19

Focus Groups
Jennifer Cyr

In Duck! Rabbit!, a rather quirky book for young kids, two protagonists argue over the ex-
tent to which a simple image represents the head of a duck or a rabbit.1 The long rabbit ears,
which are turned to the side and therefore parallel with the ground, might also be taken as the
long, slightly open beak of a duck. Open to interpretation, the story teaches children about
perspective, meaning-​making, and the role of interaction and conversation in unveiling how
people think.
Focus groups are useful when we think the issues or concepts we study, like the main story-
line from Duck! Rabbit!, may be interpreted differently by different people. When these issues
or concepts are discussed in a social setting—​that is, in a focused, group conversation—​rich,
nuanced, and multilayered ideas about the topics of interest can emerge. Focus groups, as
I suggest below, are incredibly useful for getting at different types of information. And, like all
data collection methods, focus groups are well suited for certain types of research questions.
In what follows, I seek to help you decide if focus groups are useful for your research project.
I also provide tips on how to execute them, with an emphasis on moderating and the question
protocol. Finally, I address some of the challenges commonly associated with focus groups.

An Overview of What Focus Groups Are and When

to Use Them
Focus groups bring together a group of people to discuss a short set of questions associated
with a research topic of interest. A moderator asks the questions with the hope of generat-
ing a conversation among participants. Data are produced by the answers the participants
proffer and the discussion that unfolds as participants react to what others say.
Focus groups have certain qualities that, when taken together, make them uniquely suited
for specific social science tasks. The first, and perhaps most notable, quality is that focus
groups are a social data collection method. Data emerge from group conversations: par-
ticipants share their thoughts with others. The focus group’s social dynamic means that a
researcher cannot separate what an individual might say in private from what they feel com-
pelled, for whatever reason, to say in the public setting of the focus group. Nevertheless, the
social nature of the focus group should be embraced and exploited—​indeed, the method’s
inherently social method underpins many of the reasons why we should use focus groups in
our research projects in the first place, as we see below.
Second, focus groups generate data that are emic in nature. Data are generated from the
perspective of the focus group participant. Focus group moderators ask questions of par-
ticipants, of course, but these are open in nature and are intended to let the participants
answer as they prefer. (Etic data, by contrast, emerge from more “closed” formats, such as

Jennifer Cyr, Focus Groups In: Doing Good Qualitative Research. Edited by: Jennifer Cyr and Sara Wallace Goodman,
Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197633137.003.0019

9780197633137_Book.indb 222 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 Focus Groups 223

multiple-​choice questions, where the specific goals of the researcher are privileged.) With an
emic approach to data collection, researchers lose control over the kinds of responses prof-
fered. But they gain in terms of the variety and breadth of those responses. As we will see, one
does not organize a focus group to ask yes/​no questions.
Finally, focus groups produce data at three levels of analysis.2 You can solicit individual-​
level responses by asking participants to write down their answer to a question before sharing
it with the group. By writing their answers before discussing them, participants are presum-
ably less influenced by the social setting of the focus group. Data at the group level focus on
how conversations unfold, the nuances that emerge, and the consensus that is forged (or not)
as the conversation winds down. Finally, you can engage with interactive-​level data by fo-
cusing on specific, discrete exchanges, where new or unexpected ideas may crop up.
These three noteworthy features of focus groups mean that the method is particularly apt
for generating incredibly insightful information on specific types of research goals. In my
work,3 I identify six—​a comprehensive but perhaps not exhaustive list of the kinds of re-
search goals that focus groups can help address.
Assessing Group Processes. Why do some Venezuelans identify as chavistas (i.e., hard-
core supporters of Hugo Chávez and his political movement) while others identify as anti-​
chavistas (i.e., rabid opponents of Chávez and his movement)? What does it mean to be
anti-​chavista? How do they view themselves? How do they view chavistas?
Focus groups are extremely useful when we want to understand how groups see them-
selves and the world around them. By bringing together a set of individuals who share an
identity (due to partisanship, a shared religion, fanaticism for a sports team) or a similar ex-
perience (as single fathers, drug addicts, young immigrants) one can get at questions about
those groups and how they think, make decisions, and view the world around them.
Addressing Intersubjective Phenomena. Some concepts, like power and peace, have com-
plex, evolving, and highly contextualized meanings. An act of corruption in Vietnam is not
the same as an act of corruption in the United States.4 These kinds of phenomena are clearly
important to study, but their meaning is complicated to capture in a survey question and dif-
ficult to assess in a one-​on-​one interview, precisely because how people understand them is a
function of context, experience, and interaction with others.
Focus groups are well suited for discussing complex phenomena, like power, corruption,
and peace, whose meaning is socially constructed—​that is, acquired through processes over
time, exposure, and interaction with others. On the one hand, focus groups allow a group of
individuals to share the high-​cognitive effort required to meaningfully discuss these kinds of
complex topics. On the other, the focus group mimics the social setting in which individuals
typically acquire meaning about these kinds of phenomena. Group discussions allow par-
ticipants to work together to get at complicated ideas and offer their interpretations of those
ideas. For example, focus groups revealed that individuals in conflict-​laden areas do not de-
fine peace as the absence of violence, which is the most common indicator of peace used by
conflict scholars. Instead, it occurs when, for instance, they are not scared of people standing
near shops or when people can worship any religion they choose.5
Pursuing Proper Contextualization. Many of the phenomena we study represent ideas that
are not universally shared. This is true of the intersubjective phenomena discussed previ-
ously. It is also true of other, everyday customs, acts, and perspectives upon which the reli-
able and valid interpretation of, say, a survey question can hinge. For example, if you want
to measure the importance of the ritual of family dining in different settings, you might ask

