The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants
Open accessAbstract
What are focus groups? How are they distinct from ordinary group discussions and what use are they anyway? This article introduces focus group methodology, explores ways of conducting such groups and examines what this technique of data collection can offer researchers in general and medical sociologists in particular. It concentrates on the one feature which inevitably distinguishes focus groups from one‐to‐one interviews or questionnaires – namely the interaction between research participants ‐ and argues for the overt exploration and exploitation of such interaction in the research process.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own interpretation · 14 Own result · 14 No basis given · 13 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In several groups any attempt to address tbe dsks HIV poses to gay men were drowned out by a ritual pedod of outcry against bomosexuality:”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our 'pre-existing groups' peopie were sometimes surprised to discover bow differentiy tbey tbougbt about some tbings especially wben tbe group otberwise appeared reiativeiy bomogeneous (e.g. by gender, race, and class).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe fact tbat researcb participants already knew eacb otber bad tbe additional advantage tbat fdends and colleagues could relate eacb otber's comments to actual incidents in tbeir sbared daily lives.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbey often cballenged eacb otber on contradictions between wbat tbey were professing to believe and bow tbey actually bebaved”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By using pre-existing groups we were sometimes able to tap into fragments of interactions whicb approximated to 'naturally occurring' data (sucb as migbt bave been collected by participant observation).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For exampie in one group tbere was a great deai of initiai scepticism about tbe view that HIV was created in a laboratory but a story told by one of the other memijers of tbe group sbifted tbe consensus”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However there was some evidence to suggest tbat if people do not bave (or do not use) different words to identify HIV and AIDS tbey may bave difficulty communicating tbe distinction to otbers.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was also clear within the subsequent focus groups that if each person had a different disability this could compound each of their communication difficulties.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand it was also true that some of the old people who might have been unable to sustain a one-to-one interview were able to take part in the group contdbuting intermittently.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group work is cbaractedsed by teasing, joking and tbe kind of acting out tbat goes on among peers.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe card game also encourages everyone to talk as eacb participant reads out a statement in tum and tbe matedal existence of tbe cards seemed to embolden some people.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reviewing over 40 publisbed reports of 'focus group studies' I could not find a single one concentrating on tbe conversation between participants and very few tbat even included any quotations from more tban one participant at a time.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regardless of bow tbey are seiected, tbe researcb participants in any one group are never entireiy bomogenous.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sucb unexpected dissent led tbem to ciadfy wby tbey tbougbt as tbey did, often identifying aspects of tbeir personal expedence wbicb bad altered tbeir opinions or specific occasions wbicb bad made tbem re-tbink tbeir point of view.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dudng tbe course of tbe AIDS project group participants argued, boasted, made faces at each otber, told stodes and on one occasion, sang songs.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If sucb stodes do serve sucb functions it is certainly not all tbey do: in our 'general population' groups sucb tales were not often used to advise people to take precautions dudng sex witb anyone -instead tbey were used to justify identifying and isolating 'AIDS carders'.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seeing tbe card pbysically placed under tbe 'wrong' category makes tbe dissenting individual twitcb -often tbey bave reacbed out and moved tbe card even before tbey bave been able to articulate tbeir dissent.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sucb exercises not only provided invaluable data from eacb group but allow for some cross-compadsons between groups.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Brainstorming and loose word association was a frequent feature of tbe researcb sessions.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wben group dynamics worked well tbe co-participants acted as coresearcbers taking tbe researcb into new and often unexpected directions and engaging in interaction wbicb were botb complementary (sucb as sbadng common expedences) and argimientative (questioning, cballenging, and disagreeing witb eacb otber).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At tbe very least sucb exercises served as a 'party game': 'warming up' partidpants and encouraging tbem to engage witb one anotber.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately some peopie, of course, do not like party games and at worst sucb games could make people feel uncomfortable and reminded some researcb participants of school lessons!”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbis did not prove to be tbe case.Data from tbe AIDS Media Researcb Project sbow tbat peopie couid understand tbe distinction witbout possessing tbe accurate medicai language (and vice versa).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group work can, however, discdminate against people with communication disabilities.