Qualitative Research

http://qrj.sagepub.com

Qualitative Research

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107076023 2007; 7; 249 Qualitative Research

Victoria Wibeck, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren and Gunilla Öberg group research

Learning in focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/249 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Qualitative Research Additional services and information for

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/2/249SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 25 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Juan Pardo on March 20, 2008 http://qrj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/2/249


A B S T R A C T The focus group is a research methodology in which a smallgroup of participants gathers to discuss a specified issue under theguidance of a moderator. The discussions are tape-recorded, transcribedand analysed. Notably, the interaction between focus group participantshas seldom been evaluated, analysed or discussed in empirical research.We argue that considering the focus group in light of current researchinto interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial groups wouldfacilitate the deliberate exploitation of group processes in designing focusgroups, staging data collection and analysing and interpreting data.When the analytical focus shifts from mere content analysis to an analysisof what the participants themselves are trying to learn, one can explorenot only what the participants are talking about, but also how they aretrying to understand and conceptualise the issue under discussion.

K E Y W O R D S : co-construction of knowledge, elaboration, focus groups, interaction,problem-based learning

IntroductionThe focus group is a research methodology that has gained popularity in agrowing number of contexts over recent decades (Hydén and Bülow, 2003;Morgan, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998a). In this method, a small group of partici-pants gather to discuss a particular issue under the guidance of a moderator,who preferably plays a detached role. The discussion, which usually lastsbetween 60 and 90 minutes, is normally audio- and/or video-taped, and thentranscribed and analysed (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999; Morgan, 1988).Focus groups are of particular value because of their ability to allowresearchers to study how people engage in collective sense-making; i.e. ‘howviews are constructed, expressed, defended and (sometimes) modified in thecontext of discussion and debate with others’ (Wilkinson, 1998a: 186). In

A RT I C L E 249

Learning in focus groups: an analyticaldimension for enhancing focus group research

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107076023

Qualitative ResearchCopyright © 2007SAGE Publications(Los Angeles,London, New Delhiand Singapore)vol. 7(2) 249–267

QR

V I C T O R I A W I B E C K , M A D E L E I N E A B R A N D T D A H L G R E NLinköping University, SwedenG U N I L L A Ö B E R GUniversity of British Columbia, Canada



250

other words, it is claimed that focus groups enable researchers to study andunderstand a particular topic from the perspective of the group participantsthemselves. The focus group is a research method based on the dynamics ofcommunication, language and thought (Marková, 2004). By using groupinteraction, the researcher can explore ‘how accounts are articulated, cen-sured, opposed and changed through social interaction and how this relates topeer communication and group norms’ (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999: 5). Inother words, focus groups are said to offer an opportunity to observe the ‘co-construction of meaning in action’ (Wilkinson, 1998b: 338); i.e. they may beconceptualised as ‘a thinking society in miniature’ (Jovchelovitch, 2001: 2).

Some critical reviews of the focus group as a research method, such as Agarand MacDonald (1995), Hydén and Bülow (2003), Kitzinger (1994) andWilkinson (1998a, 1999), have pointed out that even though the interactionbetween focus group participants is considered to be a hallmark of such research,the interaction itself has seldom been evaluated, analysed or discussed in researchbased on empirical material collected through focus groups. Hence, the partic-ular strength of focus groups, i.e. the interaction between participants, hasrarely been explored in and of itself. To enable researchers to exploit focusgroups to their fullest potential, it is thus necessary to develop methodologicaltools that enable researchers specifically to study ‘how accounts are articu-lated, censured, opposed and changed through social interaction and how thisrelates to peer communication and group norms’ (Kitzinger and Barbour,1999: 5). We argue that this could in part be done by drawing on currentresearch into interaction in small groups from other research fields, one suchrelevant field being interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorialgroups.1 Our argument is that some group processes taking place in both focusand tutorial groups share certain features, even though focus groups are notlearning groups per se. Hence, examining the focus group in light of researchconcerning interaction in tutorial groups could facilitate the deliberateexploitation of group processes when designing focus groups, staging data col-lection and analysing and interpreting data.

This article draws on research into interaction in PBL tutorials, in analysinghow knowledge is elaborated and co-constructed in focus groups. In addition,we discuss strategies for focus group design and for data collection and analy-sis. We illustrate our arguments with examples drawn from recent and ongo-ing research in the fields of environmental and communication studies.

Tutorial groups and focus groups – parallel features anddifferencesIn a recent review of what and how students learn in PBL, Hmelo-Silver (2004)describes the approach as an instructional method in which students learnthrough facilitated problem-solving, where the complex problems studied haveno ‘correct’ answers. Within the framework of the course curriculum, students

Qualitative Research 7(2)



work in small groups where they collaboratively decide on what to learn. Theyengage independently in the learning process and come together to reflect col-lectively on what they have learned and on the strategies applied. The teacherfacilitates the learning rather than acting as a knowledge dispenser. Researchinto PBL has predominantly focused on students’ knowledge, problem-solvingand self-directed learning skills, but less so on collaboration and motivation.

The major aim of tutorials in PBL groups is to enhance the participants’ learn-ing; in contrast, the major aim of focus groups is to gather data to be used inresearch. Still, even though the major aims of the two methods differ, the meth-ods share several similar features: i.e. the group, the framing, the ‘problem’, thetutor/moderator, the dialogue and the process of collective sense-making.

