Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Use of fgd23
The Use of fgd23
DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Q U A L I TAT I V E M E T H O D S F O R E L I C I T I N G
JUDGEMENTS FOR DECISION MAKING
1
Department of Geography, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Abstract
2
School of Biological Sciences, University of 1. Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth
Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia
understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely se-
3
Australian Research Council Centre of
lected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a
Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The
University of Queensland, Brisbane, broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research
Queensland, Australia
has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique.
4
Conservation Science Group, Department of
Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, In addition, there are no readily available guidelines for conservation researchers.
UK 2. Here, we reviewed the applications of focus group discussion within biodiversity
5
Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College and conservation research between 1996 and April 2017. We begin with a brief
of Life and Environmental Sciences, University
of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK explanation of the technique for first-time users. We then discuss in detail the em-
pirical applications of this technique in conservation based on a structured litera-
Correspondence
Nibedita Mukherjee ture review (using Scopus).
Email: [email protected] 3. The screening process resulted in 170 articles, the majority of which (67%, n = 114,)
Funding information were published between 2011 and 2017. Rarely was the method used as a stand-
Fondation Philippe Wiener - Maurice alone technique. The number of participants per focus group (where reported)
Anspach; Scriven post doctoral fellowship;
Centre of Excellence for Environmental ranged from 3 to 21 participants with a median of 10 participants. There were
Decisions, Australian Research Council, Grant/ seven (median) focus group meetings per study. Focus group discussion sessions
Award Number: CE11001000104; Cambridge
Overseas Trusts; Wildlife Conservation lasted for 90 (median) minutes. Four main themes emerged from the review: under-
Society; Wildlife Conservation Network; standing of people’s perspectives regarding conservation (32%), followed by the
WildiZe Foundation; Future Fellowship, Grant/
Award Number: FT100100413; NERC Grant/ assessment of conservation and livelihoods practices (21%), examination of chal-
Award Number: NE/R006946/1 lenges and impacts of resource management interventions (19%) and documenting
Handling Editor: Davide Geneletti the value of indigenous knowledge systems (16%). Most of the studies were in
Africa (n = 76), followed by Asia (n = 44), and Europe (n = 30).
4. We noted serious gaps in the reporting of the methodological details in the reviewed
papers. More than half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size and group
size (n = 93), whereas 54 studies did not mention the number of focus group discussion
sessions while reporting results. Rarely have the studies provided any information on
the rationale for choosing the technique. We have provided guidelines to improve the
standard of reporting and future application of the technique for conservation.
†
These authors are contributed equally.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
[The copyright line for this article was changed on 22 January 2018 after original online publication]
© 2018 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society
KEYWORDS
biodiversity, conservation, decision making, focus group discussion, literature review, research
agenda
1 | INTRODUCTION the researcher asks questions, controls the dynamics of the discus-
sion, or engages in dialogue with a specific individual at a time. In
Conservation social science has come of age (Bennett et al., 2017). contrast, in a focus group discussion, researchers adopt the role of
From being an outlier and on the sidelines of the discourse on conser- a “facilitator” or a “moderator.” In this setting, the researcher facili-
vation, the importance of understanding human perspectives is now tates or moderates a group discussion between participants and not
centre stage in conservation decision making (Bennett et al., 2017; between the researcher and the participants. Unlike interviews, the re-
Khadka, Hujala, Wolfslehner, & Vacik, 2013; Paloniemi et al., 2012). searcher thereby takes a peripheral, rather than a centre-stage role in
Within the repertoire of tools that conservation biologists can use, a focus group discussion (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001;
focus group discussion is a commonly used method. Focus group dis- Hohenthal, Owidi, Minoia, & Pellikka, 2015; Johnson, 1996; Kitzinger,
cussion is a technique where a researcher assembles a group of indi- 1994).
