The Importance of Focus Group in Data Gathering

The composition of the focus group included a variety of ages, ranging from 19 to 45. Equally, the sexual make up of participants is relatively equal, with four females and three males. This split implies a comparably equal contribution to discussion, generally women were more vocal, personal and proactive than the men. This was exemplified by Beth and Helen going into detail about their mental health issues, while in contrast Mark, Richard and Brendan ordinarily needed prompting before contributing to discussion and even these contributions were more vague than their female counterparts. There were clear differences in personality across the participants with some, such as Beth and Helen, very comfortable revealing details about their personal life, while others such as Mark were more withdrawn. Nonetheless, we can say that while the group lacks some “exogenous homogeneity” (Corfman, 1995) on account of the absence of age, gender and geographic variation, the participants have “issue homogeneity” (Corfman, 1995), that is they share the same experience through employment at Dismaland. Indeed, Beth remarks on the Dismaland workers as being from “so many different walks of life” (p.17), suggesting variation in the identities of the individuals. It should be noted that there was a lack of information regarding other informative traits, for example, there was no mention of participant’s race or social upbringing and while this is not strictly relevant to the research, it could inform our understanding of the individual’s identities.

The fact that participants know each other well could hinder what they reveal as they may not want to concern their friends. There is an initial underlying element of unhappiness across the participants employment circumstances. Both Helen and Beth experienced mental health issues that affected their ability to gain employment, while Sophie’s “work life was boring” (p.3). In conjunction, Mark was explicit in his financial frustrations, while Richard was looking for ways into film and TV. These employment tribulations might explain why participants were willing to interviews for unknown roles. Working at Dismaland altered participant employment circumstances for the better. A key theme shared was that of confidence in the workplace, for example Sophie gained the confidence and self-belief to apply for a job she had no experience in and subsequently works as a receptionist. Likewise, Mark felt he had gained “a lot more confidence in the work industry” (p.25) and did some similar acting work after Dismaland. Some people felt liberated from a cycle of unfulfilling work, for example Helen learnt to pursue a vocation that made her feel appreciated, while Beth now looks for work she will enjoy as opposed to work she may be qualified for. It is clear that, irrespective of the individual employment circumstances or identities, everyone got along with one another and this can be highlighted by the fact many still stay in contact, for example Beth knew that Georgia may struggle to attend the session, indicating communication outside of the event. Part B The general consensus across participants was that they thoroughly enjoyed working at Dismaland.

The primary reason for this was the people they worked with and the friendships made, as suggested by Beth and reinforced by the majority of participants. The group atmosphere seemed to underline this, with a jovial, friendly environment suggesting affection between participants. Beyond this, there were some interrelations between individual participants, for example Beth greeted Georgia personally on arrival, while some participants joked with Richard about acting. The issue with a group of this size that are friendly is that it becomes easy for individual conversations to break out while participants answer moderator questions. This can cause crosstalk which results in the omittance of key data, for example, when Georgia comments on what working at Dismaland taught her. Where the transcript is more limited is the lack of physical or tonal description. As a result, it is hard to identify whether those not speaking are in agreement with the speaker, or if they silently disagree, for example through the shaking of one’s head or silent fidgeting. This is especially relevant for more muted participants such as Mark. There are also some participants that were dominant and more willing to speak or discuss personal experience, for example, Beth instantly appears most comfortable, answering the first two questions immediately in great detail.

This is useful to an extent, however there is the potential for strong personalities to overwhelm more shy members, resulting in us learning more about some and less about others which could narrow our understanding of the overall experience for all workers at Dismaland. Broadly speaking, the group seemed to have quite a high level of “issue homogeneity” (Corfman, 1995) with similar experiences of the park and this results in a consistent perspective that may be useful to an extent but is also unlikely to tell the entire story of work at Dismaland. Whilst at Dismaland, many participants commented that confrontation with the public was, as Brendan states “the worst part in this job” (p.23). One of the reasons for this is given by Beth who states they “had started to feel unsafe” (p.22) and feeling unsafe can then impact job performance and happiness. However, the unity across work staff extended to the “really good security” (p.22) and this may have lead to Helen’s remark that “the lowest point, and it’s not even that low” (p.22) was a confrontational evening. There were many personal stories given about experiences with the public such as Richard’s drunk couple in the castle, although it would be useful to know how long after the event this focus group was conducted considering that Brendan stated he “can’t even remember what i was expecting now” (p.6) and Beth and Helen had since been employed at an ice rink - if there was considerable distance between Dismaland and the focus group, then time may have affected memory and hence data. Part C Focus groups are defined by Kamberelis and Dimitriadis as “collective conversations or group interviews” (2013, p.1).

