Focus Groups and Methodological Reflections

Abstract

This article discusses the methodological issues and pragmatic dilemmas confronted by a group of researchers conducting focus groups composed of people with disabilities. As an initial component of a mixed-method, longitudinal research project, the intention was to gather perceptions of the ways in which recent policy initiatives shape the lives and employment experiences of people with disabilities. We present the methodological design issues we encountered in planning and conducting the focus groups with the hope that our reflections inform future qualitative research designs involving people with disabilities.

General practitioners’ experiences of providing lifestyle advice to patients with depression: A qualitative focus group study

“…Focus groups were considered to be the most comprehensive way of assessing a broad scope of opinion from multiple participants on this relatively exploratory topic, in a relatively short space of data collection period [ 25 ]. We therefore approached this study as philosophically pragmatic [ 26 ]–both in terms of ontology (whereby we acknowledge differing and sometimes competing interpretations of the world exist, and that no single viewpoint is able to provide the whole picture–thus scoping many opinions via a focus group was deemed best practice to capture these differing opinions) [ 27 ], and epistemology (whereby we accept that the knowledge and reality held and lived by people, is measurable in the real world accounting for time and cultural shift) [ 28 ]. Ethical approvals were obtained from the King’s College London Research Ethics Committee (ref:- LRU/DP-21/22-28890).…”

No One Smiles at Me: The Double Displacement of Iranian Migrant Men as Refugees Who Use Drugs in Australia

“…It attempts to "honor the experiences of participants and to create research environments that were welcoming and supportive of participants' social identities" (Rodriguez et al 2011, p. 402). Such methodological underpinnings have been found to be particularly effective with marginalised minority populations (see Allen 2006;Fallon and Brown 2002;Madriz 1998;Woodring et al 2006).…”

“You Can’t be Cold and Scientific”

“…We designed our consent or assent form to promote understanding by minimizing text and using plain language and informative graphics, and included a communication guide to provide a visual depiction of consent choices. We held individual consent meetings with adults with intellectual disability to foster individualized access to the information and time for decision making (Heller, Pederson, & Miller, 1996; Kidney & McDonald, 2014; Woodring et al, 2006), and reviewed consent information again at the focus group, emphasizing choice and the right to decline answering questions throughout the focus group. For service providers, family members, and friends, we conducted the consent process at the focus groups; most participants received a copy of the consent or assent form in advance of the focus group.…”

“…It is likely that some of these individuals may stress the importance of including adults with intellectual disability, especially in research that can improve quality of life and is focused on strengths. Some may also favor maintaining autonomy even when capacity is questioned (Becker et al, 2004; Iacono, 2006; Woodring, Foley, Santoro Rado, Brown, & Hamner, 2006). Nonetheless, it is also possible that for some support providers, concern to protect individuals in the face of real or perceived vulnerability and harm may incline them toward more restrictive views favoring exclusion from research, particularly research that poses greater risk, and more stringent limitations on control over participation decisions (Clegg, 1999; McDonald, Keys, & Henry, 2008).…”