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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a causeSingle 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
hedgedstates a possible causeSingle 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
hedgedstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a causeSingle 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
hedgedstates a cause- 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
boostedstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
boostedstates an association- 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
plainstates a possible cause- 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
boostedstates an association- 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
hedgedstates an association- 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
hedgedstates an association- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates an association- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
hedgedstates an association- 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
plainstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates an association- 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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn 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]
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
Items 301–400 of 1,006
Nicholas, D. B., Lach, L., King, G. A., Scott, M., Boydell, K., Sawatzky, B., Reisman, J., Schippel, E., & Young, N. L. (2010) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940691000900102 · Cited by 79
Cannabis and smoking research: interviewing young people in self-selected friendship pairs
Highet, G. (2003) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/18.1.108 · Cited by 79
Ramírez‐Monsalve, P., Raakjær, J., Nielsen, K. N., Santiago, J. L., Ballesteros, M., Laksá, U., & Degnbol, P. (2016) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.030 · Cited by 79
End-of-Life Preparations Among LGBT Older Canadian Adults: The Missing Conversations
de Vries, B., GUTMAN, G. M., Humble, Á. M., Gahagan, J., Chamberland, L., Aubert, P., Fast, J. E., & Mock, S. E. (2019) · The International Journal of Aging and Human Development · doi:10.1177/0091415019836738 · Cited by 79
Accessing Habitus: Relating Structure and Agency through Focus Group Research
Callaghan, G. (2005) · Sociological Research Online · doi:10.5153/sro.1129 · Cited by 78
Job loss and its aftermath among managers and professionals: wounded, fragmented and flexible
Gabriel, Y., Gray, D. E., & Goregaokar, H. (2013) · Work Employment and Society · doi:10.1177/0950017012460326 · Cited by 78
Critical success factors for integrating artificial intelligence and robotics
Mir, U. B., Sharma, S. K., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2020) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-03-2020-0032 · Cited by 80
Identity Safety and Relational Health in Youth Spaces: A Needs Assessment with LGBTQ Youth of Color
Gamarel, K. E., Walker, J. J., Rivera, L., & Golub, S. A. (2014) · Journal of LGBT Youth · doi:10.1080/19361653.2013.879464 · Cited by 90
Using focus groups to inform pharmacy research
Huston, S. A., & Hobson, E. H. (2008) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.09.001 · Cited by 78
Stahl, B. C., Tremblay, M. C., & LeRouge, C. (2011) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.21 · Cited by 78
Chang, J. C., Decker, M. R., Moracco, K. E., Martin, S. L., Petersen, R., & Frasier, P. Y. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 78
Dahlström, L., Lindwall, O., Rystedt, H., & Reit, C. (2016) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/iej.12675 · Cited by 78
Cherry, C., Hopfe, C. J., MacGillivray, B. H., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2016) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.10.011 · Cited by 82
Campbell, J. R. (2001) · Human Organization · doi:10.17730/humo.60.4.4bgnlmy60fkvq4r2 · Cited by 78
Life Challenges and Barriers to Help Seeking: Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Voices of Mental Health
Hellström, L., & Beckman, L. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph182413101 · Cited by 103
Moreno, J. M., Morales-del-Castillo, J. M., Porcel, C., & Herrera‐Viedma, E. (2009) · Soft Computing · doi:10.1007/s00500-009-0472-7 · Cited by 77
Jowett, M., & O’Toole, G. (2006) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794106068014 · Cited by 77
Pediatric Telepsychiatry in Ontario: Caregiver and Service Provider Perspectives
Greenberg, N., Boydell, K., & Volpe, T. (2006) · The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research · doi:10.1007/s11414-005-9001-3 · Cited by 77
Wright, N., Rowley, E., Chopra, A., Gregoriou, K., & Waring, J. J. (2015) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12361 · Cited by 81
Destination management: The tourists’ perspective
Pearce, D. G., & Schänzel, H. A. (2013) · Journal of Destination Marketing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.06.001 · Cited by 77
Understanding and defining bullying – adolescents’ own views
Hellström, L., Persson, L. J. P., & Hagquist, C. (2015) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-73-4 · Cited by 77
Are people with learning disabilities able to contribute to focus groups on health promotion?