9780197633137_Book.indb 223 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 224 Jennifer Cyr

a U.S. citizen how often they eat dinner as a family or to describe a typical Sunday dinner.
In Latin America, however, the analytical equivalent has historically been lunch. Asking
Argentines in La Pampa about a “typical family dinner” may not effectively capture what you
wish to measure.
Focus groups allow a researcher to measure the extent to which specific notions travel
from one setting (e.g., a country or a generation) to another. By asking focus group partic-
ipants to discuss how and when they eat as a family, a researcher can ascertain functional
equivalents, such as the use of lunch versus dinner in a survey question, and derive the
phrases and vernacular that would be appropriate to use in a survey in that country or for
that generation. Often, just one or two focus groups are enough to develop valid indicators
for a survey or experiment protocol. Focus groups, in this sense, can be excellent pretests in a
mixed-​method research design.6
Understanding Individuals in Social Settings. Focus groups are social in nature. Centering
one’s analysis on individual responses to focus group questions can be problematic. One
cannot know for sure that what the individual says in the group setting is an accurate reflec-
tion of what they would have said in the absence of the (focus) group dynamic.7 When you
wish to access a person’s private thoughts, individual interviews (see, e.g., Chapters 16, 17,
and 18) may be more appropriate.
Nevertheless, sometimes we are interested in assessing how individuals act in social set-
tings precisely because we suspect that their personal responses may change in the face of
social pressures. This was the case for a project that sought to measure whether a radio pro-
gram helped to shift a culture of deference in postgenocide Rwanda.8 The project compared
individual responses in a (one-​on-​one) interview to responses from a focus group to see if
the social dynamics of the latter affected the extent to which a person might express dissent.
For these kinds of moments, a focus group is ideal, since the social setting replicates the so-
cial dynamics in which we wish to see how individuals think, act, and talk.
The Study of Sensitive Topics and Vulnerable Groups. Some phenomena that are vital for
understanding society and social behavior are also difficult to discuss. This may be because
they are traumatic (e.g., domestic abuse) or illicit (e.g., drug trafficking), or because they un-
derscore deep-​seated, structural problems (e.g., racism or poverty). Focus groups are useful
when we wish to study topics or events that are sensitive or taboo, or when we wish to under-
stand something unique to vulnerable or marginalized groups. There are at least two reasons
for this.
First, a focus group can be a safe space for discussing shared experiences.9 A victim of
domestic violence may not feel comfortable addressing their past in a one-​on-​one setting.
When they are in a focus group with other victims, however, those experiences may be easier
to share. Second, the emic nature of focus groups means that participants have the power to
choose what they will and will not discuss. Focus groups, in this sense, are empowering for
the participants.10 Where the topics discussed are sensitive, or the groups participating are
vulnerable, the empowering aspect of focus groups is especially significant, since it allows the
participant to determine what they reveal (or not) about their experiences.
Exploration of New Ideas. Focus groups, finally, can be particularly illuminating when we
wish to embark on a new research project or to learn about topics that have received little pre-
vious attention. How do citizens interpret different messages about an evolving pandemic?
To answer this question, it may first be useful to know which messages different communi-
ties receive. In my work on anti-​chavistas, focus groups were appropriate not only because