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe debate quickly became confused by tbe lack of linguistic specificity.Botb boys resort to terms sucb as 'carrying it' and 'baving it' and tbe discussion became bopelessly side-tracked by an inappropdate metapbor.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbis interaction was typicai of many of tbe 'turning points' in tbe groups.People commonly appeared to cbange tbeir minds in responded to 'personal' evidence based on anecdotes or tbe perceived bebaviour of professionals ratber tban information from leaflets or advertisements and tbere was a clear 'bierarcby of credibility' in operation between different types of sources”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe final layout of tbe cards is not important -it is tbe process of getting tbere wbicb is revealing.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On tbe contrary, tbe enthusiasm witb wbicb some peopie acted out 'tbe iook of an AIDS carder' vividly demonstrates the voyeudstic fascination of 'the Face of AIDS' and tbe way in wbicb some media images are reproduced, reinforced and reiterated tbrougb sociai interaction.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Had tbe data been collected by interviews tbe researcber migbt bave been faced witb 'armcbair' tbeodsing about tbe causes of sucb difference but in a focus group tbese can be explored 'in situ' witb tbe belp of tbe researcb participants.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note tbat althougb, at times, the focus groups may approximate to participant observation tbe focus groups are artifidally set up situations.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once baving done so tbe onus is upon tbem to explain tbeir reasoning.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cmdally, focus groups are distinguisbed from tbe broader category of group interviews by 'tbe explicit use of tbe group interaction' as researcb data (see Merton 1956 and Morgan 1988: 12).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Merton 1956
- Not checked yetcites Morgan 1988
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe reiisb witb wbicb people swapped information about tbe vast quantities of saiiva needed to pose any dsk of infection bigbligbts tbe potency of tbe 'yuk' factor in beiping tbem to recaii certain 'facts' about AIDS and suggest tbe potential of bamessing peer communication.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even wben group work is explicitly included as part of tbe researcb it is often simply employed as a convenient way to illustrate a tbeory generated by otber metbods or as a cost-effective tecbnique for interviewing several people at once.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In tbe same way such 'natural clusterings' at work, social events or in tbe bome (along with tbe mass media) provide part of tbe 'scdpting' for people's response to AIDS in Bdtain.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Khan and Manderson 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, listening to discussions between partidpants gives tbe researcber time to acclimatise to, for example, tbeir preferred words for speaking ab)out sex and prevents tbe researcber from prematurely closing off tbe generation of meaning in ber own searcb for cladfication.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe difference between partidpants also allows one to observe not only how peopie tbeodse tbeir own point of view but how tbey do so in reiation to otber perspectives and bow tbey put tbeir own ideas 'to work'.Tbis process in itseif cladfies wbat peopie are saying.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
In the paper
“Group work is invaluable for 'grounded tbeory development -focusing on tbe generation ratber tban tbe testing of tbeory and explodng tbe categories wbicb the participants use to order tbeir expedence (Glaszer and Strauss 1967).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Complementary interactions: the importance of the shared cidtnre
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glaszer and Strauss 1967
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, group work has not been systematically developed as a researcb tecbnique witbin social science in general and altbougb group interviews bave often implicitly informed researcb tbey are rarely acknowledged as part of tbe process (see Frey and Fontana 1991: 177).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frey and Fontana 1991
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many 'focus group studies' rely on no more tban 4 or 5 groups, and tbis may be a perfectly adequate number wben working witb particular populations.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eacb discussion session bas its own dynamic and direction -wben it comes to analysis it is extremely useful to bave a common extemal reference point sucb as tbat provided by tbe card game or tbe use of vignettes (Kban and Manderson 1992).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Running the focus group sessions -maximising interaction hetween partidpants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Khan and Manderson 1992
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It concentrates on tbe one feature wbicb inevitably distinguisbes focus groups from one-to-one interviews or questionnaires -namely the interaction between research participants”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Flatmates, colleagues, family and fdends -tbese are precisely tbe people witb wbom one migbt 'naturally' discuss sucb topics, at least in passing, and tbese are major sites of 'collective remembedng' (see Middleton and Edwards 1990).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Middleton and Edwards 1990
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Compadng tbe effects of different metbodologies wben talking to beterosextiai men about sex, for exampie, some researcbers have noted tbat tbese researcb participants are more iikeiy to express macbo attitudes (witb a maie researcber) or to sexually barass (a femaie researcber) in group settings tban in individuai interviews (Wigbt in press; Green et ai. in press).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wigbt in press