Both techniques are based on small groups that discuss a pre-defined subjectunder professional supervision. In PBL, the discussion is framed by the coursecurriculum, while in a focus group the discussion is framed by the aim of thestudy, which, according to the ethical codex, should be presented to the par-ticipants prior to the meeting. Both the PBL tutor and the focus group moder-ator should preferably play detached roles, since the aim of PBL is to focus onthe students’ need to know (Clarke, 2002) and the aim of a focus group is toexplore what is central to the participants regarding a given issue (Morgan,1998). In other words, tutorial groups and focus groups are both participant-centred activities. Even though both the tutor and the moderator playdetached roles, they will intervene if the discussions diverge too far from thestated aim: the PBL tutor usually uses the course curriculum to guide the dis-cussion, while the researcher directing a focus group has generally preparedan interview guide for the same purpose. Discussion in both types of groups isgenerally initiated and stimulated using some sort of prepared material.Discussion in a PBL group session is usually stimulated using a scenario,vignette or the like, which may consist of, for example, images, brief texts, filmsequences and medical cases (Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001), while dis-cussion in a focus group is sometimes, but not always, initiated using somekind of stimulus material (e.g. newspaper articles, images, films, product pack-ages and card games).

In PBL, identification of learning needs is a core issue: students use thegroup to discuss and define problems,2 and through these discussions to iden-tify both their learning needs and prior knowledge. Discussions in the groupare rooted in the course curriculum and are initiated using a vignette. Hence,discussions are clearly framed, or in other words, ‘focused’. One of the majorstrengths of PBL is that students become aware that framed, or focused, groupdiscussions both stimulate and force participants to verbalize both their learn-ing needs and prior knowledge. The learning process is speeded up, as the stu-dents use the identified learning needs to formulate questions, which in turnare used in their self-directed studies (e.g. Clarke, 2002). The process by whichparticipants’ learning needs and prior knowledge are identified mirrors thestudents’ conceptualization and understanding of the discussed issue.

251Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups



252

Discussion in a focus group is also framed or focused (hence the name), andparticipants in such groups also discuss and define problems. As in all focusedor framed discussions, the discussion in a focus group is coloured by a processof collective sense-making that inevitably encompasses a tacit formulation ofthe individual participants’ learning needs and prior knowledge. The interac-tion between participants in a focused group discussion creates incentives forinitiating learning processes, since participants exchange experiences, ques-tion each other, challenge each other to develop their arguments and some-times even modify their opinions and arguments during the course of thediscussion (cf. Billig, 1996; Linell et al., 2001; Myers, 1998; Wibeck et al.,2004; Wilkinson, 1998a). The participants are made aware of their mutualinterests or their need for further knowledge (Yoshihama, 2002).

There is a pertinent difference between focus groups and tutorial groups,namely, time. Tutorial groups are supposed to meet repeatedly over severalweeks. Learning is regarded as a long-term process, where students use thegroup to discuss and define the problem, identify learning needs on the basis ofprior knowledge and formulate questions. Thereafter, they conduct self-directedstudies, and subsequently discuss the learning topic in the tutorial group (e.g.Clarke, 2002). The learning process is supported by continuous evaluation.Thus, there is time for participants to get to know each other, interactivelyelaborate on their knowledge and build mutual trust under the supervision ofa tutor. Focus groups, on the other hand, usually meet for between one andtwo hours on a single occasion. Although the groups are sometimes drawnfrom existing social networks, at times the group members are strangers toeach other. Still, communication and learning can doubtless also take place ina group that meets only once. Our point is that the learning processes takingplace may be used as a point of departure, thus enabling the in-depth analysisof the interactive processes in a focus group.

When analysing the empirical material derived from a focus group discus-sion, the researcher generally categorizes the material, simply stated, in aprocess by which the researcher asks ‘What are they talking about?’. Stevens(1996) has suggested applying the following research questions to the data inorder to focus attention on interaction in the group:

How closely did the group adhere to the issues presented for discussion?

Why, how and when were related issues brought up?

What statements seemed to evoke conflict?

What were the contradictions in the discussion?

What common experiences were expressed?

Were alliances formed among group members?

Was a particular member or viewpoint silenced?

Was a particular view dominant?




How did the group resolve disagreements?

What topics produced consensus?

Whose interests were being represented in the group?

How were emotions handled? (Stevens, 1996: 172)

We argue that the formulation of learning needs, i.e. when questions beginto emerge in the group, may be used as an analytical key to how the participantsare trying to understand and conceptualize the issue in question in the focusgroup. The formulation of questions could be regarded as an elaboration ofprior knowledge in the group, which in itself constitutes a co-construction ofknowledge and/or an incentive for learning. The formulation of questions maythus be looked out for by the facilitator as an important feature, one that stim-ulates the participants to elaborate and clarify their viewpoints in the group. Weargue that focusing on question formulation, asking ‘What are they trying tolearn?’ rather than ‘What are they talking about?’, adds an important dataanalysis dimension to the analytical questions proposed by Stevens (1996). Inthe following section, we illustrate how the elaboration and co-construction ofknowledge in focus groups can be scrutinized, drawing on research into PBL.

Elaboration of knowledgeThe specified subject of a focus group or a tutorial group leads to a problem-solving process, which implies a systematic inquiry into the subject. In bothfocus and tutorial groups, the activation of prior knowledge and the elaborationof new knowledge are important parts of the interaction process. In PBLresearch, it is argued that by elaborating on their knowledge in small-group dis-cussions, i.e. considering a piece of knowledge in a broader context (Regehr andNorman, 1996), students learn to construct rich cognitive models of the speci-fied problem (De Grave et al., 2001; Dolmans et al., 2001; Schmidt, 1993;Schmidt et al., 1989; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004). In addition, studies showthat students in tutorial groups experience cognitive conflict, which results inthe restructuring of their knowledge base or in conceptual change (Dolmanset al., 2001). To elaborate new knowledge, group participants need to verbalizethe learning content in collaboration with other group members. The elabora-tion is a result of interaction in small groups, but the cognitive process takesplace at the individual level, within the thinking of a single person (Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004). We argue that the elaboration of new knowledge throughgroup interaction also takes place in focus groups, as illustrated in the examplebelow (Example 1). The excerpt is taken from a focus group consisting of civilservants employed by Swedish county boards. The specified issue was the imple-mentation and assessment of national quality objectives for improving the envi-ronment and achieving ecologically sustainable development in Sweden (fordetails of the study, see Wibeck et al., 2006). In the excerpt, it is clear that one




254

of the participants (Camilla) is articulating a deeper understanding of theprocess by which various issues are prioritised in her county. In other words, thequotation illustrates how group interaction helps Camilla to elaborate on herknowledge about different approaches to achieving environmental objectives.


