This is the presentation tool to discuss on the process of the FGD, a data collection strategy.

1. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 1
Process of
Focus Group Discussion
( FGD)
Outlines
Definitions
FGD in Research Design
Understanding FGD
Features of FGD
Features of FGD
Some Criticisms on FGD
FGD Experience of two Graduate
References

2. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 2
Definitions
“An informal discussion among selected
individuals about specific topics relevant to
the situation in hand.”
•Beck, Trombetta and Share (1986)
“An organized group discussion which are
focused around a single theme.”
•Krueger(1986)

3. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 3
FGD in Research Design
World view or
Philosophical
Consideration
Positivistic Non-positivistic
Approach Quantitative Qualitative
Research
Methods
Survey, Experiment Ethnography,
Grounded theory, Case
study, Phenomenology
Data Collection
Strategy
Questionnaire or
Close ended
questions
Observation, one to
one interview,
Documents studies or
FGD

4. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 4
Understanding FGD
• “A way of listening to people and learning from them’
(Morgan, 1998).
• ‘Collective conversations’, which can be small or large
(Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2008)
• ‘A mean to set up a negotiation of meanings through intra- and
inter-personal debates’ (Cook & Crang, 1995)
• ‘Involves more than one participant per data collection
session’.
As such, the focus group method is sometimes referred to
as a focus group interview, a group interview, or a group
depth interview (Wilkinson, 2004)

5. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 5
Features of FGD
• There are two broad types of focus groups
– a structured approach which is employed more in market research; and
a less rigid and structured approach which has emerged from focus group
research in the social sciences. Morgan (2002).
• Enables in-depth discussions and involves a relatively small
number participants.
• Focused on a specific area of interest, discuss the topic in a
great detail.
• The ‘group effect’ which assist people to explore and clarify
their points of view.

6. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 6
Contd..
A moderator, the researcher,
introduces the topic and assists the
participants to discuss it, encouraging
interaction and guiding the
conversation, can be two, one
moderator and the remained as
facilitator…

7. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 7
Methodologically, FGD involves
• A group of 6–8 people
•Similar social and cultural backgrounds or who
have similar experiences or concerns.
• Gather together to discuss a specific issue with
the help of a moderator
•Particular setting, feel comfortable ,engage in a
dynamic discussion for one or two hours.
•FGD do not aim to reach consensus on the
discussed issues.
•‘Encourage a range of responses which provide a
greater understanding of the attitudes, behavior,
opinions or perceptions of participants on the
research issues’
(Hennink, 2007).

8. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 8
FGD in Different Settings
In Urban setting In the rural setting

9. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 9
Some Criticisms on FGD
• Useless in exploring participants knowledge on too personal
experiences (e.g. HIV/AIDS, Financial Status, Abortion,
Divorce, Sexuality, Contraceptives use etc).
• Difficulties associated with strong or opposing opinions.
• Only offering a shallower understanding of an issue than those
obtained from individual interviews (Hopkins 2007; Krueger
& Casey 2009)
– Hopkins got different information in personal in-depth interview and
FGD of the same participants on the experience of Racial Experiences
of Muslim Youths in Scotland.
• Difficult to avoid dominant and aggressive participants , social
settings which may have domination there.

10. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 10
Criticism Contd…
• Focus group interview provides greater numbers of
participants than in-depth interviews (Willis et al. 2009). So,
Its ‘quick and easy’.
• opportunistic participants are a popular means of tapping into
people’s values, beliefs, perceptions and experiences
• cost-conscious contracting organizations
• ‘overuse of impressionistic focus group’ research may impair
the value of the methodology.
• lead to the perception that ‘focus groups are an easy but low
level research approach, high quality evidence
• “well designed and well conducted’ (Willis et al. 2009: 132).

11. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 11
FGD Experience of two Graduates
• 5 participants ( 2 Tharu / 3 Nepali
speaking teachers)
• Conducted 2 hours
• Found difficulties to communicate
in Nepali language for Tharu
speakers
• Balancing the discussion was
difficult as Nepali speaking
teachers shared free but Tharu
speaking teachers felt reluctant
• Researcher provoked them.
• Still they faced difficulty to make
their case strong
• Then researcher compensated an
interview for Tharu speaking
teachers to share their ideas.
Exploring Monolingual School
Practices in Multilingual Nepal
DUE, 2004
• Participants 12 MBA
students
• In a classroom of the
university
• No annexes with guidelines
• No experience, feeling
shared
Brand Equity of Higher
Education: a case of MBA
academic program in Nepal
( KU, PhD, 2011)

12. 05/23/14 Laxman Sharma, MPhil, 2014 12
References
Beck, F.J. Trombetta, W.L. & Share, S. (1986) . Using focus group sessions
before decisions are made. North Carolina Medical Journal. 47(2), 73-74
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing
among five approaches, (p.140). (2nd
Ed) Sage publication, New Delhi,
India
Hennink, M.M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for
the health and social sciences. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Krueger, R.A. (1986). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research.
Newbury park, CA:Sage.
Morgan, D.L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium & J.A.
Holstein (eds.), Handbook of interviewing research: Context & method
(pp. 141–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus groups: A feminist method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber
& L. Yaiser (eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 271–
295).New York: Oxford University Press.
Google search