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
Items 401–500 of 1,006
Prenatal Care Use Among Women of Low Income: A Matter of "Taking Care of Self"
Sword, W. A. (2003) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/0095399702250128 · Cited by 65
Children's views of accident risks and prevention: a qualitative study
Green, J., & Hart, L. (1998) · Injury Prevention · doi:10.1136/ip.4.1.14 · Cited by 65
Kwan, S. Y. L. (1999) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/14.4.453 · Cited by 65
Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies
Felt, U., Schumann, S., Schwarz-Plaschg, C. G., & Strassnig, M. (2013) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112468468 · Cited by 65
Older people who stutter: barriers to communication and perceptions of treatment needs
Bricker‐Katz, G., Lincoln, M., & McCabe, P. (2009) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.3109/13682820802627314 · Cited by 65
Management research on disabilities: examining methodological challenges and possible solutions
Dwertmann, D. J. G. (2016) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1137614 · Cited by 72
Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A. (2000) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0903_2 · Cited by 65
Promoting sexual health services to young men: findings from focus group discussions
Pearson, S. (2003) · Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care · doi:10.1783/147118903101198079 · Cited by 65
Hyrkäs, K. E., & Paunonen‐Ilmonen, M. (2001) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01685.x · Cited by 65
Group interviews in primary care research: advancing the state of the art or ritualized research?
Twohig, P. L. (2002) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/19.3.278 · Cited by 69
A Smartphone App for Adolescents With Sleep Disturbance: Development of the Sleep Ninja
Werner-Seidler, A., O'Dea, B., Shand, F., Johnston, L., Frayne, A., Fogarty, A. S., & Christensen, H. (2017) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/mental.7614 · Cited by 64
“People Forget He’s Human”: Charismatic Leadership in Institutionalized Religion
Corcoran, K. E., & Wellman, J. K. (2016) · Sociology of Religion · doi:10.1093/socrel/srw049 · Cited by 64
Mazigo, H. D., Samson, A., Lambert, V. J., Kosia, A. L., Ngoma, D. D., Murphy, R., & Matungwa, D. J. (2021) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0009789 · Cited by 64
Carlson, E., Rämgård, M., Bolmsjö, I., & Bengtsson, M. (2013) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.002 · Cited by 87
‘You think that I’m smoking and they’re not’: Why mothers still smoke in the home
Robinson, J. E., & Kirkcaldy, A. (2007) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.048 · Cited by 64
Ekstrand, M., Tydén, T., Darj, E., & Larsson, M. (2007) · The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care · doi:10.1080/13625180701201145 · Cited by 64
The Effect of Joint Interviewing on the Performance of Gender
Seale, C. F., Charteris‐Black, J., Dumelow, C., Locock, L., & Ziébland, S. (2008) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x07313837 · Cited by 64
Challenges to and the future of medication safety in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study
Aljadhey, H. S., Mahmoud, M. A., Hassali, M. A., Alrasheedy, A. A., Alahmad, A., Saleem, F., Sheikh, A., Murray, M. D., & Bates, D. W. (2013) · Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.08.001 · Cited by 64
QUOTE-HIV: an instrument for assessing quality of HIV care from the patients' perspective
Hekkink, C. F. (2003) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.3.188 · Cited by 64
Garthwaite, K., Smith, K. E., Bambra, C. L., & Pearce, J. R. (2015) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12374 · Cited by 64
Foster and Adoptive Parent Perspectives on Needs and Services: a Mixed Methods Study
Barnett, E. R., Jankowski, M. K., Butcher, R. L., Meister, C., Parton, R. R., & Drake, R. E. (2017) · The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research · doi:10.1007/s11414-017-9569-4 · Cited by 64
Adolescent perceptions of sleep and influences on sleep behaviour: A qualitative study
Godsell, S., & White, J. L. (2019) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.03.010 · Cited by 64
Vos, M., Deforche, B. I., Kerckhove, A. V., Michels, N., Poelman, M. P., Geuens, M., & Lippevelde, W. V. (2022) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106180 · Cited by 63
Finding a path in a methodological jungle: a qualitative research of resilience
Zelčāne, E., & Pipere, A. (2023) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2023.2164948 · Cited by 86
Nicholls, D., Chang, E. M. L., Johnson, A., & Edenborough, M. (2013) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2012.751581 · Cited by 63
Forrest, S., Strange, V., & Oakley, A. (2002) · Sex Education · doi:10.1080/1468181022000025776 · Cited by 63
Destructive Interpersonal Conflict in the Workplace: The Effectiveness of Management Interventions.