Fraser, M., & Fraser, A. (2001) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01657.x · Cited by 77
Beckett, C., McKeigue, B., & Taylor, H. (2006) · Child & Family Social Work · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00437.x · Cited by 76
Climate change resilience: lessons from local climate-smart agricultural practices in Ghana
Mensah, H., Ahadzie, D. K., Takyi, S. A., & Amponsah, O. (2020) · Energy Ecology and Environment · doi:10.1007/s40974-020-00181-3 · Cited by 79
“It's crazy being a Black, gay youth.” Getting information about HIV prevention: A pilot study
Voisin, D. R., Bird, J. D. P., Shiu, C. A., & Krieger, C. (2012) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.09.009 · Cited by 79
Patients’ experience of important factors in the healthcare environment in oncology care
Browall, M., Koinberg, I., Falk, H., & Wijk, H. (2013) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20870 · Cited by 76
Discourses of ambition, gender and part-time work
Benschop, Y., van den Brink, M., Doorewaard, H., & Leenders, J. (2013) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726712466574 · Cited by 82
McBey, D., Watts, D., & Johnstone, A. M. (2019) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104349 · Cited by 83
Gamarel, K. E., Jadwin-Cakmak, L. A., King, W. M., Lacombe‐Duncan, A., Trammell, R., Reyes, L. A., Burks, C., Rivera, B., Arnold, E. A., & Harper, G. W. (2020) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260520976186 · Cited by 84
A theory‐based model of translation practices in public health participatory research
Clavier, C., Sénéchal, Y., Vibert, S., & Potvin, L. (2011) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01408.x · Cited by 75
Experiences of well-being among female doctoral students in Sweden
Schmidt, M., & Umans, T. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23059 · Cited by 92
Overseas nurses’ motivations for working in the UK
LARSEN, J. A., Allan, H. T., Bryan, K. L., & Smith, P. A. (2005) · Work Employment and Society · doi:10.1177/0950017005053177 · Cited by 75
Shaw, R. (2004) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1093/ptr/kph025 · Cited by 75
Litorp, H., Mgaya, A. H., Kidanto, H. L., Johnsdotter, S., & Essén, B. (2015) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.03.008 · Cited by 75
Branney, J., & Priego‐Hernández, J. (2017) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.014 · Cited by 75
Learning to Live With a Permanent Intestinal Ostomy
Danielsen, A. K., Soerensen, E. E., Burcharth, K., & Rosenberg, J. (2013) · Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · doi:10.1097/won.0b013e3182987e0e · Cited by 92
Sumankuuro, J., Mahama, M. Y., Crockett, J., Wang, S., & Young, J. (2019) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2414-4 · Cited by 74
Smythe, T., Bidwell, D., Moore, A., Smith, H. M., & McCann, J. (2020) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101726 · Cited by 74
Music at home with the under fives: what is happening?
