

Focus groups have several advantages for collecting qualitative research data. Focus group research can be used purely as a qualitative method or in combination with quantitative methods. Qualitative data collected in focus groups can help researchers decide what kinds of items to include in surveys.[25][26][27] The moderator can inquire into and examine unforeseen issues with that arise in the context of the discussion. The format has a kind of face-validity and is naturalistic in that the discussion can include storytelling, joking, disagreements, and boasting.[28] Running focus groups is straightforward and relatively inexpensive.[29] Focus groups ordinarily consume less time than structured interviews, thus increasing sample sizes, lessening resource investment, and providing fast results.[29] Focus groups tend to be more efficient when the data being gathered are related to the researcher’s interests.[28] They are helpful and important for needs assessments and project evaluations.[25] A focus group discussion can create a synergy that can provide information that can’t be gained in other ways.[29][26][27] Vocabulary can be observed.[27][30][28] New, insightful perspectives and opinions are obtained.[28] Sensitive topics can be discussed, leading to personal disclosures.[27] The moderator maintains the discussion and makes sure no one individual can dominate the group, thus creating a more «egalitarian» context.[27][31] Non-verbal behavior plays a role in the moderator’s decision-making and research results,[31] increasing the chances of obtaining rich, in-depth information.[31][26] Previously neglected or unnoticed phenomena can be brought to the researcher’s attention.[27]

Problems and criticism[edit]

Although the focus-group method of data collection has several advantages, the method also has limitations. The focus group method provides little experimental control.[citation needed] Data collected are usually difficult to analyze. The discussion must be audio or videotaped, field notes have to be recorded, and comments must be transcribed verbatim, increasing the risk of error.[25] The method requires carefully trained interviewers.[citation needed] Groups may vary considerably and investigators may have difficulty assembling the appropriate group.[citation needed] Discussion must be conducted in an environment that is conducive to conversation.[citation needed] There is also the potential for discussion facilitators to ask leading questions that produce biased results.[31] The ability of the leader to facilitate the discussion may be critical, as the group largely relies on the assisted discussion in order to produce results.[25] Thus, there is the need for skilled group leaders.[citation needed] There is a risk that a leader could dominate or ‘hijack’ the discussion.[25] Results obtained may be biased, when one or two participants dominate the discussion.[31] The representativeness of the sample is likely to be a concern. Generalizing knowledge learned about the sample may not generalize to population because participants are self-selected.[25] The moderator may influence the group interactions, thus distorting results or findings.[28] The participants’ involvement in, and contribution to, the discussion plays a major role.[28] Problems may arise if topics are controversial in nature, leading to disagreements and arguments.[28] Dealing with sensitive topics is a challenge.[31] A contrived or artificial environment may influence the interactions, and thus bias responses.[31] Ethical issues may arise regarding confidentiality.[26] Psychometric validity may be low.[30]

A fundamental difficulty with focus groups (and other forms of qualitative research) is the issue of observer dependency: the results obtained are influenced by the researcher or his or her reading of the group’s discussion, thus raising questions of the validity of the research (see experimenter’s bias).
Focus groups are «One-shot case studies» especially if they are measuring a property-disposition relationship within the social sciences, unless they are repeated.[32] Focus groups can create severe issues of external validity, especially the reactive effects of the testing arrangement.[33] Other common (and related) criticism involve groupthink and social desirability bias.

Another problem is with the setting of the focus group. If a focus group is held in a laboratory setting with a moderator who is a professor and the recording instrument is obtrusive, the participants may either hold back on their responses and/or try to answer the moderator’s questions with answers the participants feel that the moderator wants to hear. Another problem with the focus group setting is the lack of anonymity. With multiple participants, confidentiality cannot be assured.

Douglas Rushkoff[34] argued that focus groups are often useless and frequently create more problems than the problems the groups are intended to solve. Because focus groups often aim to please their underwriters rather than provide independent opinions or evaluations, the data are sometimes cherry picked to support a foregone conclusion. Rushkoff cited the disastrous introduction of New Coke in the 1980s as an example of focus group design, implementation, and analysis gone bad.

Jonathan Ive, Apple’s senior vice president of industrial design, noted that Apple had found a good reason not to employ focus groups. He said that «They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products.»[35]

Data analysis[edit]

The analysis of focus group data presents both challenges and opportunities when compared to other types of qualitative data. Some authors[36] have suggested that data should be analyzed in the same manner as interview data, while others have suggested that the unique features of focus group data – particularly the opportunity that it provides to observe interactions between group members — means that distinctive forms of analysis should be used. Data analysis can take place at the level of the individual or the group.

