108 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
are selected o n the basis o f k n o w n characteristics, which might be
socio-demographic o r might relate t o factors such as experience,
behaviour, roles etc. relevant to t h e research topic. Units are chosen t o
represent a n d symbolise prescribed groups or characteristics (symbolic
representation) and t o reflect t h e diversity of t h e study population
as fully as possible.
Theoretical sampling is a particular type o f purposive sampling in
which units are selected specifically o n t h e basis of their potential contribution
t o theory. It is mainly associated with grounded theory a n d
involves iteration between sample selection, fieldwork a n d analysis.
A n initial sample is selected, fieldwork carried o u t and data analysed;
a further sample is selected t o refine emergent categories or theories,
and so o n until no n e w insights w o u l d be generated by expanding t h e
sample further.
A sample frame is t h e information source from which t h e sample
is selected. This may be an existing information source (such as administrative
records, published lists o r a survey sample)sor o n e which is
generated specifically for t h e study. *'
A sample matrix is a matrix showing t h e prescribed sample criteria,
mapped out vertically and horizontally. Each criterion is broken d o w n
into categories, the number of which will vary. Some criteria may be
interlocked or nested - that is, one criterion controlled within another.
Quotas are then drawn up, specifying t h e precise number of people
required within each of the categories set out in the sample matrix.
Non-probability sampling is the term given t o a range of sampling
strategies used in qualitative research. The intention is not t o produce
a sample which is statistically representative, a n d t h e probability o f
units being selected is not k n o w n . This is in contrast t o probability
sampling - an approach t o sampling used in quantitative research,
and particularly in surveys, t o produce a sample which is statistically
representative of t h e sampled population. The sample is selected
randomly, a n d each unit has a k n o w n probability of selection. This
approach is not generally appropriate f o r qualitative research.
Further reading
Bryman, A . (2001) Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Burgess, R.G. (1984) In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research,
London: Allen & Unwin
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, 2nd edition, London: Sage
Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd
edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Designing Fieldwork Strategies
and Materials
Sue Arthur and James Nazroo
Structuring data collection 110
Designing topic guides 115
Incorporating other research instruments
and materials 127
Preparing for fieldwork and refining
fieldwork strategies 133
In-depth interviews and focus groups - the subjects of the two chapters
which follow this one - are sometimes grouped together as forms of unstructured
data collection. Given their flexible and responsive nature, the use of
this term is understandable. But it is also a little misleading. Although qualitative
data collection does not involve pre-structured questions, carrying out
good in-depth fieldwork requires a high degree of planning, both about the
overall shape or structure of the interview or group discussion, and about
the fieldwork materials that will be needed. These are the issues with which
this chapter is concerned.
We begin by looking at different forms of in-depth interviews and
group discussions and at how they can be structured effectively. We then
look specifically at the design of topic guides. These are documents which
identify the key issues and subtopics to be explored. They are also k n o w n
as interview schedules or interview guides, but we prefer the term 'topic
guide' both because it emphasises the focus on outlining topics rather
than questions, and because it is equally applicable to focus groups as to
interviews. The following section describes how and w h y other fieldwork
materials might be built into data collection. Finally, we look at how
researchers need to prepare for fieldwork and refine their data collection
strategies.
110 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 111
Structuring d a t a collection
Level of structure required
A l l qualitative data collection will have some intention as to structure - even
if the intention is to follow entirely the direction taken by participants with
the researcher not imposing any structure on the interview or group discussion.
But the extent to which the structure and coverage of data collection
can usefully be envisaged or planned i n advance will vary, depending on the
specific purposes of the study. In particular it will relate to how far the
researcher can specify in advance the issues to be explored, how much interest
there is in issues which they have not anticipated, and how far they are
concerned with the way i n which issues are raised, approached and conceptualised
by people.
A very exploratory study designed to understand underlying values, concepts
and norms (akin to what Rubin and Rubin (1995) refer to as 'cultural
interviews') is likely to involve a number of very broad questions, encouraging
the participant to take the lead and to shape their own narrative. The
researcher will probe in depth, aiming to uncover the values and culture of
the participant. Although the researcher will have a sense of the key research
issues, the agenda will largely be set and the interview shaped by the interviewee.
Rubin and Rubin's cultural interviews often involve interviewing
the same person more than once, although this is not an essential feature of
this very exploratory type of interview.
In other studies, there will be a stronger sense in advance of the issues that
need to be explored. The interview or focus group will involve in-depth
probing and questioning that is responsive to participants and (particularly
in interviews) their individual experiences and context. But there will be a
set of issues which need to be covered broadly consistently with all participants,
and sometimes a stronger emphasis on factual and descriptive data
than i n the more exploratory forms of data collection. The researcher will
play a more active role in moving the discussion through specific areas about
which the people's experiences and thoughts are sought, although there
will be scope for participants to move on to these areas spontaneously, and
the researcher will still be open to unanticipated issues raised by participants.
This type of data collection is closer to what Rubin and Rubin call
'topical interviews' which are 'more narrowly focused on a particular event
or process, and are concerned with what happened and why' (Rubin and
Rubin, 1995: 28).
Although these issues have tended to be discussed, by Rubin and Rubin
and by others, in terms of interviews, similar differences in the degree of
structure can be found i n focus groups.
Deciding how far the structure and subject coverage should be specified
in advance in any particular study requires careful thought about the nature
of data sought (Burgess, 1982b; Holloway and Wheeler, 1996; Patton, 2002;
f TTiompson, 2000). Broadly speaking, data collection is likely to be a little
more structured in an evaluative or investigative study looking for example
at the operation of a service or policy. If the study needs to provide descriptive
evidence of people's experiences of a service or programme, a fair
amount of detailed information is likely to be needed to describe the features
of the service or programme, and there are likely to be specific issues about
which evaluative commentary is sought. Studies with a particular emphasis
on comparison will usually also require more structure, since it will be
necessary to cover broadly the same issues with each of the comparison
groups. It may also need to be more structured where fieldwork is carried
out by a team of researchers, to ensure some consistency in approaches and
issues covered.
Data collection is likely to be less structured in a very exploratory study perhaps
in an area about which little is so far known, or if a key objective is
to understand how participants' conceptions or values emerge through their
speech and their narrative. In general, too, focus group data collection is less
structured than in-depth interviewing, in part because it is harder to impose
a structure on a group discussion but mainly because a key feature of focus
groups is that data emerges through interaction within the group (see
Chapter 7). The way in which topics are explored will derive very much
!
from how the group responds to what has already been said. There will be
less scope to specify, in advance, very specific areas for coverage.
A number of writers (see for example Fielding, 1995; Fontana and Frey,
2000; Mason, 2002; May, 2001; Patton, 2002) distinguish between two main
types of qualitative interviews. Unstructured, non-standardised or in-depth
interviews involve a broad agenda which maps the issues to be explored
across the sample, but the order, wording and way in which they are followed
up will vary considerably between interviews. In semi-structured or semistandardised
interviews, the interviewer asks key questions in the same way
each time and does some probing for further information, but this probing is
more limited than i n unstructured, in-depth interviews.
There are different models of semi-structured interviewing, and terms are
not necessarily used consistently so that what some commentators describe
as 'semi-structured' interviews may be described by others as unstructured
or in-depth or, at the other end of the spectrum, open-ended survey interviews.
Some approaches are quite flexible, for example allowing interviewers
to alter the sequence of questions or the way i n which they are phrased.
Others lean more to a fixed structure plus probing and are essentially
an attempt to combine standardised quantitative questioning with nonstandardised
qualitative questioning. This latter approach provides more
depth than a classic survey interview (Brannen, 1992a; Qureshi, 1992) but
has a number of disadvantages (Bryman, 1992). It allows only limited
responsiveness to individual personal contexts, and requires interviewer
and participant to move between rather different modes of question and
answer. Because there is limited probing, the in-depth material is likely to
112 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
come disproportionately from more confident or articulate people. Those
features constrain their ability to generate the type of in-depth data that are
the hallmark of qualitative research.
Ordering data collection
It is also important to give some early thought to the order in which issues
and topics might usefully be approached in an interview or focus group
This involves mentally picturing the interview or group discussion and
working out the most natural way to structure it. In the field, the researcher
need not stick rigidly to this order - indeed, it is much better to be flexible
and to explore issues earlier or later than envisaged if, given the dynamic of
the interview or focus group, that is likely to be more effective. But giving
some thought to how the various questions i n the researcher's mind might
be grouped and ordered is helpful, for several reasons. *
First, interviews and group discussions are processes with their own
dynamic, which means that clifferent issues are best addressed at different
stages of the process (see below, and Chapters 6 and 7). The discussion will;
also feel smoother, more natural and less 'jerky' if issues are discussed in some
kind of organised progression. A further issue is that understanding something
of the personal context - what, precisely, will depend on the research
topic - early in the interview will be important to make sense of what theylater
say, and to probe effectively. Finally, it will be easier for the research teamto
become familiar with the topic guide if it has a logical structure.
hi practice, the order in which topics are addressed will vary between
different interviews or different group discussions, but it is nonetheless worth
spending time thinking about a rational order and using this in designing
topic guides (see below). There are a number of useful general principles,
which are summarised in Box 5.1 below and illustrated in Box 5.2.
• The opening topics should ease participants gently into the interview or
focus group situation. They should be relatively straightforward to answer
and unthreatening. Their purpose is to get the participant talking and to
help them understand the discursive, conversational style of data collection.
• The opening topics are also an opportunity to collect information that
will provide important context for later stages of the interview. This
might include family or household circumstances, whether the participant
is working or not, or any other key background details relevant to
the later discussion. This same principle can apply to subsequent ordering
of topics - in other words there may be some topics that it is helpful
to know about at an earlier stage in order to place other responses in
context and to guide follow-up questions.
• Another way to set up an unthreatening atmosphere is to move from
general to more specific topics, especially if the subject in question is one
which participants may feel is personal, sensitive or demanding.
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 113
, 0 i i the whole people find it easier to talk about an experience or
something they have done (a behaviour), than motivations or reasons
• •;';• for something, or their attitudes or feelings. Generally, therefore, quesl
tions about experiences, circumstances and behaviours should precede
motivational or attitudinal information.
• •However, it can also be helpful to introduce a discussion of definitions
or meanings at an early stage i n the interview or group discussion, for
•example what people understand by the term 'satisfaction' i n relation to
•services. Such conceptual questions can be quite challenging for partic•'v:
ipants, and care should be taken to ask them in a non-threatening manner,
: : to avoid setting up what looks like a test at the start. But it may be
• useful to hear participants' initial reflections on and definitions of a
:•:: concept, rather than asking these questions later when their definitions
: and conceptualisation has been influenced by the discussion that has
taken place.
• Towards the end, it is important to wind the interview or group discussion
down, partly to end on a positive note but also to ensure that participants
have time to move away from any feelings, such as distress,
: ; frustration or anger that the discussion may have generated. The kind of
topics that are useful towards the end of an interview or group discussion
include thoughts about the future, or suggestions for how a programme
or service could be improved, or advice or recommendations for other
people in similar situations to their own.
» Towards the end, it can also be helpful to include questions which
seek an overall summary of somebody's attitudes or experiences. In
the interview or group discussion, this will enable participants to provide
an overview, which may give a valuable indication of the weight
v they attach to different factors. It w i l l help to highlight how views
have been refined or modified as the discussion proceeded, particularly
useful i n focus groups. These types of questions may also
allow a degree of 'mopping up', to be sure that the researcher leaves
with a complete picture of participants' views on the key topics.
However, care should be taken in analysis not to overemphasise these
summaries of attitudes at the expense of the fuller, more complex data
collected earlier on.
Where the subject of the study is an event or a process, it will often be most
useful to structure the interview or focus group chronologically. This seems
to aid recall. It is also often the case that explaming behaviour or thoughts at
one stage requires allusion to something that happened earlier and as a
result it can be harder for participants - and researchers - if the discussion
keeps moving backwards and forwards i n time. Discussing processes
broadly chronologically from beginning to end (albeit with some forward
and backward referencing) will feel smoother and will often aid in-depth
exploration.
114 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
BOX 5.1 STAGES OF DISCUSSION IN INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS
GROUPS
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 115
Introduction
I
Easy, opening questions; more surface level
Background and contextual information!
Definitional questions
I
Core part of interview or group discussion - questioning and
discussion is more in-depth
Move from circumstantial to attitudinal/evaiuative/
explanatory questions
Move from general to more specific
Follow chronological order
I
Winding down j
Questions looking to the future, suggestions
BOX 5.2 EXAMPLES OF DATA COLLECTION ORDERING
Example 1: interview guide
A study of ethnicity and sexual lifestyles (Elam et al., 1999) which aimed to
explore the personal and cultural factors that influence sexual lifestyles,
particularly with a view to informing health promotion strategies,
approached the key issues in the following order:
» Introduction s
» Personal circumstances
• Learning about sex - ways of finding out, what was learnt, influences
• Sexual history and relationships - past and current experiences and behaviour
• Travel abroad and sexual activity - experiences and attitudes
• Safer sex - understanding, awareness and behaviour
» STDs and H!V infection - awareness about diseases and symptoms
• Suggestions for improvements to services and information
Example 2: group discussion guide
A study of an early stage of New Deal for Young People (a welfare to work
scheme) (Legard and Ritchie, 1999) using group discussions had the following,
broadly chronological, topic guide structure:
• Introduction
» Jobsearch prior to New Deal and perceptions of job readiness
• Initial impressions of New Deal
• Overview of activities under New Deal
• Initial interview
• Subsequent activities on New Deal
» Impact of New Deal on job readiness
• Job search activity
• Future prospects and short- and long-term plans
• Evaluation of New Deal
Designing t o p i c g u i d e s
Considerations about the broad structure required will inform the design of the
topic guide. A well-designed topic guide will provide flexible direction to fieldwork
process and essential documentation of a central aspect of the research.
A poorly designed topic guide at best will be confusing and at worst will restrict
the exploratory and reflective nature of qualitative research. Regardless of the
nature of the research, the use of topic guides in qualitative research is strongly
recommended and careful investment in their design is needed.
The purpose and nature of a topic guide
Even in the most informal and unstructured interviews, the researcher is
likely to have identified a broad agenda of topics or themes to explore.
A topic guide provides documentation of subjects to investigate that serves
as an interview agenda, guide, or aide-memoire (Burgess, 1984).
As an aide-memoire, the topic guide offers a tool to enhance the consistency
of data collection, particularly where a number of researchers are involved. It
helps to ensure that relevant issues are covered systematically and with some
uniformity, while still allowing flexibility to pursue the detail that is salient to
each individual participant. But this does not mean asking the questions in
the same way or asking the same questions of each individual interviewed.
A topic guide should be seen as a mechanism for steering the discussion in an
interview or focus group but not as an exact prescription of coverage. If it is
designed as a kind of semi-structured questionnaire it will limit the degree to
which the researcher can interact with interviewees. It will also discourage
reflection by both the researcher and the participant, and may prevent the
pursuit of unanticipated but nonetheless highly relevant themes that emerge.
The topic guide will often be the only written documentation of the fieldwork
process, apart from transcripts (which generally remain private to the
research team, see Chapter 3). A s such, the topic guide also serves a function
as an important part of the public documentation of the research objectives
and process. In the early stages of the research, it is a tool that can be used
for consultation and discussion about the direction that the research will
take. For the research team, the topic guide will serve largely as documentation
of the objectives and concepts that have been developed together during
discussions about the study. Displaying topic guides i n study reports is an
important element of documenting the research approach and making it
transparent (see Chapters 10 and 11).
Establishing subject coverage
The process of topic guide design begins by estabHshfng the subjects to be
covered in data collection. This will often be clear to the researcher from the
stated objectives of the research and the existing literature in the field. These
116 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 117
will have been determined at an early stage in the design of the study (se c '
Chapter 3). So, the process usually begins by reviewing the research specification
and relevant literature. However, before beginning data collection it i<. \
always useful to seek further ideas about the scope of the topic guide
through discussion within the team and more widely. "
Outside the team, this can involve potential users of the research, includ- {
ing funders or commissioners, other researchers, 'experts' in the field, or *
those who might be involved in the implementation of the research findings.
Throughout the whole of this process though, it is important to maintain,
clarity about the central objectives of the study and not to allow specific ' |
questions or topics to shift the focus too far. Part of this process will therefore
involve ruling certain topics as outside the scope of the enquiry.
For research that does not have clearly identified a priori research questions,
Lofland and Lofland (1995) and Fielding (1995) describe the initial
identification of the scope of a topic guide as the first of four key stages. They '.
term this the 'puzzlements and jottings' stage at which the researcher initio Uy |
identifies a topic and considers what is problematic or interesting about it:
Logging data by means of intensive interviewing with interview guides reasonably
begins with you, the prospective investigator, taking some place, class of - i
persons, experience, abstract topic and so on as problematic or as a source of
puzzlement. (Lofland and Lofland, 1995: 78)
Having identified these 'puzzlements' the researcher then takes each as a
topic of investigation and generates a list of problematic or interesting
aspects, jotting down questions that will help to explore and clarify each
puzzle. A t this time, the researcher can discuss with others and consult the:
relevant literature in order to add to what is already known about the issue.
Whatever initial discussion takes place, it will be very valuable for the
topic guide to be generated by all those who will be involved in fieldwork.
The production of a topic guide leads to a crystallisation of the research
objectives and raises issues about overall fieldwork strategies - how to
approach difficult issues, the appropriate order and so on. It will genernliy
be useful for all those involved in fieldwork to contribute to and to learn
through the process of designing the topic guide.
An example topic guide
A n example of a full topic guide is shown in Box 5.3. This topic guide was used
for a study which explored the experience of homelessness among young
lesbians and gay men (O'Connor and Molloy, 2001), through in-depth interviews.
The topic guide illustrates a number of points discussed above and below in
this chapter. Although this particular guide was developed for use in in-depth
interviews, the general features highlighted would also apply to guides for
focus groups.
• It will be seen that there are six key sections, each divided into up to a
further six subtopics. Each subtopic is broken down in some detail to
show the specific issues that will generally need to be covered.
« The order should be noted. Some descriptive information about participants
comes first, although the issues of sexuality and homelessness are
not listed until later. Some participants might raise them earlier themselves,
but they have control as to how early on these are discussed.
Having mapped people's personal contexts, the topic guide moves on
to look specifically at experiences of housing crisis - ordered broadly
chronologically on the guide (cause, nature, sources of help, ending). The
next section looks in more depth at sexuality - it is expected that people
will feel more comfortable with the subject being discussed by this stage,
and its interaction with their experiences of homelessness can be
explored. The guide then moves to housing services and particularly
their response to sexuality. It finishes with some more general reflections
and, on a positive note, with suggestions for the future.
* Items are worded very briefly - almost none goes over one line of text.
They are not worded as specific questions but as issues or topics, with an
indication of the subtopics to be explored. The researcher is left entirely
free to phrase questions as they think best.
» Finally, there are some signposts and instructions, but these are kept very
brief - again the researcher is expected to exercise their own judgement
about how to use and approach each section in the interview.
The structure and length of the guide
Some general principles around the order of topic coverage were discussed
above, and these will inform the structure of the topic guide. The first stage
is to establish which topics can be grouped together, and what the logical or
natural ordering of the topics will be.
When thinking about the grouping and ordering of topics on the guide, it
is important to watch for any repetition that might arise. This may seem
an obvious point but a researcher's concern to ensure that key issues are
covered can sometimes lead to putting them in several different sections.
This makes a guide very hard - and tedious - to use. If there is a lot of probing
to be done around one key topic then this should be contained within one
section on the topic guide, and its importance emphasised there.
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, the extent to which follow-up
issues are prescribed in the guide will vary depending on the purpose of the
study, how far topic coverage can be anticipated in advance, and the desired
balance between participants and researcher in shaping the structure of the
discussion. Rubin and Rubin (1995) distinguish between a 'tree and branch'
model (the 'branches' being issues pre-specified for follow up) and a 'rivers
and channel' model (where the researcher follows 'channels', or themes,
wherever they lead).
118 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 119
BOX 5.3 EXAMPLE OF TOPIC GUIDE BOX 5.3 (Continued)
H O M E L E S S N E S S A M O N G L E S B I A N A N D G A Y Y O U T H
OBJECTIVES
• to explore life histories in detail
• to determine factors which are relevant to becoming homeless
• to gather reflections on their experience(s) of homelessness
• to examine contact of and use of statutory and voluntary agencies
• to understand the needs of homeless lesbian and gay youth.