de Vries, P. W. (2009) · Early Child Development and Care · doi:10.1080/03004430802691914 · Cited by 74
Mik‐Meyer, N., & Obling, A. R. (2012) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01448.x · Cited by 74
Chege, P., Kimiywe, J. O., & Ndungu, Z. W. (2015) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0284-3 · Cited by 74
Bendixen, R. M., Fairman, A. D., Karavolis, M., Sullivan, C., & Parmanto, B. (2017) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.7136 · Cited by 74
Moore, S. E., McEvoy, C. T., Prior, L., Lawton, J., Patterson, C. C., Kee, F., Cupples, M., Young, I. S., Appleton, K. M., McKinley, M. C., et al. (2017) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.12523 · Cited by 82
(1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.18.1636 · Cited by 74
"Check the Grade, Log Out": Students' Engagement with Feedback in Learning Management Systems
Winstone, N., Bourne, J., Medland, E., Niculescu, I., & Rees, R. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1787331 · Cited by 73
The Focus Group Interview as an In‐depth Method? Young Women Talking About Sexuality
Överlien, C., Aronsson, K., & Hydén, M. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557042000119607 · Cited by 73
Latina girls speak out: Stereotypes, gender and relationship dynamics
López, V., & Chesney‐Lind, M. (2014) · Latino Studies · doi:10.1057/lst.2014.54 · Cited by 73
Constructing Agency in Treatment Decisions: Negotiating Responsibility in Cancer
Bishop, F. L., & Yardley, L. (2004) · Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1363459304045699 · Cited by 73
de Jonge, A. (2001) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01942.x · Cited by 73
We care a lot: Formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling
Prestin, A., & Pearce, K. E. (2010) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.02.009 · Cited by 73
HIV Diagnosis Disclosure: Stigma Management and Stigma Resistance
Poindexter, C. C., & Shippy, R. A. (2010) · Journal of Gerontological Social Work · doi:10.1080/01634371003715841 · Cited by 73
Focus Groups as a Tool for Policy Analysis
Kahan, J. P. (2001) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1530-2415.00007 · Cited by 73
Baillie, L., Gallini, A., Corser, R., Elworthy, G., Scotcher, A., & Barrand, A. (2014) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.1175 · Cited by 77
Scott, M., Foley, K., Bourke, J., Leonard, H., & Girdler, S. J. (2013) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.854843 · Cited by 73
Agroecology accounting: biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods from the margins
Lanka, S. V., Khadaroo, I., & Böhm, S. (2017) · Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-12-2015-2363 · Cited by 73
Osaka, S., & Bellamy, R. (2020) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102070 · Cited by 77
Hyams, M. (2000) · Environment and Planning A Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a3239 · Cited by 73
The New Public Health Approach to Improving Physical Activity and Autonomy in Older Populations
McKinlay, J. B. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1979-9_10 · Cited by 73
Horlick‐Jones, T., Walls, J., & Kitzinger, J. V. (2007) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/13698570601181623 · Cited by 72
Self-citationThordardottir, B., Nilsson, M. H., Iwarsson, S., & Haak, M. (2014) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.898807 · Cited by 72
Clarke, N. M. P. (2006) · Human Resource Development International · doi:10.1080/13678860601032585 · Cited by 80
Focus Groups Versus Individual Interviews with Children: A Comparison of Data
Heary, C., & Hennessy, E. (2006) · The Irish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/03033910.2006.10446228 · Cited by 71
Augmented reality m-learning to enhance nursing skills acquisition in the clinical skills laboratory
Garrett, B., Jackson, C., & Wilson, B. (2015) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-05-2015-0013 · Cited by 71
Professional coach educators in-situ: a social analysis of practice
Cushion, C. J., Griffiths, M., & Armour, K. (2017) · Sport Education and Society · doi:10.1080/13573322.2017.1411795 · Cited by 71
Searching for Oneself on YouTube: Teenage Peer Socialization and Social Recognition Processes
Balleys, C., Millerand, F., Thoër, C., & Duque, N. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120909474 · Cited by 71
The personal CO2 calculator: A modeling tool for Participatory Integrated Assessment methods
Schlumpf, C., Behringer, J., Dürrenberger, G., & Pahl‐Wostl, C. (1999) · Environmental Modeling & Assessment · doi:10.1023/a:1019035527638 · Cited by 71
Vulnerable people’s digital inclusion: intersectionality patterns and associated lessons
Tsatsou, P. (2021) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1873402 · Cited by 83
Spilsbury, K., & Meyer, J. E. (2005) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/136140960501000104 · Cited by 72
Focus-Group Methodology in Research with Incarcerated Women: Race, Power, and Collective Experience
Pollack, S. L. (2003) · Affilia · doi:10.1177/0886109903257550 · Cited by 76
Impressions of nursing before exposure to the field
O’Brien, F., Mooney, M., & Glacken, M. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02214.x · Cited by 77
Focus group methodology. Part 2: Considerations for analysis
Plummer, P. (2017) · International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.8.345 · Cited by 70
Tong, H. L., Coiera, E. W., & Laranjo, L. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11439 · Cited by 76
A Scheme for Analyzing the Results of Focus Groups
Vicsek, L. (2007) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690700600402 · Cited by 75
Wutich, A., Lant, T., White, D. D., Larson, K. L., & Gartin, M. (2009) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x09349918 · Cited by 69
Mixed-sex or Single-sex Sex Education: How would young people like their sex education and why?