9780197633137_Book.indb 224 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 Focus Groups 225

I wanted to study a group identity, but also because we knew so little, in general, about the
individuals who self-​identified as anti-​chavistas.
Focus groups allowed me to learn about these individuals. They also helped me to identify
the kinds of questions that would be salient to ask via other data collection strategies. Focus
groups can produce new insights—​in the form of an omitted variable or an unexpected
interaction—​that can help to improve our models or explain anomalies. Because data are
generated via conversations, responses can be nonlinear, nuanced, even contradictory. This
can make analysis more complicated. But it also leaves ample room for discovery.

How to Do Focus Groups

Let me start by saying that, in such a restricted space, it is hard to be comprehensive about
every aspect of the focus group process, from start to finish. Happily, other literature exists
to help you out, should you decide to incorporate focus groups into your research design.11
Figure 19.1 provides a set of questions to consider as one plans to undertake focus groups.
Here, I want to focus on a few of these questions—​specifically, 11 and 12—​but I also want
to emphasize one running theme that should stay in your mind from the time you sit down to
write out a game plan to when you finish the last focus group you have set out to undertake.12
That running theme is the following: when undertaking focus groups your participants
come first; your research goals come second. To be sure, your research goals are vital for de-
termining with whom and about what you speak. But if your research goals may harm the
people with whom you wish to speak, then those goals should be adjusted.
Once you know who will be a part of your focus group, then you can work to be as sensitive
as possible to their needs as you decide how to recruit (Q4, Figure 19.1), where you will carry
them out (Q6), the materials you should prepare and the recording method (Q7, Q8), the
costs you might incur (Q9), and how consent will be obtained (Q10). For a great example of

Figure 19.1 Basic Questions about Focus Groups

1. How many focus groups should I carry out?

2. What is my sampling frame?
3. What should the composition of each focus group be?
4. How should I recruit participants?
5. Will I work with a research consultancy?
6. Where will the focus groups occur?
7. What materials should I prepare?
8. How will I record the conversation?
9. What costs should I expect?
10. Do I need consent?
11. Who will be my moderator?
12. What questions will I ask?
Source: Jennifer Cyr, Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2017), 41, Table 3.1.

9780197633137_Book.indb 225 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 226 Jennifer Cyr

how many of these decisions are made and in some cases adapted, see Winslow, Honein, and
Elzubeir’s fascinating work on seeking out women’s voices in the United Arab Emirates.13
Choosing a Moderator. Knowing your participants is also key to identifying an effective
moderator. The moderator is the person who runs the focus group. They welcome partici-
pants, introduce the topic(s) of conversation, ask the questions, and ensure flow as the con-
versations unfold. This person is vital for executing the focus group, and so who you choose
matters.
So, whom should you choose? One obvious choice is that you, the researcher, can be the
moderator. There are plenty of good reasons for this. You know your research best, of course.
You understand why you are asking the questions. You have a sense of what you think par-
ticipants will say (or not). All of this sets you up for asking the questions, probing where nec-
essary, and staying quiet to avoid leading your participants. The goal is to produce responses
that are as unmediated as possible.
Knowing your project is an asset, to be sure. I nevertheless prefer to use a moderator rather
than be one myself. The reasons for this are tied to my two goals of, first, privileging my par-
ticipants and, second, working toward my research goals. Moderators are busy during a focus
group, as mentioned. They set the tone for the session and ideally make the participants as
comfortable as possible. Because of this, having a moderator that is relatable to the partic-
ipants is ideal. Are you organizing focus groups of first-​generation Muslim women college
students in the United Arab Emirates? Ideally, your moderator will be just like them—​or as
close as possible and, at the very least (given the restricted gender dynamics in the context
described), a woman.
A relatable moderator may also better know how and when to probe. They may more effec-
tively and delicately engage with quiet participants and discourage dominant ones, keeping
the flow of the conversation active and encouraging as many participants to speak as possible.
Overall, moderators should perform their functions with a good knowledge of what is cul-
turally and contextually appropriate. This will help facilitate the conversation and keep it as
natural as possible. Where participants are more comfortable, a researcher can more credibly
claim that the data generated emerged through more natural, and less forced, conversations.
A moderator must also be well informed about the project. The researcher should convey
several things to their chosen moderator. For example, they should have a basic sense of what
the research is about, as well as its goals. Do not reveal your hypotheses, of course. The more a
moderator knows about what you think is going on, the greater the possibility that they will,
consciously or not, lead focus group participants to express ideas that conform with those
inklings. You also want the moderator to understand the questions and the goals behind
them—​again, without explaining what you think or hope the answers will be. Here, it can
be helpful to point out any terms or ideas that, once voiced by the participants, you want the
moderator to probe.
Finally, the researcher should identify and explain any phrases or concepts that the mod-
erator must not say so as to avoid leading focus group participants toward a particular re-
sponse or idea. For example, in my work on anti-​chavista identifiers, it was important that
the moderator not use the term “anti-​chavista” before it was used by participants themselves.
To credibly claim that this was an identity that mattered, I had to show that it was a term that
participants used on their own volition. Once used, I invited the moderator to ask why par-
ticipants used the term and what it meant to them.