INTRODUCTION
• introduce National Centre and study; confidentiality; timing
1 PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES
• Age H
• Nature of current housing status •
Summary of current activity (work/education/other)
• Sources and level of income
2 LIFE HISTORY
Encourage detailed coverage of circumstances and key events/periods
Each episode of housing crisis uncovered should be explored fully using
Section 3
Childhood and family background «
- where born
- family composition
- family circumstances (emotional, economic, stability and mobility)
- extended family (geographic and emotional proximity)
- any experiences of care
School life/education
- where went to school (mobility, stability)
- experiences of/memories of school
- whether made friends, whether a happy time
- any experiences of bullying
- experiences of exclusion or absence temporary or permanent
- relationship with teachers
- when left school/further education
- any qualifications
Working history
- whether worked, when started
- types of jobs
(Continued)
- how long stayed in jobs
- feelings about jobs
• Leaving home/leaving care
- when, what precipitated
- experiences and feelings
- how well prepared
• Friendships
- important friendships and relationships as growing up
- whether local network of friends, what based around, how (easily)
made
- whether still in contact, still important
» Further relationships
- boyfriends/girlfriends/partners
- living together
- relationship breakdowns and separations
« Home moving/stability
- experiences of moving
- where from/to
- what precipitated
3 HOUSING CRISIS
Use this section to explore each period of housing crisis unveiled above
• Cause
- how it came about
- explore fully events surrounding the beginning of housing crisis
• Nature
- what was happening
- living arrangements
- mobility
- everyday activities
• Feelings
- how felt about themselves
- how felt others saw them
• Effect
- main difficulties experienced
- how life had changed
(Continued)
120 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 121
BOX 5.3 (Continued)
* Coping strategies
- how managed during that time
- persona! resources
- informal sources of help ,
-» who helped them
-» what role they played in life
-» whether remained in contact with anyone from home/family
background
-> how made a difference
- forma! sources of help
-> which services used
-> why those services (why not others)
-> how made a difference
» Overcoming crisis •>
> If in the past
~ whether/how event or period ended
- anything they tried to do/managed to do
- what precipitated change
- what prevented change
- what made things worse
> If current
- what could bring an end to housing crisis in the future
> If now housed »
- general feelings about current housing situation
- if specific housing (i.e. with other L/G/B YP) - views about
- if generic - views about suitability/need for specific housing
4 SEXUALITY
Use this section to explore the evolution of the young person's sexuality
• First emergence
- own responses
• Sexual experiences since
• Relationships since
• Identity
- whether have a particular way of describing sexuality now
- when formulated
- how comfortable and for how long
- how clear
- any changes over time
- impact on their lives
(Continued)
t Coming out
- out to whom/in what situations
- situations in which reluctant to come out
- own feelings about coming out (whether 'fully' out or not)
- (in situations when have come out) other people's responses to
sexuality
- explore specifically impact of being out on accommodation held
» Housing
- whether sexuality has impacted on housing at any point in the past
-» security of housing status
-» access to accommodation
~> safety of housing
-¥ other aspects
5 ACCESSING SUPPORT AND HELP
» Overview of service provision
- knowledge of different places/services available to help with housing
crisis
-> homelessness agencies
-> housing associations
-» local authority housing services
-» lesbian and gay services
-» other services
- who runs them
~ what do they do
- attitudes towards/perceptions of different services available
- how did/can they help
- what prevents them from helping
- how felt was treated by services used
- encourage YP to compare and contrast different services
• Sexuality
- whether ever asked by agencies about their sexuality
if asked, explore in what way and responses given
feelings generally about being asked by agencies
- if L/G/B, how comfortable being out in services used
factors that make this easy/difficult
> If has a key worker
- explore whether the sexuality of key worker is important
6 POTENTIAL HELP AND SUPPORT
• What would have made a difference at times when have experienced
housing crisis
(Continued)
122 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
• What specifically would they like to see delivered
* Explore what could/should be done
- to help people in same situation
- to help people avoid being in that situation
- what needs to change
- what difference would it make
What needs to be learnt from their experiences
In its briefest form, a topic guide simply lists key topics to be covered as a
broad agenda for the interview or group discussion. A t its most detailed, the
topic guide may contain a succession of carefully worded questions. More
detailed topic guides can contain information such as:
» suggested wording for opening and closing the interview or introducing :
particular topics
• specific subjects to be covered within broad topic areas
• suggestions for prompts and directions for probing *
• suggested wording for questions addressing sensitive topics.
Topic guides can vary from a single page to several pages in length. The
amount of detail will reflect the extent of pre-stmcturing that is possible or
desirable (see above), and thus the type of data sought. But some of this
difference in length is also determined by individual styles of creating topics
guides and the amount of detail which people feel comfortable with when
using a guide. Some researchers are much happier working from a short guide
(two to three pages) and feel constrained or overwhelmed by a guide with a
large amount of detail on it. Others feel more comfortable with detailed:
guides, and gain some security from knowing that what they need to cover is
written down on the guide in case they lose their way during an interview.
O n the whole, it is best to keep the topic guide as short as possible. Shorter
guides generally encourage more in-depth data collection, provided the
researcher is steeped in the objectives of the study and adept at qualitative
data collection. Less detail fosters an approach of responding to each interview
or focus group situation, and not reading from the guide in a formal
style. If a topic guide is designed with a lot of detail and in a relatively structured
style, it may give the impression that the questions on the guide are the
only ones that need to be asked (or that they have to be asked in a prescribed
way), which will rarely be the case.
A t the same time, research commissioners or advisers may want to have a
more detailed idea of what is, or is not, going to be covered in the interview.
A full topic guide can also act as a good source of briefing for research teams.
A useful strategy to meet different people's requirements of topic guides is
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 123
to have a full detailed guide, which gives a clear steer on relevant topics and
areas of interest, and alongside this, a summary topic guide to be used
in fiekiwork.
It is therefore hard to be prescriptive about the most appropriate length for
a guide, although, as a general rule, a guide that is longer than four pages
can feel very unwieldy i n fieldwork. Another 'rule of thumb' for judging
appropriate length is the number of different sections a guide contains somewhere
between six and nine discrete subject sections is probably
enough for an interview, for which the optimum duration lies somewhere
between one and two hours (see Chapter 6). With this kind of time limit, a
topic guide with ten or more sections, or alternatively one which has a great
amount of detail in each section, will result in an interview which is only
able to provide very surface level information. Depth of information will be
lost in favour of breadth of coverage. For focus groups a maximum of five or
six key areas is desirable - fewer than an interview to allow time for all
group members to be drawn into each topic.
Since on the day participants may have less time than was originally
requested, or a great deal to say on some topics, it is important that the team
is clear about the issues which are most important, and those that could be
sacrificed if time is short.
Language and terminology
In general, topic guides work best when items are not worded as actual
questions, but instead use single words or phrases to indicate the issues
which should be explored, and leave the formulation of the question up to
the researchers themselves. This encourages active interviewing, becoming
responsive to the situation and most crucially to the terms, concepts and
language used by the participants themselves (see Chapter 6). In practical
terms it is very difficult to read carefully a long and detailed question on a
topic guide while carrying out interviews or focus groups.
The best way to approach this is to draft topic guides with a simple statement
of the issues to explore - much more useful in the heat of the moment
than a long question. For researchers who prefer a little more guidance,
phrasing the question with 'they' rather than 'you' is helpful - for example,
'what do they think are the most important features'; 'how did they become
aware of the service'. This encourages more spontaneity in question wording,
rather than verbatim reading of questions listed on the guide. The guide
can also indicate a useful way of approaching a subject that has, perhaps,
arisen through discussion in the team: for example, 'ask for description of a
typical day at work', rather than 'details of job activity'.
Since the researcher needs to be responsive to the language used by
participants, the items should be phrased in language which is as neutral as
possible. Sometimes it is easiest to use official or formal language on the
124 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
guide itself (for example 'sexually transmitted diseases', 'job search activity')
provided that it is clear that the actual words used will reflect the language
of participants and the terms with which they appear comfortable. The most
important thing is to make sure that both the researcher and the participant
are using language and specific terms in the same way, and that there is no
misunderstanding.
Specification of follow-up questions and probes
In addition to the main subjects of interest, topic guides will usually include
some indication of issues for follow-up questions and probing (see Chapter 6
for a full discussion of types of questions and probes). These follow-up questions
are an essential feature of qualitative data collection, and vital to ensure
full exploration of the issues under investigation. They are used to generate
comprehensive accounts of the dimensions or factors involved in an issue,
for detailed exploration of a particular attitude, motivation, behaviour and
so on, to check views on some feature across the whole sample or to generate
examples or illustrations.
One of the ways in which topic guides can vary considerably is the degree
to which these are included on the guide or left to the researcher's discretion,
and a number of authors discuss the use of probes in topic guides (see for
example Rubin and Rubin, 1995, and Fielding, 1995). Again, the optimal
amount of detail will depend on the level of consistency sought in coverage,
on individual preference and on the level of skill, experience and knowledge
of the researchers who will be using the guide. In particular, it may depend
on how confident they are at holding i n their head the different dimensions
of a topic and the key issues to be explored.
Most probes cannot be specified in advance since their wording and use
depend on what the participant has just said. The researcher will always
need to be developing follow-up questions on the spot. But it is always useful
to have a note of the types of issues that could be explored within each
subtopic, with as much discretion as possible left to the interviewer as to
which in particular they explore, and the questions they formulate to do so.
Box 5.4 shows some examples of how this can be approached.
Making the guide easy to use
This section gives a number of practical tips for how to create a guide that is
easy to use in an interview or focus group.
• Objectives. It can be helpful for the guide to begin with a brief statement
of the objectives of the research study - not just a statement of the topics
listed in the guide, but a reminder of the underlying purpose of the study.
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 125
BOX 5 . 4 EXAMPLE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AND PROMPTS
Example 1
In a study about sexual health (Elam et al., 1999), the guide contained a
section on awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV:
Awareness of infections/diseases which may be picked up
through sex
- types of diseases/how spread: risky practices and circumstances
- types of people w h o catch them: more or less at risk; attitudes towards
people with STD/H1V
- how diseases can be avoided
- perception of own risk of catching/passing on
- perception of risk among friends, partners
- experiences: own partners; people own age
- awareness of HIV
- attitudes towards HIV and other diseases
Example 2
In a study about physical activity among disabled people (Arthur and Finch,
1999), people were asked about their beliefs and knowledge about physical
activity:
How important is it to do physical activity; why. Explore e.g.
- fitness
- health (how is health different from fitness)
- mental health, general well-being
- social reasons
- reducing risk of injury
- weight control, physical appearance
• Introduction. It is often helpful to have a section at the beginning of the
topic guide to remind those using the guide about what needs to be said
at the start of the interview. This may include summary points about the
research objectives, details of the research team or organisation, the commissioner
or hinder of the research, why the research is being conducted,
the policy on confidentiality, on recording data collection, and how the
material will be used.
• Summary of topics. A n overview of the topic guide on a separate front
sheet, giving the main section headings, can provide a quick and easy-toread
reminder when it comes to using the guide.
• Layout. The layout of a topic guide can make all the difference to how
easy it is to use. In particular, making sure that there is a lot of space on
the page not only makes the topic guide easier to read at a glance but also
allows the user to annotate the guide where they want to (see below).
126 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
It is helpful to 'cascade' items as shown i n the full topic guide example
earlier (Box 5.3), with a heading showing the main topic and a number
of subtopics, each broken down further. Other helpful elements of
layout are:
- using different levels of bullet points
- highlighting individual words 5
- distmguishing different sections through colour, boxes or shading,
especially where they apply to different subgroups
- italics or text boxes for instructions or for prompts to demarcate them
from main topics or subsidiary questions
- font style which is easy to read at a glance (clear, sans serif and not too
small),
« Instructions. Although ways of using the topic guide should be extensively
discussed in briefing sessions (assuming the researcher is not the
only person who will be carrying out fieldwork), it can be helpful toinclude
some pointers on the topic guide. The following can usefully be
noted on the guide:
- some suggested wording for questions which are particularly diffic ult
to introduce
- instructions for how to carry out a task or when to show a visual aid
- a brief description of the rationale behind asking a particular question
- an indication of the relative priority of different sections or topics maybe
noting 'key section', 'briefly', or using asterisks
- instructions for where certain sections are relevant to subgroups only
- instructions to explore particular dimensions throughout a section or
subsection, such as sources of information, influence of others, or how
a past experience compares with a current experience.
« Ending. It can be helpful to put a reminder at the end of the topic guide
to give reassurances about confidentiality and how the data will be used,
giving payments or other 'thank yous' for taking part and dealing with
any other business, for example sorting out how they will be re-contacted
if there is a follow-up element in the research.
» More than one topic guide. If a study involves subgroups whose circumstances
or experience means that they need to be asked a separate set of
questions, it maybe easier to create more than one topic guide rather than
incorporate all the different areas or wordings on one guide. For example
in a study investigating views of continuing service users and of those
who had stopped using a service, it might be easier to have a separate
guide for each group if a lot of the question areas need to be handled
differently. However, i n such a case, it would be vital that both guides
cover the common areas in the same way, and that both are taken to each
interview in case the person has changed status between selection and
the interview.
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 127
Incorporating o t h e r research instruments a n d materials
At an early stage in considering the topic guide structure, it is useful to think
about whether the types of information sought mean that additional
research instruments or materials are required. There are a number of
options to consider.
Collecting structured data
Sometimes a topic guide will be used in conjunction with a more structured
question sheet or proforma. This can be important where relatively complex
and detailed background information is needed in order to have a clear
tuiderstanding of participants' situations. A n important example is when
detailed financial information (such as sources and levels of income and
expenditure) needs to be collected. Because collecting more structured data
means breaking the flow and rapport of an unstructured interview, it is
usually helpful to do it near to the beginning of the interview. It is also
important to be sure that the information is strictly necessary and to think
through how it will be combined with the rest of the data.
For example, in a recent study which involved exploring how couples
who separate approach division of their financial assets (Arthur et al., 2002)
it was necessary to collect detailed information about the couple's financial
situation at the end of their relationship. The interviews then involved looking
at each asset, debt or source of income and exploring how it was treated,
and why. Because how each was treated depended on the existence of other
assets, it was necessary to have a full picture of the financial situation early
on, but the information involved was much too detailed for the researchers
to hold i n their heads. A one-sided sheet was therefore designed with space
to enter the value and ownership of each type of asset, and this was used as
an aide-memoire in the rest of the interview.
Where past events, and particularly their sequence, are important, using
specially designed calendars or diaries can enhance data collection. The
structure of the calendar or diary acts as a memory jogger and supports
greater precision in the dating of events or episodes described. Logging
them as they are discussed means that overlaps or gaps between episodes,
and the precise sequencing of events, are highlighted for both participant
and researchers and their implications or causes can be the subject of further
questioning in the interview.
Using case illustrations and examples
Rooting discussion in specific examples can add depth and richness to data
collection. It helps to move beyond initial general responses and to achieve
a greater level of depth and specificity. Often it will be sufficient for participants
128 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 129
to give examples and illustrations as they talk, but sometimes a more
structured approach is useful.
In studies of professional practice, looking at detailed case examples can
help to ensure that the information collected is not very general or idealised,
but a description of actual behaviour. Examples can illustrate how general
principles were applied i n a specific situation, and the circumstances under
which a professional might deviate from what they have described as their
general approach.
Participants would usually be asked to draw in examples of cases from
their own experience. Some guidance as to the type of case sought is useful,
to avoid potential bias resulting from someone selecting an atypical example
and to ensure that a varied set of cases is discussed across the sample as a
whole. For example, participants might be asked to describe the most recent
case, or both a difficult and a more straightforward recent one. To ensure
complete confidentiality of client details, the participant would be asked to
describe the case without naming the client.
It may occasionally be possible for the researcher to select a case in
advance. Details of individual cases might sometimes be available in the
data set which is used as the sample frame for the study. For example, court
records or medical records would allow prior selection of specific cases.
Prior selection will help to ensure that a varied set of cases is discussed and
to avoid bias i n case selection. But it may be problematic if the participant
being asked to discuss the case does not see it as a helpful example, and they
will need prior warning of the example selected to aid recall.
In either event, it will be important to allow time for the specific example
to be discussed in the broader context of the participant's, work (describing
features of typicality and atypicality, for example), to discuss other cases,
and to describe views or practices more generally.
Enabling and projective techniques
The terms 'enabling' and 'projective techniques' refer to a number of techniques
described in this section. They generally require preparation of
printed material, and careful thought needs to be given to how they should
be incorporated in data collection. The techniques are used to aid expression
and refinement of views: perhaps to pinpoint the components' dimensions
of attitudes, tease out differences in view, explore boundaries, or prioritise
between different options to expose what underpins beliefs or opinions.
They can help to focus the discussion following a general debate, enabling
people to consolidate their views, or promote further thought.
Enabling and projective techniques tend to be used more in group discussions
than in interviews, although they can be used effectively in either
forum. They can sometimes seem stilted in interviews, as if the interviewee
is being tested or observed, whereas a group can provide a more natural
environment in which uncertain participants can take their lead from others
w h o respond more positively to the task.
V I G N E T T E S
An earlier section described how data collection can be shaped around real
cases or examples. Another way of rooting discussion in specific cases or
examples involves using prepared hypothetical examples or 'vignettes'
(Finch, 1987). These are very valuable both in research with professionals
and in general population studies. They are short descriptions of a particular
circumstance, person or event, which might be described verbally by
the researcher or a written version shown. They introduce an element of
consistency which can be useful, allowing comparison between the reactions
of different participants to the same hypothetical example. They give
a common basis for discussion in focus groups which may be more useful
than a case known to one participant only. They can also be a way of
getting people to talk hypotheticalfy about what they would do in a particular
situation, or to explain how general principles or views they have
expressed might be modified in different circumstances. They bring a
degree of specificity to the discussion which can be very valuable, for
example helping to highlight the boundaries or contingencies of people's
beliefs and actions, and can work equally well i n interviews as in focus
groups.
In a study carried out as part of the evaluation of N e w Deal for Lone
Parents (Lewis et al., 2000), a first stage of in-depth interviews with lone
parents was carried out, followed by group discussions with staff delivering
the service. A typology of lone parents was drawn up from the in-depth
interviews, and vignettes were devised to describe a 'typical' member of
each of the key groups. The vignettes were then discussed in the group discussions
with staff, and approaches to working with each type of lone parent
described. This brought a degree of commonality to the discussion so that all
participants were discussing the same cases. It highlighted differences in
how staff would work differently with each group, which helped to explain
why different groups of lone parents appeared to gain to varying degrees
from participating i n the service.
A recent study for the Wicks Committee on Public Standards (Graham
et al., 2002) explored public attitudes towards the ethical standards that
should be expected of public office holders. After general discussion of
views, which included asking for and discussing examples of high and
low standards of behaviour, a series of vignettes was shown. Each outlined
a particular situation, and participants were asked what if any
penalty should be imposed. The topic guide showed further issues to
probe, particularly changing some of the circumstances to establish
the boundaries of people's views and the values underpinning them (see
Box 5.5).
130 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
BOX 5,5 EXAMPLE OF VIGNETTE
Vignette
A minister announces the appointment of someone to an important
government job. The minister insists they were offered the job because they
had the most relevant skills and experience. But the person w h o got the
job has donated money to the minister's party, amounting to hundreds of
thousands of pounds in recent years. He is also a close personal friend of the
minister.
Issues identified for probing in topic guide
• if the case had involved a different type of office holder, such as a local
council leader, a university head or an NHS trust director
• if the person had been a family member, rather than a friend and donor
• if the friendship and/or the donation had been made public before the
appointment j
• if a smaller amount had been involved
C A R D - S O R T I N G
Another useful technique is card-sorting. Participants are shown a number
of written or visual examples of an issue, and asked to sort them into piles
or to order them - perhaps to indicate their priorities, to show which examples
do or do not 'belong', or to draw out relationships between different examples.
In a study exploring how the term 'training' is understood, group participants
were shown cards describing different types of training or learning
and asked to indicate which did and did not fall within their own understanding
of the term (Campanelli et a l , 1994). Such techniques are regularly
used in survey research. Their purpose in qualitative research is to facilitate
discussion of the reasons for choices and priorities, and their implications,
not simply to aid the selection itself.
G I V I N G I N F O R M A T I O N O R S H O W I N G W R I T T E N M A T E R I A L
Although as Chapter 6 describes the researcher will generally want to adopt
a neutral and objective role, there may in some studies be a need to introduce
information into the interview or group discussion. This might arise for
example where reflections on different proposals are required, to stimulate
discussion further, or if the topic is one about which knowledge is likely to
be particularly Hmited among participants. (In the latter case, it will usually
be desirable for the topic guide to explore knowledge and awareness before
introducing information.) For example, i n a study of public attitudes to lone
parents (Snape and Kelly, 1999) descriptive statistics about lone parents were
given to the group after they had aired their own perceptions. This generated
more discussion as participants reflected on how it related - or, more
particularly, did not relate - to their preconceptions.
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 131
Depending on the study objectives, it may be helpful to show other
materials. For example, it may be a purpose of the study to consider how far
different types of material might address people's information needs, or
whether a form is easy to use.
M A P P I N G E M E R G E N T I S S U E S
Another useful technique, again more appropriate for focus groups, is to
map emergent issues as they arise in the session on a flipchart or board. This
displays to the group what it has generated, encourages them to take ownership
of it and to move it forward. The group might be asked to add to the
list, but more importantly it will serve as a framework for further discussion.
For example, i n a study exploring how benefit entitlement adjudication was
organised in local offices (Woodfield et al., 1999), descriptions of different
organisational systems were mapped diagramatically on a flipchart by one
of the co-moderators. This made the differences between systems visible to
all participants and meant that the group could elaborate on them and discuss
their merits and disadvantages.
Another example comes from a study which was part of a programme of
research carried out for the Benefits Agency, looking at the validity of satisfaction
measures used in surveys. Qualitative research was used to identify
the components that make up satisfaction with aspects of the service, and to
understand how broader factors can influence assessments of satisfaction
(Elam and Ritchie, 1997). In a series of focus groups, the researchers first
logged on a board all the issues raised by the group as satisfactory or unsatisfactory
aspects of recent dealings with the Benefits Agency. This formed the
basis of the second half of the discussion i n which participants discussed
how these issues relate to satisfaction: the different ways in which they
would contribute to satisfaction, how their importance would vary in different
circumstances, and how they would influence their rating of satisfaction.
P R O J E C T I V E T E C H N I Q U E S
'Projective techniques' are a range of strategies designed to facilitate freer
discussion and cornmunication, and to access thiriking or beliefs that are less
conscious or that may be difficult to speak about. The term derives from the
psychoanalytic concept of projection in which, as a defence mechanism, we
locate or attribute some part of ourselves, such as our own unacceptable feelings,
on to something external to ourselves such as someone else. Projective
techniques are often used in market research to explore imagery around
brands or products or to develop advertising. They can be quite elaborate
exercises.
Gordon and Langmaid (1988) identify five different types of projective
techniques: association, such as word association or asking participants to
describe the 'personality' of brands or organisations; completion, where
participants complete sentences, stories or conversations; construction, such
132 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
as bubble drawings or taking the perspective of a third party; expressive
methods, involving drawing and role enactment; and choice-ordering,
which involves selecting or ranking items.
Projective techniques also have an application to social research, although
they are not appropriate to all subjects. They can provide a means of cutting
through self-consciousness and can draw out views that are otherwise less
'acceptable' or 'rational', less conscious, or are based on strong underlying
emotions. Because projective techniques involve other forms of communication
beyond direct questioning, they are helpful i n focus groups with people
who have difficulty in articulating their views, such as adolescents. In discussions
with younger age groups they are also a good icebreaker or general
stimulant to discussion. They are also helpful for enlivening discussion on a
subject that people may find less then riveting. For example, a study of political
interest (or lack of it) among 14-24-year-olds involved showing participants
a picture of the Houses of Parliament and asking them to imagine what
it would be like inside, asking them to draw a picture of*a politician, and to
complete the sentence 'Politics is boring because ...' (White et al., 2000).