viduals to discuss a specific topic, aiming to draw from the complex The link between people’s perceptions and their socio-cultural
personal experiences, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of the par- situation is critical to decision-making on natural resources since
ticipants through a moderated interaction (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; most people derive their notions, mental constructions and interpre-
Hayward, Simpson, & Wood, 2004; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, tations from their immediate surrounding and develop these from ex-
1998; Kitzinger, 1994; Morgan, 1996). periential knowledge (Berkes, 2004). Given the rise of participatory
Focus group discussion is widely used in conservation research research in conservation over the last few decades (Bennett et al.,
unlike some of the other relatively lesser known techniques such as 2017), it is crucial to reflect on the scope and remit of focus group
Nominal Group Technique (Hugé & Mukherjee, in prep) and Q meth- discussion as a methodological tool. Currently, there is relatively little
odology (Zabala & Mukherjee, 2017). The method’s popularity is or no critical discussion on the merits and demerits of focus group
closely linked to the rise of participatory research, especially the “ac- discussion in comparison to other similar qualitative techniques. It
tive experimentation with focus groups” in the academic social sci- is therefore difficult to ascertain when and in which context, focus
ences during the 1980s (Morgan, 2002). The technique emerged as a group discussion would be most appropriate. There are no guidelines
qualitative data collection approach and a bridging strategy for scien- for best practice for the application of the technique in conserva-
tific research and local knowledge (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Focus tion literature. In addition, there are no comprehensive reviews of
group discussion is perceived to be a “cost-effective” and “promising the use of focus group discussion in conservation to the best of our
alternative” in participatory research (Morgan, 1996) offering a plat- knowledge.
form for differing paradigms or worldviews (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Here we assess the strength and weaknesses of the focus group
Orr, 1992). Sociologists and psychologists have used the method discussion technique based on a review of its application in conserva-
since the 1940s (e.g. Merton & Kendall, 1946; Merton, Fiske & Kendall tion in the last two decades. We first briefly explain the procedure of
1956). However, its popularity and application has grown across a the technique and then provide an overview of the different forms of
wide range of disciplines including education (Flores & Alonso, 1995), focus group discussion. On the basis of a critical analysis of the rele-
communication and media studies (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996), sociol- vant literature, we discuss the merits and potential pitfalls of the tech-
ogy (Morgan, 1996), feminist research (Wilkinson, 1998, 1999), health nique. Finally, we provide guidelines for reporting future applications
research (Wilkinson, 1998) and marketing research (Morgan, Krueger, of the technique and suggestions to address key psychological biases
& King, 1998; Szybillo & Berger 1979). that can impact group interactions.
Focus group discussion is sometimes seen as synonymous with
interviews, especially the semi-structured “one-to-one” and “group
interviews” (Parker & Tritter, 2006). Similarities between these tech- 2 | BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE
niques relate to the tendency to uncover people’s perceptions and
values (e.g. Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Focus group discussion consists of four major steps as shown in
Sewell, 1997; Skeggs, 1997). Consequently, there are cases where Figure 1. These include (1) research design, (2) data collection, (3)
authors have confused and conflated these two distinctive methods analysis and (4) reporting of results (Morgan et al., 1998).
(Parker & Tritter, 2006). However, existing evidence on the role of the
researcher and the relationship with the participants points to a fun-
2.1 | Research design
damental difference between the two techniques (Smithson, 2000).
Interviews involve a one-to-one, qualitative and in-depth discussion The process begins with identifying the main aim and defining the key
where the researcher adopts the role of an “investigator.” This implies research objectives of the study. Based upon the research objectives,
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on
22 NYUMBA et al.
a list of questions (schedule or script) is prepared as guidance for each give honest and spontaneous views and can overcome pre-existing
focus group discussion session. This is followed by seeking ethics relationships and patterns of leadership in the group (Thomas et al.,
clearance. Thereafter, participant identification is perhaps the most 1995). Furthermore, evidence suggests that mixed gender groups
critical step since the technique is largely based on group dynamics tend to improve the quality of discussions and its outcomes (Freitas,
and synergistic relationships among participants to generate data Oliveira, Jenkins, & Popjoy, 1998).