9780197633137_Book.indb 226 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 Focus Groups 227

So how does one identify a moderator? In my experience, the best choice is to start with
interlocutors on the ground. Someone at a local university, consultancy, or particular com-
munity may be helpful for identifying an appropriate moderator. What do I mean by “ap-
propriate”? The answer is highly contextual. Nevertheless, the key, I think, is empathy. An
appropriate moderator can be knowledgeable—​even trained and experienced in moderating
focus groups—​but above all else the person should have the capacity to make your partici-
pants comfortable. You want a moderator who can “read the room,” to know, for example,
when to ask for more and whom to gently prod. Empathy is especially vital when addressing
sensitive or taboo topics. A moderator who can relate to participants may be better equipped
to elicit conversations about difficult issues. Appropriate moderators tend to share certain
sociodemographic traits or experiences with participants. Local networks can help to locate
that person and put you in touch.
Asking the Right Questions. How does one go about devising focus group questions? My
poorly worded subheading aside, I think there are no “right” focus group questions for a par-
ticular research project. Instead, different questions tap into distinct ideas and, consequently,
yield different data.
The trick to elaborating a question protocol is to examine your goals and motivations.
Why are you planning to do focus groups? What do you hope to get from them? Identify
a few topics to prioritize in the session and build your questions around these. Ideally, you
will ask about each topic more than once, so you can maximize coverage and breadth in the
response. On this point, variety matters.14 A diversity of questions—​one that asks partici-
pants to write their answers first; another that encourages the group to work together on an
activity like listing or ranking; one that engages with visual material of some kind; and “con-
ventional” ones that simply invite conversation—​will keep participants interested and can
tap into different ideas.
In addition to being varied, focus group questions should be open, inviting participants to
provide longer, more thoughtful responses. (A closed question offers only a few options, like
multiple-​choice or yes/​no questions.) Questions should also be unidimensional; they should
not include multiple parts or elements. You want to focus the conversation on a particular
topic to the extent that you can. When questions have multiple parts (e.g., What does it mean
to be an anti-​chavista, and how do you utilize the term on a daily basis?), participants may be
confused about how to answer, or they may focus on only one aspect of the question.
There are also practical matters to consider. A focus group should not last longer than 1.5–​
2 hours. Participants will get tired or lose enthusiasm. Moreover, you want each question to
yield an extended conversation—​something like 5–​10 minutes in length, if not more. Finally
you need to build in time for consenting, introductions, and wrapping up.
Overall, you really have time only for 8–​10 questions. One of these will need to be an ice-
breaker, or a relatively easy introductory question to warm up the group. Another should in-
troduce the group to the main topics at hand. One will conclude the conversation. Ultimately,
5–​7 questions will be oriented toward your topics of interest. If you ask more than one ques-
tion about each topic, you may reasonably cover only three topics. In sum, spending time on
what you want to ask, and what you hope to get at, matters.
If it seems like I am putting a lot of pressure on question development, it is because I am.
As with all question-​based data collection methods, the protocol you generate for your focus
groups will shape the data generated. Nevertheless, do not despair! Your chosen moderator,