Focus group data provides the opportunity to analyze the strength with which an individual holds an opinion. If they are presented with opposing opinions or directly challenged, the individual may either modify their position or defend it. Bringing together all the comments that an individual makes in order can enable the researcher to determine whether their view changes in the course of discussion and, if so, further examination of the transcript may reveal which contributions by other focus group members brought about the change.

At the collective level, focus group data can sometimes reveal shared understandings or common views. However, there is a danger that a consensus can be assumed when not every person has spoken: the researcher will need to consider carefully whether the people who have not expressed a view agree with the majority or whether they may simply be unwilling to voice their disagreement.[37]

Many computer programs are available to help in analyzing qualitative data. The capacity of computers to effectively sort, store, and retrieve information makes their use in qualitative data analysis appealing.[38] However, it is important to be aware that computers can only aid in some parts of the analysis of qualitative data; computer software does not code data nor can replace conceptual analysis. It cannot analyze qualitative data for the researcher.

Exercises[edit]

Various creative activity-oriented questions can serve as supplements to verbal questions including but not limited to the following:[39]

  • Free listings – participants produce a list of all elements of a domain
  • Rating – participants have a list of items which must be rated on a scale, typically using numbers or adjectives
  • Ranking – participants can either receive a list of items to rank according to a specified dimension or participants can combine items in pairs to compare elements in the pairs
  • Pile sorting – participants sort cards representing elements of a domain into piles according to their similarities and differences
  • Picture sort – Participants are distributed selected pictures from magazines or photographs to sort through, finding matches of a definite characteristic or that best represent a certain category
  • Magic tools and fantasy – the moderator can literally or symbolically pass around a «magical» tool to each participant as he or she shares a fantasy, dream, or idea
  • Storytelling – participants create a narrative around the topic of interest to make others think about a solution to a problem, gauge reactions to a situation, and observe attitudes towards the topic under study
  • Role-playing – participants demonstrate through action how they would behave or act in a situation, how they would solve a problem, or deal with a difficulty
  • Sentence completion – participants are given printed out partial sentences on a topic to complete and share within a group
  • Collage – a moderator assigns a theme and then distributes print materials to participants (who are divided into small groups), so they can use these materials, drawings, and their own words to create a relevant collage.

See also[edit]

  • Comparison of usability evaluation methods
  • Coolhunting
  • Crowd manipulation
  • Customer advisory council
  • Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM)
  • Idea networking (How to collate ideas)
  • Innovation game
  • Spin (public relations)
  • Usability engineering
  • Washington County Closed-Circuit Educational Television Project

References[edit]

