Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron?

Bradbury‐Jones, Caroline, Sambrook, Sally, Irvine, Fiona·2009·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Title. The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron?. Aim. In this paper we explore the congruence of focus group interviews within a phenomenological framework. Background. Focus groups as a research method are popular in nursing. Similarly, phenomenology is a dominant methodology for nurse researchers globally. A number of nurse researchers have combined focus groups and phenomenology, but there are others who argue that they are incompatible. Discussion. The argument against using focus groups in phenomenological research is that phenomenology seeks essential characteristics or ‘essences’ of phenomena in a manner that requires an individual to describe their experiences in an ‘uncontaminated’ way. We recognize that traditionally most phenomenological interviews are conducted with only one interviewer and one respondent, but we question whether this needs to continue. We suggest means by which individual lived experience can be preserved within a group context. We draw on our own experience and the phenomenological literature to argue that focus groups are congruent with phenomenological research and extend this argument further by proposing that group interviews in phenomenology are actually beneficial because they stimulate discussion and open up new perspectives. Our observation is that some researchers who combine focus groups and phenomenology appear to do so uncritically and we argue that this is unacceptable. Conclusions. It is important for nurse researchers to develop critical awareness of the research methodologies and methods they employ. We argue that the phenomenological focus group is not an oxymoron. Rather, the use of focus groups can provide a greater understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Bradbury‐Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-02-03
Volume
65
Issue
3
Pages
663-671
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2159623524
Cited by
334
References
42
FWCI
28.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x
The paper
Bradbury‐Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009). The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.