(Green, Draper, & Dowler, 2003; Kitzinger, 1994; Thomas, MacMillan, Participant recruitment follows participant identification.
McColl, Hale, & Bond, 1995). The composition of the group will de- Recruitment can be expensive, difficult, and continues to be a source
pend on the main aim of the research. According to Krueger and of contentious debate (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Although approaches
Casey (2000), individual’s self-disclosure tends to be natural and com- to participant recruitment are contested, the underlying consideration
fortable. However, for some, it requires trust and effort. Willingness should be the impact on the discussion. Researchers can use different
to fully engage in a group discussion is instrumental in generating methods to recruit suitable participants, including recruitment ques-
useful data and can be achieved more readily within a homogenous tionnaires and telephone, or door to door canvassing. Furthermore,
group (Krueger, 1994). Consequently, Krueger (1994) suggests that participants can be recruited by offering incentives or through local
participants should share similar characteristics such as gender, age networks and contacts (Krueger, 1994). However, the use of local con-
range, ethnic and social class background. However, homogeneity tacts has been criticised for its dependence on the availability, will-
is challenged by some researchers since unfamiliar participants can ingness and accessibility of the local contact and the loss of control
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
NYUMBA et al. Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on |
23
and direction of the researcher in the recruitment process. This can verbal data (Fonteyn, Vettese, Lancaster, & Bauer-Wu, 2008). Gorden
lead to convenience sampling by selecting participants based on their (1980) outlines four non-verbal communication data sources based
accessibility (Krueger, 1994) easily leading to “volunteer bias” (1960; on participants’ behaviour reflected by body displacements and pos-
1963). Purposive sampling is widely recommended since focus group tures (kinesics); use of interpersonal space to communicate attitudes
discussion relies on the ability and capacity of participants to provide (proxemics); temporal speech markers such as gaps, silences, and
relevant information (Morgan, 1988). hesitations (chronemics); and variations in volume, pitch and quality
Another important consideration is the number of respondents of voice (paralinguistic). The main methods of data collection during a
to be invited for discussion. Although it is generally accepted that focus group discussion include audio and tape recording, note-taking
between six and eight participants are sufficient (Krueger & Casey, and participant observation (Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007).
2000), some studies have reported as few as four and as many as fif- However, each of these methods presents different advantages and
teen participants (e.g. Fern, 1982; Mendes de Almeida, 1980). One disadvantages and researchers should consider context-specific is-
potential drawback in focus group discussion is the lack of guarantee sues in selecting a method of data collection (Krueger 1998; Stewart
that all those recruited will attend the discussion. To overcome this, & Shamdasani, 1990).
Rabiee (2004) recommends that researchers may over-recruit by 10– Regardless of the number of focus group discussion meetings, it is
25%. Ten participants are therefore considered large enough to gain a important to consider the duration of the meetings. Participants are
variety of perspectives and small enough not to become disorderly or likely to suffer from fatigue when discussions are longer. The rule of
fragmented (Krueger, 1994). With more than 12 members, the group thumb is c. 1–2 hr, based on the complexity of the topic under in-
becomes difficult to manage and may disintegrate into two or even vestigation, number of questions and the number of participants. This
three small groups, each having their own independent discussion. might differ when the group consists of younger participants such as
Given the small number of participants in a focus group discus- school children (Gibson, 2012; Heary & Hennessy, 2002). This is be-
sion and the general design as a one-off encounter, one cannot ex- cause children tend to have shorter attention spans and will begin to
haustively discuss a topic just by conducting a single group discussion. lose focus and interest in the topic quicker than adults.