Example 13

1 Anne: Do you work with themes, annual themes or something like that?2 Camilla: What’s that? … No not themes, not thematically but the entire

package.3 Anne: Yeah, but annual themes. I thought that maybe you decide on a

water year or an (Camilla: Oh, no no) air year or something likethat. I mean there are so many measures that you need to take.

4 Camilla: Yes, yes, but in practice it’s like that but I mean (Anne: Yes) wehaven’t discussed it from the point of view that we would selectthemes, but everyone, every department sits and (Anne: Mm) kind ofgoes through it, because in some way it deals with the preconditions.Do we have basic data for starting to protect these biotopes now, or isthat something we are still waiting for? Is there enough money tomake inventories or securements, or air measurements or whatever(Ben: Um), so that’s mainly what it’s about.[13 turns omitted]

5 Anne: Um, because you should do so much and it feels completely out ofreach. You are incapable of managing all that (Camilla: Um), but ifyou have this much [i.e. fewer themes], well then it feels feasible towork with them …

6 Camilla: But in practice that is … it becomes some sort of annual theme.But we maybe, you have thought about it in those terms, and therest of us … (inaudible) it’s a bottom-up approach in which youkind of analyse what we can work with (Ben: Um) and where thepotential resources and preconditions for the work are (Ben: Yes).

In the above example, the issue of annual themes was brought up to illustratethe need to make priorities. In turn 1, Anne introduces the notion of annualthemes, which appears to be unknown to Camilla (turn 2), who consequentlydenies that the group she works in employs the model. At this stage, thereappears to be disagreement between the group members. Camilla gives a tenta-tive justification, claiming that rather than using a thematic approach, hergroup works in an overarching manner, handling environmental objectives intheir entirety (‘the entire package’). Anne persists in proposing that an appro-priate way to handle the multitude of urgent actions needed is to select annualthemes, by focusing, for example, on water issues one year and on air pollutionthe next (turn 3). In turn 4, Camilla starts to shift towards conceding that inpractice part of her group’s work is indeed conducted thematically, althoughnot explicitly so. Rather, pragmatic considerations, such as data availability and



economic constraints, have prompted the use of thematic approaches. Theargument that using an annual theme is a useful strategy for prioritising urgentneeds is repeated by Anne in turn 5. This brings about a conceptual change onthe part of Camilla, who in turn 6 admits that in her previous work annualthemes have in practice been applied. She elaborates how the necessity ofemploying a bottom-up approach, identifying what should be prioritized sincetime and economic resources are insufficient to handle all the environmentalobjectives simultaneously (cf. turn 2), essentially leads to what is effectively athematic approach. Even though she still positions herself as member of aworking group that employs strategies different from those of the other focusgroup participants, she starts to form an alliance with Anne and the others,based on the common experience of prioritizing multitudes of potential actions.In sum, Anne’s initial question (turn 1) prompts Camilla to learn more aboutthe notion of annual themes. Anne takes on a moderating role, posing ques-tions to keep the discussion going and to learn about the experience of othergroup participants. The result is that Camilla elaborates her pre-existing knowl-edge, as she sets her experience against the other participants’ statements.

The example illustrates how one participant (Anne) helps the moderator stim-ulate discussion in which another participant (Camilla) reflects on her routinepractice, reformulates it and sees it from a new perspective. The accounts of theparticipants’ routines and conceptions of appropriate strategies for attainingenvironmental objectives are deepened as the participants elaborate on theirprior knowledge, and expand on and clarify their viewpoints. In this particularexample, one participant initiated the discussion, while at other times the focusgroup moderator needed to pose relevant questions to help the participants elab-orate on their points. We argue that a central quality focus group moderatorsneed is sensitivity, so they can discern when participants are formulating learn-ing needs and encourage them to elaborate on their knowledge. In our opinion,in an atmosphere that encourages participants to elaborate on their knowledge,a group will generate rich data in which the participants explore the chosen issuein depth. By posing the analytical question ‘What are they trying to learn?’, theresearcher can scrutinize how the participants are developing certain themes inthe discussion and how they are reflecting on and developing their under-standing and anchoring of individual experience against the sum total of theother participants’ arguments, experience and knowledge. In the analysis, theresearcher may explore how the elaboration of individual accounts helps informing a web of socially shared knowledge emerging through group discussion.

