{"id":550,"date":"2013-10-09T13:42:35","date_gmt":"2013-10-09T13:42:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/per\/?p=550"},"modified":"2013-11-13T17:47:25","modified_gmt":"2013-11-13T17:47:25","slug":"focus-group-based-public-engagement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/weblab.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/per\/archives\/550","title":{"rendered":"Focus Group-based Public Engagement"},"content":{"rendered":"

*<\/sup> This post was originally contributed to the Isotope repository on 14th August 2008 by Eric Jensen<\/a> at the University of Warwick and has been reposted here.<\/p>\n

\"Dr
Dr Eric Jensen, University of Warwick<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Activity description<\/strong><\/p>\n

Traditionally used by market researchers and social scientists to identify a range of interpretations on a topic of interest, focus groups have recently been adapted by at least two independent teams of public engagement practitioners with the aim of generating dialogue about robotics and health. This article describes the mechanics of planning, design and moderation of focus-group based public engagement events, making reference to these two cases, which were evaluated as part of the Isotope project.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The evaluation of these two case examples of focus group-based public engagement is intended to afford readers a further indication of whether this approach may be useful for their purposes. Overall, the most consistent finding from both case studies is that focus group-based public engagement yields a high level of audience participation, with participants almost unanimously indicating that they felt able to actively contribute their perspectives.<\/p>\n

Focus groups are currently used in a number of professional domains, including market research (e.g. to glean [potential] customers\u2019 views on a product) and qualitative social science (e.g. examining participants\u2019 perspectives on a particular topic). This article dilates upon the use of focus groups as a method of engaging publics with issues that have a scientific and\/or technical dimension. Focus group-based public engagement provides an opportunity for participants to discuss specific topics, such as news reporting of newly-published science or a scientific controversy, in an informal and supportive environment, using their own concepts, frames of reference and vocabulary (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). This provides public engagement practitioners with the opportunity to draw out what participants do know about science, as opposed to an emphasis on knowledge deficits (Holliman, 2005).<\/p>\n

\"Focus
Focus group set-up (sticky wall; educator packets; brochures; writing utensils and materials)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A key role within the focus group is the \u2018moderator\u2019 or 'facilitator', who provides topics or specific questions for the discussion, facilitates the interactions between participants (which sometimes requires intervention - at other times to judge when not to intervene) and ensures that all have the opportunity to participate. In this article, I use the focus group-specific term \u2018moderator\u2019 and the more general term \u2018facilitator\u2019 interchangeably.<\/p>\n

Planning and organisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

To conduct a focus group-based public engagement session you will require at least one moderator and one or more groups, each with between 3 and 12 participants (typically between 6 and 8). If you are moderating a focus group for the first time it would be advisable to work with a smaller group of participants.<\/p>\n

Once you have organised the structure of your groups (see below), you can run as many sessions as are deemed necessary based on the project goals or practicable based on available resources.<\/p>\n

The moderator should be trained in facilitating group discussions and be comfortable with receding into the background as much as possible during the course of the focus group interview. It can also be useful for an inexperienced moderator to attend other focus groups, either as an observer, or a participant.<\/p>\n

1. General issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.1 Planning<\/em><\/p>\n

You need to begin planning for your focus group event approximately 4-6 weeks in advance, in part in order to secure your desired venue and allow time for advertising, and recruiting and briefing of participants.<\/p>\n

There is no particular time of year that is best for this activity. The focus group may be a one-off event for each set of participants, include a follow-up session (e.g. 6 months later), or involve a series of linked groups over a defined period (e.g. once a week for a month). It might also tie in with other activities to form a package of linked events. Indeed, a recurring public engagement focus group could over time convert into a self-sustaining discussion group along the lines of a book club or a cafe scientifique.<\/p>\n

1.2 Topic Selection<\/em><\/p>\n

Although there is no specific limitation on the topics that could be addressed in a focus group, high-profile scientific issues that have received recent attention via news media may provide a useful focus. Alternatively, a topic may emerge from localised issues, such as the citing of a new research facility.<\/p>\n

If you are addressing a less well-known scientific topic, you will need to provide enough information at the outset of the focus group to stimulate interaction and discussion, and\/or to invite participants to bring along materials that they feel are relevant. Alternatively, as in the case examples discussed below, a media programme or extract can be played at the outset as a stimulus to focus the group discussions to follow.<\/p>\n

Controversial issues (e.g. abortion or animal experimentation) or sensitive issues (e.g. sexual health, or recreational drug use) should only be introduced after careful deliberation on the part of the organisers, and participants should be effectively briefed. It is also recommended that controversial topics should be discussed under the moderation of highly experienced facilitators and with a clear set of ground rules put in place at the outset of the discussion. This is particularly important as participants may disclose personal information that they have not previously discussed in public.<\/p>\n

2. Participants, skills and requirements<\/strong><\/p>\n

2.1 Where?<\/em><\/p>\n

The key requirements for the physical environment of your venue are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. a single large table or an assemblage of tables capable of accommodating all participants<\/li>\n
  2. an environment that allows everyone at the table to be able to hear each other<\/li>\n
  3. a venue that will allow at least water, but ideally hot beverages as well as pastries or other snack foods<\/li>\n
  4. toilet facilities.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Focus groups typically last at least a couple of hours, so numbers 3 and 4 are essential for maintaining the focus of your participants by ensuring they are not unduly distracted by physical needs.<\/p>\n