By extension, Kitzinger states that “the group is focused in the sense that it involves some kind of collective activity” (1994, p.104) which often involves, but is not limited to, group discussion. Overall, this essay will investigate the strengths and weaknesses of focus groups, analysing the settings, group dynamics and configurations, moderator involvement and variation as a qualitative research method - the majority of these can be considered strengths if conducted correctly, or weaknesses if performed inadequately. A comprehensive plan is critical to focus group success. The planning process should account for three key factors: ethical considerations, financial restraints and time pressures (Morgan, 1996). Ethically, the nature of focus groups is exceptional - data collected by researcher’s will logically be shared with the rest of the participants. In this respect, the standardised issue of privacy must be contemplated, as must practically considering the sensitivity of a subject as it can be futile to probe personal experiences if people are unwilling to share (Morgan, 1996). The taping of a session must also be considered for participant confidentiality. Budgetary constraints can affect how a researcher operates. It generally makes fiscal sense - certainly at our level of inquiry - to recruit and conduct focus groups by yourself. Timing is important and, depending on the research, planning, conducting and analysis phases can take upto 6 months (Morgan, 1996). It is important to consider the context around the focus group, for example recent international events can have major impacts on participant’s emotions and intensities as shown by Hopkins’ focus groups with Muslim men post-9/11 (2007).

Geographical setting can influence focus group progression, with some locations more supervised and hence holding less independence. An example of this could be comparisons between schools, which has high levels of control, and community centres, where there is more behavioural independence (Hopkins, 2007). Within location, the room set-up should also be considered, for example rounded tables (Breen, 2006) that promote conversation and make the process seem less intimidating. It is the researcher’s responsibility to acknowledge their positionality, i.e. their position in the research context. This is often reflective, but helps to admit potential biases and be more conscious of their position within research. For example, Walls and Hall (2017) in their study into African-American student experiences in predominantly white colleges and universities considered their positionality as white academics studying the experiences of a different minority culture. Non-verbal factors can be as important than verbal communication in a focus group, with Alina and Tescasiu stating “affective and attitudinal contents are transmitted non-verbal 55%” (2015, p.120). This means that, while optional, the video recording of a focus group gives advantages, enabling a researcher to identify physical movements that can inform responses to verbal opinions as well as emphasise their own points. The composition of a focus group is critical and can be homogeneous or heterogeneous. This can be further broken down into “exogenous” and “issue” homogeneity (Corfman, 1995). “Exogenous homogeneity” refers to similarity in attributes with weak affiliation to the research (normally gender, age, personality etc.). “Issue homogeneity” instead refers to similar factors relating to the question being researched. Therefore, choice of candidate depends on your research question and the desired discussion. While it is wrong to discuss focus groups in terms of standardised criteria (Goss, 1996), achieving homogeneity in experience and heterogeneity in opinion could be an ideal compromise when trying to achieve stimulating discussion. There is also choice between selecting associates or complete strangers (Morgan, 1996).

Group dynamics between acquaintances are often more informal and free-flowing, as was found in the focus group research conducted during our class practical, however this can result in the mutual omittance of key data. In contrast, strangers can have more awkward patterns of conversation, be more unpredictable and there is more potential for conflict than a discussion between friends. The role of the moderator can impact group dynamics, potentially mitigate conflict and keep discussion focused. They must be “good listeners, non-judgmental and adaptable” (Gibbs, 1997). They can facilitate free discussion or force conversation. High moderator involvement may keep the discussion concentrated but also give narrow data given that participants are restricted from saying everything they want to. Moderator involvement also varies depending on group size. A larger group encourages personal conversations and needs high levels of moderation (Morgan, 1996). A good moderator can give focus groups a major advantage over other methods of qualitative inquiry. As such, focus groups have multiple advantages. They facilitate the expression of socially created opinions while providing space for participants to give new observations (Breen, 2006). They enable participants to build on each other’s ideas in a way that could not arise in a one-on-one interview (Leung and Savithiri, 2009).

Focus groups are complementary to quantitative data and help understand the causes and motivations behind raw statistics, hence their use in medical research. Focus groups also have disadvantages. They can be time consuming due to recruitment and analysis. Likewise, results are heavily dependent on moderator skill - if unskilled, they may create a biased data set as they indirectly impose an opinion or viewpoint on their sample. It is also possible for outspoken participants to dominate discussion, resulting in one-sided data set that may not tell the whole story (Breen, 2006). In conclusion, focus groups are a useful tool to obtain qualitative data for a variety of reasons, ranging from understanding participant experience to medical research focus groups. They require a high degree of planning, in which ethics, time and money all influence its success. Beyond this, the location, positionality of the researcher, group composition and dynamics and the role of the moderator are all components that can make a focus group a major asset or hindrance in qualitative research. More impartial advantages revolve around the ability for participants to express their opinions and build on the opinions of others, enable researchers to learn of new observations and complement more quantitative data. In contrast, disadvantages revolve around time, a lack of moderator skill and participant hijacking.