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?
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1998) · Cited by 18,576
Phenomenological research methods
Moustakas, C. (1994) · doi:10.4135/9781412995658 · Cited by 13,919
Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods.
Russell, C. K., & Morse, J. M. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2076454 · Cited by 2,229
Krueger, R. A. (2000) · Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol. 3. · doi:10.1037/10518-189 · Cited by 1,519
Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy
Husserl, E. (1982) · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7445-6 · Cited by 1,496
On Researching Lived Experience
Yu-ju, L. (2010) · Journal of Tangshan Teachers College · Cited by 1,288
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., & Rook, D. (2007) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412991841 · Cited by 1,098
From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological approaches
Dowling, M. (2007) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026 · Cited by 1,061
Barbour, R. (2007) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849208956 · Cited by 881
Focus group methodology: a review
Wilkinson, S. (1998) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874 · Cited by 861
Cited by
Conducting a Research Interview
Bolderston, A. (2012) · Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2011.12.002 · Cited by 281
Women’s experiences of factors that facilitate or inhibit gestational diabetes self-management
Carolan, M., Gill, G. K., & Steele, C. (2012) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-12-99 · Cited by 188
Sisay, M. M., Yirgu, R., Gobezayehu, A. G., & Sibley, L. M. (2014) · Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health · doi:10.1111/jmwh.12156 · Cited by 88
Midwives’ experience of delivery care in late foetal death: a qualitative study
Martínez-Serrano, P., Palmar-Santos, A. M., Solís-Muñoz, M., Álvarez-Plaza, C., & Pedraz-Marcos, A. (2018) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.08.010 · Cited by 39
Aasgaard, H. S., Fagerstrom, L., & Landmark, B. (2014) · Home Health Care Management & Practice · doi:10.1177/1084822314530992 · Cited by 10
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.