Consequently, some authors have recommended a minimum of three
to four group meetings for simple research topics (Burrows & Kendall,
2.3 | Analysis
1997). The principle of theoretical saturation, where focus group dis-
cussion sessions are run until a clear pattern emerges and subsequent Focus group discussion usually yields both qualitative and observa-
groups produce no new information (Krueger, 1994) has been applied tional data where analyses can be demanding. According to Leech
for studies covering larger study areas, wider interest groups and com- and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008), qualitative analysis techniques that
plex topics. Some instances of reconvening a group for subsequent can be used to analyse focus group data include grounded theory
meetings have been reported, but this can be difficult due to changes analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967,
both in people and circumstances (Bloor et al., 2001). Strauss, 1987), content analysis (Morgan, 1988) and discourse analy-
The next step is to identify a convenient venue for the discussion. sis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Morgan (1988) recommends the use
Researchers must take into consideration participants’ comfort, access of content and ethnographic analytic techniques to analyse data from
to the venue, and levels of distraction (Smith, 1972). In addition, they a focus group discussion since it affords the researcher an opportu-
should be in a normal and familiar setting with sufficient space for nity to obtain both qualitative and quantitative information through
different activities within the focus group discussion, such as exam- a “three-element coding framework” leading to mixed content analy-
ination of samples, ranking activities, and exercises. There must also sis (Morgan, 1988). The “three coding-framework” refers to the two
be enough seating that enables participants with a clear view of each steps involved in the content analysis that yields quantitative results
other and the facilitator(s) (Sampson, 1972). and the one step involving the ethnographic analysis that yields quali-
tative results.
Data coding is accomplished in two stages. The first step is the ini-
2.2 | Data collection
tial coding which involves the generation of numerous category codes
Focus group discussion requires a team consisting of a skilled facilita- without limiting the number of codes (Charmaz, 2006). At this stage,
tor and an assistant (Burrows & Kendall, 1997; Krueger, 1994). The the researcher lists emerging ideas, draws relationship diagrams and
facilitator is central to the discussion not only by managing existing identifies keywords used by respondents frequently as indicators of
relationships but also by creating a relaxed and comfortable environ- important themes. The second stage involves focused coding where
ment for unfamiliar participants. Similarly, the assistant’s role includes the researcher eliminates, combines or subdivides the coding catego-
observing non-verbal interactions and the impact of the group dynam- ries identified in the first step. Attention should be drawn to recur-
ics, and documenting the general content of the discussion, thereby ring ideas and wider themes connecting the codes (Charmaz, 2006;
supplementing the data (Kitzinger, 1994, 1995). Non-verbal data rely Krueger, 1994; Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). This process can yield quan-
on the behaviour and actions of respondent’s pre-focus group discus- titative results to draw comparisons across focus groups, group dy-
sion, during and post-focus group discussion. Non-verbal data provide namics, individual participants or the participants’ statements (Carey &
“thicker” descriptions and interpretations compared to the sole use of Smith, 1994; Morgan, 1995).
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on
24 NYUMBA et al.
Content analysis enables a systematic coding of data by organising moderator can observe and note the interactions and discussion of
the information into categories to discover patterns undetectable by the first group without being seen. Hearing what the other group
merely listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts (Robson, 1993; thinks (or by observing their interactions) often leads the second
Yin, 1989). Ethnographic analysis, on the other hand, is strictly quali- group to different conclusions than those it may have reached other-
tative, drawing primarily on direct quotes from the group discussion. wise (Morgan, 1988).
Consequently, the process is not systematic and relies on the research-
er’s ability to label the material into “themes,” “discourse” or “illustra-
3.3 | Dual moderator focus group
tive quotations” while maintaining the integrity and accounting for the
context of the focus group. However, ethnographic analysis does per- Involves two moderators working together, each performing a differ-
mit a detailed interpretative account of the everyday social processes ent role within the same focus group (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The
of communication, talk and action occurring within the focus group, division of roles ensures a smooth progression of the session and en-
which can be useful in some instances (Krippendorff, 2012). sures that all topics are covered.
