A Practical Guide for Researchers to Conduct Online Focus Group Discussions
Main Article Content
Abstract
This practical guide’s main goals are to assist researchers in understanding online focus group discussions (e-FGD), emphasise the need to obtain a range of viewpoints, and provide novices with a step-by-step approach to ensure successful preparation, execution, and analysis. e-FGD provides a convenient, accessible platform for gathering diverse opinions and experiences from participants across multiple sites, overcoming geographical barriers. In the current digital era, they accommodate participants’ schedules and increase flexibility while delivering fast, cost-effective insights. This guide provides easy-to-follow instructions supported by evidence from recent research. e-FGDs are particularly valuable in fields like medical education, revealing insights often missed in quantitative studies. Although there are obstacles such as limited resources, digital literacy, and connectivity issues, these challenges promote open, spontaneous conversations and more comprehensive data. Future research could explore artificial intelligence (AI)-based moderation, multilingual adaptation, and cross-cultural comparisons. By following this guide, researchers will be equipped to conduct e-FGDs effectively and foster inclusive, meaningful dialogue.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol. 1966;22:129–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
Yusoff MSB, Latiff ARA, Ong EBB, Manan HA, Ismail NA, Rahim NAA, et al. Academic workloads: insights from medical and non-medical lecturers’ experience in Universiti Sains Malaysia. Educ Med J. 2024;16(3):119–39. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2024.16.3.10
Carter S, Henderson L. Approaches to qualitative data collection in social science. In: Bowling A, Ebrahim S, editors. Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005. p. 215–30.
Denzin NK. Sociological methods: a sourcebook. New York: Routledge; 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129945
Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–208.
Wong LP. Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(3):256–60.
Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2010;11(3).
Glaser B, Strauss A. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Polite D. Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.
Creswell JW. Research design: choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications; 1998.
Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications; 2002. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209175
Bertaux D. From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice. In: Bertaux D, editor. Biography and society: the life history approach in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications; 1981. p. 29–45
Ritchie J, Lewis J, Elam G. Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 77–109.
Roslan NS. Development, validation and evaluation of a professional resilience training module for medical interns [dissertation]. Kelantan: Universiti Sains Malaysia; 2021.
Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846
Kelly SE. Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R, Kelly SE, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative methods in health research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2010. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268247.n17
O’Connor CA, Dyson J, Cowdell F, Watson R. Do universal school‐based mental health promotion programmes improve the mental health and emotional wellbeing of young people? A literature review. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(3–4):e412–26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14078
Briller SH, Schim SM, Meert KL, Thurston CS. Special considerations in conducting bereavement focus groups. Omega (Westport). 2007;56(3):255–71. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.56.3.c
Wimpenny P, Gass J. Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference? J Adv Nurs. 2000;31(6):1485–92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01431.x
Ahmed SA, Hegazy NN, Kumar AP, Abouzeid E, Wasfy NF, Atta K, et al. A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x
Huang W-Y, Chang H-Y, Kao C-J, Huang Y-P, Chang M-W, Chuang Y-J, et al. Establishing clinical psychologists’ core competencies and sub-competencies in Taiwan through a focus group discussion. 2024;28(3):122–35.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2009.
Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ Commun Technol. 1981;29(2):75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
McGrath C, Palmgren PJ, Liljedahl M. Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Med Teach. 2019;41(9):1002–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149