- Not checked yetcites Green et ai. in press
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sucb interactions beip researcbers to identify tbe precise influence of particuiar words or pbrases and are invaluable wben attempting to design or improve bealtb education or otber intervention strategies.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• expiore difference between group participants in situ witb tbem and, because, participants reflect upon each otbers ideas, ensure tbat tbe data is organic/interconnected.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead of disregarding data from group settings we need to acknowledge tbe different types of discourses tbat may be expressed in tbe 'pdvate' and 'pubiic' arena, or witb peers versus with an interviewer.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
In the paper
“As sucb focus groups are perfect for 'fiiiing in tbe gaps' so often exposed by KAP surveys and are ideai for inductive approacbes aimed at generating concepts and bypotbeses wbicb, as Muiien and Reynoids point out, may bave far more potentiai for beaitb education researcb, tbeory and practice tban tbe dominant deductive modeis (Muiien and Reynolds cited in Bascb 1987:435).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Muiien and Reynolds cited in Bascb 1987:435
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
In the paper
“I agree with Morgan, however, when he suggests that focus group are particularly suited to the study of attitudes and cognition whereas participant observation may be more appropriate for studies of social roles and formal organisations (Morgan 1988, 17).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morgan 1988, 17
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wben researcbers want to explore people's understandings, or to influence tbem, it makes sense to employ metbods wbicb actively encourage tbe examination of tbese social processes in action.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
In the paper
“Uncovedng people's own 'models of rationality' and understanding their perspective 'is integral to achieve a key goal of health education -empowerment -and focus group interviews are an appropdate method for understanding and developing sensitivity toward those we serve' (Basch 1987, 436).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Basch 1987, 436
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Completion of questionnaires also helped to maximise subsequent debate and to encourage research participants to express their own point of view because, as other authors have noted, 'the process of writing things down reinforces a person's commitment to contributing them to the group, even in the face of apparent disapproval' (Morgan 1988, 58, Greenbaum 1987).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morgan 1988, 58
- Not checked yetcites Greenbaum 1987
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Can encourage open conversation about embarrassing subjects and faciiitate tbe expression of ideas and expedences tbat migbt be ieft underdeveloped in an interview”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• expiore tbe arguments peopie use against eacb otber, identify tbe factors wbicb influence individuais to cbange tbeir minds and document bow facts and stodes operate in practice -wbat ideological work tbey do.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Focus groups do not easiiy tap into individuai biograpbies or tbe minutia of decision making dudng intimate moments, but tbey do examine bow knowiedge and, more importantly, ideas botb develop, and operate, witbin a given cultural context.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
In the paper
“instead it is based on tbe premise tbat 'all talk tbrougb whicb people generate meaning is contextual, and tbat tbe contexts will inevitably somewbat colour tbe meaning' (Dablgren 1988:292).”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dablgren 1988:292
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tbe fact tbat particular groups faciiitate tbe articuiation of particuiar kinds of perspectives can tben be consdousiy addressed and tbe importance of tbat context can be considered.”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Aif:nnientative int»actiom: the importance of difference
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
- Rests on an assumption: Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
- Rests on an assumption: People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
The paper relies on this without support.
The group exercises used in the project elicit valid data about participants' understandings rather than merely serving as games.
“Sucb exercises not only provided invaluable data from eacb group but allow for some cross-compadsons between groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People are not self-contained, isolated, static entities; they are part of complex and overlapping social, familial and collegiate networks.
“We are none of us seif-contained, isolated, static entities; we are part of complex and overiapping sociai, famiiiai and collegiate networks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Personal behaviour is not cut off from public discourses and actions do not happen in a cultural vacuum.
“Our personal isebaviour is not cut off from public discourses and our actions do not bappen in a cultural vacuum wbetber tbat is negotiating safer sex, sbadng needles, attending for a smear test or going 'queer basbing'.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People learn about meanings through talking with and observing others, and act on knowledge in a social context.
“We ieam about tbe 'meaning' of AIDS, (or sex, or beaitb or food or cigarettes) tbrougb taiking witb and observing otber peopie, tbrougb conversations at bome or at work; and we act (or faii to act) on tbat knowledge in a social context.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“They provide effective means of eliciting and sharing information especially on sensitive topics, and evidence suggests they work particularly well with women [42].”