9780197633137_Book.indb 227 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 228 Jennifer Cyr

as well as other knowledgeable interlocutors, including local academics, can read through
questions for appropriate syntax and interpretation.
Additionally, you can adjust your questions if, after one or two focus groups, you find that
they are not having the impact you desired. I did this in my own work. In a set of focus groups
on how citizens in Bolivia, Peru, and Venezuela spoke of formerly important political parties
that had dropped out of national contention,15 I showed participants images of each party’s
founding leader. They all easily identified each leader. This was an interesting data point for
me: these men were recognizable and known. Nevertheless, I decided I could better use the
time from that question on a different one that would helpfully generate more conversation
and more varied, nuanced responses.
Finally, keep in mind that in the focus group participants control their own responses.
They may, consequently, simply ignore the question asked and discuss something else. In
the same set of focus groups referenced above, I asked Peruvian participants to provide their
impressions of a political party (Acción Popular, for those interested) as a way to assess how
relevant this historic but electorally weak party was in the present context. Rather than dis-
cuss the party, participants chose to talk about a particular deceased leader. Despite probing
and returning to the question at hand, participants did not talk about AP. This occurred in
more than one focus group. Their lack of a response about AP, and their discussion instead
of the leader, indicated to me that what was meaningful about that party in the (then) cur-
rent context was that person and not much else. A lack of direct response to a question is
itself data.
In sum—​and forgive me the rather forced metaphor—​like a horse to a watering hole, you
can bring your focus group participants to a certain set of questions, but you cannot force
them to answer. What is thrilling about focus groups is that, in ceding some control over what
your participants discuss, you gain immeasurably in terms of nuance and meaning-​making.
One last point. As with most qualitative data collection methods, data saturation is a pri-
mary goal of focus groups. In the focus group setting, a general rule of thumb is that one does
not need more than six focus groups.16 At that point, the costs of the focus groups, in terms
of money17 but also with respect to time, energy, and resources, may outweigh the benefits.
Ideally, you will find that answers across focus groups share common points or overlap in
terms of the language used and ideas shared. This, again, was the case in Peru, when par-
ticipants in different focus groups chose not to talk about AP. When this occurs, you can
more credibly claim that those responses are not simply an expression of a unique conver-
sation among a set of focus group participants. Cross–​focus group responses likely tap into
common understandings of a notion or topic, and you can discuss this in your analysis.18
Nevertheless, if generalizability is a goal of the project, focus groups will not be sufficient
as a data collection method. Let’s turn to this point now, as well as other challenges that are
typically raised when one contemplates using focus groups for a project.

Potential Problems
Like all data collection methods, focus groups are not perfect, nor do they perfectly generate
“objective” data that can be neutrally analyzed and slotted into one’s project write-​up. I want
to mention different potential challenges that you may face when integrating focus groups
into your research design.19

9780197633137_Book.indb 228 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 Focus Groups 229

One common concern when it comes to focus groups is that the conversation will gen-
erate false consensus. Focus groups can include overly passive and also dominant partic-
ipants. Rather than hash out distinct nuanced perspectives about a particular topic, some
participants may prefer to stay quiet or feel pressure to acquiesce. This dynamic is called
“groupthink,” a “preference toward agreement” that may bias the data generated.20 What is
registered as agreement in the transcript can mask real differences that exist among your
participants.
You may never know for certain if groupthink is operating, but you can work to mitigate
the dynamic. For example, you can ask participants to write down answers to certain ques-
tions before discussing them, and later examine if what they said in the group differs from
their original response. Additionally, you can instruct the moderator to watch for nonverbal
communication, such as eye-​rolling or head-​shaking, that indicates disagreement and follow
up with those persons. Finally—​and perhaps most crucially—​I’d remind readers that focus
groups are social in nature. These kinds of group dynamics are to be expected. Groupthink
and other dynamics, such as participant passivity/​dominance and group silence, are normal
parts of any social interaction. Focus groups “mimic the natural process of forming and
expressing opinions”;21 this is why they are so well-​suited for studying group behaviors.
A second challenge has to do with whether focus group data are generalizable. In ge-
neral, the answer is no—​and that’s okay! Just as you likely would not carry out experiments
to understand the causes of war, you wouldn’t undertake focus groups to draw causal infer-
ences on population-​wide dynamics. It may, however, be possible to transfer certain insights
gleaned from a set of focus groups comprised of individuals from a very particular context to
others like them. For example, let’s say that I undertook four focus groups with low-​income
parents from Flint, Michigan, about the difficulties of accessing clean water. If several shared
challenges were expressed across those focus groups, a reasonable implication would be that
these challenges reflect the kinds of concerns of other low-​income families living in similar
conditions of poor water quality. On this point, comparability of context is key.22
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not draw your attention to the power dynamics that can
imbue a focus group setting. Focus groups are inherently social, and so asymmetrical power
relations are inevitable. They may occur between the moderator (and/​or researcher) and the
participants; they may also take place among participants, as previously discussed. A moder-
ator should know to gently push back against a dominant participant or invite a taciturn one
to speak.
Researchers should also be aware of any deference or discomfort between the moderator
and participants, and also between participants and the researcher. For one, the focus group
should not create undue harm for any participant. Your institutional ethics review board
should help you work through some of these potential concerns. Additionally, though, it is
not good for your data if participants simply tell the moderator (or you) what they think you
want to hear.
To mitigate the impact of relations of power, researchers should find a moderator who is
as much like the participants as possible—​someone who is knowable to them. All partici-
pants should sit in a circle to avoid any head-​of-​the-​table hierarchy. You, as the researcher,
should be visible and transparent. Introduce yourself; explain your role and your motivations
for the focus groups (without, of course, revealing too much about your research and your
expectations). As the focus group unfolds, you can observe the relational dynamics among
participants and with the moderator. Do they treat the moderator differently? Do they count