  1. ^ «Definition of FOCUS GROUP». www.merriam-webster.com. Archived from the original on 4 May 2016. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  2. ^ «focus group — Definition of focus group in US English by Oxford Dictionaries». Oxford Dictionaries — English. Archived from the original on 9 December 2017. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  3. ^ Company, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing. «The American Heritage Dictionary entry: focus group». www.ahdictionary.com. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  4. ^ a b c Morgan, David L. (1996). «Focus Groups». Annual Review of Sociology. 22: 129–152. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129. ISSN 0360-0572. JSTOR 2083427.
  5. ^ Calder, Bobby J. (1977). «Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research». Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (3): 353–364. doi:10.2307/3150774. JSTOR 3150774.
  6. ^ Kitzinger, J. (1995-07-29). «Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups». BMJ: British Medical Journal. 311 (7000): 299–302. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 2550365. PMID 7633241.
  7. ^ a b c Bloor, Michael; Frankland, Jane; Thomas, Michelle; Robson, Kate (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781849209175. ISBN 978-0-7619-5742-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  8. ^ Collis, Jill (2013-11-29). Business research : a practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students. Hussey, Roger (Fourth ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire. ISBN 978-1-137-03748-0. OCLC 982130240.
  9. ^ Kaufman, Michael T. (February 24, 2003). «Robert K. Merton, Versatile Sociologist and Father of the Focus Group, Dies at 92». The New York Times. New York City. Archived from the original on March 6, 2014.
  10. ^ Ames, Lynne (August 2, 1998). «The View From/Peekskill; Tending the Flame of a Motivator». The New York Times. New York City. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017.
  11. ^ a b Nyumba, Tobias O.; Wilson, Kerrie; Derrick, Christina J.; Mukherjee, Nibedita (11 January 2018). «The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation». Methods in Ecology and Evolution. London, England: British Ecological Society. 9: 20–32. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12860. hdl:10871/32495.
  12. ^ Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications, p. 115
  13. ^ Romm, Norma Ruth Arlene (2014). «Conducting Focus Groups in Terms of an Appreciation of Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Some Examples from South Africa». Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 16 (1). doi:10.17169/fqs-16.1.2087.
  14. ^ Greenbaum, Thomas (2000). Moderating Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-7619-2044-7.
  15. ^ a b c d Odimegwu, C. O. (2000). Methodological Issues in the Use of Focus Group Discussions as a Data Collection Tool. Retrieved from KRE Publishers: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-04-0-000-000-2000-Web/JSS-04-02-03-117-2000-Abst-PDF/JSS-04-02-03-207-212-2000.pdf
  16. ^ a b Toolkit for Conducting Focus Groups. (n.d.). Retrieved from Rowan Education: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/chss/facultystaff/focusgrouptoolkit.pdf
  17. ^ a b Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications.
  18. ^ Magloff, L. (n.d.). Focus Group Technique. Retrieved from Chron: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/focus-group-technique-10741.html
  19. ^ a b c d Moore, Tom; McKee, Kim; McCoughlin, Pauline (2015-04-23). «Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth». People, Place and Policy Online. 9 (1): 17–28. doi:10.3351/ppp.0009.0001.0002.
  20. ^ a b Rezabek, Roger (January 2000). «Online Focus Groups: Electronic Discussions for Research». Qualitative Social Research. 1: 1–20 – via FQS.
  21. ^ Halliday, Matthew; Mill, Deanna; Johnson, Jacinta; Lee, Kenneth (2021-12-01). «Let’s talk virtual! Online focus group facilitation for the modern researcher». Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 17 (12): 2145–2150. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.02.003. ISSN 1551-7411.
  22. ^ Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  23. ^ Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148-185.
  24. ^ a b Pickering, Michael (2008). Research Methods for Cultural Studies. Edinburgh University Press. p. 74.
  25. ^ a b c d e f Savithiri, R. (2009). spotlights on focus groups. Canadian family physician, 218-219.
  26. ^ a b c d Deem, R. (1997). Focus Groups. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from Focus Groups: Plymouth Education: https://web.archive.org/web/20141124231416/http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/interviews/focusgroups.htm
  27. ^ a b c d e f Silverman, D. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman, Qualitative Research Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 177–200). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g Morgan, D. L. (n.d.). Focus groups as qualitative research. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from https://www.kth.se/social/upload/6566/morgan.pdf
  29. ^ a b c «Tools for Qualitative Researchers: Focus Groups Method». National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. Retrieved January 29, 2020.
  30. ^ a b n.d. (n.d.). Southalabama Education: Strengths and Weaknesses of Focus Groups. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from Southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/oh_master: http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/oh_master/Ch6/SWFOCUSG.pdf
  31. ^ a b c d e f g n.d. (n.d.). Focus Groups: Issues Regarding Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from PBworks Focus Groups: Issues Regarding Advantages and Disadvantages: http://focusgroups.pbworks.com/w/page/5677430/Issues%20including%20advantages%20and%20disadvantages
  32. ^ Nachmais, Chava Frankfort; Nachmias, David. 2008. Research methods in the Social Sciences: Seventh Edition New York, NY: Worth Publishers
  33. ^ Campbell, Donald T., Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally
  34. ^ Rushkoff, Douglas, Get back in the box: innovation from the inside out, New York: Collins, 2005
  35. ^ Jary, Simon (July 2, 2009). «Apple’s Ive reveals design secrets». Macworld U.K. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
  36. ^ Harding, Jamie (6 March 2013). Qualitative Data Analysis from Start to Finish. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-85702-138-0.
  37. ^ Harding, Jamie. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis from Start to Finish London, SAGE Publishers
  38. ^ Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x.
  39. ^ Colucci, Erminia (December 2007). «Focus groups can be fun»: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions». Qualitative Health Research. 17 (10): 1422–1433. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.833.1072. doi:10.1177/1049732307308129. PMID 18000081. S2CID 42678985.