Co-construction of knowledgeIn our analysis of Example 1, we considered the cognitive process of elabora-tion as comprising an incentive for learning plus an elaboration process takingplace in the mind of the individual group participant, although the entireprocess is triggered and facilitated by other group members. Understanding




256

the interactive processes occurring in the group is further enhanced by focusingon the co-construction of knowledge (Leseman et al., 2000; Van Boxtel, 2000;Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004), i.e. the attainment of shared understanding bymeans of shared thinking processes in which two or more group membersinteract (Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004; cf. Linell et al., 2001). In the case offocus groups, Linell et al. state the following:

The group is a think-group, in which cognition is going on in the minds ofmembers, but this happens largely in and through the interaction. Individuals withsome kind of common background stimulate each other to develop thoughts andarguments. In this process, ideas interpenetrate and often contradict each other. Astance or viewpoint often contains the seed of a counterpoint; the proposal of an anal-ogy leads to its partial denial (ranging from ‘yes but …’ to ‘no, not at all, instead …’replies), followed perhaps by a distinction. (Linell et al., 2001: 253)

In other words, expressing disagreement may also be part of the learningprocess, as participants challenge each other, defend their arguments and attimes modify their viewpoints (Myers, 1998). The following example is takenfrom a focus group study of the public understanding of genetically modifiedfood (Wibeck, 2002), and illustrates how participants co-construct knowledgeregarding the specified issue through joint elaboration. The group consists ofthree participants belonging to the management team of a large Swedish foodproduction company. In the extract, they discuss whether or not gene technol-ogy should be considered as analogous to traditional plant breeding.


Example 2

1 Nina: Do we have the right to do this [i.e. biotechnological intervention]to nature? (Olivia: Um) Is it God the Father who should helpinstead, or could conventional plant breeding produce the sameresults, only take more time?

2 Lars: But it is very close. Is the difference so big between plant breedingand genetic modification?

3 Nina: No it isn’t really. And as regards gene technology, in a fast processyou know what results you’re going to get (Lars: Yeah) but you areinto something that is also holy to touch upon.

4 Lars: But plant breeding is uncertain too, isn’t it?[5 turns omitted]

5 Nina: We can achieve the same things but it takes more time to do itwith conventional plant breeding … to select those crops (Olivia:Um) but … they have worked with this plant breeding technology… for an incredibly long time. And then it has sort of become anatural part of what we already have, of how we behave asmodern people or in other countries as well. But this is somethingthat … if you could imagine …

6 Lars: Well it interferes with the innermost building block [of life], isn’tthat the boundary?



In the quotation, the ‘problem’ discussed by the focus group participants iswhether gene technology should be conceived of as an extension of traditionalplant breeding or as something qualitatively ‘new’. The process of elaboratingand co-constructing knowledge concerning how to understand and form one’sopinion about, for example, genetically modified food is visible in how potentialanalogies and distinctions are constructed. Analogies and distinctions are pow-erful tools for anchoring new knowledge, in which the new phenomenon isplaced in, or distinguished from, a familiar category (Moscovici, 1984).

In turn 1, Nina begins the sequence by asking whether humans have a rightto ‘do this [biotechnological intervention] to nature’. Her question functions totrigger group discussion of the ethical aspects of biotechnology, to learn moreabout arguments either for considering gene technology as an extension of tra-ditional breeding, or as something qualitatively ‘new’. Nina distinguishesbetween gene technology, on the one hand, and God’s work and traditional plantbreeding on the other. By the end of the turn, however, she poses another ques-tion, opening up the possibility of making either an analogy or a distinctionbetween gene technology and traditional breeding, as she hints that there is ananalogy as regards results, but a distinction with respect to the time needed forthe two processes. As he overlaps with Nina in turn 2, Lars tries to propose ananalogy: by posing a rhetorical question, he argues that there are no significantdifferences between traditional plant breeding and gene technology. In turn 3,Nina at first agrees with Lars and elaborates the analogy. She states that there isactually no big difference between traditional plant breeding and genetic modifi-cation, but thereafter develops a line of reasoning characterized by two distinc-tions pointing in different directions: gene technology enables the scientist toforesee the results, but it is also an area that may be conceived of as taboo forhuman beings (‘you are into something that is also holy to touch upon’) (turn 3).Lars then continues his attempt to establish an analogy, by pointing out that tra-ditional plant breeding is also an uncertain activity. This may be intended as acounter argument (beginning in ‘but…’) to what Nina just said, since her argu-ment for a distinction was exactly that traditional breeding is more uncertainthan gene technology is, the results of which can be more exactly anticipated.Lars then proposes an analogy rather than a distinction in this respect. However,Lars’ turn (4) may also be interpreted in relation to what was discussed in thesequence preceding the example, i.e. that gene technology may have unforeseen


Example 2 (continued)

7 Nina: Yes, yes, you are getting into something too holy.8 Lars: And that is not done in the same way in plant breeding.9 Nina: No, it isn’t.

10 Olivia: No, since the technology has become so refined (Lars: Um) itprovides greater opportunities.



258

consequences, and is thus also uncertain. He seeks confirmation of his viewpointby ending his turn with ‘isn’t it?’. Nina, however, persists in saying that a dis-tinction is more proper than an analogy, since the timelines of conventionalbreeding and gene technology are different. Furthermore, traditional plantbreeding has been culturally incorporated in people’s mindsets, which is not thecase with gene technology. At this point in the sequence (turn 6), Lars’ argu-mentation starts shifting towards making a distinction, implying that gene tech-nology compared to traditional breeding more actively alters the fundamentalconditions of life. This argument is supported by Nina (turn 7), who once againclaims that gene technology implies human interference in something that is fartoo holy to legitimately meddle with. In turn 8, Lars explicitly acknowledges thatsuch interference constitutes a difference between traditional breeding and genetechnology. His interpretation is supported by Nina and Olivia in turns 9–10,with the result that the distinction between the two techniques becomes moreprominent in the discussion than the analogy does.