Although stimulus materials or projective techniques can help the
researcher to delve for further information, it is important to be clear
whether they are really necessary. Straightforward discussion may be sufficient.
Using the techniques does have some disadvantages. The process of
introducing and administering materials takes time and is disruptive to the
flow of discussion so that for a while the group task becomes more specific
or structured and proceedings need to be directed by the researcher. They
are also open to misinterpretation: it is important that the participants themselves
interpret what they have come up with, not the researcher. There can
be resistance within the group to their introduction, and care is needed to
avoid trivialising the subject through their use. Finally, it is worth remembering
that some people in the group may have difficulties with literacy, or
sight problems.
Any materials or exercises used should be kept as simple and short as
possible and combined with more free-flowing discussion. They are generally
introduced after some warm-up debate or in the latter half of the session.
Co-moderation is helpful to handle their administration, particularly if
the exercise involves mapping what participants have said and re-playing
it to them.
Fieldnotes
Finally, the role of fieldnotes should also be considered. Fieldnotes are long
established as a method of data collection in ethnographic research, and
particularly in observation form the primary data (Bryman, 2001; Burgess,
1982c, 1984; Lofland and Lofland, 1995). However, in studies using in-depth
interviews and focus groups where data are captured through audio-recording,
MM
llliP
111
•it
111
•HI
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 133
fieldnotes provide an opportunity to record what researchers see and hear
outside the immediate context of the interview, their thoughts about the
dynamic of the encounter, ideas for inclusion in later fieldwork and issues
that may be relevant at the analytical stage. They may simply involve rough
jottings, but generally some stimulation of the issues for consideration and
some consistency between researchers in the coverage of fieldnotes will be
required. It may also be useful, in writing up the research methods, to
describe how fieldnotes were used to develop fieldwork and analysis.
All these additional methods of generating data need to be considered at
the topic guide design stage and built into it, rather than seen as an add-on
feature at a later stage. Clarity about their purpose and prior discussion of
bow they can be integrated are important if they are to be used effectively
and consistently.
Preparing f o r f i e l d w o r k a n d refining f i e l d w o r k strategies
Research team briefing
because qualitative data collection leaves so many critical decisions and
choices to the researcher carrying out the fieldwork, it is essential that a
research interviewer is steeped in the research objectives and has a clear
understanding of what each section and subsection of the topic guide is
seeking to achieve. Assuming the researcher is not working alone, a full
briefing for the whole team is one of the most critical elements for successful
data collection. This is especially important if any members of the
research team have not had the opportunity to be involved in earlier discussions
about the objectives and overall design of the research study. The level
of briefing required will also partly depend on the interviewing skills and
experience of members of the team.
The briefing meeting is often a very good opportunity to discuss how the
topic guide will work in practice, to identify any potentially difficult areas,
and to think about different ways in which questions might be phrased or
issues approached. A briefing meeting should be interactive and lively,
encouraging questions, discussion, and pooling ideas or worries. Following
this meeting, the topic guide may need to be revised. The research team for
example may suggest modifications to the order or grouping of subjects,
identify gaps in coverage, have views on the length and amount of subject
coverage, or want to suggest ways of dealing with sensitive question areas.
Written information will also be an important aspect of the briefing of
team members. This might include, for example, background information
about the aims and coverage of the research, a summary of the aims of each
section of the topic guide or notes about technical terms used. Where there
is a complex policy or a programme to be discussed i n the interview, it is
134 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
particularly important that the research team has a good understanding of
what is already known about the nature and operation of the system under
review.
It may also be necessary to obtain comments on or approval of the topkguide
from a research commissioner or advisory group. This can be a very
helpful process, especially where the advisers are highly knowledgeable
about the research area or very clear about what they are seeking from, the
research. However, it can also sometimes need careful management, particularly
if commentators are not familiar with qualitative research methods. Itis
common for people who are unused to qualitative research to feel a little
nervous about the loose' structure of a topic guide compared with a survey
questionnaire and to want to add follow-up questions or standard probes to
the guide.
Preparation for fieIdwork B
After the briefing, it is important to spend time studying the guide, becoming
really familiar with its structure and detailed contents, thinking about
how different issues might be addressed, the type of responses they might
yield and how they will need to be followed up. This sort of preparation is
not designed to pre-empt what will come up in the interview or focus group>
but it is helpful for the researcher to begin to think about the sort of direction
the interview or group might take.
It has already been noted that the topic guide serves an important function
in the documentation of the research. But in terms of what shapes the conduct
of fieldwork, it should really be seen as just one element Only - a written aid
to take to and guide the interview. The individual researcher's skill at interviewing
and their understanding of the research requirements will overlay
the written guide. This will be evident in their working copies of the guide.
Each researcher will want to customise their copy of the guide in ways thaisuit
their own personal preferences and style. This will help them to memorise
key areas and think about ways they want to approach a subject.
Before fieldwork begins, this would include highlighting or underlining
different sections, writing key words i n the margin, or noting how they plan
to introduce particular subjects. This personal customisation is a valuable
stage in thinking about how to use the written document i n practice. A s
fieldwork progresses, they may also note ways of asking questions or probes
they have found useful, or incorporate issues that have been raised by earlier
participants that would be useful dimensions to explore with others.
Initial use and testing the topic guide
Initial interviews and focus groups will be an important test of the scope of
the topic guide, and carrying out initial test fieldwork, or 'piloting' a topic
111
111111
Bill
•ill
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 135
guide is a critical part of research. When assessing the scope of the guide,
it i s important to review whether it allows participants to give a full and
coherent account of the central issues and incorporate issues they think are
important. In other words, it should not constrain what participants want to
say in relation to the research questions. If a research instrument is not working,
because it is not generating the clarity scope or depth of data sought, then
it needs some revision. This is as true of qualitative research as it is of quantitative
research. The difference is that 'pilot' interviews do not need to be
excluded from the data set unless a very radical change of direction or coverage
occurs. The data collected will still contribute to the research findings even
if the emphasis changes slightly. However, if the first few interviews or group
discussions suggest a revision of the research objectives, or a radical change in
the way in which the data are collected, then there may be more reason to
consider whether or not to keep the initial interviews or discussions.
;; A useful aid in the refinement of fieldwork strategies and topic guides is
for members of the team to conduct initial interviews or focus groups working
in pairs. This is helpful for discussion of how well the guide is working,
how to respond to unanticipated issues or circumstances, and how to incorporate
them i n later data collection. It is also a useful check that there is consistent
understanding of the research objectives and of the purpose of each
section of the topic guide.
It is in any case very valuable for the research team to meet to review the
topic guide after perhaps four or five interviews or the first couple of focus
groups. This provides researchers with a chance to 'fine tune' the guide
before the bulk of the fieldwork takes place. Revisions may include creating
a more natural order of topics, adding (or removing) minor topics or followup
questions, or thinking about language or ways of addressing topics that
may have been problematic. It is also worth, at this stage, reflecting on the
duration of interviews and focus groups and the amount of time spent on
different topics, and considering whether this needs to be modified to ensure
the appropriate depth is reached on key topics. Finally, an obvious point but
one perhaps easily missed in the heat of fieldwork, is the importance of
reflecting on whether the type of data being collected is what will be
required to meet the research objectives.
To some degree, the first few episodes of data collection are also part of the
briefing and familiarisation process, as it is not until a topic guide has been
used in the field that it is possible to understand how it will work in different
situations. Researchers will become less and less dependent on the topic
guide as the study proceeds, using it more as an occasional prompt or guidance,
or moving to a summary version of the guide as familiarity with the
issues to cover increases.
The key roles of the topic guide, then, change as the study proceeds. Initially
its creation helps to crystallise the researcher's conception of the study topic
and shape their consideration of the fieldwork strategies that will be
136 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
required. In the field it acts as an aide-memoire, helping to ensure that key
issues are explored systematically but supporting flexible and responsive
investigation. A t the end of the study it is salient because it documents th<>
fieldwork approach, and thus gives some insight into a stage of the research
process which it can otherwise be difficult to describe.
D E S I G N I N G F I E L D W O R K S T R A T E G I E S A N D M A T E R I A L S 137
K E Y P O I N T S
Despite the use of the term 'unstructured data collection', any qualitative
research study requires some early consideration of the structure
a n d content of data collection. The degree to which subject
coverage and order can be specified in advance will vary, depending
o n the objectives of the research and the nature of data required.
The topic guide is an aide-memoire w h i c h guides^the researcher
during fieldwork a n d ensures s o m e consistency in fieldwork
approaches. However, it should be used flexibly a n d should
enhance rather than inhibit responsive questioning. It is also an
important public d o c u m e n t of t h e approach to fieldwork. In practice,
the order in which topics are addressed will be responsive to
the fieldwork situation, but starting w i t h a logical or 'natural' order
will aid the researcher.
The length a n d style of t h e topic guide will be shaped not only by
t h e research questions but also by t h e size a n d experience of the
research t e a m , the type of fieldwork envisaged and the requirements
of funders. It is helpful t o list items as issues rather t h a n as
questions, identifying the subtopics to be explored fend any followup
questions that can be anticipated. Topic guides for g r o u p discussions
need to be shorter than those for in-depth interviews. Fewer
topics should be included, and there will be less scope for identifying
specific areas for detailed exploration since these will also f l o w f r o m
h o w the g r o u p members respond to w h a t other participants
have said.
T h o u g h t also needs be given to the value of using other fieldwork
materials or enabling or projective techniques. These can be useful to
aid expression and refinement of beliefs, a n d to understand t h e
boundaries or contingencies of views.
The w h o l e research t e a m should be involved in the creation of the
guide w h e r e possible. A t h o r o u g h briefing o n the research objectives,
the guide and fieldwork strategies is critical. Early fieldwork
will be a n important test of the guide, a n d it is helpful for the t e a m
to meet and review the guide after t h e first f e w episodes of d a t a
collection.
KEY TERMS
Unstructured data collection refers to the responsive, flexible and
interactive questioning techniques used in in-depth data collection. It
is sometimes compared w i t h semi-structured data collection,
where there is more pre-specifying of order and question-wording.
Topic guides are also k n o w n as interview schedules or interview
guides. They list the key themes to be explored, broken d o w n into
topics a n d subtopics.
Enabling and projective techniques are a range of approaches
to facilitate data collection. Enabling techniques include using
vignettes (or short hypothetical examples or 'stories'), card-sorting
(where written examples are ordered or sorted by participants), giving
information, or mapping emergent issues for subsequent discussion.
Projective techniques draw on the psychoanalytical concept of projection
and are used to access material that is less conscious or more difficult
for participants to articulate.
Fieldnotes are notes made by researchers 'in the field' and more
typically used in ethnographic research, where they often form the
primary data. However, in studies where data capture is by audiorecording,
fieldnotes can usefully record feelings about the dynamic of
data collection, information acquired outside the immediate context
of an interview or focus group, or ideas for analysis.
Further reading
Fielding, N.G. (1995) 'Qualitative interviewing' in N. Gilbert (ed.)
Researching Social Life, London: Sage
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L.H. (1995) Analyzing Social Settings, 3rd edition,
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd
edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of
Hearing Data, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Spradley, J. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 139
In-depth Interviews
Robin Legard, fill Keegan
and Kit Ward
-^•../•This chapter begins with a brief review of the various perspectives on the
interview raised by different traditions of qualitative research. We then look
at the key features of in-depth interviews and the professional and personal
skills they require. The chapter examines the nature of the 'contract' between
•participant and researcher, and the 'staging' of an interview. We then set out
some key principles in asking questions and probing, and the techniques
that inform good interview practice. We also cover how researchers can
respond to difficult situations that may arise in interviewing. The chapter
concludes with coverage of practical issues in organising interviews.
The in-depth interview
The staging of an interview
Asking questions to achieve breadth
and depth %
Question formulation
Further techniques for achieving depth
Practical considerations
139;
144
153:
:
155
165
In-depth or unstructured interviews are one of the main methods of
data collection used in qualitative research. Classic ethnographers such as
Malinowski stressed the importance of talking to people to grasp their point
of view (Burgess, 1982a), and personal accounts are seen, as having cen trai
importance in social research because of the power of language to illuminate
meaning:
[T]he expressive power of language provides the most important resource for
accounts. A crucial feature of language is its capacity to present descriptions,
explanations, and evaluations of almost infinite variety about any aspect of the
world, including itself. (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995:126).
The in-depth interview is often described as a form of conversation (Burgess,
1982a, 1984; Lofland and Lofland, 1995). Indeed Sidney and Beatrice Webb
described the method of the interview as being 'conversation with a
purpose' (Webb and Webb, 1932: 130). A s such it reproduces a fundamental
process through which knowledge about the social world is constructed in
normal human interaction (Rorty, 1980). But there are some obvious differences
between normal conversation and in-depth interviews - their objectives,
and the roles of researcher and participant, are quite different (Kvale,
1996; Rubin and Rubin, 1995). In reality, although a good in-depth interview
will appear naturalistic, it will bear little resemblance to an everyday
conversation.
The in-depth i n t e r v i e w
Perspectives on the interview
The different traditions of qualitative research described in Chapter 1 have
: resulted i n a diversity of perspectives on in-depth interviewing. In particular,
there are debates about how far knowledge is constructed in the interview
or is a pre-existing phenomenon, and about how active or passive the
role of the interviewer should be. As Chapter 5 describes, there is also diversity
in how structured interviews are, and in how far the content is set by
researcher or participant.
;i Two alternative positions on in-depth interviewing are put forward by
Kvale (1996). The first, which he summarises as the 'miner metaphor', falls
broadly within a modern social science research model which sees knowledge
as 'given':
knowledge is understood as buried metal and the interviewer is a miner who
unearths the valuable metal ... [T]he knowledge is waiting in the subject's
interior to be uncovered, uncontarrdnated by the miner. The interviewer digs
nuggets of data or meanings out of a subject's pure experiences, unpolluted by
any leading questions. (Kvale, 1996: 3)
The second, which Kvale calls the 'traveler metaphor', falls within the constructivist
research model in which knowledge is not given but is created
and negotiated. The interviewer is seen as a traveller who journeys with the
interviewee. The meanings of the interviewee's 'stories' are developed as
the traveller interprets them. Through conversations, the interviewer leads
the subject to new insights: there is a transformative element to the journey.
The traveler ... asks questions that lead the subjects to tell their own stories of
their lived world, and converses with them in the original Latin meaning of
conversation as 'wandering together with'. (Kvale, 1996: 4 emphasis in original)
The researcher is thus an active player in development of data and of meaning.
Holstein and Gubrium (1997) stress that the researcher is not simply a
140 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
'pipeline' through which knowledge is transmitted. They, too, see knowledge
as constructed in the interview, through collaboration between interviewee
and researcher.
This emphasis on knowledge as something that is created within the
unique situation of the interview has led to concerns among some authors
about the stability and validity of interview data (see Chapter 10 for discussion
of validity generally). But other writers, while they acknowledge the
influence of postmodern thinking on the nature of interviewing, nevertheless
see the interview as meaningful beyond its immediate context.
Interviews can:
provide access to the meanings people attribute to their experiences and social
worlds. While the interview is itself a symbolic interaction, this does not discount
the possibility that knowledge of the social world beyond the interaction
can be obtained. {Miller and Glassner, 1997:100)
i
The influence of postmodernism, constructionism and feminism has also led
to new perspectives on in-depth interviewing, and new forms of interview
(Pontana and Frey, 2000; Kvale, 1996). Postmodern approaches emphasise
the way in which a reality is constructed in the interview, and the relationship
that develops between researcher and interviewee. In creative interviewing
the researcher moves away from the conventions of interviewing,
with lengthy or repeated interviews taking place in people's everyday world
situations, and an emphasis on free expression (Douglas, 1985). In dialectical
interviewing, the interview focuses on contradictions in the social and material
world and on the potential for action and for change, with an emphasis
on the transformative aspects of an interview. HeuristicSapproaches emphasise
the personal experience of the interviewer, and see the process of interviewing
as a collaboration between researcher and participant, sharing
reflection and enquiry (Douglass and Moustakas, 1985).
Feminist research approaches have particularly raised issues about the
form and features of in-depth interviewing (Finch, 1984; Nielsen, 1990;
Oakley, 1981; Olesen, 2000; Reinharz, 1992), although as Olesen in particular
has stressed there are many different feminist approaches. Feminist interviewing
attempts to be more reflexive and interactive, aiming to take a nonhierarchical
approach which avoids objectifying the participant. The
distinction between the roles of researcher and participant becomes less
stark: the interview is seen as a collaboration between them as they share i n
the process of negotiating coverage, language and understanding.
Reciprocity is emphasised. The researcher feels free to step outside the
formal role of the neutral asker of questions, expressing their own feelings
and giving information about themselves (an issue discussed later i n this
chapter). Some feminist approaches emphasise the value of women interviewing
women (Finch, 1984; Oakley, 1981), although the issue of cultural
affinity is also discussed in relation to other characteristics and patterns of
•
H P
mm
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 141
characteristics (Olesen, 2000; Rubin and Rubin, 1995). This has led to questions
about whether people should be interviewed by researchers who have similar
socio-demographic characteristics, or who have experiences in common
with them (see Chapter 3).
Finally, biographical, narrative, life history and oral history approaches
(see Chamberlayne et a l , 2000; Miller, 2000; Thompson, 2000) also bring
different perspectives to the interview and have yielded different forms of
interview. These methods are concerned with understanding cultural
milieux and social worlds through personal accounts and narratives, with
life history or biographical interviews covering an individual's whole life
and oral history approaches concentrating on specific events or periods. The
approaches involve intensive and extended data collection with several
interviews with each participant, and participants are given a fairly free rein
to shape their own narratives.
These different perspectives and traditions thus lead to different priorities,
emphases and practices. But there are a number of features of in-depth interviewing
which remain broadly consistent.
Key features of the in-depth interview
The first key feature of the in-depth interview is that it is intended to combine
structure with flexibility. As Chapter 5 noted, even in the most unstructured
interviews the researcher will have some sense of the themes they wish to
explore, and interviews will generally be based on some form of topic guide
(or interview schedule or guide) setting out the key topics and issues to be
covered during the interview. However, the structure is sufficiently flexible to
permit topics to be covered in the order most suited to the interviewee, to
allow responses to be fully probed and explored and to allow the researcher
to be responsive to relevant issues raised spontaneously by the interviewee.
A second key feature is that the interview is interactive in nature. The
material is generated by the interaction between the researcher and interviewee.
The researcher will ask an initial question in such a way as to encourage
the interviewee to talk freely when answering the question. The next
intervention by the interviewer will usually be determined by the participant's
answer. (How much of themselves researchers offer in this interaction
is discussed below in this chapter.)
ITiirdly, the researcher uses a range of probes and other techniques to
achieve depth of answer in terms of penetration, exploration and explanation.
A n initial response is often at a fairly 'surface' level: the interviewer will
use follow-up questions to obtain a deeper and fuller understanding of the
participant's meaning. The in-depth format also permits the researcher to
explore fully all the factors that underpin participants' answers: reasons,
feelings, opinions and beliefs. This furnishes the explanatory evidence that
is an important element of qualitative research.
142 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 143
Fourthly, the interview is generative in the sense that new knowledge or
thoughts are likely, at some stage, to be created. The extent to which this k
so may vary depending on the research questions, but it is likely thai the
participant will at some point direct themselves, or be directed by the
researcher, down avenues of thought they have not explored before
Participants may also be invited to put forward ideas and suggestions on a
particular topic and to propose solutions for problems' raised during the
interview.
The emphasis on depth, nuance and the interviewee's own language as a
way of understanding meaning implies that interview data needs Io be
captured in its natural form. This means that interview data is generally tape
recorded, since note taking by the researcher would change the form of data.
Finally, these key features together mean that qualitative interviews are
almost always conducted face-to-face. It would be extremely difficult to conduct
really detailed in-depth interviewing over the telephone. The interview
is an intense experience, for both parties involved, and a ghysical encounter
is essential context for an interview which is flexible, interactive and generative,
and in which meaning and language is explored in depth.
Requirements of a qualitative interviewer
The success of the interview depends, to a large extent, on the personal and
professional qualities of the individual interviewer. In contrast to quantitative
interviewing, qualitative research interviewers are, themselves, research
instruments, and there are some key requirements of them (Kvale, 1996;
Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Thpmpson, 2000). So
what are the qualities that go to make up a successful depth interviewer?
In-depth interviewing makes a number of demands on the mental and
intellectual abilities of an interviewer. First, the ability of the researcher to
listen is fundamental to the art of interviewing. The researcher must hear,
digest and comprehend the participant's answers in order to decide how to
probe further. Second, good in-depth interviewing requires a clear, logical
mind. The researcher needs to be able to think quickly to distil the essential
points of what the participant is saying, exercise judgement about what to
pursue, and simultaneously formulate the relevant question. Third, a good
memory is an important attribute. It is often necessary to make a mental note
of a point made earlier on by the participant and return to it at a judicious
moment in the interview to seek further clarification or elaboration.
Curiosity - an enquiring rnind - is an essential asset in an in-depth interviewer.
It greatly helps if the instinct of the researcher is to want to know
more about what they have been told, Thompson (2000) stresses that
in-depth interviewing requires interest i n and respect for people as individuals,
and is not for people who cannot stop talking about themselves. Patton (2002)
argues for patient curiosity:
If what people have to say about their world is generally boring to you, then you
will never be a great interviewer. Unless you are fascinated by the rich variation
human experience, qualitative interviewing will become drudgery. (Patton,
£ S 2002: 341)
However active or passive the role of the interviewer, an in-depth interview
jsbased around the ability of the interviewer to establish a good rapport
with the participant. Researchers have to be able to establish a good working-relationship
with people from all walks of life, from people living in
difficult circumstances to those i n positions of power and influence. A good
working relationship is achieved where the researcher seeks to put the participant
at ease and to create a climate of trust. This involves demonstrating a
real desire to understand from the perspective of the interviewee. It also
involves the researcher displaying the confidence that comes from being
professional, having a job of work to do and knowing how to do it. Trust is
strengthened where the researcher appears to be comfortable with the interview
situation, and with everything the interviewee has to say.