External links[edit]

  • Focus Groups at Usability.gov
  • Focus Group Principles (archived) American Marketing Association
  • Dos and don’ts for using marketing focus groups (archived) Microsoft

These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.


After the fourth focus group, no further groups were required as no new data emerged.


In addition, a focus group setting may have inhibited some patients from discussing their experiences.


The survey provided initial information about families interested in participating in a focus group.


Thus, the average age at the time of the focus group was 20 years 6 months.


The key to this analysis is the comparison of focus group discussions to other forms of talk.


A briefing session was held prior to each focus group meeting for all of the research assistants involved.


Besides these personal interviews, two focus group discussions were organised.


It was thus not surprising that many of the older women ‘ jokingly’ described their homes as ‘ prisons’ during the focus group discussions.


During the focus group discussions, some complained that they were not allowed to answer incoming telephone calls, even when their children were not at home.


The focus group material is also interesting, because service providers’ perspectives are rarely compared with those of older people.


Therefore, a focus group was set up in an attempt to overcome the problem of the validity in the design of our questionnaire.


None of the farmers in the focus group discussions used pesticides due to high costs and unavailability.


For each group, calls were repeated until a focus group of 9-12 individuals was formed.


Moreover, including extra facilities such as a vignette (11) within, for example, a focus group may provide a valuable insight into expressed beliefs.


Nevertheless, focus group dynamics could be established through participant interaction.


Qualitative information based on focus group discussions is also presented.


The most commonly nominated date and time was selected for each focus group.


The information gathered through the questionnaires informed the development of the focus group schedule.


Participants were offered an afternoon or an evening focus group and were reimbursed for outof-pocket expenses.


In each group knowledge, attitudes, belief and behaviour of the community about onchocerciasis was explored using a focus group discussion guide.


Certainly there were hints of this in our focus group discussions.


If eligible, patients were asked to sign a consent form and invited to return later that day to take part in the focus group session.


Medicines counter assistants from several of the network pharmacies were also involved in focus group discussions in project three.


The pilot test’s facilitators were not present for the focus group to encourage nurses to discuss freely.


Each participant was asked to complete a registration form on arrival at the focus group, to obtain some basic demographic and lifestyle details.


The fact that it was in force in 1991 was corroborated by several interview statements in the focus group discussions.


In addition, they provided feedback to the research team in a fifth, supplementary, focus group session.


The market size categories were reviewed and validated during manager focus group sessions.


Each practice was asked if they would be willing to invite a random sample of 60 patients to attend a focus group.


He noted that focus group research indicated that the show’s audience was primarily interested in getting to know celebrities.


Respondents were invited by letter to express their availability for two different dates on which they might be able to attend a focus group session.


Could the focus group discuss how successful they think preceptorship will be within radiotherapy?


In order to illuminate presentations of autonomy in practice, focus group discussions with nurses and older people were used as part of the interpretative process.


A total of 80 pupils took part in the final stage, consisting of 14 focus group interviews.


All interviews and the focus group were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim.


Frequencies of emerging themes were determined by mapping content analysis results to the focus group transcript.


The initial data collection was from two focus group discussions that identified the primary themes for in-depth interviews.


Ways of handling the difficulties experienced by focus group participants were highlighted in the later enumerator training sessions before the actual survey was conducted.


A small pilot study was carried out in order to test and re ne the focus group semi-structured topic guide.


The focus group protocol included questions about participants’ perceptions of the usefulness of specific devices and sensors.


This involved approaching potential subjects, on the day of the focus group session, in the city centre.


A similar point was raised during the focus group discussions.


The study used multiple methods, including a literature review, focus group meetings, and a community survey.


This was apparent from the interviews as well as from focus group data.


The focus group interview lasted for about one hour and was audio recorded.


Then the criteria were reduced to 10 through the focus group discussions, and a pair-wise ranking matrix was used to rank the criteria.


All of the studies involved informal focus group discussions, participatory appraisal methods and formal questionnaire surveys.


Interpretations of the data included focus group discussions with a group of expert nurses and a group of patients and thematic analysis by the researcher.


In one focus group, stairs with open steps were identified as a negative feature : being able to see through to the floor below reduced confidence.


The focus group methodology also allows the opportunity for peer commentary on opinions expressed by others.


For this reason, the results of the survey and focus group have been conflated and are presented together.