In the process of trying out different analogies and distinctions, the partici-pants jointly construct knowledge regarding how to conceptualize gene technol-ogy in general. In discussing whether an analogy or a distinction should beestablished, the participants are also implicitly discussing how to position them-selves regarding the issue of genetically modified food. In expressing differentopinions, modifying their viewpoints and agreeing on certain issues, the partici-pants are jointly exploring different aspects and perspectives regarding the spec-ified issue. The answer to the question ‘What are the participants trying tolearn?’, could be that they are exploring different ethical justifications for oragainst the use of gene technology. They are also trying out arguments for andagainst the view that gene technology is ethically equivalent to traditional breed-ing. In addition, the participants are trying to learn how to position themselvesas company representatives regarding issues related to genetically modified food.

In analysing sequences such as Example 2, the analyst can address how dif-ferent perspectives interact and how certain perspectives gradually becomedominant in the discussion, while other perspectives withdraw into the back-ground. Thus, rather than simply coding the sequence according to what theparticipants are talking about, the analyst is also able to scrutinize how theyare talking, and how their viewpoints are maintained, reinforced, modified orrejected in the interaction between the participants. We argue that the impactof the interaction needs to be taken into account in analysing focus groupdata, in order to increase the ability of researchers to reflect on their findings.

Strategies for analysing and supporting elaboration andco-construction of knowledge in focus groupsANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATAOne criticism of focus group research is that methods for capturing interactionin the analysis are lacking (Agar and MacDonald, 1995; Hydén and Bülow,




2003; Kitzinger, 1994; Wilkinson, 1998a). Despite the fact that ‘the hallmarkof focus groups is the explicit use of group interaction …’ (Morgan, 1988: 12, ital-ics in original), the exploitation of this interaction phenomenon during analy-sis is often limited to the immediate context of the particular focus groupsession. More often than not, reports based on focus group studies present quo-tations from one individual at a time, giving the impression that individualviewpoints can be isolated from the context in which they were expressed, i.e.the interaction between the group participants.

Over the past few years, however, several papers have called for the considera-tion of interactive factors when analysing focus group discussions. For example,some scholars have called for the analysis of ‘sensitive moments’ in the interac-tion between participants (Kitzinger and Farquhar, 1999), or for the use of con-versation analysis to explore how participants interact, linguistically, at themicro level (e.g. Collins and Marková, 2004; Myers and Macnaghten, 1999).

To explore how participants elaborate and co-construct knowledge regardinga certain topic, combining different types of analyses may be fruitful. Such analy-ses could include ‘dialogical discourse analysis’ (Marková et al., 2006; Wibeck,2004), which aims to investigate under which contextual conditions, and withwhat rhetorical force and dialogical consequences, ideas and thoughts are con-structed and used (Marková et al., 2006). Dialogical discourse analysis focuseson the interaction between different thoughts, ideas and arguments in the dis-cursive web. For example, the interplay between analogies and distinctions (seeExample 2), or the use of prototypical examples or metaphors may be analysed.The interaction of different voices/perspectives in a discussion is another poten-tial analytical focus. At the content level, recurrent themes and clusters ofthemes can be analysed, as well as how the themes are interrelated.

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTSTo encourage the elaboration and co-construction of knowledge among focusgroup participants, we argue that a researcher may employ certain strategies.In preparing for the study, special attention should be paid to the selection ofparticipants. Homogeneous focus groups are often recommended (e.g. Jarrett,1993), since participants who share certain experiences and opinions areprobably more willing to exchange ideas and thoughts in a focus group.However, heterogeneity among participants can also be illuminating(Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999). Drawing from the experiences from PBL, it isimportant not to strive for consensus and shared group norms when selectingfocus group participants. Kitzinger (1994: 113) argues that ‘[t]he differencebetween participants … allows one to observe not only how people theorizetheir own point of view but how they do so in relation to other perspectivesand how they put their own ideas “to work”’. Our conclusion is that even if afocus group is homogeneous in many respects, in planning the study attentionshould be directed to strategies for encouraging a ‘spirit of contradiction’(Billig, 1996), so that arguments and counter-arguments will be elaborated on




260

and co-constructed by the participants (for examples of such strategies, see thefollowing sections).

In addition, group size may be crucial for the outcome of the discussion.Since the intention of the focus group method is similar to that of tutorialgroups, i.e. to maximize interaction between participants, roughly the samereasoning regarding group size determination may be employed in both cases.In discussing group size in PBL, Wilkerson (1996) refers to a study by Hare(1962) that proposes five as the optimal number of participants to promotesmall group discussion. Smaller groups imply that each participant needs toplay a prominent role, while in larger groups the opportunities to speak aremore limited. Wilkerson (1996) holds that in most PBL programmes, the pre-ferred maximum number of participants is eight, but that groups may well besmaller. Empirical studies have demonstrated that students participating insmaller groups report having more opportunities for participation and that thediscussions are more focused than in larger groups. In addition, in largergroups one or two students may take over the tutor/moderator role at theexpense of interaction between participants (Wilkerson, 1996).

In sum, to encourage the elaboration and co-construction of knowledge infocus groups, a certain amount of homogeneity among group members isdesirable, while for the sake of active discussion, some heterogeneity shouldalso be sought. An atmosphere that supports a range of perspectives is desir-able, and such an atmosphere presupposes a relatively small group.

I N T E R V I E W G U I D E A N D S T I M U L U S M A T E R I A LOne important part of preparing for a focus group study is to compose an inter-view guide. Depending on the level of structure of the focus group, the inter-view guide will assume different forms (see, for example, Krueger, 1998). Attimes, there is also a need for stimulus material, which may consist of, forexample, an image, text or product introducing the specified issue to the par-ticipants (Kitzinger, 1994). Participant elaboration and co-construction ofknowledge are encouraged by well-designed interview guides and stimulusmaterial. In composing the group questions and possibly in compiling the stim-ulus material, it is important to bear in mind that this material should encour-age participants to explore a range of perspectives. To support the elaborationand co-construction of knowledge in PBL, Dolmans et al. (2001: 886) empha-size the importance of ‘develop[ing] problems to be discussed in the group whichlink up well with students’ prior knowledge and contain sufficient cues to stim-ulate the discussion’. In focus group research, Krueger (1998) advises that theinterview guide should contain open-ended questions, i.e. questions that stim-ulate discussion without directing it too much. Probing questions may beincluded in the interview guide, to make participants reflect on links to theirown prior knowledge and to other participants’ contributions. Probes may alsobe used to help the participants challenge each other and elaborate theiraccounts – in other words, to promote a ‘spirit of contradiction’ (Billig, 1996).