    2.1.1 Venue Option 1:<\/em><\/p>\n

    Quiet location with dedicated participants. People are either required to book a place in advance or the advertising designates a fixed location that is separate and apart from any other activities.<\/p>\n

    2.1.2 Venue Option 2:<\/em><\/p>\n

    A focus group-based public engagement event could be usefully conducted in a more familiar and social setting such as the back room of a pub, a side room in a caf\u00e9, or a family home. Such locations lend a naturalistic feel to the proceedings, encouraging a relaxed conversational environment. Such informal venues allow for diffuse boundaries between participants and normal customers, but moderators need to be confident that background noise will not be a problem.<\/p>\n

    2.1.3 Video Equipment:<\/em><\/p>\n

    There is little evidence that focus groups can be effectively conducted online or via other communication technologies. As such, this is a relatively \u2018low-tech\u2019 activity, and does not require special computer equipment or electronic devices. However, both of the case examples discussed in this article used media clips at the outset as stimulus material. This requires a screen and projector, as well as a conducive physical and acoustic setting. As such, the organisers in these case studies selected Venue Option 1.<\/p>\n

    It may also be desirable to video the interactions of participants during the focus groups if a permanent record is required. The recording of participants should be discussed at the recruitment stage and formally agreed as any recording will fall under the requirements of data protection.<\/p>\n

    2.2 Who?<\/em><\/p>\n

    A focus group-based public engagement event could involve one group up to a virtually unlimited number of groups, depending on the availability of resources, facilitators and audiences. Focus groups typically involve between 3 and 12 participants per group, although for the purposes of public engagement 6 to 8 per group would be good numbers to aim for.<\/p>\n

    Participant selection will depend on who you would like to engage and on what scientific issue. However, think very carefully before introducing differing levels of expertise into any particular group. If certain individuals are viewed as significantly more knowledgeable or \u2018qualified\u2019 on a given topic, it can stifle the conversation as participants defer to her or him on each discussion point. Although this potential problem can be counter-balanced if the focus groups are structured around a focus on participants\u2019 experiences rather than institutionally recognised forms of knowledge. This was the approach taken in Case Study 2, Listen to me, I\u2019m a patient<\/a>. Their emphasis on experience was mostly successful in immunizing the groups from undue influence by what could be considered \u2018official\u2019 experts within the group (e.g. a pharmacist and a chemist were both participating in a group that was observed for the study and neither person was given undue deference on discussions about conventional healthcare and pharmaceuticals. This was precisely because of the emphasis on the fact that everyone has a form of lay expertise inherent in their experiences as a patient).<\/p>\n

    Participants can be recruited by direct invitation or by a general marketing campaign, or even a bit of busking on the day of the event. This will largely depend on whether Venue Option 1 or Venue Option 2 are selected (above), but you should always ensure that participants are fully briefed before they agree to participate.<\/p>\n

    In either case recruitment can be initiated by e-mail, telephone or post. Using the mailing lists of existing organisations can be useful in the recruitment process. General advertisements for participants posted in newspapers, etc. can also be used for both Venue Options.<\/p>\n

    It can be useful to ask people to register in advance their interest in attending, not just to give the organisers a sense of the possible level of attendance but also to amass a list of individuals to email about future events and to provide them with any advance information that may be relevant (e.g. if the event is also going to be used for data collection purposes, this should be flagged up to participants before they arrive).<\/p>\n

    2.3 How?<\/em><\/p>\n

    One of the key decisions in terms of event structure, number of participants and format is whether there will be a trained facilitator allocated to each focus group within the event. Having at least one facilitator per group (full moderation) requires greater resources, especially if volunteer facilitators are not forthcoming.<\/p>\n

    A video clip is sometimes used as a stimulus for discussion. This can be a film clip as in Case Study 1, or any other bit of video footage that might foster conversation on the topic at hand. For example, the Vega Trust offers short digital videos on a wide range of science topics: http:\/\/vega.org.uk<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    More prosaically, it is highly recommended that you schedule a break for approximately halfway through the focus group session (i.e. this normally takes place after the focused activity is complete and before the follow-up question phase begins).<\/p>\n

    2.3.1 Option 1 (full moderation)<\/em><\/p>\n

    A focus-group based public engagement event could take myriad forms and structures. Below, I briefly review one empirical example, described as Case Study 1. This event took place in the south of England in 2008.<\/p>\n

    Option 1 Marketing<\/em><\/p>\n

    The event was advertised as part of a larger science festival. The organisers of the event were not directly affiliated with the larger festival and did none of the marketing directly. This was a problem because the advert for the event did not align very well with what the practitioners were actually going to be doing. As a result, three people left after the first few minutes saying that the event was not what they were expecting.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, the practitioners were travelling in from a city over 100 miles away, so they were not able to draw on any local contacts to draw in a larger audience. There was no advance booking for this event; rather, people were invited to show up in the evening at one of two start times.<\/p>\n

    Option 1 Event Structure<\/em><\/p>\n