Creating the right rapport also involves demonstrating interest and
respect, being able to respond flexibly to the interviewee, and being able to
show understanding and empathy (Thompson, 2000). Adaptability is therefore
a key requirement. This does not mean attempting to be like the interviewee;
rather it involves respecting the individuality of the other person
while retaining one's own identity.
Interviewees also respond positively where the interviewer displays a
sense of 'tranquillity' - an inner stillness which communicates interest and
attention and which is accompanied by a feeling of being comfortable with
the interviewee and the situation. Humour also has its place in helping to
foster a sympathetic interviewing environment: the ability to share a joke
made by the interviewee or to lighten a situation with humour can facilitate
the interviewing process.
Researchers need to establish their credibility with participants by asking
relevant questions which are seen as meaningful by the participant and
which are based on an understanding of the research subject. But equally the
interview is not a forum for the researcher to make a show of their own
knowledge. This can be particularly challenging in interviews with senior
professionals or with peers. Researchers need a degree of humility, the ability
to be recipients of the participant's wisdom without needing to compete by
demonstrating their own.
Efficiency and careful preparation are also essential. This means, for example,
being fully conversant with the objectives of the research and with the topic
guide. It means planning an itinerary that allows for punctuality in keeping
appointments, and ensuring that recording equipment is in good order.
Mason (2002) stresses the range of tasks that interviewing involves. A t any
one time the researcher needs to listen to what is being said and understand
it; assess how it relates to the research questions; be alert to contradictions
144 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
with what has been said earlier; decide what to follow up or explore in more
detail now and what to return to later; decide how to phrase the next question;
pick up on nuances, hesitation, emotion and non-verbal signals; pace
the interview; keep an eye on recording equipment, and deal with any distractions
or interruptions that arise. Concentration and stamina are essentia
qualities for coping with these simultaneous demands.
One task that can be omitted from this list - and indeed that is best deliberately
set aside during interviews - is analysis. During the interview, Llicresearcher
needs to be totally dedicated to interviewing. Their attention
should be focused on listening and responding. It is deleterious to be thinking
about analytical constructs, or considering how what is being said sits
within analytical themes, during the interview since this means that the
researcher will not be giving their full attention to what the participant is
saying. It can lead to questions that are rooted in the researcher's over-hash,'
interpretation of what they are hearing, rather than questions which seek to
understand the interviewee's interpretation and the meaning sometl-iing
holds for them.
The s t a g i n g o f a n i n t e r v i e w
Although the purpose of the interview is to understand the perspective of
the interviewee, the researcher will nevertheless have a clear sense of the
issues they wish to hear discussed. The researcher therefore has an important
role to play in directing the interview process, and must be clear about
how to 'stage-manage' the interview effectively so as to rneet the purposes
of the research.
A number of aspects of the process need to be considered for effective
stage-management. Firstly, the researcher needs to be aware of the various
stages that an interview passes through during the course of its existence
and know how to direct the interview through each stage. Secondly, the
researcher has to understand the terms of the contract between researcher
and participant and know how to make them work for the benefit of the
research. Thirdly, it is up to the researcher to make clear what the role of the
participant should be during the interview.
Interview stages
A n in-depth interview involves a number of stages (Robson, 2002; Rubin and
Rubin, 1995; Spradley, 1979). In broad terms, the researcher's task is to ease the
interviewee down from the everyday, social level to a deeper level at which
they can together focus on a specific topic or set of topics. Towards the end, the
researcher needs to signal the return back to the everyday level. The process
needs to be fully completed before the researcher leaves the participant.
I I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 145
•[he stages of an interview, and the ways in which researchers can help to
direct the participant through them, are as follows:
S T A G E O N E : A R R I V A L
The interview process effectively begins the moment the researcher arrives
prt the participant's doorstep. The first few minutes after meeting can be
crucial for establishing the relationship between researcher and participant
which is a prerequisite for a successful in-depth interview. The researcher
therefore needs to be aware that the participant may be feeling anxious or
c vcn slightly hostile initially. It is important at this stage for the participant
to feel that they have control on their own territory, but the researcher should
take responsibility for putting them at their ease. The researcher therefore
needs to play the role of the guest while at the same time being quietly confident
and relaxed, making conversation but avoiding the research topic
until the interview begins. Once the participant seems comfortable with this
stage of the process, it is time to move on.
S T A G E T W O ! I N T R O D U C I N G T H E R E S E A R C H
litis is the stage at which business begins. The researcher starts to direct the
.,}•:interaction by introducing the research topic. This involves providing a clear
reiteration of the nature and purpose of the research, reaffirming confiden?
V tiality, and seeking permission to record the interview. It also involves making
.i;' sure the environment is suitably quiet, private and comfortable for the interview
to proceed without distraction (see below).
S T A G E T H R E E ! B E G I N N I N G T H E I N T E R V I E W
As Chapter 5 noted, the opening questions are an opportunity to collect
important contextual information. Although it may be thought that beginning
with a neutral topic is better than asking personal details, such as the
interviewee's age or relationship status, having such information at the
beginning is important to help with question formulation. For example, it
may be useful to know that the participant has young children when it
comes to exploring influences on their views and experiences. Asking for
factual background information in the middle of the interview can break the
flow. In addition, it is at the beginning of the interview that interviewees
realise that their role is to 'open up' and give full answers. They can begin to
do this most easily where the subject matter is something with which they
are familiar.
In an informal way, the researcher thus asks for background information
about their age, who they live with, whether they go out to work and so on.
These questions are asked in a way that makes it clear they are not being read
from a pre-formulated list. Follow-up questions (for example about how long
the interviewee has lived in the area, brief details about their job) help to set
the scene of an interview in which the participant will be required to give
146 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 147
detailed and spontaneous answers, and in which the researcher will probe and
respond. The researcher can also judge from the initial reply how easily ihe
interviewee will take to this role and can adapt their approach accordingly
S T A G E F O U R ! D U R I N G T H E I N T E R V I E W
Chapter 5 described some general principles in shaping the main body of lht
interview. Here, the researcher is guiding the participant'through the W
themes - both those anticipated by the researcher and those which emerge
from the interview. Each subject is explored in depth with a series of followup
questions and probes. A t this stage, the interviewee will be working at a
deeper, more focused level than normal, discovering ideas, thoughts and
feelings that may be dormant in daily life.
S T A G E F I V E : E N D I N G T H E I N T E R V I E W
About five to ten minutes before the end of the interview, the researcher can
signal the approach of the end of the interview to allow*£he interviewee
gradually to return to the level of everyday social interaction. Phrases such
as 'the final topic ...' or 'in the last few minutes ...' are useful here. It is aIso
important to check that the participant has not been left with" any unfinished
business: for example, feelings unexpressed or issues of burning importance
left uivmentioned.
S T A G E S I X ! A F T E R T H E I N T E R V I E W
What happens when the tape recorder is switched off is also important. The
researcher thanks the participant warmly, and begins to help the participant
to move out of interview mode by saying something, fairly briefly, about
how their contribution will help the research. A n y reassurances about confidentiality
or the use of the interview data should also be given. This is the
time to answer any questions raised by the interviewee during the interview
(see further below), or to give any information about support groups or
services (see Chapter 3). Moving away from the interview sometimes sparks
some final reflections, or even new information, from interviewees. If these
are significant, the researcher may feel it is appropriate to ask the interviewee
to repeat them with the tape recorder running again, or may make a
note of them after the interview.
The researcher should take their cue from the participant - if the participant
seems to want to talk, either about the interview subject or more generally, it
is important to be prepared to stay a little longer. By the time the researcher
takes leave of the participant, the process of corning out of the interview
should be fully completed and the participant, it is hoped, left feeling 'well'.
The interview 'contract'
Researchers need to feel confident that the participant has freely given their
consent to be interviewed. While the researcher clearly has obligations to the
participant (discussed in Chapter 3), they also have permission to interview
the participant within the terms on which consent has been given. In a sense,
the participant has entered into a type of 'contract' by agreeing to take part
jn an interview. The terms of the contract are that the participant has agreed
to be interviewed for a predetermined length of time, at a particular venue,
on a particular topic, and under clear conditions of confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the researcher should also be aware that participants have
the right to change their mind at any time. It is therefore advisable to take
nothing for granted and to ensure that the terms are agreed. A t the beginning
of the interview the researcher restates the aims of the research and
reaffirms confidentiality. Should the contract need to be changed for any
reason during the interview, for example if extra time is required, the terms
should be negotiated and agreed - never assumed.
Researcher and participant roles
Researcher and participant have different roles in the interview process. The
researcher needs to be clear about his or her own role i n the process, and
needs to help the participant to understand what their role is to be at an early
stage in the interview.
The role of the researcher is that of a facilitator to enable the interviewee
to talk about their thoughts, feelings, views and experiences. However, the
role of the facilitator is an active, not a passive, one. It does not mean sitting
back and just letting the interviewee talk. On the contrary, it means managing
tire interview process to ensure that the required subjects are covered to
the required depth, without influencing the actual views articulated.
Managing the interview process involves ensuring coverage of the agenda
to be discussed within the interview, steering the interviewee back to topics
from which they stray. It means exercising judgement about the length of
time that should be devoted to any given topic and when to move on to the
next one, and about how to respond if the interviewee moves on to unanticipated
topics. The researcher has to decide what questions are asked and how
they are phrased, and how to follow up until a satisfactory answer has been
obtained.
Another important part of the researcher's function is to help interviewees
to see what their role is in the interview process. The interviewee's role is to
give fulsome answers, to provide more depth when probing questions are
asked, to reflect and to think, and to raise issues they see as relevant but
which are not directly asked about. By using open questioning techniques,
demonstrating interest and actively encouraging the interviewee to talk, the
researcher is intimating to participants that their role involves opening up
and talking as opposed to giving simple answers. It is quite usual for people
to start anticipating follow-up questions like 'why?' and start supplying the
information without prompting. Participants also need to make judgements
148 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
about whether to include a subject not yet raised by the researcher or about
how much detail to give. The researcher helps them to make those judgements
by providing a clear articulation of the objectives of the research, and
by asking questions which can clearly be seen to relate to those objectives.
A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s t o achieve b r e a d t h a n d d e p t h
The aim of the in-depth interview is to achieve both breadth of coverage
across key issues, and depth of coverage within each. A number of writers
describe different types of questions which are used to achieve this (KVale,
1996; Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Spradley, 1979).
A distinction can be made between content mapping and content mining
questions. Content mapping questions are designed to open up the research
territory and to identify the dimensions or issues that are relevant to the
participant. Content mining questions are designed to explore the detail
which lies within each dimension, to access the meaning it holds for the
interviewee, and to generate an in-depth understandings from the interviewee's
point of view. Any interview involves a combination*of these question
types and they are not confined to distinct parts of the interview. A content
mapping question is asked to raise issues; content mining questions are used
to explore them in detail; content mapping questions are used to raise
further issues, and so on.
Both types, but particularly content mining questions, also involve probes.
Probes are responsive, follow-up questions designed to elicit more information,
description, explanation and so on. They are usually ^verbal, but nonverbal
probes - such as a pause, a gesture, a raised eyebrow - are also highly
effective. In content mapping questions, probes are used to help in mapping
out the territory; in content mining questions, they are the essential tool
through which depth is achieved.
Content mapping questions
There are a number of types of content mapping questions.
G R O U N D M A P P I N G Q U E S T I O N S
Ground mapping questions are the first questions asked to 'open tip' a
subject. They are generally widely framed questions designed to encourage
spontaneity and to allow the interviewee to raise the issues that are most relevant
to them. With, at this stage, minimal probing, they will often generate
a rich list of dimensions which will need to be followed up.
> Have you ever applied for a benefit?
- No, I haven't, 1 wouldn't want to.
> Why is that?
mSmßl
l l l P
•
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 149
_ I've always managed to be self-sufficient all my life and I couldn't bear to ask
for money I wasn't entitled to.
> What makes you say you are not entitled to it?
_ Weil, I haven't paid towards it at all so I am not really entitled to anything,
am I? I would feel very uncomfortable. It would feel like I was having to
accept charity.
D i M E N S I O N M A P P I N G Q U E S T I O N S
Dimension mapping questions are used to focus the participant a little more
narrowly on particular topics or concepts: they are used to signpost, structure
and direct the interview. They may be used, for example, to structure a
participant's account of a process or experience, perhaps in broadly chronological
order, where they may be as simple as 'What happened next?' Or, as
in the example above, they would be used to focus on each of the dimensions
or topics raised by the interviewee in response to the initial ground mapping
question, encouraging the participant to talk about each in turn (selfsufficiency,
entitlement, contribution, charity) and uncovering the elements
that make up each concept. The researcher might refer directly to the fact
that the participant mentioned, for example, 'managing to be self-sufficient'
and ask what they meant. More detailed probes (see below) would then be
used to ensure that each of the elements that makes up the interviewee's
conception of self-sufficiency is explored in depth.
P E R S P E C T I V E - W I D E N I N G Q U E S T I O N S
To understand the interviewee's perspective fully, they need to have an
opportunity to give more than their first thoughts on a subject. Encouraging
them to look at issues from different perspectives will uncover more layers
of meaning and greater richness. The third type of content mapping questions
are therefore ones through which the researcher widens the interviewee's
perspective, stimulates further thought or ensures comprehensive
coverage.
They may be questions which invite the participant to consider dimensions
or subtopics which the researcher wishes to hear explored, rather than
ones which have been generated by the interviewee. These are sometimes
described as 'prompts' - items to which the researcher explicitly directs the
interviewee's attention rather than ones raised by the interviewee through
more open questioning. Such questions need to be raised with a light touch,
so that dimensions which are not of relevance to the participant are not given
undue emphasis and the unique perspective of the participant lost.
> Are there any other factors that would influence your decision? I'm thinking
of things like whether the client has a job, their family commitments and
so on.
Perspective-widening questions might also involve stimulating thought by
putting to the participant issues or perspectives that have emerged i n earlier
150 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
interviews or i n other research. Again, it is important that this is done }n a
way which leaves the participant to answer freely:
> People talk a lot about the doctor-patient relationship. Do you see that as
being relevant here?
A further technique involves checking out all sides of the:
interviewee's perspective,
to ensure that the answer obtained is a comprehensive and fully
rounded one - asking for other views or factors, encouraging them lo think,
about positive as well as negative issues and so oh.
> You've said you were delighted with it, but was there anything that fell short
of your expectations?
> Are there other cases where your decision would be different?
Content mining questions *'
Content mining questions are the tools used for exploring what has been
raised by the interviewee through different types of content mapping questions
- obtaining a full description of phenomena, understanding what
underpins the participant's attitude or behaviour and so on. Although some
probes may have been called into play in content mapping, it is in content
mining that they are used much more extensively. There are four broad
groups: amplificatory, exploratory, explanatory and clarificatory.
A M P L I F I C A T O R Y P R O B E S . ^
Participants rarely provide the level of depth of articulation that qualitative
interviewing requires without further probing, and ampliticatory probes are
used to encourage them to elaborate further. They are important for obtaining
full description and in-depth understanding of the manifestation or
experience of a phenomenon.
Examples of amplificatory probes - each of which would be followed up with
further probes until the researcher is satisfied there is nothing else to add - are:
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 151
>
>
>
You said you have a very varied patient group: Can you tell me a little more
about the types of patients you see?
Can you give me an example of a case that was difficult in the way you've
described?
When you say he was on your side, what gave you that impression?
What was it exactly that you liked about her manner?
What was she saying or doing that made you feel she was ill-informed?
E X P L O R A T O R Y P R O B E S
A key role of qualitative research is to explore the views and feelings that
underlie descriptions of behaviour, events or experience, and that help to
show the meaning that experiences hold for interviewees:
mm
y> How did you respond when ...?
y What did you feel when ...?
Why did you think it was important to ...?
Exploring impacts, effects and consequences also helps to nluminate experiences
and behaviours, and to create a more rounded understanding of them:
> What effect did that have on you?
> Did that help you in any way?
> How did your approach change when you found that out?
E X P L A N A T O R Y P R O B E S
One of the hallmarks of the in-depth interview is probing for reasons - asking
'why?' Explanations are repeatedly sought for views, feelings, behaviours,
events, decisions and so on. There is often an initial reluctance to do this
among new researchers since it seems to be contravening social norms, to be
impolite, to do so. Nevertheless it is fundamentally important for the
researcher to understand the reasons for a participant's views and behaviours.
Explanations are often multi-layered, and it is a key value of qualitai
tivc interviewing that responsive, iterative probing can uncover these layers.
Where a simple 'Why?' feels too bald, there are a number of ways of softening
the question:
> What was it that made her go up in your estimation?
i:> What makes you say that?
> What was it about the case that made you decide to ...?
C L A R I F I C A T O R Y P R O B E S
Exploring issues in depth requires a high degree Of precision and clarity.
Clarificatory probes are therefore important, and used in different ways:
• To clarify terms and explore language. It is all too easy to assume the
researcher understands the meaning of terms used by the interviewee.
But exploring the language used will often show that the assumptions
differed from the interviewee's reality, and will add real depth and richness
to the researcher's understanding of the interviewee's perspective. It
is therefore important to be alert to the use of emotive or descriptive
words. In some cases, it is sufficient to repeat the word i n the interrogative:
'Dodgy?' Other examples of probes to clarify language are:
> How was it scary?
> Could you just explain what you mean by it being a classic case of...?
> You said it was really special to see your granddaughter fór the
first time. In what way was it really special?
• To clarify details, sequences etc. There will be points in any interview where
details, dates or sequences need to be clarified - whether someone is talking
about the same colleague or a different one, whether they saw the
152 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 153
solicitor before they began mediation or only after, whether descriptions
of a client's manner related to the same encounter or to different meetings,
and so on.
Clarifying through testing an expressed position. Asking clarifying questions
which gently challenge or test the participant's account, without being
confrontational, can encourage them to elaborate further:
> You said you were resigned to it, but did you ever think about leaving?
> Some people might have thought about leaving at that point. Did those
sorts of feelings ever come into it for you?
Challenging inconsistency. Finally, it is also important to be alert to conflicts
or inconsistencies in the interviewee's account. These may arise
because an issue that involves social norms is being addressed and the
interviewee is gradually gaining confidence to express their real view. Or
they may occur where someone is being encouraged to think about something
for the first time so that their view is developing as they speak.
Again, it is important to find a non-confrontational way of drawing the
participant's attention to inconsistency or contradiction, and asking (hem
to clarify: ."
> Earlier you were saying that you were delighted with how the project
went but you've also said quite a lot about what didn't go so well.
What are the main feelings you're left with?
> You began by saying that disability means not being able to do things
physically, but you've just been talking about it as being what other
people stop you from doing. Is it always both those things equally,
or do you sometimes see it as one more than the other?
In-depth, iterative probing
Probes are not meant to be used in isolation. It is not sufficient to move on
to the next point having asked just one probe ('why', for example). The
response to that probe will then require another, and so on. This will reveal
a whole mine of information around the particular point that would otherwise
remain unexplored, and probing needs to continue until the researcher
feels they have reached saturation, a full understanding of the participant's
perspective.
This kind of iterative probing involves asking for a level of clarification
and detail that can sometimes feel unnatural or artificial. It goes far beyond
what is usual i n everyday conversation. The researcher is putting aside their
own knowledge and their own intuitive understanding, and asking for
explanations of things they might think they comprehend. But this is essential
to achieve the depth of understanding that is the aim of qualitative
research. Questions which may feel obvious or banal, or even ridiculous, can
reveal a layer of complexity or detail that the researcher would otherwise
have missed. They can if necessary be prefaced by a phrase which recognises
that an unusual level of clarification is being sought, such as:
r
i
sir
y This may sound like an obvious question, but why ...?'
y ]just want to make sure I've really understood you. What was it exactly that...?'
Good probing is a little like detective work. The researcher is alert to clues
that they have not yet heard the full answer, that something does not quite
ring true' or 'add up', that the interviewee may be rationalising after the
event, or giving what they perceive as the 'correct' answer. For example, an
interviewee talking about reasons for not taking up physical activity may
refer to lack of time. The researcher may have a hunch that time is not the
only barrier to physical activity and may, through careful probing, elicit that
other factors are also at work:
iv: really don't have any time to do any sort of activity except walking to the bus
stop on my way to work. I'd love to if I could, I really would. But I don't finC
fsh work till after 6 and then I have to help my wife with the three children.
/V:'.': i am also a school governor which takes up a lot of my time.
> What sort of things do you do at weekends?
^:
;
• Well, there is the shopping and then I have to mow the lawn and generally
V look after the garden and ferry the kids around, take them to friends, swimming,
you know.
> Do you go swimming with them?
No. I have a couple of times but I don't usually.
> Why is that?
I suppose if I'm honest I am really quite lazy physically and I have never much
• cared for swimming or any other kind of sport.
With further probing, it transpires that the interviewee's aversion to physi•
cal exercise dates back to being teased about his physical aptitude at school.
Q u e s t i o n f o r m u l a t i o n
Using broad and narrow questions
It is often said that good in-depth interviewing involves open questions.
These are contrasted with dichotomous yes/rio questions which call
for affirmation rather than description (Patton, 2002). Certainly, in-depth
interviewing does not involve a series of yes/no questions, and
researchers have to work hard to ask questions which encourage a fulsome
response. Although short, open questions look deceptively easy,
they are much harder to implement in practice. Asking closed questions is
a habitual aspect of ordinary social intercourse and one has to make a conscious
effort to think in an 'open' way i n an interview. For example, rather
than asking 'So did you then make an appointment to see your doctor?', a
question like 'What happened next?' would allow the interviewee to menlion
all the actions they took, their discussions with other people and their
feelings, as well as whether they did indeed make an appointment to see
their doctor.
154 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 155
However, to suggest that in-depth interviewing involves only open
questions is to understate the specificity that good interviewing requires. Both
content mapping and content mining involve asking questions which vary
in terms of how broad or narrow they are. For example, content mapping as
we have described involves very wide questions to map the territory or a
dimension. But it might involve asking whether a particular motivation or
view was relevant - a question which could be answered by a simple 'yes'
or 'no', and which would then need further probing. Content rrrining, similarly,
primarily involves broad and open questions but may also require nar- :
row questions. In fact, understanding the interviewee's perspective i n depth
can require a high degree of specificity. For example, in a study looking at
impacts of a welfare to work programme it would be essential to know
whether someone was looking for work before they used the service, and
whether they were doing so after, as well as understanding broader issues
like their feelings about work, the meaning work holds for^them, and their
perceptions of barriers or difficulties. ;
Closed questions can also play a role in controlling the interview process. I
They are useful, for example, where the participant's answerds straying from
the question and the researcher needs them to focus on the particular topic.