4 | MATERIALS AND METHODS helped to capture experiential differences in people with similar back-
ground thereby giving rise to new perspectives. In addition, focus group
Our primary aim was to understand how focus group discussion has discussion often brought out issues of interest to participants rather
been used as a methodological tool in conservation in the last 20 years. than researchers. However, one study found the discussion biased in
Using a stepwise, structured approach, we reviewed the literature on the that all participants could not actively take part in discussions due to
use of this method in biodiversity, ecology and conservation research. intimidation or influence by dominant or aggressive participants (179).
We used a combination of “Focus Group Discussion*” AND “conserv*,” Focus group discussions were used in 65 countries from six conti-
OR “ecology,” OR “biodivers*,” where “*” denotes a wild card to search nents (Figure 2). Most of the studies were in Africa, (n = 76, covering
for alternative word endings, in a search query within the Scopus data- 19 countries), followed by Asia (n = 44 covering 17 countries), Europe
base (https://www.scopus.com), from 1996 to 2016 (accessed on 20th (n = 30, covering 17 countries), North and South Americas (n = 18 cov-
April 2016). A subsequent search using the term “Focus Group” with the ering 10 countries) and the Oceania region (n = 2 covering 2 coun-
other terms was run on 21st April 2017 in the same database. tries). The majority of studies (67%, n = 114,) were published between
The search returned 438 peer reviewed articles excluding re- 2011 and 2016 (Figure 3).
views. We screened the titles and abstracts to identify only those The reported sample size of participants per study ranged from 6
relevant to conservation, biodiversity and ecology. Studies which to 240 with a median of 52 participants (Figure 4). The studies had a
had focused primarily on soil or water conservation and did not have median of 7 focus group discussion sessions, and there were no iter-
a direct bearing on biodiversity conservation were discarded. This ative focus groups in any study. The number of participants per focus
resulted in 196 peer-reviewed papers. We retrieved all the relevant group ranged from 2 to 21 with a median of 10 participants. More than
papers and scanned the full text to check if they specifically used half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size, whereas
focus group discussion as a method to answer a research question. 55% (n = 93) did not report group size and 32% (n = 54) did not men-
All studies where the technique was merely mentioned in the in- tion the number of focus group discussion sessions while reporting the
troduction or conclusion section were eliminated. We developed a results (Figure 4).
protocol (Appendix S1, Supporting Information) for extracting data The focus group discussion sessions ranged between 60 and
from the final list of studies. 240 min with a median of 90 min per session (Figure 4). However,
We conducted coding iterations to generate key conservation and the majority (84%, n = 143) did not report duration. Few studies 15%
biodiversity themes covered in the studies as described by Charmaz (n = 25) stratified participants by gender with a mean ratio of 55:45 for
(2006). First, we reviewed all the research “questions” and “purposes” males and females respectively (Figure 4), whereas 14 studies strati-
to identify the broad reasons behind the study and the “resource” fied participants by age.
under study (e.g. examine factors that are responsible for deforesta- In the reviewed studies, two types of focus group discussion
tion) and generated a list that informed the next phase of the analysis. approaches were used. The majority of studies used face-to-face
We reviewed the list to identify theme attributes (e.g. understand per- approach (n = 168), whereas one study used the online approach and
spectives) and descriptions of the attributes (e.g. causes of deforesta- another used a combination of face-to-face and online approach. The
tion). Finally, we used concept mapping, or a visual display illustrating studies did not provide any rationale for conducting focus group dis-
relationships between and among categories (Miles & Huberman, cussion in either manner. However, the face-to-face approach seemed
1994) to combine theme attributes into main themes without losing to offer an opportunity for detailed study of participants’ viewpoints
individuality, trivialising some concepts over others, or losing detail and the rationale behind their opinions. In addition, most of the stud-
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Our final coding categories included the ies were based in rural communities within the developing countries
understanding of people’s perspectives regarding conservation, as- with limited infrastructure for online access. Most of the studies
sessment of conservation and livelihoods practices, examination of (n = 144) used focus group discussions alongside other methods such
challenges and impacts of resource management interventions and as interviews (n = 117), surveys (n = 82), choice experiments (n = 6)
documenting the value of indigenous knowledge systems. and Delphi technique (n = 1). Only 26 of the studies used the method
as a stand-alone technique. Some of the studies offered incentives
to potential group members (e.g. 209), whereas others relied on local
5 | RESULTS contacts such as community leaders or key gatekeepers to drive the
recruitment process (e.g. 61; 116).