Strange, V., Oakley, A., Forrest, S., & the RIPPLE Study Team (2003) · Gender and Education · doi:10.1080/09540250303852 · Cited by 69
Planning for climate change adaptation: lessons learned from a community-based workshop
Picketts, I. M., Werner, A. T., Murdock, T. Q., Curry, J., Déry, S. J., & Dyer, D. (2012) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.011 · Cited by 69
Brown, M., Tucker, P., Rapport, F., Hutchings, H. A., Dahlgren, A., Davies, G., & Ebden, P. (2010) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.030734 · Cited by 69
Language and bodily conduct in focus group evaluations of legal policy
Matoesian, G. M., & Coldren, J. R. (2002) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926502013004454 · Cited by 68
The Driverless Bus: An Analysis of Public Perceptions and Acceptability
Lambas, M. E. L., & Alonso, A. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11184986 · Cited by 68
Bush, E. J., Singh, R. L., & Kooienga, S. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919875891 · Cited by 68
Resatsch, F., Sandner, U., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2008) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1080/10196780802265728 · Cited by 68
Hyams, M. (2004) · Gender Place & Culture · doi:10.1080/0966369042000188576 · Cited by 69
Yeo, B. G., Takada, H., Taylor, H., Ito, M., Hosoda, J., Allinson, M., Connell, S., Greaves, L., & McGrath, J. (2015) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.006 · Cited by 68
Consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of food risk management practices: A cross-cultural study
Houghton, J. R., van Kleef, E., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2006) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/13698570600677373 · Cited by 68
Views of young people using augmentative and alternative communication systems
Clarke, M., McConachie, H., Price, K., & Wood, P. (2001) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1080/13682820119446 · Cited by 68
Understanding the influence of context in technology integration from teacher educators’ perspective
Ifinedo, E., & Kankaanranta, M. (2021) · Technology Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2020.1867231 · Cited by 67
Krane, V., Ness, O., Holter-Sorensen, N., Karlsson, B., & Binder, P. (2016) · International Journal of Adolescence and Youth · doi:10.1080/02673843.2016.1202843 · Cited by 67
Paterson, J. L., Reynolds, A. C., Duncan, M. J., Vandelanotte, C., & Ferguson, S. A. (2017) · Behavioral Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1080/15402002.2016.1266489 · Cited by 67
Qualitative Methods in Health Economics
Coast, J., & Allegri, M. D. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.93 · Cited by 67
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: A TOOL FOR QUALITATIVE INQUIRY
Basnet, H. B. (2018) · Researcher A Research Journal of Culture and Society · doi:10.3126/researcher.v3i3.21553 · Cited by 66
Exploring the Potential of Dutch Pig Farmers and Urban-Citizens to Learn Through Frame Reflection
Benard, M., & Buning, T. D. C. (2013) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9438-y · Cited by 70
Ward, P., & Coates, A. R. (2006) · Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1363459306064481 · Cited by 66
Building Information Modeling (BIM) Use in Turkish Construction Industry
Aladağ, H., Demirdöğen, G., & Işık, Z. (2016) · Procedia Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.520 · Cited by 66
A Framework and Approach for Analysis of Focus Group Data in Information Systems Research
Nili, A., Tate, M., & Johnstone, D. (2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04001 · Cited by 66
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · Cited by 66
Immigrant Incorporation in East Asian Democracies
Chung, E. A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781107337077 · Cited by 65
Delivering Diversity and Social Justice in Social Work Education: The Power of Context
Deepak, A. C., Rountree, M., & Scott, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Progressive Human Services · doi:10.1080/10428232.2015.1017909 · Cited by 65
Frank, A. G., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Echeveste, M. E. S. (2014) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12046 · Cited by 65
Focus group methodology: Explanatory notes for the novice nurse researcher
Jamieson, L., & Williams, L. M. (2003) · Contemporary Nurse · doi:10.5172/conu.14.3.271 · Cited by 65
Focussing in on focus groups: Effective participative tools or cheap fixes for land use policy?
Scott, A. J. (2011) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.004 · Cited by 65
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