They are also helpful where a participant is extremely voluble and the
researcher needs to structure their response by asking narrower questions to
ensure an issue is discussed i n the detail required.
Avoiding leading questions
The researcher's questions in an in-depth interview are designed to yield a
full answer: they are not intended to influence the answer itself. However, it
is all too easy to ask a question that suggests a possible answer to the interviewee,
such as 'Were you furious when he said that?' or - even worse - 'You
must have been furious when he said that.'
A much better version of the question, which allows the participant to supply
the response and w i l l reveal what they actually felt, would be:
> How did you react when he said that?
The participant is then free to supply whatever responses he or she chooses.
In this case, possible responses might be:
- I was shattered
- Oh, I didn't take any notice of him
- I hit him and threw him out of the house
mm
-i
llilp
i
I
If necessary, a question which might seem to invite a particular response
be 'neutralised' by adding 'or not?':
> Would you like to have done that, or not?
can
Asking dear questions
The most effective questions are those that are short and clear, leaving the
interviewee with no uncertainty about the sort of information sought.
There are various pitfalls to avoid here. First, it is sometimes tempting to
preface a question - perhaps to make it seem less intrusive if it covers a
delicate issue, or to link it with something said earlier by the participant,
or to explain how the question was prompted by the researcher's understanding
of the subject. Although some explanation w i l l occasionally be
ilecessary to clarify the relevance of the question, preambles can easily
become so convoluted that the question itself gets lost or obscured.
Where this temptation arises, the most effective solution is usually
to 'think simple' and ask the question i n as straightforward a way as
possible.
Double questions too should be avoided. In the heat of the moment, it is
very easy to ask two questions in one: ' H o w old were you when that
happened and what effect did it have on you?' This is a relatively simple
example of a double question. However, where they are more complex it
becomes very confusing for the participant to remember or to answer both
halves. People's mclination is generally to answer the easier part, and the
one that would generate richer data will be lost. It is much more effective to
ask one question at a time, follow it up with whatever probes are appropriate,
and then ask the next question.
Third, it is important to avoid questions that are too abstract or theorised.
The most effective questions are those to which the interviewee can
relate directly and which are clearly pertinent to their o w n views or circumstances.
Although the researcher's question may derive from their
understanding of relevant social theory, it is important to find a way of
translating it into a simple, concrete question phrased i n everyday language.
It is, paradoxically, these questions that are most likely to generate
the rich data that actually further theoretical understanding (Kvale,
1996).
Finally, it is important to be sensitive to the language and terminology
used by people, and to 'mirror' it as far as possible. Using official or
bureaucratic language where someone has used more colloquial language
can set up a barrier which might impede the interview process. It
is also, of course, important to explore the specific terms used by people
where this might shed light on their underlying perceptions, values or
attitudes.
Further t e c h n i q u e s f o r a c h i e v i n g d e p t h
As well as the ways in which questions are asked, there are some further
techniques that are central to achieving depth of coverage.
156 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
Listening and remembering
A fundamental principle of in-depth interviewing is to listen. This does not
just mean listening to the words but really trying to hear the meaning of.:
what the participant is saying, understanding where there is a subtext that
needs to be explored, and hearing the nuances in the participant's account.
Indeed, Herbert and Irene Rubin subtitled their 1995 book on qualitative
interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. The interactive nature of the in-depth
interview means that the researcher's next question should be determined
by the interviewee's answer, not determined in advance. It is important to
find a way of clearing one's mind of plans for conducting the rest of the
interview and concerns about how things are going, to listen really acutely.
Although it may seem a passive role, listening is in fact an active part of
interviewing (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995), and it is listening to which
a good interviewer's energies and attention will be most directed.
One of the spin-offs from really hearing what someone is saying is that it
helps the interviewer remember points that need to be followed up at a later
stage in the interview. One response from an interviewee may trigger four or
five points to probe in the researcher's mind. However, a swift decision has
to be taken about the immediate issue that needs to be followed up. In such
cases, the researcher should make a mental note to return to the other issues
raised, either once they have dealt with the immediate issue or later in the
interview when they are dealing with a relevant topic:
> Can I take you back to something you said earlier ...
> You said earlier that you felt embarrassed about... why was that?
Facilitating the relationship with the participant
The importance of the researcher estabHshing an effective working relationship
with the participant has already been stressed. The following are some of the
ways in which the researcher can assist the relationship during the interview:
E X P R E S S I N G I N T E R E S T A N D A T T E N T I O N
This is achieved by mamtaining eye contact with the interviewee, giving
the odd smile and the occasional nod designed to express attention (not
approval), and by asking follow-up questions which demonstrate that the
researcher has heard what has been said and wants to know more. These are
signals to the participant to continue giving full answers and that what they
are saying is relevant and valuable.
E S T A B L I S H I N G T H A T T H E R E A R E N O R I G H T
O R W R O N G A N S W E R S
It is sometimes useful to say this at the start of the interview, but it is
important to convey it throughout the interview through a non-judgemental
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 157
manner. It also means not correcting mistakes or misunderstandings. A
participant may be misinformed about their entitlement to a particular social
security benefit, for example, or about the designated procedure for assessing
a claimant's eligibility. Rather than correcting them and running the risk
that they would feel foolish and clam up, the researcher's task is to find out
how they formed this impression and what its consequences were.
B E I N G S E N S I T I V E T O T O N E O F V O I C E
A N D B O D Y L A N G U A G E
People often convey their state of mind through their tone of voice, manner
or body language. The researcher should be constantly receptive to these
clues. So, for example, if the interviewee sounds doubtful about a view, this
should act as a signal to the researcher to explore further. This might involve
simply allowing them to continue talking, or asking whether they have other
views or experiences, or saying 'you look (or sound) a little doubtful' and
giving them an opportunity to reflect or clarify further.
Body language and speech patterns can be important clues that there is
more depth to be found. They also add a context and flavour to the interview
that a researcher may feel has enriched their understanding during the
interview - for example, where a participant was particularly emphatic
about a point, or seemed angry or frustrated. But this context will be lost if
it is not verbalised and explained, and thus captured in the recording. The
researcher needs to ensure the underlying feeling is made explicit, and
then explained, for example by saying 'You sound very certain about that what
makes you so certain?', or 'You look a little uncomfortable as you're
talking - why is that?' These emotional contexts can also be usefully
recorded in fieldnotes (see Chapter 5) although this is no substitute for
directly addressing it in the interview, since the researcher's interpretation
of it may simply be wrong.
A L L O W I N G T H E P A R T I C I P A N T T I M E T O R E P L Y
In an in-depth interview, people are asked to think and give views about
issues that are not necessarily top of mind for them. They require time to
think about a particular point and then formulate their response. It can be
tempting for interviewers to fill these pauses with explanation or supplementary
questions. However, moments of silence in in-depth interviews are
usually very productive and it pays dividends for the research if the interviewer
can hold the pause until the participant is ready to speak.
Contemplative silences or those that indicate the participant is thinking
should never be filled.
P A C I N G T H E I N T E R V I E W
It is important to ensure that sufficient time is allowed to cover all the topics
on the topic guide. If it seems that extra time may be needed, this should be
negotiated with the participant as early as possible.
158 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 159
H A N D L I N G E X T R A N E O U S I N F O R M A T I O N
Depending on the sampling and selection methods (see Chapter 4), the
researcher may have fairly detailed information about the participant relating
to the subject matter. This information may be of some use i n preparing
for the interview, although it is important not to over-plan since additional or
contradictory - information may emerge during the course of the interview.
But it is usually more effective for the dynamic of the interview to
approach the subject fresh with the participant, rather than to introduce
information that has not come from the interview.
A different approach might be appropriate if someone has already taken
part in a survey interview as part of the same research programme, which has
generated detailed factual information. Here, it may be appropriate to refer to
and check the information known, to avoid undue repetition. This would be
less useful, however, in relation to information about attitudes or feelings
collected by the survey, where approaching these issues fresh, in the in-depth
interview would be more likely to unlock the detailed account required.
Turning assumptions and interventions into questions
The aim of an in-depth interview is to obtain as full and unbiased an account
as possible of the participant's perspective on the research topic, and the
researcher's task is to use every means at their disposal to aid this.
Assumptions, comments or other interventions can inhibit the interview
process, and such reactions should be turned into a question.
• Never assume. It is easy to assume an understanding of»what someone
means by the terms they use, but it is surprising how often the assumption
turns out to be incorrect when the interviewee is given an opportunity
to explain what they mean. Similarly, it is essential not to assume that
the reason for a particular course of action or belief is clear, or that it can
be implied from what has already been said. It is surprising how often
what seems clear takes on a deeper and richer meaning - or sometimes
an altogether different meaning - when the interviewee is asked for a
little more explanation. A very useful rule of interviewing is to turn an
assumption into a question.
• Refrain from commenting on an answer. While it may be thought to help in
establishing rapport, commenting on an answer by saying for example
'that's interesting', can introduce an element of judgement into the interview
and interrupt the flow, inhibiting active listening and probing.
» Refrain from summarising the interviewee's answer. Summarising what
people have said is rarely helpful. It is difficult to capture the full meaning
relayed by the participant in a short summary, and attempts to do so
may seem glib or patronising to the participant. The likelihood is that the
summary will be partial or inaccurate, which will not aid the interview.
: Summarising also prevents the interview moving on, halting the flow
when a better response would be a question which seeks more depth,
such as asking the participant to explain further or to give an example. If
it seems important for the researcher to check that they have understood
a response, they should do so in the form of a question which makes it
easy for the interviewee to provide further clarification:
> Can I just check that I have got this right? is what you are saying ...? Have
I understood that right or have I missed something?
' i » Refrain fromfinishing off an answer. It is important to avoid 'putting words
into the interviewee's mouth', however tempting it may be to finish off
, their answer. It is always better to allow them time to finish, asking a further
question if this will help them to make their point, or gently point-
:
ing out that they have left a sentence ttnfinished. For example:
- I felt angry, you know, really-'
> You felt really-?
- There are lots of factors I take into account in deciding what sort of
financial settlement might be appropriate: Each party's needs, their
I resources, the length of the marriage -'
> Are there any other factors?
4
'• • Avoid extraneous remarks. Extraneous remarks such as 'Right', 'okay', 'yes'
or 'I see' can encourage the participant to close down, to see what they
! have already said as sufficient. They are sometimes used by nervous
interviewers as a prelude to moving to a new question, where a followup
question is actually what is required. For example, if a participant
said: 'It isn't really up to me to decide where we go on holiday', a nervous
interviewer might say: 'Oh right. So where did you last go on holiday?'A
more relaxed researcher will find out who does take the decision, why
this is, and how the participant feels about it. Prefacing questions with
'And' or 'So' is another habit of new and nervous interviewers, but it
results in a tone which is less spontaneneous and relaxed.
Neutrality and avoidance of self-disclosure
As noted earlier, a key area where different theoretical perspectives on interviewing
are manifested is the issue of how far the researcher should enter
into a two-way exchange with the participant, giving information or views
as well as seeking them.
Rubin and Rubin (1995) stress that qualitative interviewers should aim to
achieve empathy without becoming over-involved. They must learn to
empathise with different points of view, and if this is unacceptable to them
j they may need to draw boundaries around the kind of research they undertake.
Retaining an objective and neutral approach may be particularly
160 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
challenging if a researcher is personally drawn to or involved in their
research subject. But considering how these challenges might arise and how
they might be met is an essential part of their preparation for fieldwork.
While complete objectivity and neutrality may ultimately be a chimera, it i s
important to be vigilant in striving for balance in interviews.
If the participant expresses a view with which the researcher strongly
agrees or disagrees, their task is always to find out what underpins the participant's
view rather than to express their own or to enter into debate. Even
views or comments which are offensive to the researcher should be explored.
This is undeniably difficult if the researcher feels that to let a view go uncha llenged
might be seen to imply collusion with it. However, a question such as
'How did you come to that view?' or 'Why do you see it that way?' is a useful
vehicle for exploring unattractive views in a way that avoids collusion
and challenges the assumption that the view is widely held or shared by the
researcher. This is likely to be a more effective strategy than a direct challenge.
Equally, it is important for the researcher to remain detached; and calm where
people use language or become emotional i n ways which the researcher
might find shocking or distressing.
People sometimes seek approval of their views, or of their actions, from
researchers. Again, both favourable and adverse comments should be
avoided. Neutrality is a more effective response, and more in keeping with
the researcher's role as independent questioner rather than counsellor
or adviser.
Since qualitative interviews are essentially aimed at encouraging participants
to talk about their personal views and experiences, there is a debate in
the research community about whether or not researchers, should also disclose
some details about themselves. Earlier writers on feminist approaches
such as Graham (1984) and Oakley (1981) saw the interview as a reciprocal
exchange in which the interviewer will show feelings because there is 'no
intimacy without reciprocity' (Oakley, 1981:49). A n n Oakley's research with
women before and after they became mothers has been particularly influential.
Her study involved four interviews with women before and after their
child was born, and she was often present at the birth too. Perhaps understandably,
given the intensity of the research and the experience it was
exploring, she felt that the prevailing rhetoric of the researcher as a depersonalised
extractor of data was wrong. She felt that not to answer women's
questions, which often sought information about the medical or physiological
aspects of childbirth but also asked about her, would be exploitative, and
would inhibit rapport and be inconsistent with the way in which feminist
researchers wanted to treat other women.
But answering questions and giving personal views or details is also problematic,
and can inhibit the objective of obtaining a fulsome, open response
which is as free as possible from the researcher's influence. For instance, a
participant being interviewed about her use of childcare may ask whether
the researcher has children. Indicating that she has may temporarily create a
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 161
reciprocity or mtimacy, but can also begin to hinder the participant's account.
The participant may give less detailed responses on the grounds that
the researcher 'knows what it's like'. It may colour their perceptions of the
researcher and cause them to censor their own views or comments (did the
researcher make different choices about work and childcare; do they spend
Inore time with their children; might they disapprove of the choices made by
the interviewee). The interviewee may want to maintain the intimacy by staying
on common ground, reluctant to raise experiences or views they think the
researcher may not share. Equally, for the researcher to disclose that she does
not have children may create distance between them, perhaps making the
interviewee reluctant to talk about more difficult aspects of parenting.
Once one question has been answered, it is difficult to avoid answering
further questions and the researcher loses time that could be spent more
valuably hearing from the participant. Abetter response would be to say that
the researcher wants to focus on the participant and their experience during
the interview, but to offer to answer questions - and to ensure the participant
has the opportunity to ask them - once the interview has ended. Mamtaining
a warm and interested, but neutral, presence is certainly a delicate balance,
and one that becomes harder where research is more intense or, as Oakley
says 'where there is least social distance between the interviewer and
interviewee' (1981: 55).
Responding to different interviewing situations
The interviewing situation is to a certain extent always a venture into the
unknown in that it is impossible to predict the precise course the interview
will take. Situations arise in the course of an interview which may require
special handling on the part of the researcher. In some cases, the situation
can be anticipated in advance. In others, it may suddenly present itself without
warning.
Conducting sensitive interviews
Sensitive interviews come in two forms. First, the nature of the topic itself
may be intrinsically sensitive. Obvious examples are topics relating to issues
like sex, financial problems, bereavement, relationship breakdown or serious
illness, which deal with very private and emotionally charged issues. The
researcher can anticipate this in advance and be mentally prepared in
various ways:
9 It is helpful for researchers to remind themselves that the participant has
consented to be interviewed on the subject, and the researcher therefore
has permission to address it - sensitively and appropriately - unless that
consent is withdrawn or comes into question.
162 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 163
» Reassurance about confidentiality at the outset of the interview will
help to put the participant at ease about disclosing potentially sensitive
information.
» A n y unease or embarrassment on the part of the researcher will communicate
itself to the participant and may make them reticent about discussing
the topic. Even questions that appear to be somewhat intrusive or
sensitive should be asked in a matter-of-fact way. Researchers will often
be surprised at how willing people are to talk about sensitive subjects,
and at how their own discomfort seems to be greater than that of the
interviewee.
• It is helpful to acknowledge the sensitivity of the area and that the participant
is being asked to bare their soul:
> I know this may be difficult for you, but how did you feel when
you found out that you wouldn't be able to have children?
• As noted in Chapter 3, it is helpful to have details &{ local or national support
groups or sources of information relevant to the research subject for
people who may be distressed about their experiences. But the researcher :
should not step outside their role and become a counsellor or adviser. :
The second type of sensitive interview arises where a topic that appears:
fairly innocuous becomes highly sensitive because some aspect of the discussion
triggers a strong emotional response in the interviewee - perhaps
because it raises a particular incident in someone's past that the researcher:
could not have anticipated. These situations draw on more general strategies
for dealing with strong emotions i n interviews, which the next sectionaddresses.
"
R E S P O N D I N G T O E M O T I O N
Where a strong emotional response, such as anger, distress or embarrassment,
occurs in the interview situation, the first signs are often expressedthrough
facial expression, tone of voice or body language. A t this stage the
researcher should register the fact mentally but not interrupt the interviewee
if they continue talking.
If the participant becomes very distressed or upset it is important to
acknowledge this and respond appropriately:
• It is important to be guided by the participant as to what they are and are
not willing to address. People may want to continue to talk about subjects
even though they find them distressing. However, if this is not clear, consent
to continue the interview, and to continue to cover the issue that
prompted distress, needs to be reaffirmed by asking whether the participant
is happy to continue with that topic.
• Even if a participant becomes tearful, they may want to continue, The
researcher should not make this decision for them, but should check
whether they would like to take a break, and if so switch off recording
equipment. However, if a participant is so distressed that they are unable
to indicate whether or not they want to continue, the researcher should
stop recording and give the interviewee a chance to recover before asking
whether they want to continue.
The interviewee's distress should be acknowledged by the researcher's
body language - mamtaining eye contact and communicating an empauietic
willingness to listen - or by comments such as 'It sounds as if that
was a difficult time for you' which indicate empathy but an interest in
hearing more. More direct comments of sympathy that convey the
researcher's own emotional reaction or feelings should be avoided.
Whatever the researcher's own reaction to the situation, they should not
display their own emotions during the interview but deal with them later.
In some cases, people may display anger and hostility. Here it is important
to remain calm and not take the anger personally, to acknowledge that the
interviewee has strong feelings about the topic and ask them to say more
about it,
y It sounds as if that was something you felt very strongly about. Can you say
: > a bit more about how it affected you?
: It may be helpful to explain why the line of questioning is relevant to the
research topic if this may not be clear to the interviewee. And, again, it may
:be necessary to reaffirm consent by checking whether the participant is willing
to continue. The researcher should be prepared to move on to another
topic, and should seek permission to return to it if necessary.
R E S P O N D I N G T O A N X I E T Y O R R E T I C E N C E
Some people may seem particularly anxious about the interview, or reticent
in their responses. If the researcher senses this before the interview begins,
it is helpful to spend more time trying to put them at their ease by chatting
generally before beginning the interview. Taking time over the introductory
information about the nature and purpose of the study, confidentiality, and
how the study findings will also be used will be particularly important. It
should be stressed that there are no right and wrong answers and that the
researcher is interested in everyone's views.
Strategies for addressing reticence or anxiety during the course of the
interview include:
• spending more time on the opening subjects to give the participant an
opportunity to feel more at ease
» spending more time earlier on more factual, concrete and descriptive topics
before moving on to their feelings and emotions. Intangible or conceptual
questions should also be left until the participant seems more at ease
164 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
• using very open questions that require more than a 'yes' or 'no' aiswer
to encourage the interviewee to talk
• speaking clearly and calmly, ensuring that questions are clear arid
straightforward
• showing interest and attention and giving plenty of positive reinforcement
by mamtaining eye contact, nodding and smiling encouragement
• stressing that the researcher is interested in everything they have to say
even if it is something the interviewee has not thought about before
• acknowledging that other people have sometimes found it a difficult
topic to talk about
» if necessary, simulating ideas by referring to what other participants
have said and asking for their view.
R E S P O N D I N G T O D O M I N A N C E O F T H E I N T E R V I E W A G E N D A
There is a delicate balance to be struck between allowing the participant In
speak freely and raise issues of relevance to them, and ensuring that the key
research issues are addressed. Getting this balance right becomes more difficult
where a participant is particularly dominant. This may arise because they
are in a position of authority and used to setting the agenda or see themselves
as an expert i n an area, or because for some other reason they find the interview
situation difficult. Their behaviour may arise in a number of ways:
» Saying they have very little time: the time required for the interview
should always be reaffirmed at the beginning of the interview. If this is
very curtailed, the researcher will need to decide whether to focus oh a
few key topics only, or to try to rearrange the interview.
• Asking the researcher questions: questions about the conduct or purpose
of the study should be answered by giving factual information but not;
entering into a discussion. But the researcher should be polite but firm;
;
about not answering questions about their own views, until the interviewis
over.
» Returning repeatedly to the same point: the importance of the point
should be acknowledged, but the need to cover other subjects stressed.
• Answering the question of their choice rather than the one asked by the
researcher: it is important to bring them back to the original question.
• Giving very brief answers or saying they have no view or relevant experience:
this should not always be accepted at face value. The same question
can be asked in different ways, or returned to later in the interview.
Again, it is helpful for researchers to remind themselves that the participant
has agreed to be interviewed, and to persist with the interview.
R A M B L I N G R E S P O N S E S
People sometimes ramble, become very repetitive, or get side-tracked by
tangential issues when answering a question. The researcher's task is to try
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 165
flflH
lliiilSiilllllil
SlSllllll
•Bill
and bring the participant back on track. Ways of doing this without
offence are:
causing
, at the first available opportunity, to ask a question which re-routes them
to a relevant point
• to use body language to indicate that the researcher wants to interrupt
(leaning forward, beginning to voice a question, raising a hand slightly)
, to acknowledge that what they have said is important and has been
riot'-d - they may be returning repeatedly to a point because they feel it
has been ignored
• if they continue to return to the same point, to move the interview on to
a completely different part of the required subject matter, or to return to
a:relevant issue they raised earlier -• - a
j f necessary, to withdraw signs of encouragement and approval - removing
i-ye contact, looking down at the topic guide and other ploys designed to
indicate less than rapt attention
• to ask more direct, structured questions which give less scope for long
replies, at least until the participant seems more willing to remain on
relevant topics
i ;
• if they are digressing and talking about other people, to bring the topic
back to themselves: 'what about you?'
