Cited by 248Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research Methods

Doing Synchronous Online Focus Groups With Young People: Methodological Reflections

Open access
Fox, Fiona E., Morris, Marianne, Rumsey, Nichola·2007·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

Although online focus groups are emerging as a worthwhile methodological approach for qualitative researchers, reporting has been constrained in several ways. The majority of studies report asynchronous groups, whereas others employ synchronous exchanges, the efficacy of which with young people has seldom been explored. Considering the popularity of the Internet as a communication tool for young people, this missed opportunity is surprising. Based on a series of synchronous online focus groups with young people, the authors explore why this approach might be an effective way of engaging young people with appearance-related concerns in research. In this article, they discuss the process of hosting and moderating synchronous online focus groups, highlighting some of the ethical, pragmatic, and personal challenges that might face researchers using this method. Through a reflexive approach, they intend to inform and encourage qualitative researchers to consider alternative ways of engaging young people in research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732306298754

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fox, F. E., Morris, M., & Rumsey, N.
Affiliations
University of the West of England (GB)
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2007-04
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
539-547
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2099164367
Cited by
248
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 16
FWCI
13.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
Keywords
youth, research ethics, reflexivity, online communication, qualitative research
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, United Kingdom, Humans, Focus Groups, Internet, Researcher-Subject Relations, Qualitative Research

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