The total number of focus group participants was 80, with slightly more males than females.


Checking this level of detail and listening to what the focus group members had to say about their journey was important.


The visits produced 45 homes in which at least one resident agreed to participate in a focus group meeting.


A focus group was conducted at the end of the study aimed at establishing whether there were effects characteristic of either drug.


Given the qualitative nature of these issues, we used a focus group study to probe consumers.


The focus group discussions revealed a diversity of delegation practices.


All of the focus group sessions were audio recorded and transcribed.


Participants were approached through local contacts and the focus group appointment was provided for a week later.


Upon completion of the focus group, participants were asked to reaffirm consent to the data being used in the study.


Each focus group began with a general question about the impact of pharmaceutical care on practice.


Individual interviews with health professionals lasted approximately 40 minutes, and focus group interviews with patients last 50-60 minutes.


Again, two people who were unable to attend the focus group were then interviewed.


There were a total of 17 parents who attended the focus group discussions.


However, the health visitor and manager focus group data generated a number of specific data categories that were not found elsewhere in the data set.


The findings are derived from the content analysis of the interview transcripts, the questionnaires and the focus group transcripts.


A community staff nurse focus group was not held because these nurses could not meet due to their workload pressure.


The outcomes of this focus group appear to indicate that neither of these options results in optimal care for the adolescent patient.


This study reports the outcomes of a focus group conducted to explore these issues.


To answer these questions, we used a brief survey and a focus group.


Seven of the 10 bereaved parents who returned the survey participated in the focus group to discuss developing parental bereavement services by the treating center.


Regardless of their pre-death experiences, the need for pre-death support services was clearly communicated by the parents of this focus group.


This paper presents focus group findings related to end-of-life and palliative care.


The focus group also suggested a number of wording changes to the draft questionnaire to make it more understandable to the public.


From the focus group discussions, seven choice sets with three options in each choice set were constructed.


This second phase entailed the conducting of focus group interviews with different communities in various regional locations throughout the province.


This model, according to focus group interviews with both relatives and staff, has worked out satisfactorily.


The focus group also suggested that criticisms of economic evaluations should be more explicit and that more detail should be given on interventions.


Some of them were expressly mentioned by the focus group and interview participants; others were detected by the group of investigators when data were analyzed.


There was no obvious pattern of any bias, however, with the focus group participants having a wide range of mobility, fitness and views regarding stairs.


While focus group results are a qualitative approach and not intended to be generalizable, the results suggest directions for future research.


An analysis of the focus group debates would have contributed to a greater understanding of how and why money matters.


Not surprisingly, the relative importance of these mutually inconsistent values differed among the focus group participants.


These are topics which arose solely as a result of focus group discussion and therefore were also explored in the 10 individual interviews.


During the focus group discussion, farmers confirmed that all other selection criteria are considered only after their choice of seed colour is fulfilled.


In the study, five experienced teachers were invited for a focus group interview to discuss these issues.


In the focus group data, several participants were receiving support from adopted grandchildren.

These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

A focus word is a word that receives the most stress in a thought group. Every thought group has at least one focus word, and the focus word tends to be the last important word in a thought group. It is generally a content word. Although there are general rules for what is chosen as a focus word and why, focus words can change depending on the speaker’s meaning and mood. You will learn more about this in Style & Tone.

Here are some examples:

I’ll call you tomorrow.
I’m waiting for you.
I noticed you didn’t have your notebook, so I took notes for you.

Now, can you identify the focus word? Click below to check your answer.

    1. I’ll see you in class.
    2. I know you ate, but are you still hungry?
    3. I’m waiting for you.

Click to see answers

1. class
2. ate, hungry
3. waiting

Practice repeating each sentence. Be sure to stress the focus word. It may help to clap your hands or tap on a table to make sure you are fully stressing the focus word.

Multiple Focus Words

There are times when a thought group will have more than one focus word. You can identify which words are focus words based on the context, and how they sound. We will visit these topics further in Style and Tone, Highlighting, and Contrasting and Clarifying.

Speakers tend to stress the important words. What is important may change from sentence to sentence, but these stressed words are meant as a clear indicator of what the listener must understand.

Let’s look at some examples where two focus words are used. Why are these words stressed more than others?