• mentioning that time is moving on and that there are a few other topics
:| that need to be addressed. Rambling responses are sometimes an indication
of tiredness or loss of concentration on the participant's part, and
saying that only a little more of their time is required or that there is one
• remaining issue for discussion will often reinvigorate them.
Every interview situation is unique, and every interview a step into
•unknown territory. What is important is to be alert to changes in the
dynamic of the interview and i n the participant's demeanour, to ponder
what might be bringing about this change, and to shape the response accordingly.
Addressing a dominant or rambling participant needs to be done with
grace and humour, avoiding confrontation. The researcher needs to show
their respect for the participant, but at the same time to respect their own
right to carry out the interview so long as the participant consents.
Practical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
Scheduling appointments
The length of interviews will vary between studies, and between participants.
It should not be constrained by the researcher, but should reflect how
long the interviewee wants or needs to spend i n the interview. Generally,
at least an hour is required, but it will be difficult for both researcher and
166 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
interviewee to concentrate if the interview lasts for more than two hours. In.
scheduling appointments, it is important to bear in mind the degree of
mental concentration required to conduct qualitative interviews. It is important
to allow time between interviews to assimilate what has been heard, to
prepare for and travel to the next appointment, and to rest so the researcher
feels calm and alert when he or she arrives. Allowance should be made in the SIS
work schedule for interviews starting late or over-running, and for participants
asking questions or needing reassurance and an opportunity to come*
out of the research topic after the interview. In practice, this means it is rarely
possible to carry out more than three interviews in a day - and even ihen
only if long journeys are not involved.
It is not uncommon when interviewing professionals in particular to find
that the agreed time is no longer available, and the researcher will need to
decide whether to try to rearrange the appointment. As Chapter 5 noted, it
is useful to consider which areas of the topic guide should be seen as key if
time remains short. A"
Venues .*
The choice of venue for in-depth interviews is often left to the participant. It
will usually be their home, or (if they are interviewed in their professional
capacity) their workplace. But some participants may prefer to be in Reviewed
away from their personal surroundings, and researchers need to be
willing to find another venue if this is what the participant wants. The environment
needs to be conducive to concentration: private, quiet and physically
comfortable. Researchers therefore have to develop strategies for
adapting the environment for this purpose. It may be necessary to ask
whether there is a space where the interview can be carried out without
disturbing other household members, to ask for a radio or television to
be turned off, and to ask whether a chair can be rearranged to allow interviewee
and researcher to face each other comfortably with recording equipment
appropriately positioned. In professional interviews, it is helpful if
telephones can be directed to another extension or to voicemail to avoid
interruption.
Recording
It is highly desirable to audio-record the interview and for the researcher to
take few if any notes during the interview. This allows the researcher to devote
his or her full attention to listening to the interviewee and probing in-depth. It
provides an accurate, verbatim record of the interview, capturing the language
used by the participant including their hesitations and tone in far more detail
than would ever be possible with note-taking. Audio-recording also becomes
a more neutral and less intrusive way of recording the interview. Note-taking
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 167
can give participants unintended cues - that they should slow down or pause
if the researcher is writing; that they have said enough if the researcher is not.
It is rare for participants to refuse to be taped so long as the researcher provides
a clear, logical explanation about its value, reassures about confidential;
ity and explains what happens to tapes and transcripts.
Being comfortable with the operation of recording equipment, checking it
works before and immediately after the interview, and having spare tapes
and batteries on hand is essential.
Other people attending the interview
There are times when it is helpful for two members of the research team to
; attend an interview, particularly at the beginning of fieldwork when it
allows the interviewing strategies and the topic guide to be reviewed (see
Chapter 5) or for training purposes. The reason should be explained and the
participant's consent sought when the appointment is made, and the second
person's presence explained again at the beginning of the interview. If the
second person is a representative of the funding organisation, this should be
made clear: confidentiality will need to be stressed. It is generally more effective
for the interview to be conducted largely by one researcher only, with
the second invited to ask further questions at specific points or at the end of
the interview. It is difficult to develop a line of questioning and to probe in
depth if the interviewing role is being shared, and dealing with two interviewers
at once can become confusing for the participant. More than one
additional person would be intrusive to the interviewing relationship.
Overall, being interviewed provides what is likely to be, for many people, an
unusual experience in which someone else is dedicated to listening to them,
encouraging them to reflect and speak freely, and reinforcing the value and
worth of what they have to say. People seem generally to find some satisfaction
in the experience - they are sometimes surprised at how much they had
to say, and they are very receptive to the idea of being interviewed again
where studies involve a longitudinal element. The end of the interview is not
the time to ask for reflections or feedback on the process, unless this is specifically
relevant to the interview (for example, if part of the purpose of the
study was to explore how far a very sensitive issue can be pursued). This can
otherwise feel to the interviewee like a request for reassurance for the
researcher. But there is a dearth of research into what the experience of being
interviewed is really like for participants, and this subject merits much more
investigation.
Finally, a well-conducted interview will seem a very precious thing to the
researcher. They will feel privileged to have been given access to the participant's
social world, to their meanings and experiences. That richness will be
a joy when they move on to analysis. But a poor interview, with issues only
168 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
half explored, will be a hindrance, and even the finest analysis will not be
able to retrieve it.
There are a number of different theoretical perspectives on in-depth
interviewing, and different types of interview. But the features
which are broadly consistent across research models are their flexible
and interactive nature, their ability to achieve depth, the generative
nature of the data and the fact that it is captured in its natural form,
in-depth interviewing calls for a diverse a n d challenging range of
qualities in researchers. A key skill is the ability to listen and to hear,
but their role as facilitator is an active rather than a passive one.
Achieving breadth and depth involves asking a combination of
content mapping questions (to map territory and identify the component
elements of dimensions) a n d content mining questions (to
explore t h e m in detail). Both types of question, especially the latter,
require probing questions of which there are a range of types. Clear,
non-leading questions are key. Dichotomous questions are of little
value, but to suggest that only open questions have a role is to
understate the specificity that g o o d in-depth interviewing achieves.
Assumptions, extraneous comments and a temptation to summarise
should all be turned into questions. A n empathetic but neutral
stance is required, and sharing personal information during the
interview can hinder the in-depth interview process.
A n y topic can raise sensitive issues or strong emotions. There are a
range of strategies for dealing w i t h these, but recognition and
acknowledgement of the participant's reactions are key.
I N - D E P T H I N T E R V I E W S 169
Leading questions are those which could be perceived as indicating
a preferred, expected or acceptable response, and should be avoided.
Open questions are questions which require more than a single
word, or a handful of words to be answered. Closed questions are
those which can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Reciprocity is the idea of researchers giving something back to
those they interview by sharing their o w n views, experiences, or reflections
o n what has been said. It is a feature of some approaches to feminist
research in particular, but carries some cautions w i t h it.
Further reading
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L.H. (1995) Analyzing Social Settings, 3rd edition,
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of
Hearing Data, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Spradley, J. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview, Mew York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston
Thompson, P. (2000) The Voice of the Past: Oral History, 2nd edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
KEY TERMS
Probes are responsive questions asked to find out more about w h a t
has been raised. Their aim is always to obtain greater clarity, detail or
depth of understanding - for example to elicit further description, an
example, an explanation, and so o n . Their key feature is that they
relate directly to what has already been said by the interviewee, often
referring to the exact phrase or term that they have used. Probes are
a crucial element of any in-depth interview.
Prompts are questions which come from the researcher rather than
directly from what the interviewee has said. They are used w h e r e the
researcher wants to ask the interviewee to reflect on something else perhaps
something raised in other interviews, or that the researcher
thought might be relevant from their o w n reading or thinking.
Focus Groups IflUI
HI
Helen Finch and Jane Lewis
HH
Features and types of focus group 171
lllllllill
Group processes and the stages 1N19B1
of a focus group '174 111Conducting the discussion 130
Using the group process: some • 4
IIIIIIIIfurther strategies i.' 185s; 111Group composition and size il90
I111BPracticalities in organising the group,. • 193T:1 msm
The use of focus groups in social research increased considerably over the
last two decades of the twentieth century. (We use the phrase 'group discussions'
as being synonymous with focus groups, as we described in Chapter 2.) i
They originated among social scientists working in applied and academic
research settings. Fontana and Frey (1993) trace the origins of focus groups:
back to the 1920s, when they were used mainly in the development of
survey instruments. Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton (Merton et a l , 1956)0
adopted them i n the 1940s and 1950s as an aid to the development of training
and information materials, and Lazarsfeld originally used them for radio
audience research (see Morgan, 1997).
Since the mid-twentieth century, focus groups developed as a research
technique most strongly in market research (Bloor et al,, 2001), where they
have been used extensively for exploring issues such as brand images, pack- •
aging and product choice. They have also been adopted enthusiastically i n
political, and particularly party political, research. Their use here has perhaps
been somewhat overenthusiastic, and they have sometimes been used
and interpreted inappropriately, without due regard to their qualitative and
group-based nature. But they are now well established as a mainstream
method across the fields of social research, where they are widely used and
are an extremely valuable research approach.
This chapter begins by exploring the unique features of focus groups, and
describing different types of groups. We then look at the processes groups go
through and the stages of conducting focus groups. We look at the techniques
mm
F O C U S G R O U P S 171
involved in handling discussion, and at how the group process can be
harnessed to enrich data collection. Finally, we consider the context in which
the discussion takes place, in terms of group size and composition, the physicalenvironment
and the organisation of focus groups. The chapter should be
read in conjunction with earlier chapters, particularly Chapters 2 and 3 which
distinguish the features and uses of focus groups from in-depth interviews.
Much of the discussion in Chapter 5 (designing fieldwork strategies) and
Chapter 6 (asking questions in in-depth interviews) will also be relevant.
Features a n d t y p e s o f f o c u s g r o u p
Key features of the focus group
:
' the group context of focus groups creates a process which is in some important
respects very different from an in-depth interview. Data are generated by interaction
between group participants. Participants present their own views and
-experience, but they also hear from other people. They listen, reflect on what is
said, and in the light of this consider their own standpoint further. Additional
material is thus triggered i n response to what they hear. Participants ask questions
of each other, seek clarification, comment on what they have heard and
prompt others to reveal more. A s the discussion progresses (backwards and
: forwards, round and round the group), individual response becomes sharpened
and refined, and moves to a deeper and more considered level.
A focus group is therefore not a collection of individual interviews with
comments directed solely through the researcher. This is better described as
a 'group interview', and lacks both the depth of individual interviews and
the richness that comes with using the group process (Bloor et al., 2001;
Bryman, 2001; Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999). Instead, focus groups are
synergistic (Stewart and Shamdasi, 1990) in the sense that the group works
together: the group interaction is explicitly used to generate data and
insights (Morgan, 1997), as we describe below.
A further feature of focus groups is the spontaneity that arises from their
stronger social context. In responding to each other, participants reveal more
of their own frame of reference on the subject of study. The language they
use, the emphasis they give and their general framework of understanding
is more spontaneously on display. As all this emerges from discussion within
the group, the perspective is less influenced by interaction with the
researcher than it might be in a one-to-one interview. In a sense, the group
participants take over some of the 'interviewing' role, and the researcher is
at times more i n the position of Hstening in.
The focus group presents a more natural environment than that of the individual
interview because participants are influencing and influenced by others - just as
they are in real life. (Kreuger and Casey, 2000:11)
172 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 173
This stronger social context offers an opportunity to see how ideas ,ind
language emerge in a more naturalistic setting than an in-depth interview
how they are shaped through conversation with others. It reflects the social
constructions - normative influences, collective as well as individual selfidentity,
shared meanings - that are an important part of the way in which
we perceive, experience and understand the world around us (Bloor etal.
2001). But this does not lessen the researcher's load: focus groups need to be
carefully managed for this to happen.
Focus groups are naturalistic rather than natural events and cannot and should
not be left to chance and circumstance; their naturalism has to be carefully
contrived by the researcher. (Bloor et al., 2001: 57)
Types of focus groups
Typically, focus groups involve around six to eight people-who meet once,
for a period of around an hour and a half to two hours. This format can be
used for a wide range of population groups and research objectives. A s with;
in-depth interviews, there will be variation in the extent to "which discussion;
is structured, if the researcher has a strong sense of the issues to be explored;
or flexible, allowing the group itself to shape the agenda and the flow of dis-:
:
cussion (see further Chapter 5). Chapter 3 also noted that group discussions
can be used in combination with in-depth interviews, either before or after
interviews, and with a different size and structure depending on their
purpose within the overall research study.
There are further variations in the application of group^based discussion
methods and the form that groups may take. Although focus groups generally
meet just once, reconvened groups can be valuable when studies
address issues that are intangible or unfamiliar to respondents. The group is
reconvened perhaps a week or two after it first meets. The intervening
period provides an opportunity for group members to reflect on what they
have heard and for the issue to become more familiar to them. They may be
asked to carry out tasks between the sessions (looking at materials, keeping
a diary, discussing the issues raised with others) to aid this process.
Some group discussion settings may take the form of a workshop, implying
a larger group, meeting for a longer session, with a more structured
agenda involving specific tasks or activities, perhaps with small group work
as well as the group coming together as a whole.
Since the last decade of the twentieth century there has been an emphasis
on using research for consultative purposes, particularly as the shortcomings
of traditional public consultation techniques (such as public meetings
and written consultations) for reaching all social groups were recognised.
This led to some innovations i n the application of research methods, and
particularly of group discussion methods.
• : \ For example, citizens' juries bring together groups of between 12 and 20
pebple who, over the course of several days, hear from 'witnesses', deliberate,
and make recommendations about courses of action (Coote and
Lanaghan, 1997; Davies et al., 1998; Stewart et al., 1994; White et al., 1999).
Deliberative Polls (Fishkin, 1995) focus on measuring how views and attitudes
change as the study group becomes better informed. They involve a
baseline survey, followed by small group discussions and the opportunity to
hear from expert panels over several days. The survey is repeated at the
end of the deliberative session. Consultative panels have been conducted in
different forms, and involve drawing people together in a series of sessions
to deliberate and contribute to decision-making.
The common features of these methods are that they combine opportunities
for accessing information with discussion and deliberation. Citizens'
juries and consultative panels generally also require some sort of recommendation
as an output. These new forms of groups are not without their
difficulties. Making consultation accessible and attractive to people remains
a challenge, particularly given the substantial commitment of time and
thought required, and the validity of data is compromised if decisions or
recommendations are forced by pressure of time or pressure to reach agreement.
However, they are an interesting application of focus group research
methods to decision-making, particularly useful i n more unfamiliar, technical
or complex areas where information provision is important.
Although group-based research usually involves a physical comingtogether
of participants this is not always the case. Nominal groups have
been used for some time. Here, views are gathered from group members
individually and collated and circulated for comment - the group may or
may not meet at a later stage. The Delphi technique is a particular application
of this. A panel of experts is asked individually to provide forecasts in a
technical field, with their views summarised and circulated for iterative forecasting
until consensus is reached (Stewart and Shamdasi, 1990; Barbour and
Kitzinger, 1999).
Advances in technology are also leading to growing interest in virtual
groups, where again participants do not physically meet. Teleconferencing
technology allows telephone groups to be conducted, particularly with less
mobile or particularly time-pressed populations. Online focus groups are
also being used more (see Bloor et al., 2001). They may involve synchronous
discussion, in which participants can log on at the same time and exchange
views in real time, using online chat software. Alternatively, discussion may
be asynchronous with people logging on to make comments as and when
they want to. Clearly, here and in nominal groups the role of the researcher
will be quite different from their moderation of a live group, an issue
discussed by Bloor and colleagues.
Group-based research can, then, take many different forms. Although this
chapter is primarily concerned with more typical forms, i n which a small
174 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E B
i
F O C U S G R O U P S 175
number of participants come together once only, it is important to consider
whether other forms may be more appropriate, and how the technic]new
described below can be applied to other group contexts.
G r o u p processes a n d t h e stages o f a focus g r o u p
The group process
A n understanding of group processes and models of small group behaviour
is helpful to offer insight into what can happen i n focus groups, and why.
From this can be implied appropriate strategies to facilitate the group as k
goes through different phases.
Based on an examination of studies of small groups, Tuckman (1965) in
collaboration with Jenson (Tuckman and Jenson, 1977) identified five stages
in small group development which demonstrate a sequence tfiat groups tend
to pass through. The model was based on examination of studies of small
groups which were mainly therapy and framing groups. However, it also
resonates with the process of small groups assembled for research, and has
proved valuable in informing moderation techniques (see Figure 7.1).
Forming
Testing and dependence
Dependence on the leader
I
Intragroup conflict
Criticism
1Norming
Development of group cohesion
Optimism
Performing
Functional role relatedness
Cohesiveness
Adjourning
Termination, separation
'Death of the group'
i
Figure 7.1 A model of group phases (Based on: Tuckman and
Jenson, 1977)
: Jn the 'forming' phase, individuals may be guarded, tense and anxious,
nr!d concerned about inclusion and acceptance. They tend to address comments
solely to the moderator, not yet engaging with other group members.
Occasionally, people respond to anxiety by overstatement, perhaps seeming
confrontational or dismissive of the subject matter. In a group discussion,
this is the stage at which background information is usefully collected so
that participants are on familiar ground, introducing themselves to each
cither and beginning to get the measure of the researcher and the rest of the
group. If substantial research topics are introduced in this phase it can be
uliiminating to see where people begin in addressing them, but it is important
to bear in mind the possible influence of their uncertain feelings about
ihe group environment on what they say.
'Storming' is a period of tension or criticism that may be shown up in a
number of ways. It may be typified by dominance or one-upmanship from
some individuals, by silent aloofness from others, or by the adoption of
particular roles - the 'expert' perhaps - as a defensive position. Strong differences
may emerge in this phase of the group which may provide useful
Material to return to, but these differences may diminish later as people
express themselves with more complexity and subtlety. Again, it is important
not to place too much reliance on strong statements made at this stage
:without reflecting on how the views expressed are articulated later in the
discussion.
: This is followed by the group settling down to a calmer phase of sharing,
similarity and agreement, or 'norming', i n which the norms of the group are
established. The group begins to work cooperatively and may be particularly
keen to find common ground, to agree with each other and to reinforce
what others say. Participants may i n this phase begin to put into practice the
'ground rules' that the researcher has set down (see below) - giving way to
others, not speaking all at once. This is the stage at which social norms will
be most influential, revealing what are seen as socially acceptable views or
behaviours. These may be a valuable part of the research data although
again it is important to reflect on how what is said compares with views
expressed later, as group members gradually become more comfortable with
the environment and feel able to express less normative views. But the
researcher will need to find ways to prevent the 'norming' from masking
attitudes and diversity (see below).
The 'performing' phase which follows finds the group working interactively
in open discussion on the research issues. This is likely to be with
energy, concentration, enjoyment and a less guarded stance, allowing both
agreement and disagreement between participants. A t this point the
researcher can almost sit back, observe and listen, and let the group get
on with the task i n hand. The group will often return in a more reflective
environment to points discussed earlier. They will be able to tackle the most
challenging topics, working together with a synergy developing which
176 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
achieves greater depth of insight. This is the most productive phase of the
group process, but it takes time to reach it.
Finally, in the 'adjourning' phase, the group works towards ending
Participants may take the opportunity to reinforce something they have sa?d
earlier or to give their final thoughts. The researcher will thank them for
what has been achieved. The group, or at least some members, may fee]
reluctant to leave - the stage is sometimes called 'mourning'.
The phases will be apparent by the mood and energy level of the group,
indicated by both verbal and non-verbal behaviour. But as with all models;
it does not always work out precisely like this in practice. Not all the phases
will necessarily be discernible though it is likely that elements will be noted.
Nor do the phases necessarily remain in this linear sequence, although it
would probably be unhelpful to let the group move too far through the
process without some 'norming'. There may be a circular process, with the
group dynamic perhaps reverting back from 'performing' to 'storming'
behaviour, for example on introduction of a new topic of discussion or a
specific task. The essential point for the researcher, however, is to recognise
that the phases are a normal part of the group process, to allow them to happen,
to help them along, and to structure the discussion appropriately taking
them into account.
The stages of a focus group
This section focuses on the stages that moderating a group discussion
involves and the tasks for the researcher within each, reflecting the group
development phases described above. %
S T A G E O N E ! S C E N E S E T T I N G A N D G R O U N D R U L E S
Management of the start of the session is of vital importance. Preparation on
the part of the researcher for the handling of this stage can pre-empt difficulties
later in the discussion. A s participants arrive, the researcher thanks
them warmly for coming, welcomes them and tries to put them at their ease
by friendly conversation, avoiding the research topic. When the group is
complete the researcher makes a more formal start to the session, with a personal
introduction, outline of the research topic, and background information
on the purpose of the study and its hinder. Confidentiality is stressed,
and an explanation is given of what will happen to the data and of proposals
for reporting.
The researcher's introduction should not be too lengthy or too technical,
but sufficient to reassure that this is a bona fide research study to which
participants are invited to contribute. It should also emphasise points that
may increase participants' motivation to take an active role in the discussion.
•••llllll
111
•
H p
H |
iliiiiiii
F O C U S G R O U P S 177
These might include more specific details on why the research is being
undertaken or how it will be used; perhaps with emphasis on the opportunity
that the forum provides for active consultation, or for involvement in
decision-making.
The researcher also includes an indication of expected roles, and reassurVarice.
It is explained that the session will be i n the form of a discussion and
that group participants should not wait to be invited before they step in. The
researcher stresses that there are no right or wrong answers, that everyone's
'••views are of interest, that the aim is to hear as many different thoughts as
/possible. They may add that there are likely to be different views or experiences
among the group, and that people should feel free to say what they
think, and if they agree or disagree with other participants' views, to say so.
Explanation is given of the need to record the discussion in order to provide
a full account of everything that is said. Participants are asked not to talk
over each other. Depending on the subject area, it may also be helpful to ask
the group to treat what other people say as confidential and not to be
repeated outside the session. This will be particularly important if people know
each other and are part of a wider network - colleagues or co-residents, for
^example.