9780197633137_Book.indb 229 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 230 Jennifer Cyr

the moderator in the conversation? Are they willing to interject or speak over the moderator?
These are clues that the group feels comfortable and safe. (For more on these concerns, see
Chapter 12.)

Conclusion
Focus groups are an inherently social data collection method that generates emic data at
multiple levels of analysis. These elements, when taken together, make focus groups ex-
tremely well suited for certain research questions and tasks. As with other people-​centered
data collection methods, you should organize focus groups by, first, prioritizing your partic-
ipants and then prioritizing your research. This means choosing a moderator carefully and
elaborating questions that are useful to your research and respectful of the group’s time.
For more information on focus groups, as well as when and how to do them, please see the
following texts.

Notes
1. Rosenthal and Lichtenheld, Duck! Rabbit!
2. Cyr, “The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method.”
3. See, e.g., Cyr, Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher.
4. Johnson, The Struggle against Corruption
5. Firchow and Ginty, “Measuring Peace.”
6. Fuller et al., “Using Focus Groups to Adapt Survey Instruments to New Populations.”
7. One can effectively tap into the individual point of view by asking focus group participants to write
their answers before discussing them openly.
8. Paluck and Green, “Deference, Dissent, and Dispute Resolution.”
9. Kitzinger, “The Methodology of Focus Groups.”
10. Liamputtong. Focus Group Methodology.
11. Barbour, Doing Focus Groups; Cyr, Focus Groups for the Social Science Research; Krueger and Casey,
Focus Groups.
12. By the way, writing out a game plan is a great idea before you begin a research project. It can serve
as a kind of research “wish list.” You write down everything you would do if you had unlimited re-
sources, and then revise that list as your research unfolds. What could you do? What couldn’t you?
How did the (un)expected changes impact your research plan? Your findings? Your hypotheses?
Make note of the changes and how they affect your research. Keep those notes, as they will be in-
credibly useful as you write up your findings and potentially revisit them well in the future. See
Chapter 10 for more on this.
13. Winslow, Honein, and Elzubeir, “Seeking Emirati Women’s Voices.”
14. For excellent examples of different types of focus group questions, see Colucci, “ ‘Focus Groups
Can Be Fun.’
15. Cyr, The Fates of Political Parties.
16. Morgan. “Focus Groups.”
17. A focus group will ideally have six to eight participants, and so the budget for a set of focus groups
can add up quickly. Do you need to rent a space, or can a local organization lend you a room with
a table and chairs? Will you provide food and beverages? (You most certainly should.) Do you
need pens, notebooks, paper, photocopies? Compensation is an additional cost. On this last point,