In PBL, student discussions take as their points of departure real-life scenar-ios from which the students generate questions to be explored. Such scenariosare analogous to the stimulus material or opening questions used by the focusgroup moderator to stimulate discussion. In the literature regarding effectivescenario design it is noted that ‘complexity is an important feature of scenarios’(Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001: 278). The scenarios should not be too‘directing’, but contain enough clues to prompt the students to elaborate theirdiscussions (Dolmans et al., 2001). It has been noted that ‘more ill-structured,complex tasks provoked extended elaboration among group members and wereassociated with conceptual learning’ (Wilkerson, 1996: 26). However, asAbrandt Dahlgren and Öberg (2001) point out, complexity is not the only fea-ture that explains the effectiveness of scenarios. They found that ‘scenarios thatwere provocative or evoked emotional involvement, for instance, by containing acertain opinion or some kind of contrast or tension, were powerful triggers’(Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001: 278, italics in original).

We conclude that to encourage interaction and provide incentives for col-laborative learning among focus group participants, interview questions andstimulus material should be complex and open-ended, while incorporating ele-ments that are provocative or cause emotional responses.

M O D E R A T I N G T H E G R O U PFocus group researchers tend to assume that focus group participants instinc-tively constitute themselves and act as members of a small group. However, asHydén and Bülow (2003) point out, there are at least three different perspec-tives according to which a group may be understood: 1) as an aggregation ofindividuals sharing some common experiences or social features, 2) as a smallgroup in which the members share values, norms, roles and goals, or 3) as afocused gathering (Goffman, 1961) in which participants share a temporarysituation with a common focus. Hydén and Bülow (2003) argue that focusgroup participants face two particular problems in interacting as members ofa group, rather than as individuals, namely, how to establish a common com-municative ground, and how to add their contributions to and expand thatcommon ground. In other words, to provide good incentives for interaction,focus group participants need to form a small group, with a common ground,in which knowledge can be elaborated and co-constructed. We argue that therole of the moderator is crucial in this process. The same is the case in prob-lem-based learning, in which students use the tutorial group as a small groupin which collaborative learning is undertaken.

A review of studies of the role of the facilitator in problem-based learning hasdemonstrated that many facilitators walk a tightrope between being ‘directive’(i.e. leading the students towards discussing issues that the facilitator conceivesof as central) and being a ‘voiceless participant’ (i.e. not engaging in the dis-cussion at all, but being verbally silent and displaying a lack of involvementthrough non-verbal signals) (Savin-Baden, 2003). When the facilitator




262

assumes a ‘directive’ role, students can become dependent on him or her, whilea ‘voiceless’ facilitator risks ending up facilitating a group of students who –particularly if they are new to PBL – find that ‘the lack of direction is duplici-tous because they feel it is the facilitator’s way of avoiding a declaration of theirown agenda and concerns’ (Savin-Baden, 2003: 50). Likewise, focus groupmoderators face the challenge of striking a balance between guiding the groupand not imposing a pre-determined agenda on the discussion. On the one hand,a strictly structured focus group may result in the researcher’s agenda beingreproduced by the focus group participants, while issues that could have beenmore central to the participants themselves risk being overlooked. If, on theother hand, the moderator provides insufficient information regarding theframing of the focus group session (i.e. how the discussion should be conductedand what the aim of the study is), participants tend to be uncertain as to whatis expected of them. They may thus put most of their effort into trying to deter-mine what kinds of contributions they are supposed to make, rather than actu-ally elaborating on and co-constructing knowledge.

In the focus groups we have conducted and supervised, the moderator hasgenerally assumed a detached position vis-a-vis the group. We have noticed that,depending on how the focus group activities were introduced to the participantsand on how they interpreted the introduction, the discussions took differentforms. The elaboration and co-construction of knowledge were supported by aclear introduction, and the participants demonstrated understanding and accep-tance of the framing of the focus group session. At times, however, even thoughroughly the same type of introduction was given by the moderator, participantsdisplayed uncertainty regarding the practical aspects of the methodology as wellas whether the research team would really benefit from their contributions. Insuch situations participants devoted considerable time to determining what todiscuss; they sometimes turned to the moderator for support, either explicitlyasking for questions to be posed or implicitly through non-verbal signals such asturning to and looking at the moderator. Our conclusion is that since the inter-pretative frames and the previous experience of the participants may differ, it iscrucial to ensure that the preconditions for focus group participation are clear toall participants before the discussion starts. However, once this common groundis established, little moderator intervention may be needed.