From Pregnant migrant and refugee women’s perceptions of mental illness on the Thai-Myanmar border: a qualitative study (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
In the citing paper
“The groups were deliberately designed to contain participants who were known to one another because it is accepted that the formation of naturally occurring groups is generally best to facilitate discussion on sensitive topics.17,18”
From Experiences of suicide bereavement: A qualitative study exploring the role of the GP (2016) · cites this paper as [18]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“We conducted a total of 52 different discussions, compdsing 351 par-tidpants.Tbe bulk of tbese sessions were conducted by tbe autbor, otbers were mn by colleagues on tbe project: Peter Bebarrell, David Miller and Kevin Williams.Eacb group consisted of, on average, 6 researcb participants”
§ The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants > Abstract
Reported 6 · recomputed 6.75
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
McQuarrie, E. F., & Krueger, R. A. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172912 · Cited by 15,489
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Morgan, D. (1997) · doi:10.4135/9781412984287 · Cited by 8,863
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Kawamura, H., & Morgan, D. L. (1998) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/330238 · Cited by 2,788
Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire
Fine, M. (1988) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.58.1.u0468k1v2n2n8242 · Cited by 1,258
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-1244 · Cited by 862
Basch, C. E. (1987) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818701400404 · Cited by 848
The group interview in social research
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-m · Cited by 524
The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and Discontinuities
Merton, R. Κ. (1987) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269057 · Cited by 497
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Corner J., 1990, Television, A Media Research Monograph 4
- Glazer B., 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory
- Kitzinger J., Challenge and Innovation: Methodological Advances in AIDS Research
- Merlon R., 1956, The Focused Interview: A report of the bureau of applied social research
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.
Kitzinger, J. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 · Cited by 6,939
Self-citationThe Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/14.onf.545-547 · Cited by 3,915
Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. T., & Chadwick, B. L. (2008) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192 · Cited by 2,779
O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12860 · Cited by 2,619
“…to discuss a specific topic, aiming to draw from the complex personal experiences, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of the participants through a moderated interaction (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Hayward, Simpson, & Wood, 2004; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Kitzinger, 1994; Morgan, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMorgan, D. L. (1996) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 · Cited by 2,353
Focus Groups in Social Research
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209175 · Cited by 2,174
Focus-group interview and data analysis
Rabiee, F. (2004) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1079/pns2004399 · Cited by 2,296
A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690900800301 · Cited by 1,775
Focus groups in feminist research
Wilkinson, S. (1998) · Women s Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/s0277-5395(97)00080-0 · Cited by 1,293
Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities
Smithson, J. (2000) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/136455700405172 · Cited by 1,160
Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973200129118453 · Cited by 1,056
Focus group methodology: a review
Wilkinson, S. (1998) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874 · Cited by 879
What Is This Thing Called Mental Toughness? An Investigation of Elite Sport Performers
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002) · Journal of Applied Sport Psychology · doi:10.1080/10413200290103509 · Cited by 961
Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group
Sim, J. (1998) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00692.x · Cited by 834
Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy
McLafferty, I. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x · Cited by 798
O’Brien, R., Hunt, K., & Hart, G. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.008 · Cited by 797
Keywords in Qualitative Methods
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209403 · Cited by 891
Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: more insight or just more?
Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794105056921 · Cited by 770
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-6017 · Cited by 770
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J. F., Dillon, J. S., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20399 · Cited by 668
Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques
Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E., Russell, E. M., Napper, M. J., & Robb, C. M. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5050 · Cited by 639
Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N. T., & McKenna, K. (2017) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601 · Cited by 638
Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate
Parker, A., & Tritter, J. Q. (2006) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/01406720500537304 · Cited by 637
Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91
Stalmeijer, R. E., McNaughton, N., & van Mook, W. (2014) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.917165 · Cited by 673
Gulliver, A., Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2012) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-12-157 · Cited by 611
The Social Contexts of Focus Groups
Hollander, J. A. (2004) · Journal of Contemporary Ethnography · doi:10.1177/0891241604266988 · Cited by 596
Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study
Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690010006518 · Cited by 582
The ethics of participatory research with children
Thomas, N., & O'Kane, C. (1998) · Children & Society · doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.1998.tb00090.x · Cited by 569
Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research.