9780197633137_Book.indb 230 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 Focus Groups 231
whether to compensate and how much to compensate can be tricky (see, e.g., Anderson, “A Proposal
for Fair Compensation for Research Participants”). My take is that compensation is important and
necessary, but it may not always be monetary. One can compensate with public transportation
vouchers, for example, to offset the costs of travel. The key is to acknowledge participation without
inducing it in the first place (see, e.g., Cyr, Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher, 50).
18. Even a single focus group can produce meaningful, useful data. One need not assert that focus
group data reflect ideas that are held by a larger group or population to actually engage with those
data. After all, focus groups are settings where individuals engage in conversation, often about
complicated or sensitive topics. The interactive nature of the group means that the process of
meaning-​making during that conversation is itself worthy of analysis.
19. For insight into other ethical challenges, see Sim and Waterfield, “Focus Group Methodology.”
20. Viscek, “Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups,” 132.
21. Schutt, Investigating the Social World, 309.
22. Sim, “Collecting and Analysing Qualitative Data,” 349.

Recommended Readings
Cyr, Jennifer. Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2019.
This book provides a set of guidelines on how to undertake focus groups, from start to finish, with
an eye toward social scientists who may wish to integrate focus groups into their methodological,
and perhaps even mixed-​methods, toolkit.
Hennink, Monique M. International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
This book focuses on what one must take into consideration when undertaking focus groups in
the Global South.
Hunter, Wendy and Natasha Borges Sugiyama. “Transforming Subjects into Citizens: Insights from
Brazil’s Bolsa Família.” Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 4 (2014): 829–​845.
This article uses focus groups in the research design and is uncommonly thorough in explaining
how focus group data are analyzed and written up.

References
Anderson, E. E. “A Proposal for Fair Compensation for Research Participants.” American Journal of
Bioethics 19, no. 9 (2019): 62–​64.
Rosaline Barbour. Doing Focus Groups. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 2018.
Colucci, Erminia. “‘Focus Groups Can Be Fun’: The Use of Activity-​Oriented Questions in Focus Group
Discussions.” Qualitative Health Research 17, no. 10 (2007): 1422–​1433.
Jennifer Cyr. The Fates of Political Parties: Institutional Crisis, Continuity, and Change in Latin America.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Jennifer Cyr. Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2019.
Jennifer Cyr. “The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method.” Sociological
Methods and Research 45, no. 2 (2016): 231–​259.
Firchow, Pamina, and Roger Mac Ginty. “Measuring Peace: Comparability, Commensurability, and
Complementarity Using Bottom-​Up Indicators.” International Studies Review 19, no. 1 (2017): 6–​27.
Fuller, Theodore D., John N. Edwards, Sairudee Vorakitphokatorn, and Santhat Sermsri. “Using Focus
Groups to Adapt Survey Instruments to New Populations: Experience from a Developing Country.”
Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art 156 (1993): 89–​104.

9780197633137_Book.indb 231 16-Jan-24 09:26:06

 232 Jennifer Cyr
Johnson, Roberta Ann. The Struggle against Corruption: A Comparative Study. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004.
Kitzinger, Jenny. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction between Research
Participants.” Sociology of Health & Illness 16, no. 1 (1994): 103–​121.
Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015.
Liamputtong, Pranee. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. London: Sage, 2011.
Morgan, David. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22, no. 1 (1996): 129–​152.
Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, and Donald P. Green. “Deference, Dissent, and Dispute Resolution: An
Experimental Intervention Using Mass Media to Change Norms and Behavior in Rwanda.” American
Political Science Review 103, no. 4 (2009): 622–​644.
Rosenthal, Amy Krouse, and Tom Lichtenheld. Duck! Rabbit! Clermont, FL: Bunny Books, 2009.
Schutt, Russell K. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2011.
Sim, Julius. “Collecting and Analysing Qualitative Data: Issues Raised by the Focus Group.” Journal of
Advanced Nursing 28, no. 2 (1998): 345–​352.
Sim, Julius, and Jackie Waterfield. “Focus Group Methodology: Some Ethical Challenges.” Quality &
Quantity 53, no. 6 (2019): 3003–​3022.
Viscek, Lilla. “Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups: Generalisability, Quantifiability, Treatment of
Context and Quotations.” Qualitative Report 15 (2010): 122–​141.
Winslow, Wendy Wilkins, Gladys Honein, and Margaret Ann Elzubeir. “Seeking Emirati Women’s
Voices: The Use of Focus Groups with an Arab Population.” Qualitative Health Research 12, no. 4
(2002): 566–​575.

9780197633137_Book.indb 232 /17_revised_proof/revises_i/files_to_typesetting/validation 16-Jan-24 09:26:06