In problem-based learning, the tutor is described as ‘a guide, a facilitator, amonitor and a catalyst … [who] … allows students to focus and direct discus-sion while listening carefully to determine when intervention … is needed torefocus the discussion, challenge thinking, or subtly raise additional points tobe considered’ (Wilkinson, 1998a: 304). Intuition is central to successful facil-itation of both tutorial (Savin-Baden, 2003) and focus groups. Rather thanbeing a traditional interviewer, the focus group moderator, like the PBL tutor,should guide and facilitate the discussion. To stimulate discussion, the moder-ator should pay attention to the ‘dominant voices’ in the group (Smithson,2000). At times one or several participants may dominate the discussion,




silencing other voices. This may partly be dealt with by making a group homo-geneous with respect to age, education, sex, etc.; however, dominant voicesmay still monopolize the discussion, even in homogeneous groups. Smithson(2000) suggests that the moderator in such instances should turn directly tothe silenced participants to encourage them to speak. An alternative approachmay be to use non-verbal signals, such as glances and bodily postures, to nom-inate a silent participant as a potential speaker. In addition, it is crucial to beaware of ‘normative discourses’, i.e. ‘“normal” or “standard” views, which arenot necessarily explicitly stated in the group, but are assumed by the partici-pants to be held by the other group members’ (Smithson, 2000: 112). Weargue that it is important that the moderator, even at the beginning of the ses-sion, help create an atmosphere of trust, in which participants believe thattheir contributions are important, and that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’to be assessed by the researchers.

ConclusionsCiting examples transcribed from focus group discussions, we have discussedhow knowledge is elaborated and co-constructed in focus groups. We arguethat when the analytical focus shifts from mere content analysis to an analysisof what focus group participants are trying to learn, it is possible to explore notonly what the participants are talking about, but also how they are trying tounderstand and conceptualize the issue in question. Thus, researchers maycapture and take advantage of the interaction itself in the focus group whenanalysing the data, rather than treating interaction as merely a tool for effi-cient data collection. To support the interactive elaboration and co-construc-tion of knowledge, we argue that focus group researchers may benefit fromstudies of how small groups are used as arenas for sense-making and learningin PBL. Strategies for selecting group participants, formulating interviewguides and stimulus material and moderating the groups may be informed bystrategies used to support student learning in tutorial groups. Our intentionhas been to start bringing together the research traditions of PBL and focusgroups. It is our conviction that the more the researchers from the two fieldslearn from each other, the more synergies – but also differences – will be found.Such discussion will add to the reflexivity of focus group research as well asresearch in PBL.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This article was made possible by a grant from the Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency for the research programme ‘Assessment of environmentalgoal achievement under uncertainty’ (no. I-37–03). The authors wish tothank Madelaine Johansson for productive discussion and assistance in datacollection.




264

N O T E S

1. For an introduction to PBL, see e.g. Margetson (1993), Barrows (1988) and Savin-Baden (2000).

2. In PBL, ‘problem’ is used in the positive sense of a challenge, issue, etc. (see, forexample, Russell, 1999).

3. The focus groups were conducted in Swedish, but for the purposes of this article thequotations have been translated into English.

R E F E R E N C E S

Abrandt Dahlgren, M. and Öberg, G. (2001) ‘Questioning to Learn and Learning toQuestion: Structure and Function of Problem-Based Learning Scenarios in Environ-mental Science Education’, Higher Education 41(3): 263–82.

Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995) ‘Focus Groups and Ethnography’, HumanOrganization 54(1): 78–86.

Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Barrows, H. (1988) The Tutorial Process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois UniversitySchool of Medicine.

Billig, M. (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2ndEdition). London: Sage.

Clarke, S. (2002) ‘Developing Quality Participation in Tutorial’, in A. Goody, J. Herringtonand M. Northcote (eds) Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of theHigher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth,Australia. URL (consulted 21 February 2006): http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications

Collins, S. and Marková, I. (2004) ‘Les énoncés collaboratifs: nouvelle méthode dansl’étude des données issues des “focus groups”’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 291–98.

De Grave, W., Dolmans, D. and Van der Vleuten, C. (2001) ‘Student Perceptions Aboutthe Occurrence of Critical Incidents in Tutorial Groups’, Medical Teacher 23(1): 49–54.

Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C. and Wijnen, W. (2001) ‘SolvingProblems with Group Work in Problem-Based Learning: Hold On to the Philosophy’,Medical Education 35: 884–9.

Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis,IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Hare, P. (1962) Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004) ‘Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?’,

Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 235–66.Hydén, L. and Bülow, P. (2003) ‘Who’s Talking: Drawing Conclusions From Focus

Groups. Some Methodological Considerations’, International Journal of Social ResearchMethodology 6(4): 305–21.

Jarrett, R. (1993) ‘Focus Group Interviewing with Low-Income Minority Populations:A Research Experience’, in D. Morgan (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing theState of the Art, pp. 184 –201. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jovchelovitch, S. (2001) ‘Contextualising Focus Groups: Understanding Groups andCultures’, Paper prepared for the fifth meeting of the group ‘Conversation et lan-gage’, Laboratoire Européen de Psychologie Sociale, Paris.

Kitzinger, J. (1994) ‘The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of InteractionBetween Research Participants’, Sociology of Health and Illness 16(1): 103–21.




Kitzinger, J. and Barbour, R. (1999) ‘Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of FocusGroups’, in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,Theory and Practice, pp. 1 –20. London: Sage.

Kitzinger, J. and Farquhar, C. (1999) ‘The Analytical Potential of “Sensitive Moments”in Focus Group Discussions’, in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing FocusGroup Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 156 –72. London: Sage.

Krueger, R. (1998) Developing Questions for Focus Groups. Focus group kit, no. 3.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leseman, P., Rollenberg, L. and Gebhart, E. (2000) ‘Co-construction in Kindergartners’Free Play: Effects on Social, Individual and Didactic Factors’, in H. Cowie and G. Vander Aalsvoort (eds) Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning ofDiscourse for the Construction of Knowledge. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Linell, P., Wibeck, V., Adelswärd, V. and Bakshi, A. (2001) ‘Arguing in Conversationas a Case of Distributed Cognition: Discussing Biotechnology in Focus Groups’, inE. Németh (ed.) Cognition in Language Use: Selected Papers from the 7th InternationalPragmatics Conference, Vol. I, pp. 243–55. Amsterdam: International PragmaticsAssociation.