We identified 170 papers (henceforth studies with references as num-
bers corresponding to Appendix S2) that were relevant to biodiversity
conservation and had used focus group discussion as a method, either 6 | THEMATIC AREAS
as a stand-alone technique or in combination with other methods be-
tween 1996 and 2016. The studies reported that focus group discus- Four major themes emerged from the review (Appendix S3). The most
sion created a forum to discover the “unexpected” as it allowed for common theme related to the understanding of people’s perspectives
negotiation and evaluation of research problems and findings between regarding conservation (32%, n = 54), followed by the assessment of
different stakeholders including non-sedentary households. It also conservation and livelihoods practices (21%, n = 35), examination of
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
26 |
Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on NYUMBA et al.
F I G U R E 2 Map showing the countries where focus group discussion has been applied. Studies which were global in scope have been
excluded. In case if multiple countries were covered in a study, all countries have been noted
30
impacts of conservation management interventions. These include the
Number of published studies using
vices (108; 71; 30; 50; 46). Focus group discussion facilitated the ex-
20
amination of socio-cultural impacts and gender-based constraints and
15 roles in conservation (54; 66; 85; 24; 4; 1). It was useful in examining
impacts of climate change and climate change adaptation measures
10
(96). Impacts of policy changes on the common pool resources, ag-
5 riculture and rural development and participatory land use planning
were also studied (200; 199; 58; 25). As a data gathering process,
0 focus group discussion relied on people’s experiences and perceptions
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
to generate anecdotal data.
Year of publishing
F I G U R E 4 Variables of focus group discussion and participant stratification. Boxes a-e depict the reported data for each given variable,
where the bolded number is the median average number of participants (a, b), groups (c), and number of minutes (d). Box e depicts the average
male to female ratio per study
constructions to drive environmental objectives and understanding of ecosystem services (93; 32). Furthermore, focus group discussions
biodiversity issues by different groups (222; 211; 178; 57). In addi- were used in the assessment of various livelihoods activities such as
tion, focus group discussion provided insights into the variations in hunting, agriculture, natural resource extraction and consumption
nature constructions based on age and location, for instance between (234; 208; 113).
younger and older people living in rural and urban areas (240).
7 | DISCUSSION
6.4 | Assessment of conservation and
livelihoods practices
Our comprehensive review showed that focus group discussion has
Focus group discussions were used to assess the efficacy of biodi- been widely used in conservation research over the last two decades.
versity monitoring systems to improve natural resources management The versatility and ease of use of the technique is demonstrated by
(158), and biodiversity conservation strategies to improve the quality the fact that it has been used in a range of contexts and in combina-
of forest and marine ecosystems (179; 33; 43; 9). In addition, eco- tion with other techniques. However, the technique is also subject to
system services and disservices were assessed in relation to trade- “careless or inappropriate use,” potential data manipulation, and ex-
offs and local preferences (95; 81), quality of natural resources such ploitation of participants when researchers tend to assume that group
as water and forests (81; 48), and characterisation and mapping of consent represents individual consent (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999).
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on
28 NYUMBA et al.
when working with non-sedentary households especially in the range- However, focus group participants are sometimes reluctant to
lands (e.g. 200). Where such communities or research subjects are deal with sensitive topics in a discussion setting compared with an
involved, researchers are faced with uncertain and unpredictable pat- individual interview or a survey (18). Researchers must be aware of
terns of movement and hence participant participation. Researching this constraint when planning and framing the group discussion ques-
such communities requires additional preparation and resources which tions. Under such circumstances, focus groups discussion can be used
might not be readily available to student researchers. It is therefore alongside other techniques within the context of mixed methods ap-
important to critically think about the nature and occupation of the re- proach. Triangulating the results with two or more different methods,
search subjects well before setting out to use focus group discussion. in a complementary way can offer an opportunity to draw conclusions
One of the key requirements for a successful focus group discus- from such a focus group.
sion is a skilled and well-trained group facilitator and team members.