Hoel, H., & Giga, S. I. (2006) · Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) · Cited by 63
Virtual hype meets reality: Users’ perception of immersive journalism
Nielsen, S. L., & Sheets, P. (2021) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884919869399 · Cited by 62
Pfeffer, N. (2008) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.050 · Cited by 62
McGrath, M., & Lynch, E. (2013) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.805823 · Cited by 62
Slade, S. C., Molloy, E., & Keating, J. L. (2011) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215511420179 · Cited by 62
Ayrton, R. (2018) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794118757102 · Cited by 62
Expanded definitions of the ‘good death’? Race, ethnicity and medical aid in dying
Cain, C., & McCleskey, S. G. (2019) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12903 · Cited by 62
Dekkers, R., de Boer, R., Gelsomino, L. M., de Goeij, C., Steeman, M., Zhou, Q., Sinclair, S., & Souter, V. (2019) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.024 · Cited by 62
Treloar, C., Stardust, Z., Cama, E., & Kim, J. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113468 · Cited by 61
Consumer Perceptions of Precision Livestock Farming—A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries
Krampe, C., Serratosa, J., Niemi, J., & Ingenbleek, P. (2021) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani11051221 · Cited by 50
Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation
Manzano, A. (2022) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563890221124637 · Cited by 61
Cedraschi, C., Delézay, S., Marty, M., Berenbaum, F., Bouhassira, D., Henrotin, Y. E., Laroche, F., & Perrot, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079988 · Cited by 61
Meeting the information needs of psychiatric inpatients: Staff and patient perspectives
Pollock, K., Grime, J., Baker, E., & Mantala, K. (2004) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638230410001729834 · Cited by 61
Transitioning from unemployment to self-employment for over 50s
Kenny, B., & Rossiter, I. (2017) · International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · doi:10.1108/ijebr-01-2017-0004 · Cited by 65
Focus group methodology Part 2: Considerations for analysis
Plummer, P. (2008) · International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2008.15.3.28727 · Cited by 64
Risk and the construction of social identity: children's talk about accidents
Green, J. (1997) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep10935474 · Cited by 61
The GP's perception of poverty: a qualitative study
Willems, S. J. T. (2005) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh724 · Cited by 61
Noordzij, K., de Koster, W., & van der Waal, J. (2020) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12800 · Cited by 60
Perceptions, Knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process
Knight, A. J. (2008) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662507079375 · Cited by 60
Exploring Experiences of Running an Ultramarathon
Holt, N. L., Lee, H., Kim, Y., & Klein, K. (2014) · The Sport Psychologist · doi:10.1123/tsp.2013-0008 · Cited by 60
Touré, E. H. (2010) · Recherches qualitatives · doi:10.7202/1085130ar · Cited by 60
Natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community in Taiwan
Roder, G., Ruljigaljig, T., Lin, C.-W., & Tarolli, P. (2016) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-015-2100-4 · Cited by 77
Beyond happy meat: Body mapping (dis)connections to animals in alternative food networks
Bruckner, H. K. (2017) · Area · doi:10.1111/area.12381 · Cited by 59
Social Exclusion and Poverty: Translating Social Capital into Accessible Resources
Boon, B., & Farnsworth, J. (2011) · Social Policy and Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00792.x · Cited by 59
Zorn, T. E., Roper, J., Broadfoot, K. J., & Weaver, C. K. (2006) · Journal of Applied Communication Research · doi:10.1080/00909880600573965 · Cited by 59
The methodological potential of focus groups in population geography
Skop, E. H. (2006) · Population Space and Place · doi:10.1002/psp.402 · Cited by 59
Teaching Focus Group Interviewing
George, M. (2012) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.1177/0092055x12465295 · Cited by 59
Poland, F. M., Mapes, S., Pinnock, H., Katona, C., Sorensen, S., Fox, C., & Maidment, I. D. (2014) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-463 · Cited by 59
Fernández, M. V. C., Fernández, M. L., & Castro, Y. R. (2016) · Gender and Education · doi:10.1080/09540253.2016.1203884 · Cited by 59
Focus group methodology. Part 1: Design considerations
Plummer, P. (2017) · International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.7.297 · Cited by 59
Quante, M., Khandpur, N., Kontos, E. Z., Bakker, J. P., Owens, J. A., & Redline, S. S. (2018) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2018.10.044 · Cited by 59
Goopy, S. E., & Kassan, A. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406918820424 · Cited by 59
Wharton–Smith, A., Rassi, C., Batisso, E., Ortu, G., King, R., Endriyas, M., Counihan, H., Hamade, P., & Getachew, D. (2019) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0007840 · Cited by 59
How well can children understand medicine related topics?
Hämeen‐Anttila, K., Juvonen, M., Ahonen, R. S., Bush, P. J., & Airaksinen, M. (2005) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.12.011 · Cited by 59
Nicholas, D. B., Swan, S. R., Gerstle, T. J., Allan, T., & Griffiths, A. M. (2008) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-114 · Cited by 59
The Clinical Nurse Specialist: perceptions of practising CNSs of their role and development needs
Bamford, O., & Gibson, F. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2000.00354.x · Cited by 59
Applied Linguists and Institutions of Opinion
Myers, G. (2005) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami025 · Cited by 58
Ødbehr, L. S., Kvigne, K. J., Hauge, S., & Danbolt, L. J. (2015) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0122-6 · Cited by 58
Conversation-analytic data session as a pedagogical institution
Stevanovic, M., & Weiste, E. (2017) · Learning Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.001 · Cited by 69
What is so difficult about managing clinical reasoning difficulties?