Wong, L. P. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 566
A Framework of Mental Toughness in the World’s Best Performers
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007) · The Sport Psychologist · doi:10.1123/tsp.21.2.243 · Cited by 616
Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges
Sim, J., & Waterfield, J. (2019) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5 · Cited by 703
Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value cocreation
Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2020) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107735 · Cited by 559
‘Best practice’ in focus group research: making sense of different views
Freeman, T. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04043.x · Cited by 516
Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research
Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x · Cited by 493
Focus Groups in Health Research
Wilkinson, S. (1998) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/135910539800300304 · Cited by 507
Halcomb, E., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M. L., Phillips, J. L., & Davidson, P. M. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x · Cited by 454
Morgan, M., Gibbs, S., Maxwell, K., & Britten, N. (2002) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794102002001636 · Cited by 443
Hill, M. (2006) · Childhood · doi:10.1177/0907568206059972 · Cited by 430
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032 · Cited by 417
Wilkinson, S. (1999) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00355.x · Cited by 410
The “World Café” as a Participatory Method for Collecting Qualitative Data
Löhr, K., Weinhardt, M., & Sieber, S. (2020) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406920916976 · Cited by 392
Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research
Stewart, K., & Williams, M. L. (2005) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794105056916 · Cited by 385
What About Focus Group Interaction Data?
Duggleby, W. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732304273916 · Cited by 379
The use of focus group methodology — with selected examples from sexual health research
Robinson, N. (1999) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00966.x · Cited by 361
The Use of Focus Group Interviews in Pediatric Health Care Research
Heary, C. (2002) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.47 · Cited by 361
Focus Group Interviews in Child, Youth, and Parent Research: An Integrative Literature Review
Adler, K., Salanterä, S., & Shaha, M. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919887274 · Cited by 411
Sixma, H., Kerssens, J. J., van Campen, C., & Peters, L. (1998) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00004.x · Cited by 349
Conducting focus groups with children and young people: strategies for success
Gibson, F. (2007) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/1744987107079791 · Cited by 339
In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions
Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. B. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316631510 · Cited by 328
The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method
Cyr, J. (2015) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115570065 · Cited by 381
Health beliefs and folk models of diabetes in British Bangladeshis: a qualitative study
Greenhalgh, T., Helman, C. G., & Chowdhury, A. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7136.978 · Cited by 325
Understanding the multiple realities of everyday life: Basic assumptions in focus-group methodology
Dahlin‐Ivanoff, S., & Hultberg, J. (2006) · Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1080/11038120600691082 · Cited by 316
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2006) · Sociology of Sport Journal · doi:10.1123/ssj.23.2.142 · Cited by 315
Defining and characterizing team resilience in elite sport
Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.004 · Cited by 307
The Sensory Experiences of Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis
Robertson, A., & Simmons, D. R. (2015) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p7833 · Cited by 334
Transforming celebrities through social media: the role of authenticity and emotional attachment
Kowalczyk, C. M., & Pounders, K. R. (2016) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-09-2015-0969 · Cited by 345
Wibeck, V., Dahlgren, M. A., & Öberg, G. (2007) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794107076023 · Cited by 295
Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x · Cited by 295
Focus groups in nursing research: Methodological perspectives
Jayasekara, R. S. (2012) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2012.02.001 · Cited by 332
Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups
Myers, G. (1998) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500019734 · Cited by 288
Focus group research and “the patient's view”
Lehoux, P., Poland, B., & Daudelin, G. (2006) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.016 · Cited by 278
A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research
Massey, O. T. (2010) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.06.003 · Cited by 274
Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina
Peek, L., & Fothergill, A. (2009) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794108098029 · Cited by 274
International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social Sciences
Hennink, M. M. (2010) · Cited by 270
Whelan, A., Wrigley, N., Warm, D. L., & Cannings, E. (2002) · Urban Studies · doi:10.1080/0042098022000011371 · Cited by 266
An Overview of Qualitative Research and Focus Group Discussion
Akyıldız, S. T., & Ahmed, K. H. (2021) · International Journal of Academic Research in Education · doi:10.17985/ijare.866762 · Cited by 264
Why Bother Theorizing Adolescents' Online Literacies for Classroom Practice and Research?
Alvermann, D. E. (2008) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · doi:10.1598/jaal.52.1.2 · Cited by 274
Students' experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes
Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A., & Casey, D. (2011) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.05.014 · Cited by 256
Reconsidering the Role of Interaction in Analyzing and Reporting Focus Groups
Morgan, D. L. (2010) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732310364627 · Cited by 254
Focus Groups in Mental Health Research: Enhancing the Validity of User and Provider Questionnaires
Powell, R. A., Single, H. M., & Lloyd, K. R. (1996) · International Journal of Social Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/002076409604200303 · Cited by 266
Focus Groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research?