    1. Please call me back.
    2. She finally invited me.
    3. I would never leave this job.

Click to see answers

    1. Please is stressed because the person may be frustrated or or desperate to get a phone call. Back is stressed because it is the last important word in the thought group.
    2. Finally is stressed because it shows that this person has been waiting a long time to be invited. Invited is stressed because it is the last important word in the thought group.
    3. Never is stressed because it is important to emphasize that this person plans to always stay at this job. Job is stressed because it is the last important word in the thought group.

 
Now, repeat each sentence. Really emphasize the focus words.

Now, can you identify ALL the focus words in each sentence? Choose the focus words based on what you hear. Then, try to guess the context or feeling of the speaker as to why each word is stressed.

    1. I don’t need the bracelet, but I want it.
    2. These trucks are so loud.
    3. Are you really still upset?

Click to see answers

    1. Need is stressed to show that this bracelet is a desire. Want is stressed to show the contrast, and because it is the last important word in the group.
    2. Trucks is stressed because it is an important content word. So is stressed to highlight that the trucks are VERY loud. Loud is stressed because it is descriptive, and the last important word in the group.
    3. Really is stressed because the person is surprised or critical about the other person’s emotions. Upset is stressed because it is the last important word in the thought group.

 
Now, repeat each sentence. Really emphasize the focus words.

Extra Speaking Practice

Write one to two sentences to answer each question below. Then, circle which words are your focus words. Practice saying these sentences out loud, first reading, and then without looking at any notes. For an added challenge, experiment with changing a focus word and seeing how it sounds and how it changes the meaning or feeling of the sentence.

    1. When was the last time you went grocery shopping (online or in person)? What is one thing you bought?
    2. Why did you choose your major?
    3. What did you do yesterday?
    4. What is your ideal work environment?

For more practice with thought groups and focus words, visit Thought Groups and Pausing.

For more practice with focus words as new or contrasting information, visit Highlighting, Contrasting and Clarifying, and Introducing New Information.

For more practice with focus words dealing with expressing emotion, visit Style and Tone.

Here is an accent reduction tip that is REALLY important for non native speakers to understand.

When Americans are speaking they do not stress every word in a sentence equally!

This means that in order to reduce your accent you need to learn about how American English speakers use focus words and sentence stress.

American English speakers stress the CONTENT and FOCUS words in a sentence or phrase. That’s because CONTENT and FOCUS words are integral to the meaning of a sentence.

They reduce the sounds of function words in a sentence because while these words hold a sentence together, they are not key to meaning.

In spoken American English each sentence or phrase contains:
A Focus word-the most important word
Content words-very important for meaning
Function words-not important for meaning

Content Words and Focus Words
The most important words in English sentences are CONTENT words and FOCUS words. Content and focus words are pronounced louder and with a higher pitch than the other words in a sentence.

CONTENT words are usually nouns, main verbs, adjectives, adverbs, question words, negatives and numbers.

The FOCUS word is usually the last content word in a phrase or sentence.

In the sentences below notice the CONTENT and FOCUS words. Americans will pronounce these words with more emphasis than the other less important words.

1. SUSAN is HAPPY in her new POSITION.

2. She conducts her MEETINGS in the BOARDROOM.

In longer sentences, there is a focus word in each phrase or thought group.

1. If you PLAN to become a DOCTOR, you need to study ANATOMY.

Function Words
The unstressed words are called function words. Function words are important to the grammatical structure of a sentence but they don’t convey much meaning. Function words are pronounced quickly with a low pitch so when Americans pronounce them they are difficult to hear.

Stressing Function Words
In certain situations, speakers may choose to stress a function word rather than a content or focus word. For example, when someone gives you a choice and you want to choose both items your should stress the structure word. images

Mother: Would you like CAKE or ICE CREAM?
Child: I’d like cake AND ice cream!

Using content, focus and function words correctly is important because the emphasis and reductions create a speech rhythm that is familiar to Americans listeners. If you don’t use sentence stress correctly your speech will sound flat and uninteresting.

You will learn how to apply sentence stress using content, focus and function words when you sign up for my accent reduction classes or coaching program.

Not ready for coaching? You can get started reducing your accent right away by using my accent reduction book for the iPad . While not as effective as live training, this audio course will teach you the rules you need to know to reduce your accent.

Понравилась статья? Поделить с друзьями:
  • The word fly in a sentence
  • The word fly can be used in combination
  • The word flower may
  • The word flood means
  • The word flexible in a sentence