At this stage, participants are likely to be feeling both curiosity and concern.
Their unspoken fears - 'What's this all about?', 'Might there be a hidden
agenda?', 'Might I be shown in an unfavourable light?' - need to be put
to rest. The style and content of the introduction will need to be adapted to
the type of people i n the group though it will be necessary for all groups to
take time over this important initial stage.
S T A G E T W O : I N D I V I D U A L I N T R O D U C T I O N S
Switching on the tape recorder, the researcher asks the group to introduce
themselves in turn by saying their names and giving other simple background
information (items usually specified by the researcher - see
Chapter 6). As each individual speaks, the researcher might decide to probe
a little, to draw out a fuller response and begin to set the tone of an in-depth
discussion.
These background points serve a number of purposes. They allow participants
to introduce themselves to each other, begirming to build up a degree
of familiarity. They provide a chance for each individual both to speak and
to listen, to rehearse two roles essential in the process of discussion. The
information provided by individual participants may be used by the
researcher during the discussion, for example as part of a probe to draw
people out or to ensure that what might be different perspectives are drawn
in. They also serve to link a voice (and its spatial location) with a name and
other personal characteristics, on the recording tape. This is useful in the
178 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 1 7 9
transcription process, particularly i n research studies that require individual
response to be tracked as far as possible through the discussion.
The researcher jots down a spatial diagram of participants' names' (and
perhaps brief background details) as the individual introductions proceed
for their own use as an aide-memoire to refer to throughout. For some groups
name-cards or badges can be useful, if participants are accustomed lb this
rather more formal set-up.
When the personal introductions are complete, the researcher may choose
to make a brief comment about the composition of the group as a whojk
They may highlight differences that have just been revealed, pointing out the
benefit of this for contrasting views and experiences in the forthcoming discussion.
Or they may note similarities, particularly as a prelude to exploring
a sensitive issue in depth. This can reinforce the feeling of now being: 'a
group' and one in which all the group members are included, whatever their
situation.
s
S T A G E T H R E E : T H E O P E N I N G T O P I C
After the individual introductions, the researcher starts off the general
discussion by introducing the opening topic. This may be something fairly
neutral, general and easy to talk about, or it may be a more conceptual'-or
definitional issue about which group members' spontaneous thoughts are
sought (see Chapter 5).
The researcher's arm at this point is to promote discussion and to use Ihe
opening topic to engage as many of the participants as possible. A t first their
response may be faltering, between silences, perhaps with just one or two
people speaking, directing their comments to the researcher. Or one mdividf
ual may speak at length about their own personal views or situation; or a
spirited discussion may start straightaway, spanning a range of topics.
The researcher continues to be verbally active, asking further questions (or:
rephrasing the same question) around the particular topic and enquiring
generally about other people's views to open out the response. It is beneficial
to get everyone to say something at this early stage in the group, as an
individual's silence can become harder for them to break as the group proceeds
and they feel more and more left out. Widening the discussion at this
early stage also helps to wean off dependence on the researcher. But it can
take time before individuals respond to each other rather than referring their
comments directly to the researcher. The researcher encourages group interaction
by allowing short silences to invite thought, or draws links between
issues that different people have raised, perhaps highlighting differences
and similarities in views. Non-verbal cues are also employed, for example
maintaining eye contact around the group, leaning forward in an interested
fashion, and perhaps gesturing with hands in a manner to invite the group
to continue.
Issues will be raised early in this initial discussion that relate to key topics
requiring full debate - indeed sometimes it can seem as if the entire topic
guide has been covered within the first five minutes. The researcher might
interject if this occurs, noting the points made, and explain that this important
issue is something to return to later for fuller discussion. Or the
researcher might judge that it would now be appropriate to select one of the
issues mentioned and move the discussion on to it.
S T A G E F O U R : D I S C U S S I O N
At this point, following initial discussion, the researcher new to group
discussions may feel things are getting out of control. N o w what? Their role
is one of juggling: balancing the need to promote group interaction against
the need for some individual detail, and the value of free-flowing debate
against the need for coverage of specified topics.
Through active Hstening and observation, the researcher will keep a mental
note of what is being said and will probe both the group as a whole and individual
members, using open questions expressed in simple language. The
researcher listens to the terms used by respondents, explores their meaning
to respondents and mirrors that language in formulating further questions
or comments. It will be necessary to direct the flow over other relevant topic
areas if they are not raised spontaneously by the group, and to keep the discussion
broadly focused on the research subject. A t the same time, attempts
are made to include everyone and to balance the contributions of individual
members, and the group process is engaged to generate new insights and
thoughts. A l l these tasks are described in more detail in the sections which
follow. The discussion will generally be lively at this stage, but if there are
short silences it is best to avoid the temptation to fill them. Holding back
usually means that someone in the group will take responsibility for keeping
the discussion going.
S T A G E F I V E : E N D I N G T H E D I S C U S S I O N
The final topic will have been decided in advance, with an eye to how it fits
in with the overall shape of the discussion and group developmental phases.
It is advisable to try to finish on a positive and completed note, as with individual
interviews - for example covering ideas or suggestions about what
might be done to improve a situation, following a discussion about problems
(Chapter 5). This is particularly important if emotionally difficult material
Has been raised during the discussion.
Attention needs to be paid to pacing the end of the discussion in order to
allow time for the group to prepare for it and to avoid too abrupt a finish.
The researcher therefore signals its approach, for example with mention of
'the final topic', and finally, with questions that enquire about'- anything
else to say before we finish?' o r ' - anything we've left out, or that people feel
they haven't had a chance to say?'
Finally, the researcher ends the discussion and thanks the group, stressing
how helpful the discussion has been. In some studies it may be advisable to
reaffirm confidentiality, especially if sensitive issues have been covered, and
180 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 181
to reiterate the purpose of the research and how it will be used. The researcher
should be prepared to stay awhile after the tape recorder has been switched
off. People often seem to enjoy the experience of a group discussion and
having become part of it, can be reluctant to leave.
C o n d u c t i n g the discussion
An overview of the researcher's role
The researcher uses the group process to encourage open, interactive
discussion, but also controls it to bring everyone in, prevent dominance, and
steer the group away from irrelevant areas. Yet the process in which the
researcher is engaged remains one of gathering information on a specific
topic of enquiry. The role of the researcher in relation to a focus group is
therefore something of a hybrid. Partly it involves the tote of a moderator
with its connotations of restraint, as one who 'restrains or presides over a
meeting'; partly it involves the role of a facilitator, as one who 'makes easy'!
or 'assists the progress o f a process. This section describes the techniques
used by researchers in conducting the discussion, and the following section1
looks at some further strategies for making effective use of the group;
process.
The necessary level of researcher interventions will vary between groups;
and will depend on both the dynamic in an individual group and the nature
of the research subject, particularly how much interest it holds for participants.
Some groups are taciturn and unforthcoming (just as some individual
respondents are) and require the researcher to maintain a more verbal presence:
questioning, probing and drawing out. Others are lively. It is as if the
group is the respondent.
The researcher's role is critical to the success of the group discussion. It
requires energy and can be demanding and challenging. The sort of people
who are good at it are able to relate well in groups and possess qualities to
put people at ease, though the skills are able to be learned and come with
practice. Many of the skills are those that are required for in-depth interviews
(see Chapter 6), but also important are adaptability, confidence, the
ability to project oneself in positive ways to encourage the group, and a
combination of assertiveness and tact.
Flexibility or structure: controlling the discussion
How much the researcher needs to intervene to structure the discussion will
depend partly on the type of research study. It will be necessary to impose
some structure to ensure that issues are covered, but the balance between
imposed structure and flexibility of discussion, in which the issues are
/generated from within the group, will vary between different studies (see
•Chapters 3 and 5).
The researcher's aim is to allow as much relevant discussion as possible to
bo generated from within the group while at the same time ensuring that the
aims of the research are met. There is more scope in a focus group than in an
individual interview for spontaneous emergence of issues, prompted by the
•variety of different people's contributions. This means that discussion is
further removed from researchers' directions and led more by respondents.
The way participants introduce topics is itself interesting and revealing - it
is more 'grounded', or 'naturally occurring'.
The researcher will therefore remain as non-directive as possible but will
nevertheless be pacing the debate to ensure that all the key issues are covered
as fully as possible (though not necessarily in a predesignated order)
within the allotted time. This will involve deciding when to move on to
another topic; making a mental note of issues that arise early and which will
need to be covered later in more depth; keeping the discussion relevant and
focused; and choosing when to allow more free-ranging discussion with
' minimal intervention, and when to use silence as a means of promoting
further reflection and debate. A H of this becomes easier for the researcher
when the subject matter and the way groups relate to it becomes more familiar,
after the initial groups of the study have been conducted.
It is not uncommon for a group discussion to divert into irrelevant tangents,
and this happens more easily than in in-depth interviews. A t times the
researcher will therefore need to steer it back by reminding the group of the
topic, if it meanders too far into less relevant territory. For example, participants
may dwell on an alternative topic, one that they would perhaps prefer
to discuss, or they may relate repeated and lengthy anecdotes. Some tangential
discussion will be inevitable, and necessary as it may contain nuggets
of new information. It should therefore not be cut off too abruptly. But
because time is limited, decisions will need to be made by the researcher
about what is and is not relevant and when to move on.
Introducing a question linked to the relevant subject area will help to steer
the discussion back. It may be necessary to draw attention to the fact that talk
has veered away, and perhaps to remind people of the purpose of the research.
A gentle touch, humour and perhaps an apology can be helpful here.
Probing for fuller response
As in individual interviews, the researcher probes to ensure issues are
covered in depth. The aim is to clarify, to delve deeper and to cover all angles,
rather than accepting an answer at its face value. Group members also play
a part in this, questioning each other, but an additional purpose in probing
in a group is to open out discussion and widen the range of response. A
distinction between probing of the group as a whole rather than of individuals
182 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 183
within the group therefore needs to be borne in mind. It is likely that both
types of interventions will be needed, though too much of the latter can
interrupt the flow of discussion. After probing an individual's comment i f
this is needed to understand it fully, the group researcher would then open
out the discussion. There are a number of ways of doing this:
» asking generally ' H o w do other people feel?' or 'What does everyone else
think?'
e repeating the question, or a fragment of it
• highlighting a particular comment that has been said and asking for
thoughts on it
» asking the group directly, 'Can you say a bit more about that?'
• looking around or gesturing to the rest of the group to come in
• mamtaining an expectant silence, to allow the group time to reflect
further on the issue
• Hghnghting differences in views and encouraging the group to discuss
and explain them.
Noting non-verbal language
Throughout the discussion, the researcher will be alert to group participa n ts'
body language. This important communication, additional to their verbal
response, is noteworthy from two points of view. First, it adds views or
emphasis relating to the discussion topic. People will often demonstrate
their agreement or disagreement by nodding or shaking their head, or by
utterances which may not be picked up by the person whp transcribes the
tape. They need to be encouraged to verbalise these indications of view otherwise
episodes of unanimity or strong agreement, which the researcher £ :
notes clearly at the time, are lost from the data. The researcher may, for
example, say 'Everyone's nodding vigorously - why is that?' or 'You've all
gone rather quiet! W h y is this subject harder to talk about?' Secondly, body
language provides an indicator of participants' feelings relating to the group
process at any particular time. The researcher can see who is trying to interject,
who is looking worried or lost, who is looking bored - and from this
discern an appropriate way to bring them into the discussion.
Controlling the balance between individual contributions
C R E A T I N G S P A C E FOR E V E R Y O N E TO C O N T R I B U T E [
Part of the researcher's role is to ensure that every participant gets a chance
to contribute to the debate. While it is unlikely that each individual will contribute
equally, there will at times be a need to exert a degree of restraint or ,
of encouragement, and to some extent to 'orchestrate' the flow of contributions.
This can involve addressing dominance from one or more participants,
reticence from others, or simultaneous over-talk within the group (see
further below). Like the conductor of an orchestra, the researcher's use of nonverbal
communication will be significant here, often with powerful effect. In
facilitating the discussion, the role of the researcher is quite physical, far more
so than in one-to-one interviews. Their body language - facial expression,
glance, gesture and body posture for example - can often pre-empt the need
for verbal intervention to control the balance between participants.
It can be tempting for the researcher to intervene too soon. By holding
back awhile the group participants may regulate the balance themselves. It
depends which phase the group is in. One individual's overbearing manner,
or another's lengthy silence, may be a characteristic of the 'storming' phase
of the group for example, which in time will probably settle down. Only later
might the researcher need to take action, proceeding from indirect to increasingly
direct means of addressing the problem if it persists, in ways described
below. Until then, the maintenance of eye contact with each individual
around the group will probably suffice, together with general requests for
new contributions to the discussion.
A D D R E S S I N G D O M I N A N T P A R T I C I P A N T S
There will be occasions when it is necessary to restrain the contributions of
an individual participant if they are dominating the discussion - for example,
always the first to respond to a question, or making very lengthy or
repetitive comments. The other participants may become increasingly silent
and perhaps begin to look directly at the researcher, implicitly appealing to
them to step in.
The researcher could try a range of strategies, first finding indirect ways
to shift attention away from the dominant participant so that others may
speak, but adopting a direct approach if this is unsuccessful. Non-verbal
attempts might include withdrawing eye contact from the dominant person;
leaning away; looking at others in the group, and gesturing to others to
speak. If this still has little effect, verbal interventions would similarly first
be general, inviting others to speak ('Let's hear some other opinions'), before
becoming more specific, requesting that they be given an opportunity ('It's
helpful to have heard your experience but I want to hear from others too').
It is important to avoid a confrontation. The public nature of the group
means that, perhaps more than in an in-depth interview, respondents may
feel rebuked. The researcher might therefore take pains to emphasise the
value of the dominant person's contribution but also the importance of hearing
from all participants, perhaps employing humour in the exchange, or
apologising for having to curtail a response.
D R A W I N G O U T R E T I C E N T P A R T I C I P A N T S
It can be difficult to judge the cause of a silent group member's reserve,
although if possible the response would be tailored to this. The person may
be naturally quiet, or lack confidence in groups, or perhaps be uncomfortable
184 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 185
due to the group composition, feeling significantly different in some way
from other participants (see further below). It could be that he or she is just
not able to get a word in edgeways during a voluble discussion, particulnrlv
in larger groups. But reticent participants often have viewpoints or experiences
that are perhaps different from the main and therefore of particiilnr
interest to the research.
People who are shy or anxious will be encouraged by the researcher's
reassurance, to the group as a whole or specifically to them, that anything
people have to say would be useful. But this may not be sufficient. Although
it would be counterproductive to pressurise an individual to contribute, i l
will sometimes be necessary to take more active steps, initially i n an indirect
manner, to provide encouragement.
Eye contact alone can give confidence. The researcher could ask the group
as a whole, though looking in the direction of the silent individual, fur
further thoughts or ideas, or could look expectantly in their direction during
a pause i n the discussion. It may be possible to link a specific question with
something that is already known about the person, from the introduction
perhaps or from anything else that they may have indicated so far, that:
would make the question relevant to them. For example, the researchermight
ask 'What about people here who have children?' - remembering:
from the introduction that the silent person does indeed have children. In a
more direct way, a question would be put to the silent individual: 'You
haven't had a chance yet to say what you think' or 'How did your experience
compare with what's been said so far?' A n y questions posed in this
situation would need to be open questions rather than ones that might elicit
a mere 'yes' or 'no' or a factual response.
If, having tried these strategies several times, the person remains uncommunicative,
the researcher might decide to leave matters as they are and
focus instead on the other discussants, especially if the group is quite large
in size. The researcher would continue to look encouragingly towards the
silent member of the group from time to time and include them in questions
addressed to the group as a whole, but not use more direct approaches to try
to draw them in.
A V O I D I N G S I M U L T A N E O US D I A L O G U E
At times it can be necessary to stop group participants talking over each
other, in order to distinguish different views on the recording tape and to
allow time for everyone to express themselves. This might be done by
addressing one individual among those talking and asking for their view, or
by asking the group directly to stop so that each point of view can be heard.
It can be sufficient to look very attentively at just one person who is talking,
and simply pointing to the tape recorder can sometimes work. Whatever
tactic is used, it is important to make time to return to the individuals who
were silenced, to hear their views.
Focusing on participants' personal views
A particular type of behaviour that emerges more in group discussions than in
• jh-depth interviews is avoidance of expressing personal views, and this can be
: a type of resistance or 'stonrring' behaviour. It might be easier for group
respondents to take a more distant or second-hand standpoint, such as that
read in the media for example, or to present views known to be politically
acceptable, than risk expressing a personal view. The researcher needs to get
the focus back on the participant by asking them directly what they think. A
gentler approach is needed if a participant is referring to third parties to introduce
subjects that have an element of taboo (talking about 'other people's'
experience of debt or relationship violence, for example). Here, rather than
asking that person directly about their own experience, the group as a whole
could be asked whether they have personal experience of these issues.
Using t h e g r o u p process: s o m e f u r t h e r strategies
A good focus group is more than the sum of its parts. The researcher harnesses
the group process, encouraging the group to work together to generate more
in-depth data based on interaction. This section looks at some further ways
in which the group process can be used to stimulate new thinking and reflective
discussion.
Encouraging in-depth exploration of emergent issues
The researcher helps the group to create a reflective environment in which
the group can take an issue, approach it as they choose and explore it fully.
It is important to allow time for this, and to let the discussion flow. But the
researcher also needs to be actively helping the group to achieve greater
depth, encouraging them to focus on emergent areas that they think will be
illummating to explore. The researcher does this by engaging with the substance
of what is being said, probing for more detail and depth, sometimes
reframing what is said, or asking the group to reflect on a different angle of
it. In doing so the researcher tries to stay close to the data as it emerges and
to encourage the group to build on what they have generated.
There are a number of useful approaches here:
• If a potentially interesting issue has been raised by one group member,
the researcher may allow discussion to continue, seeing whether others
will pick up on it.
• The researcher may decide to draw attention more directly to the point,
asking for more comments on it or asking a specific question about it of
the group.
186 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 187
* They may encourage the group to reflect on the links or relationships
between what individual participants are saying. For example, if respondents
have given examples of poor service, the researcher might ask wh.it
the examples have in common, whether they stem from the same causes.
• If divergent views are being expressed (for example about the priorities a
service should address), the researcher may ask whether these are in
conflict with each other or can be reconciled; or what the appropriate
priority within or balance between them is; or w h y such differences ot
view arise.
o They may encourage respondents to focus on the implications or consequences
of what has been raised in individual examples.
A n example of this comes from a study of concepts and experiences of disability
i n which a series of groups were held with non-disabled people (as
well as groups and in-depth interviews with disabled people) (Woodfield
etal.,2002). .
One group of non-disabled people began by describing their images of disabled
people, focusing on serious, visible, physical conditions and partieularly
wheelchair users. The researcher commented on the fact that this is whn t
they had raised, and asked whether they had other images. The group bega n
to discuss mental health and intellectual impairments. People also mentioned
temporary conditions and long-term illness. The researcher commented on
how diverse these examples now were, and asked how useful the umbrella
term of disability was. The group began to question the appropriateness of
administrative definitions of disability (for example i n relation to benefit entitlement)
given the broader way in which they were now understanding it.
The researcher then asked what the different conditions that had now
been mentioned had in common. This led to respondents raising concepts of
'otherness', 'difference', 'incompleteness'. They then commented that these
concepts could also apply to sexual orientation, ethnicity and gender, and
began to discuss how these issues linked with disability. Without further
questions from the researcher, the group moved on to discuss how disability
and other forms of 'otherness' are reinforced by society through discrimination.
The researcher asked whether this process works differently for disability
in any way, and they talked about discrimination being further
entrenched through the physical inaccessibility of buildings and facilities.
The group began to talk about legislation as the key to tackling discrimination
and about the need to enforce physical access and employment rights
through regulation. To return to the issue of the social construction of disability,
the researcher asked whether the label 'disability' was meaningful or
useful. The group talked about the way in which labels might impact on disabled
people's self-image, and lead to reactions of pity among non-disabled
people. This led several people i n the group to a shared conclusion that
social constructions and perceptions of disability are important, that wider
social change is required and that legislation alone is not sufficient.
Having begun with images of wheelchairs, the group moved to a discussion
of disability that was more layered. The researcher's questions sharpened the
focus on different concepts or themes which emerged from the discussion.
The resulting data was probably much richer than what would have emerged
from in-depth interviews. With the researcher encouraging the group to work
together and to build discussion from individual people's contributions, the
group achieved more insight than they could have gained individually.
If the group is working well together they may deepen the commentary
themselves, through asking questions of each other, reflecting and refining
their own views, building on what others have said and developing more indepth
discussion of the issues that emerge. This happens when group
members are really engaged with the research subject, and also if they are
particularly articulate and informed about it. It may seem in these circumstances
as if the researcher's interventions are relatively minor. However, the
researcher will be making decisions all the time about what to probe to focus
and deepen the discussion, and to include other participants or issues.
For example, in the study referred to in Chapter 5 which explored linkages
between sexuality and homelessness among young lesbians and gay men
(O'Connor and Molloy, 2001), group discussions with representatives of
housing services were carried out after a series of in-depth interviews with
young people. The groups were used to look at how organisations providing
housing can respond to the needs of young lesbians and gay men, and key
findings from the in-depth interviews were presented to the group. This, and
the fact that participants were articulate and knowledgeable about the
subject area, meant that the group largely carried itself through an in-depth
discussion of a complex set of issues. The researchers probed to ensure that
each issue was explored i n detail, following up new points that emerged,
and asking questions about the linkages between issues. The group began by
discussing whether young gay and lesbian people could or should be
housed together and moved through the following areas:
* the advantages and disadvantages of housing young lesbians and gay
men together i n designated housing, or making housing provision
generic so that different groups live together
• the organisational difficulties involved in creating designated housing
• other ways of meeting young people's needs, such as housing lesbians
and gay men in areas of towns where they are less likely to experience
offensive treatment from neighbours
* questioning the assumption that lesbians and gay men are two groups
that should be seen as similar, discussing how they differ and how subgroups
within each have specific and different needs (reflecting age,
ethnicity etc.)