Margetson, D. (1993) ‘Understanding Problem-Based Learning’, Educational Philosophyand Theory 25(1): 40–57.

Marková, I. (2004) ‘Langage et communication en psychologie sociale: dialoguer dansles “focus groups”’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 231–36.

Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2006) Dialogue in FocusGroups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox.

Morgan, D. (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Morgan, D. (1996) ‘Focus Groups’, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129–52.Morgan, D. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook (Focus Group Kit, no. 1). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Moscovici, S. (1984) ‘The Phenomenon of Social Representations’, in R. Farr and

S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3 –69. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Myers, G. (1998) ‘Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups’,Language in Society 27(1): 85–111.

Myers, G. and Macnaghten, P. (1999) ‘Can Focus Groups be Analysed as Talk?’, inR. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory andPractice, pp. 173 –85. London: Sage.

Regehr, G. and Norman, G. (1996) ‘Issues in Cognitive Psychology: Implications forProfessional Education’, Academic Medicine 71(9): 988–1001.

Russell, K. (1999) ‘The Problem of the Problem and Perplexity’, in proceedings of PBL:A Way Forward. The 1999 PBL conference, University of Quebec, 7–10 July,Montreal, Canada.

Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories.Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003) Facilitating Problem-Based Learning: Illuminating Perspectives.Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Schmidt, H. (1993) ‘Foundations of Problem-Based Learning: Some ExploratoryNotes’, Medical Education 27: 422–32.

Schmidt, H., De Volder, M., De Grave, W., Moust, J. and Patel, V. (1989) ‘ExploratoryModels in the Processing of Science Texts: The Role of Prior Knowledge ActivationThrough Small-Group Discussion’, Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 610–19.




266

Smithson, J. (2000) ‘Using and Analysing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities’,International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2): 103–19.

Stevens, P.E. (1996) ‘Focus Groups: Collecting Aggregate-Level Data to UnderstandCommunity Health Phenomena’, Public Health Nursing 13(3): 170–6.

van Boxtel, C. (2000) Collaborative Concept Learning: Collaborative Learning Tasks, StudentInteraction, and the Learning of Physics Concepts. Enschede, Netherlands: PrintPartnersIpskamp.

Visschers-Pleijers, A., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I. and Van Der Vleuten, C. (2004)‘Exploration of a Method to Analyze Group Interactions in Problem-based Learning’,Medical Teacher 26(5): 471–8.

Wibeck, V. (2002) ’Genmat i focus. Analyser av fokusgruppssamtal om genförändradelivsmedel’ [‘Genetically modified food in focus: analyses of focus group discussions’],PhD dissertation, Linköping University (Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, 260).Linköping, Sweden: The Tema Institute.

Wibeck, V. (2004) ‘Exploring Focus Groups: Analysing Focus Group Data AboutGenetically Modified Food’, in K. Aijmer (ed.) Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understandingand Misunderstanding in Dialogue. Selected Papers from the 8th IADA Conference,Göteborg 2001, pp. 287 –98. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Wibeck, V., Adelswärd, V. and Linell, P. (2004) ‘Comprendre la complexité: Les focusgroups comme espace de pensée et d’argumentation sur les aliments génétiquementmodifiés’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 253–61.

Wibeck, V., Johansson, M., Larsson, A. and Öberg, G. (2006) ‘“Communicative Aspectsof Environmental Management by Objectives”: Examples from the Swedish Context’,Environmental Management 37: 461–469.

Wilkerson, L. (1996) ‘Tutors and Small Groups in Problem-Based Learning: Lessonsfrom the Literature’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 68: 23–32.

Wilkinson, S. (1998a) ‘Focus Group Methodology: A Review’, International Journal ofSocial Research Methodology 1(3): 181–203.

Wilkinson, S. (1998b) ‘Focus Groups in Health Research: Exploring the Meanings ofHealth and Illness’, Journal of Health Psychology 3(3): 329–48.

Wilkinson, S. (1999) ‘Focus Groups: A Feminist Method’, Psychology of WomenQuarterly 23(2): 221–44.

Yoshihama, M. (2002) ‘Breaking the Web of Abuse and Silence: Voices of BatteredWomen in Japan’, Social Work 47(4): 389–400.

V I C T O R I A W I B E C K is an assistant professor in Environmental Science, with a PhDin Communication Science (Linköping University, Sweden). She is currently involved inresearch projects on communicative barriers in environmental management and onpublic perceptions of genetically modified food. One of her major research interests isthe development of focus group methodology.Address: Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Water andEnvironmental Studies, Linköping University, SE-601 74 Norrköping, Sweden. [email:[email protected]]

M A D E L E I N E A B R A N D T D A H L G R E N is Professor of Education at LinköpingUniversity, Sweden. Her field of research is Higher Education. Her publications includea variety of books and articles, particularly on student-centred educational design,problem-based learning in different academic contexts, cross-cultural learning in aweb-based environment. A recent research focus is students’ transition from highereducation to working life.




Address: Department of Behavioural Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83Linköping, Sweden. [email: [email protected]]

G U N I L L A Ö B E R G is Professor and Director of the Institute for Resources, Environmentand Sustainability (IRES) at University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada and was pre-viously Director of the Centre for Climate, Science and Policy Research at LiU, Sweden.Öberg has chaired and participated in a number of interdisciplinary educational, devel-opmental and research projects which, among other things, have involved the use ofproblem-based learning (PBL) and focus group interviews.Address: Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, The University ofBritish Columbia, Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory, 429–2202 Main Mall,Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 124. [email: [email protected]]




Documents

Qualitative Research