Wilson, V. (1997) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/0141192970230207 · Cited by 242
Widening participation and lifelong learning
McGrath, J. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315065373-16 · Cited by 242
Focus groups: issues of analysis and interpretation
Reed, J., & Payton, V. R. (1997) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00395.x · Cited by 240
Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Mani, V., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Benkhati, I. (2022) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108516 · Cited by 237
Litva, A., Coast, J., Donovan, J., Eyles, J. D., Shepherd, M., Tacchi, J., Abelson, J., & Morgan, K. (2002) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00151-4 · Cited by 236
Leonhardt, M., & Overå, S. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18116085 · Cited by 256
‘I Am Not The Doctor For You’: Physicians’ Attitudes About Caring For People With Disabilities
Lagu, T. C., Haywood, C., Reimold, K. E., DeJong, C., Sterling, R. W., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2022) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00475 · Cited by 229
Hill, M., Laybourn, A., & Borland, M. (1996) · Children & Society · doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.1996.tb00463.x · Cited by 223
Wear, D., Aultman, J. M., Varley, J. D., & Zarconi, J. (2006) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.acm.0000222277.21200.a1 · Cited by 221
Innovative Data Collection Strategies in Qualitative Research
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2014) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1171 · Cited by 231
Catterall, M., & Maclaran, P. (1997) · Sociological Research Online · doi:10.5153/sro.67 · Cited by 213
Joint and Individual Interviewing in the Context of Cancer
Morris, S. (2001) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973201129119208 · Cited by 210
Qualitative research in nutrition and dietetics: data collection issues
Draper, A., & Swift, J. A. (2010) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-277x.2010.01117.x · Cited by 208
Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes
Peek, M. E., Odoms‐Young, A. M., Quinn, M. T., Gorawara‐Bhat, R., Wilson, S. C., & Chin, M. H. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.014 · Cited by 220
Focus groups with young people: a participatory approach to research planning
Bagnoli, A., & Clark, A. (2010) · Journal of Youth Studies · doi:10.1080/13676260903173504 · Cited by 208
Short cuts to safety: Risk and 'rules of thumb' in accounts of food choice
Green, J., Draper, A., & Dowler, E. (2003) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/1369857031000065998 · Cited by 204
Ryan, K. E., Gandha, T., Culbertson, M. J., & Carlson, C. (2013) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214013508300 · Cited by 257
Sense of Entitlement to Support for the Reconciliation of Employment and Family Life
Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/00187267015411003 · Cited by 198
Cameron, J. (2005) · Griffith Research Online · Cited by 196
Focusing on Sex: Using Focus Groups in Sex Research
Frith, H. (2000) · Sexualities · doi:10.1177/136346000003003001 · Cited by 195
Correa, T., Fierro, C., Marcela Reyes, J., Carpentier, F. R. D., Taillie, L. S., & Corvalán, C. (2019) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-019-0781-x · Cited by 195
Barriers to evidence‐based practice in primary care
McKenna, H., Ashton, S., & Keeney, S. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02879.x · Cited by 193
Warr, D. J. (2005) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800404273412 · Cited by 188
“We're the Ones to Blame”: Citizens' Representations of Climate Change and the Role of the Media
Olausson, U. (2011) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2011.585026 · Cited by 186
Obstacles to decision making in Agile software development teams
Drury‐Grogan, M. L., Conboy, K., & Power, K. (2012) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.058 · Cited by 183
Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher
Cyr, J. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316987124 · Cited by 203
The Moral Rhetoric of Childhood
Meyer, A. (2007) · Childhood · doi:10.1177/0907568207072532 · Cited by 181
Is job insecurity changing the psychological contract?
Smithson, J., & Lewis, S. (2000) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/00483480010296465 · Cited by 180
Kai, J., Beavan, J., Faull, C., Dodson, L., Gill, P. S., & Beighton, A. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040323 · Cited by 179
Hertzberg, A., & Ekman, S. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01317.x · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Kitzinger, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kitzinger, Jenny
- ORCID
- Kitzinger, Jenny
- Venue
- Sociology of Health & Illness
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-121
- ISSN
- 0141-9889 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9566
- OpenAlex
- W2159172402
- Cited by
- 3,870
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 116 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 151 · 2023: 171 · 2022: 164 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 223 · 2019: 225 · 2018: 211 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 180 · 2015: 192 · 2014: 226 · 2013: 197 · 2012: 193
- FWCI
- 63.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Sociology of Health & Illness (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- focus groups, group interaction, qualitative data collection, medical sociology, group discussion, participant interaction, research methodology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