Audétat, M., Dory, V., NENDAZ, M. R., Vanpee, D., Pestiaux, D., Perron, N. J., & Charlin, B. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04151.x · Cited by 58
Acceptance and expectance: Cultural norms for alcohol use in Denmark
Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C., & Delmar, C. (2011) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v6i4.8461 · Cited by 58
Hilton, S., & Smith, E. (2011) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.03.101 · Cited by 58
Plugge, E., Douglas, N., & Fitzpatrick, R. M. (2008) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp08x330771 · Cited by 58
Learmonth, Y. C., Marshall, R., Paul, L., Mattison, P., & Miller, L. (2012) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.688922 · Cited by 58
Perspectives on addiction recovery: focus groups with individuals in recovery and family members
Dekkers, A., Ruysscher, C. D., & Vanderplasschen, W. (2020) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.1080/16066359.2020.1714037 · Cited by 58
Peer Led Focus Groups and Young People
Murray, C. (2005) · Children & Society · doi:10.1002/chi.892 · Cited by 58
Rhodes, S. D. (2002) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1006/pmed.2002.1047 · Cited by 58
Kostas, M. (2019) · Gender and Education · doi:10.1080/09540253.2019.1632807 · Cited by 57
Sustainable Development Model for the Automotive Industry
Cioca, L., Ivaşcu, L., Turi, A., Artene, A. E., & Găman, G. A. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11226447 · Cited by 57
Erens, B., Williams, L. A., Exley, J., Ettelt, S., Manacorda, T., Hajat, S., & Mays, N. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11668-x · Cited by 63
Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care
van Teijlingen, E., & Pitchforth, E. (2006) · Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care · doi:10.1783/147118906775275299 · Cited by 57
Flanders, C. E., Dobinson, C., & Logie, C. H. (2016) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2016.1158786 · Cited by 57
Bell, K., & Salmon, A. (2011) · Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.4.84 · Cited by 57
Patrick, F., Elliot, D. L., Hulme, M., & McPhee, A. (2010) · Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/02607476.2010.497373 · Cited by 57
Ivanoff, S. D., Sjöstrand, J., Klepp, K., Lind, L., & Lindqvist, B. L. (1996) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638289609166038 · Cited by 57
Improving the use of focus group discussions in low income settings
Scheelbeek, P. F. D., Hamza, Y. A., Schellenberg, J., & Hill, Z. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01168-8 · Cited by 56
Watkins, J. A., Wagner, F., Gómez-Olivé, F. X., Wertheim, H. F. L., Sankoh, O. A., & Kinsman, J. (2019) · American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0171 · Cited by 56
Depathologizing the tourist syndrome
Heimtun, B. (2007) · Tourist Studies · doi:10.1177/1468797608092513 · Cited by 56
Cohen, H. L., Sandel, M. H., Thomas, C. L., & Barton, T. R. (2004) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601270490278858 · Cited by 56
Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance
Pfeffer, N. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00156-4 · Cited by 56
‘Nothing fit me’: nationwide consultations with young women with breast cancer
Gould, J., Grassau, P. A., Manthorne, J., Gray, R. E., & Fitch, M. I. (2006) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00383.x · Cited by 56
Piacentini, M., Chatzidakis, A., & Banister, E. N. (2012) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01432.x · Cited by 56
Vázquez-Lago, J. M., González-González, C., Zapata‐Cachafeiro, M., López-Vázquez, P., Taracido, M., López‐Durán, A., & Figueiras, A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015674 · Cited by 56
Consumer acceptance of insects and ideal product attributes
Clarkson, C., Mirosa, M., & Birch, J. (2018) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-11-2017-0645 · Cited by 56
An exploratory investigation into the nursing management of aggression in acute psychiatric settings
Delaney, J., Cleary, M. L., Jordan, R., & Horsfall, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2850.2001.00350.x · Cited by 56
Focus group interviews to examine the role and development of the clinical nurse specialist
Gibson, F., & Bamford, O. (2001) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1046/j.0966-0429.2001.00267.x · Cited by 56
Dahlin‐Ivanoff, S., Klepp, K., & Sjöstrand, J. (1998) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00041-x · Cited by 56
SOCIETY, POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE A Social Critique of Public Climate Change Receptivity in Ireland
Fox, E. (2014) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · doi:10.13025/17445 · Cited by 56
Using interview excerpts to facilitate focus group discussion
Geampana, A., & Perrotta, M. (2024) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/14687941241234283 · Cited by 55
A review of recent developments in the role of the SENCo in the UK
Mackenzie, S. (2007) · British Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00481.x · Cited by 55
The Power of Urban Planning on Environmental Sustainability: A Focus Group Study in Finland
Säynäjoki, E.-S., Heinonen, J. T., & Junnila, S. (2014) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su6106622 · Cited by 55
Lim, E.-L., & Hew, K. F. (2013) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.771969 · Cited by 55
Qualitative Inquiry and Emerging Adulthood
Schwab, J. R., & Syed, M. (2015) · Emerging Adulthood · doi:10.1177/2167696815587801 · Cited by 70
Psychological demands experienced by recreational endurance athletes
McCormick, A., Meijen, C., & Marcora, S. (2016) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2016.1256341 · Cited by 55
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