We noted that none of the studies mentioned the extent of facilitator
engagement or involvement. This is a concern since facilitation is cen- 11 | RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST
tral to unbiased data collection. Our experiences from recent field- PRACTICE IN FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
work point to the difficulty of having an incomplete team in collecting
the data. For example asking questions, recording the discussion and 1. Provide a clear rationale for the choice of focus group discussion:
non-verbal data cannot be accomplished by one or two research mem- The researcher must be able to provide adequate justification
bers only. We, therefore, recommend that future users pay adequate for the choice of focus group discussion technique as the “best
attention to recruiting an experienced facilitator team while planning suited to answering their questions about a phenomenon” (Berry
to use this technique and include the additional cost to the research & Kincheloe, 2004, p. 4). A clear rationale should provide the
project (see recommendations on facilitator skills). readers with confidence that the selection of data sources, the
Our review indicates that the researchers often set out to explore analysis and the interpretation is reliable and valid and that the
topics of their interest and worked with the participants to explore, quality of research is not compromised (Wilson, 2009, p. 81).
present, negotiate and evaluate the research problems and findings 2. Focus on facilitator skills: Focus group discussion relies on facilita-
(e.g. CD4). While this is the normal structure of a research project, tors or moderators to guide the group’s discussion (Berg, 1989;
especially those based on a priori hypothesis, the value of the focus Morgan, 1996). According to Morgan et al. (1998) and Litosseliti
group discussions for such studies is diminished. In most cases, the (2004), the facilitator must have a set of skills and techniques to
range of topics that participants feel comfortable discussing may not ensure that the issues under discussion are addressed comprehen-
be what the researcher intends to explore. Furthermore, some topics sively. Here is a suggested skill set:
may be more difficult to discuss among some categories of partici- a. Ability to build rapport by creating a warm, supportive and
pants than others (e.g. 18). Our experiences in using the technique in- comfortable environment to foster open and honest dialogue
dicate that restricting participants to the topic of researcher’s interest among diverse groups and individuals.
constraints creativity and encourages conformity and strategic biases. b. Have good and active listening skills to help engage with the
The aims of the research might also determine the extent to which respondent by paraphrasing or summarising their responses and
the researcher can allow the participants to address issues that are using gestures to encourage conversation.
perceived as particularly relevant to them, rather than those chosen c. Have good observation skills, pay attention to participants’ body
by the researcher (e.g. 211). language or demeanour and recognise group dynamics.
Focus group discussion is a flexible technique and is adapt- d. Have good speaking, communication skills and knowledge of
able at any stage of the research. Compared to more conventional the topic of discussion including some basic information on the
techniques such as individual interviews and surveys, focus group subject to help in probing different answers for more in-depth
discussion offers an opportunity to explore issues that are not well discussion but should demonstrate some degree of “naïveté” to
understood or where there is little prior research on the topic (e.g. encourage participants’ responses.
239). This is because, focus group discussion builds on the group e. Flexibility to adapt to the flow of the discussion, remain open to
dynamics to explore the issues in context, depth and detail, freely changes in the discussion guide, adjust to participants’ requests
without imposing a conceptual framework compared with a struc- during the group and adjust physical behaviours and activity
tured individual interview (e.g. CD31; 240; CD5; 199). Our field around the room.
experiences point to the fact that such dynamics and the process f. Ability to remain impartial by getting involved while maintaining
of sharing and comparing understandings and views mean that the verbal and non-verbal objectivity.
focus group discussion can yield more insights than the equivalent g. Should have a sense of humour to keep the discussion re-
number of individual interviews. Researchers can hugely benefit laxed, encourage sharing of information and maintain a human
from the group context since it provides insight into social relations, connection.
and the information obtained reflects the social and overlapping na- 3. Report methods and results based on Figure 1: The review re-
ture of knowledge better than a summation of individual narratives vealed that a major lacuna of most of the studies was improper
through interviews and surveys. reporting or inadequate reporting of key attributes of the
2041210x, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| Methods in Ecology and Evolu
on
30 NYUMBA et al.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An ex- Sewell, T. (1997). Black masculinities and schooling: How black boys survive
panded sourcebook. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc. modern schooling. London, UK: Trentham Books.