9 how the individual circumstances of different young lesbians and gay
men can make it difficult for them to make contact with housing services
in the first place
188 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 189
• concluding by stressing the need for multiplicity in provision (of which
designated and generic housing was just one part), for diversity in
staffing, better outreach work, more effective networking between
providers and better signposting of young people to specific providers
who can meet their needs.
Although all these issues could have been raised by the researchers, the fact
that they emerged from the internal reflections of the group made for a
richer discussion, one in which the energy and ownership of the group, and
the connections they made between different issues, was displayed.
Exploring diversity of view
The group context provides a key opportunity to explore difference and
diversity. It is not only that differences will be displayed as the discussion
progresses (and thus more immediately than across individual in-depth
interviews). There is a particular opportunity in group discussions to delve
into that diversity - to get the group to engage with it, explore the dimensions
of difference, explain it, look at its causes and consequences.
The diversity of views may be quite apparent, in which case the researcher
can draw attention to it and ask why it has arisen, or what underlies it. Bui
sometimes difference is more subtle, and people in the group agree with
each other's positions or statements although they are actually inconsistent
or contradictory. Here a little theatre may be required: the researcher can
look puzzled, say they are confused, and ask the group to clarify things. This
encourages the group to confront and acknowledge diversity and to refine
what is being said in the light of it.
Challenging social norms and apparent consensus
A common criticism of focus groups is that the group exerts a pressure on its
participants to conform to a socially acceptable viewpoint and not to talk
about divergent views or experiences. A s the discussion unfolds, the group
participants may focus on their similarities or present just one side of the
issue, or their contributions may reflect prevailing social norms. This can be
linked to the dynamics in the group, and is a particular characteristic of the
'norming' phase (see above), though it could happen at any time throughout
the discussion. The researcher needs to be alert to what is going on, and to
find ways of challenging social norms and apparent consensus. There are a
number of ways of approaching this:
• asking whether anyone has a different view, or deliberately drawing
out an individual respondent who the researcher thinks may feel
differently
9 stressing that disagreement or difference in view is both acceptable and
wanted. This would be said in the researcher's introduction (see above),
but might be reiterated during the debate
9 trying to find the boundaries of social norms by asking whether there are
circumstances or situations under which the group would feel differently
• playing the role of devil's advocate, or challenging unanimity by presenting
an alternative viewpoint (though taking care not to present this
viewpoint as the researcher's own): 'Some people might say ...'or 'So are
you really all saying that you would never ...'.
It can also be helpful to encourage the group to recognise and confront the
normative view, and i n doing so implying that other views are permitted.
For example a study looking at public perceptions of the appropriate priority
of first and subsequent families i n the child support payment levels set
out by the Child Support Agency (O'Connor and Kelly, 1998) involved
group discussions with women whose partners had children from previous
relationships. The group was stressing the importance of encouraging their
partners to stay in touch with their children and to support their ex-partners,
and suggesting that this was more important than providing for new partners
and children. The researcher commented on how supportive they were
all being, said that the Child Support Agency might be surprised by it, and
asked whether that was how they always felt. The group began to acknowledge
that their feelings were actually more complex and described occasions
when they felt their partner had leant too far towards their first family. Some
highlighted the particular circumstances that meant their partners were able
to support the first family without compromising the second, and talked
about how their views would change in other circumstances.
In practice, if the researcher is able to create an environment in which
people feel safe and comfortable with speaking frankly, group-based
research can be very effective for discussing topics which involve social
norms. Once one person expresses an unusual or non-conformist view,
others will often be emboldened to do the same, and there can be a more
frank and open exchange than might happen in an individual interview.
Enabling and projective techniques
Finally, enabling and projective techniques - described in detail in Chapter 5 can
be used very effectively in group discussions. People respond well to
them in a group, and they can seem less contrived than i n an individual
interview. The techniques help to focus discussion and to refine the formulation
and expression of views. The material they generate can highlight
variation in imagery and perspective, leading to fruitful discussion of similarities
and differences and why they occur. The group process thus creates
a particularly useful forum in which to use them.
190 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 191
G r o u p c o m p o s i t i o n a n d size
The size and composition of a group will be critical in shaping the group
dynamic and determining how, and how well, the group process works.
Features that are relevant here are the degree of heterogeneity or homogeneity
within the group, existing relationships between group members,
and the size of the group.
Heterogeneity versus homogeneity
As a general rule, some diversity in the composition of the group 'aids
discussion, but too much can inhibit it. A n element of diversity is like the grit
in an oyster, important for the production of a pearl. Participants tend to feel
safer with, and may prefer being with, others who share similar characteristics,
but this does not necessarily make for the fullest discussion. Although
it can facilitate disclosure, things can become too cosy and the researcher will
need to work hard to tease out differences in views. Recognising their shared
experience, participants can also assume that others know what they mean
rather than articulate it fully.
Conversely, a very heterogeneous group can feel threatening to participants
and can inhibit disclosure. If the group is too disparate, it is difficult to cover
key topics in depth. In studies researching sensitive subjects, the shared experience
of 'everyone in the same boat' is particularly important to facilitate disclosure
and discussion. Sensitive topics therefore leave less scope for diversity,
although some difference between group participants is nevertheless desirable.
For example, in a study of women's decisions about teritiinating a pregnancy,
it would be essential that a group involved only women who had had
abortions. It would be advisable to have separate groups for younger and
older women, and perhaps also for those who had already had children at the
point when they made their decision and those who had not. But within these
parameters, it would be helpful to construct the group to ensure some diversity
in circumstances such as age, social class and relationship status, and
experiences of different healthcare providers in the public and charity sector.
The ideal is therefore usually a point of balance between the two extremes
of heterogeneity and homogeneity, with as much diversity as the group can
take but no more.
As well as the sensitivity of the subject, three further issues need to be considered
in weighing up the extent of diversity to build into group composition.
First, it is usually necessary for respondents i n each group to have
broadly the same proximity to the research subject. There needs to be a
degree of commonality in how they relate to the research topic - something
similar in their experience of it or their connection with it. For example, in a
study about attitudes to the environment it might be decided to exclude
from some focus groups people who are active in environmental groups,
since other group participants might hold back in discussing particular
views or behaviours or may defer to them as 'experts'. A group discussion
might usefully combine users and non-users of a particular service if the
purpose was to discuss the various types of help or services people had used
and the reasons for using different types. But if the particular service itself,
and experiences of it, were to be a key topic, non-users would have little to
contribute to significant parts of the discussion.
Second, the socio-demographic makeup of the group can influence how
frank and fulsome discussion will be - particularly i n relation to characteristics
such as age, social class, educational attainment, gender and ethnicity.
People are likely to feel more comfortable among others who they see as
being from the same broad social milieu, and it is unhelpful if there are
significant imbalances i n social power or status within the group.
A third consideration is that it may be a specific requirement of the
research to look at differences between subgroups within the sample (see
further Chapter 3) - for example, differences between age groups, between
people with and without children, or between current and past service users.
Although this could be addressed in a focus group which cuts across these
sample categories, too much diversity would make it difficult to see subgroupings
among participants and to ensure that the differences are drawn
out in the discussion. The influences of particular circumstances or experiences
can sometimes be explored with more subtlety and insight if they are
reflected i n focus groups of different composition, with for example past and
current service users, or people with and without children, involved in
separate group discussions. Diversity in other characteristics represented
within each focus group would still, however, be desirable.
Token representation should be avoided - for example, one man in a
group which otherwise comprises women, or one person from a particular
minority ethnic group. If one participant is markedly different from others in
the group then any discomfort they feel is likely to influence how much they
disclose. They may feel that their own experience is too remote from that of
the other participants and remain silent, or they may resent the implication
that they alone are expected to speak for the broad group they represent. For
these reasons, at least three people would generally be required to represent
a particular subgroup, characteristic or circumstance which is likely to be
significant within the group's structure.
However carefully group composition is planned, it is not always possible
to achieve the balance planned: not everyone who says they will attend will
actually do so. The researcher will need to be alert to possible feelings of
'difference' and should make special efforts to include participants who
might feel they do not belong.
Strangers, acquaintances and pre-existing groups
Focus groups are typically held with strangers as this facilitates both open
questioning and disclosure. People often speak more freely in front of others
192 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
who they do not know and whom they are unlikely to see again: there is
little fear of subsequent gossip or repercussion.
However, groups with people who already know each other are also common.
For example, the purpose of the study might be to investigate a workrelated
issue among colleagues, views about institutional accommodation
among co-residents, or attitudes towards an activity among people who
carry it out together. In these situations it can be beneficial to work with a
pre-existing group.
Kitzinger and Barbour see pre-existing groups as generally very helpful:
These are, after all, the networks in which people might normally discuss (or
evade) the sorts of issues likely to be raised in the research session and the
'naturally occurring' group is one of the most important contexts in which ideas
are formed and decisions made. (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999: 8-9)
Pre-existing groups can trigger memories of shared situationsfcand are valuable
for exploring shared meanings and contexts such as how an organisation
understands a policy objective and how this translates into practice, or
how the use of illegal drugs within a group of friends is shaped by their
shared values. They can also provide an atmosphere in which participants
can feel safe enough to reveal shared subversive behaviour which might be
unsayable in front of strangers.
However, there is a danger that shared assumptions mean issues are not
fully elaborated because their meaning is taken for granted, or that the group
norms dominate in the session. The researcher may have to work hard to
move discussion into new territory. Certainly substantial differences in
status between group members who know each other shoulcfbe avoided an
important consideration particularly when research is carried out i n
people's workplace.
What is more difficult is where the researcher finds, unexpectedly, that
some participants are acquainted. The researcher would then be on the lookout
for shared views and assumptions and might need to probe particularly
fully to draw out differences. If the researcher becomes aware of the relationship
before the group begins, asking acquaintances not to sit next to each
other during the discussion might also help.
Group size
Focus groups typically involve around six to eight participants, but the optimum
group size will depend on a number of issues:
• The amount that group participants are likely to have to say on the research topic.
If they are likely to be highly engaged with or interested in it, or particularly
articulate, a smaller group is desirable (for example, among professionals
discussing an aspect of their practice).
F O C U S G R O U P S 193
• The sensitivity or complexity of the issue. Sensitive or complex issues are
better tackled in smaller groups.
The extent to which the researcher requires breadth or depth of data. If breadth
is key, for example to reveal quickly the range or diversity i n opinions on
an issue, a larger group will be more effective. If depth is critical, a
smaller group is better.
: • The population group involved. Some are likely to feel more comfortable i n
a smaller group, such as children or, conversely, older people. A smaller
group is also more accessible to people with communication difficulties.
9 The structure and tasks involved in the session. A workshop approach, with
j specific tasks and subgroup work, is more effective with larger numbers.
I
If the group is larger - above about eight participants - not everyone will
s be able to have their say to the same extent. With less opportunity to speak,
active participation will be uneven. There are more likely to be some participants
who say very little, and there is greater potential for subgroups to
emerge which can be unhelpful for group dynamics. This can make things
harder to manage for the researcher who will need to be more of an active
presence in controlling the balance between contributions. It may result in a
somewhat faltering discussion or one that remains at a superficial level.
Identifying individual speakers' voices on the recording tape also becomes
more difficult.
In groups that are smaller than about five or six, the researcher may similarly
need to be more active, but in the sense of energising or challenging the
group (in the way that other members might, if they were there). If the group
is smaller because some people did not attend on the day, the composition
of the group may be skewed away from what was originally planned, perhaps
with just one individual representing a certain subgroup or characteristic.
The researcher will need to be alert to this, and may also need to put
across other points of view to stimulate discussion.
If the group is very small, with fewer than four participants, it can lose
some of the qualities of being a group, particularly if there is a lot of difference
between respondents. However, paired interviews and triads (see
Chapters 2 and 3) can be an effective hybrid of in-depth interviews and
group discussions, useful for example for in-depth discussion among colleagues
or people who know each other well. Here, more commonality
between participants is likely to be necessary to avoid the process becoming
a collection of interviews.
n Practicalities in o r g a n i s i n g the g r o u p
The organisational details of the focus group need to be sorted out at the
planning stage of the study, and before potential participants are approached,
since they may affect willingness to attend. Decisions will always be
194 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E F O C U S G R O U P S 195
informed by the proposed composition of the group and by the subject
matter of the discussion. Rather than prescribe general rules therefore, this
section highlights a checklist of points to bear in mind {summarised in Box 7.1).
The guiding principle behind these decisions is to organise a setting to which
the specially selected group of people will be happy to come, in which they
will feel sufficiently at ease to take part in discussion, and where the discussion
can be adequately recorded.
BOX 7.1 ORGANISING A FOCUS GROUP: A CHECKLIST OF
PRACTICALITIES
I P
111
•
Timing
Time of day
Day of the week
Time of year
Number of groups per day
Venue
Type of establishment (ethos)
Building (access)
Location (proximity, safety)
Room (size, comfort, privacy, quiet, ambience)
Availability of second room if needed
Physical arrangement (seating, table)
'Hosting' the group
Management of:
Transport/childcare
Refreshments
Incentives (cash, vouchers)
Other people who come with participants
Observers and co-moderators
Role
Seating
Recording
Quality of equipment
Familiarisation
Checking before and after group
Time and place
The time of day and day of the week when the potential participants are
likely to be available to attend the group needs to be thought through i n
advance. Competing activities which could discourage attendance also need
to be thought about (such as major sporting events) and certain times of year
would be avoided - around Christmas or other peak holiday periods.
Because it is not possible to suit everyone's timetable, especially for studies
which involve mixed populations, the overall design of the study is likely to
include group discussions at different times of day to accommodate a variety
of schedules.
• The researcher's own working schedule is a further factor to be taken into
account. If more than one group per day is planned, sufficient time is
required between each to allow for dispersal of the first group's participants,
arrival of the next group, and for recovery time in between. It is rarely feasible
to conduct more than two group discussions in succession per day unless
they are very brief.
Choosing the venue involves thinking about its location and the type of
place that it is: the type of establishment, building and immediate
environment. The venue should be appropriate to the participants and to
the subject of study in terms of its ambience or any likely associations that
it may hold. For focus groups that are held with members of a pre-existing
group, the venue may be the place where the group is already located
and as such has the advantage of being familiar. Otherwise, options such
as a hotel, a hired room within a pub or a community centre should be
considered.
A further characteristic for consideration is the room i n which the
discussion takes place: its size, comfort and privacy. It is important to
check out potential distractions such as background noise (as the group
who competed with bell-ringing practice from a nearby church would testify).
A second room may be necessary. If participants are accompanied by a
fiumly member or friend, these people would ideally wait outside the
group room. It is also helpful to have a second room if two consecutive
groups are scheduled, as a place where early arrivals for the second group
can wait.
Provision at the discussion venue
The physical arrangement of the room needs to facilitate discussion, with
chairs positioned in such a way that participants can all be seen by the
researcher and can see each other - a circle or oval. A table in the middle of
the group confers the practical advantage of a base on which to stand the
tape recorder and refreshments and can also offer participants a feeling of
psychological protection of sorts. It should be no larger than is necessary.
Simple refreshments, such as tea, coffee or other drinks are usually served
before the discussion starts, as group members arrive. Although the researcher
196 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
moderating the group may be able to perform this role, it is ideally
undertaken by a second person, such as the person who recruited participants
for the group, or a co-moderator or observer. This person acts as a host
to welcome people, to serve refreshments, and deal with any incentives or
arrangements for transport or childcare (see Chapter 3) that may have been
agreed beforehand.
Co-moderation is useful if exercises or projective techniques are to be
used, and in the early part of fieldwork to test and review field work strategies
and the topic guide (see Chapter 5). If more than one person is moderating
the discussion, they would sit beside each other in the circle. It is
generally more effective to agree in advance which researcher will be
responsible for leading the discussion, or for each to take responsibility for
different parts, to avoid confusion over the flow of questioning and discussion.
A n y observers would be outside the circle and out of eyeshot of the
majority of the participants, for example in a corner of the room. Observers
should be introduced at the start and should maintain an_unobtrusive presence.
A n y written notes they make (for example about the dynamic of the
group, issues to take to other groups, reflections on the tqpic guide) should
be kept to a minimum.
Recording
A good quality tape recorder is essential, with a remote multidirectional
microphone, and is far more important in focus groups than for individual
in-depth interviews. Otherwise, sections of the discussion, or softer voices;
or the contributions of people sitting further away from the microphone may
be lost. The tape recorder is usually positioned adjacent to the researcher,
with the microphone in the centre of the table. The researcher should be
familiar and comfortable with its use (see Chapter 6). People starting out
often find that their biggest disappointment is not the way the discussion
went, but that their recording of it has failed because they were unfamiliar
with the equipment.
Before the participants arrive it is essential to check that the tape recorder
is functioning: that the recording level is appropriate, the batteries charged,
tape inserted, and that a spare tape is to hand. After the discussion has
ended, checks should be made as soon as possible that no technical problems
have prevented recording.
Focus groups, to conclude, call on a wide range of expertise, from the practical
organisational skills described in this section to the ability to put people
at their ease, respond sensitively to group dynamics and create a sense of
joint endeavour. But the skills come with experience, and with that experience
researchers will find focus groups a research technique which is highly
stimulating and can bring real insight.
lillli
i l l l
F O C U S G R O U P S 197
Focus groups are more than a collection of individual interviews.
Data are generated by interaction between group participants.
Participants' contributions are refined by what they hear others say,
and the group is synergistic in the sense that it works together. The
group setting aids spontaneity and creates a more naturalistic and
socially contextualised environment.
The researcher needs t o be a w a r e of t h e different phases
t h r o u g h w h i c h g r o u p s can pass, a n d t o m a k e use o f each. A useful
m o d e l identifies five sequential phases: f o r m i n g , s t o r m i n g ,
n o r m i n g , p e r f o r m i n g a n d a d j o u r n i n g .
The interaction b e t w e e n participants is i m p o r t a n t in d e t e r m i n ing
t h e f l o w of discussion, but t h e researcher guides it, p r o b i n g
b o t h t h e g r o u p as a w h o l e a n d individuals, trying t o ensure t h a t
e v e r y o n e has their say, t h a t t h e research issues are c o v e r e d , t h a t
discussion stays o n track, a n d p i c k i n g up o n b o d y l a n g u a g e .
G r o u p participants t a k e o n s o m e of t h e i n t e r v i e w i n g role, asking
questions of each other.
T h e g r o u p process is harnessed t o enrich t h e discussion. This
involves m a k i n g t i m e f o r reflection a n d r e f i n e m e n t o f views;
f o c u s i n g o n a n d r e f r a m i n g e m e r g e n t issues t o e n c o u r a g e t h e
g r o u p to g o d e e p e r into t h e m ; h i g h l i g h t i n g diversity w i t h i n t h e
g r o u p a n d e n c o u r a g i n g p e o p l e t o explore its d i m e n s i o n s a n d
causes, a n d c h a l l e n g i n g a p p a r e n t consensus w h e r e this is led by
c o n f o r m i t y t o social norms.
Diversity in g r o u p c o m p o s i t i o n enriches t h e discussion, but there
also needs t o be s o m e c o m m o n g r o u n d b e t w e e n participants based
o n h o w t h e y relate t o t h e research t o p i c o r their sociod
e m o g r a p h i c characteristics. T h e i d e a l g r o u p size w i l l be
affected by h o w m u c h p e o p l e will have t o say, t h e sensitivity of
t h e issue, t h e balance required b e t w e e n b r e a d t h a n d d e p t h of
coverage, a n d t h e participant p o p u l a t i o n . T h e role o f t h e
researcher will vary in g r o u p s o f different sizes a n d degrees of
diversity.
Practical a r r a n g e m e n t s are also key t o t h e success o f g r o u p discussions:
t h e t i m e , t h e v e n u e , t h e layout of t h e r o o m a n d t h e
quality o f r e c o r d i n g e q u i p m e n t are all i m p o r t a n t .
K E Y T E R
Group dynamics refers to the relationships between group members
which change during the course of the group and influence the energy
and direction of the group. They are shaped by processes which may
be evident in any small group and which vary depending on the stage
198 Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R A C T I C E
of the group, and are also influenced by t h e composition of the
group, t h e subject matter, the broader environment and t h e behaviour
of the researcher.
Non-verbal communication refers to the physical behaviour of the
researcher or participants: their facial expression, where their gaze is
directed, their hand gestures and their posture. It gives the researcher
important clues as to the possible feelings of individual participants, and
is a useful tool employed by the researcher to control the discussion.
Norms are behaviours or beliefs which are required, desired or designated
as normal within a group, shared by that group or w i t h which
members believe they are expected t o conform. It is important t o be
alert to the ways in which adherence t o social norms within a group
might inhibit disclosure a n d open discussion.
Further reading
Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research:
Politics. Theory and Practice, London: Sage
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Robson, K, and Thomas, M . (2001) Focus Groups in
Social Research, London: Sage
Casey, M.A. and Kreuger, R.A. (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for
Applied Research, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Morgan, D.K. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasi, P.M. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Analysis: Practices, Principles
and Processes
Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie
and William O'Connor
Traditions and approaches within
qualitative analysis
Computer-assisted qualitative methods
The key requirements of analytic tools
The analytic hierarchy
200
206
209
213
Analysis is a challenging and exciting stage of the qualitative research
process. It requires a mix of creativity and systematic searching, a blend of
inspiration and diligent detection. A n d although there will be a stage dedicated
to analysis, the pathways to forming ideas to pursue, phenomena to
capture, theories to test begins right at the start of a research study and ends
while writing up the results. It is an inherent and ongoing part of qualitative
research.
Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the analysis of qualitative
data was a relatively neglected subject, both in the literature and in
researchers' accounts of their methods. A s a result, it was often hard to decipher
what people had done with the rich, unwieldy and often tangled pile
of data they held in the transcripts, fieldnotes and documentary evidence
collected. A t one level, it appeared an almost esoteric process, shrouded in
intellectual mystery. A t another, it appeared largely haphazard with discovery
falling from the evidence as if somehow by chance. Either way, the
processes that had occurred in carrying out qualitative analyses were largely
obscure.
Fortunately, this has changed and there is now much better documentation
of the different approaches to carrying out qualitative analysis that have
developed. Nevertheless, while such accounts explain how to sift, label,
order or even reduce qualitative data, many stop short of explaining how
classification or explanation is achieved or how theories or hypotheses are
generated. In other words, there is now much greater visibility about how