Moon, K., Brewer, T. D., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Adams, V., & Blackman, Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class & gender: Becoming respectable.
D. A. (2016). A guideline to improve qualitative social science publish- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
ing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society, 21, 17. Smith, J. M. (1972). Interviewing in market and social research. London, UK:
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus group as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Routledge & K. Paul.
Sage Publications Inc. Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and
Morgan, D. L. (1995). Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3,
Qualitative Health Research, 5, 516–523. 103–119.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and prac-
129–152. tice. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.
Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, & J. A. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups:
Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interviewing research: Context & Method Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
(pp. 141–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge,
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). The focus group kit (Vols. UK: Cambridge University Press.
1–6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Szybillo, G., & Berger, R. (1979). What advertising agencies think of focus
Morse, M. J. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Y. S. Denzin groups. Journal of Advertising Research, 19, 19–23.
& N. K. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220–235). Thomas, L., MacMillan, J., McColl, E., Hale, C., & Bond, S. (1995). Comparison
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining pa-
Mukherjee, N., Huge, J., Sutherland, W. J., Mcneill, J., Van Opstal, M., tient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health, 1, 206–219.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., & Koedam, N. (2015). The Delphi technique in Wibeck, V. (2011). Images of environmental management: Competing met-
ecology and biological conservation: Applications and guidelines. aphors in focus group discussions of Swedish environmental quality
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1097–1109. objectives. Environmental Management, 49, 776–787.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmod- Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International
ern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1, 181–203.
Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Primmer, E., Grodzinska-Jurcak, M., Henle, Wilkinson, S. (1999). A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
K., Ring, I., … Simila, J. (2012). Biodiversity conservation across scales: 23, 221–244.
Lessons from a science–policy dialogue. Nature Conservation, 2, 7–19. Wilson, L. H. (2009). Practical teaching: A guide to PTLLS & DTLLS. Boston,
Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: MA: Cengage Learning.
Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd ed. London, UK:
Method in Education, 29, 23–37. Sage Publications Inc.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond Zander, K., Stolz, H., & Hamm, U. (2013). Promising ethical arguments for
attitudes and behaviour. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc. product differentiation in the organic food sector. A mixed methods
Powell, R. A., Single, H. M., & Lloyd, K. R. (1996). Focus groups in mental research approach. Appetite, 62, 133–142.
health research: Enhancing the validity of user and provider question-
naires. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42, 193–206.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of S U P P O RT I NG I NFO R M AT I O N
Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.
Redpath, S. M., Arroyo, B. E., Leckie, F. M., Bacon, P., Bayfield, N., Guttiérrez, Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the
R. J., & Thirgood, S. J. (2004). Using decision modelling with stakehold- supporting information tab for this article.
ers to reduce human-wildlife conflict: A raptor-grouse case study.
Conservation Biology, 18, 350–359.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy
research. In A. Bryman, & R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data How to cite this article: Ochieng NT, Wilson K, Derrick CJ,
(pp. 173–194). London, UK: Routledge. Mukherjee N. The use of focus group discussion methodology:
Robson, C. (2006). How to do a research project: a guide for undergraduate Insights from two decades of application in conservation.
students. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9:20–32. https://doi.org/
Sampson, P. (1972). Qualitative research and motivation research. Consumer
market research handbook. London, UK and Düsseldorf, Germany: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860
McGraw-Hill.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in quali-
tative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 1–8.