Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of the researcher in stimulating a constructive group climate in online focus-group interviews. It is argued that a climate of psychological safety enhances the likelihood of people expressing their true opinions and thoughts regarding the topic at hand, which is a crucial quality of focus-group research. However, these aspects are more difficult to develop in online encounters than face-to-face. We therefore look into how the researcher can work to acquire focus-group data of adequate quality from online focus-group interviews. Based on an analysis of the research literature on focus-group interviews, as well as group development theory and person-centered theory, we propose three main strategies for researchers who conduct online focus-group interviews: (a) creating conditions before the interview; (b) creating conditions at the beginning of the interview; and (c) active interventions during, and at the end of, the interview.

Keywords

online focus-group interview constructive group climate psychological safety person-centered theory group development theory

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of online meetings in all spheres of life (Queiroz et al., 2023). Academia is no exception: researchers have increased their online presence not only for teaching and meetings, but also for how they collect data, for example, by conducting online focus-group interviews (Willemsen et al., 2023). Online focus-group interviewing has many advantages, such as reducing practical and economical constraints, increasing convenience and comfort for participants, reducing carbon footprint by avoiding transportation, and easing the recording and documentation of the research (Daniels et al., 2019; Forrestal et al., 2015; Gundumogula, 2020; Queiroz et al., 2023; Willemsen et al., 2023). Yet the disadvantages are not to be ignored, either. In online encounters, it is more difficult to develop trust and build a group, rather than remaining a collection of individuals, compared to face-to-face gatherings (Henttonen & Blomquist, 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Since access to nonverbal communication is limited, the encounter excludes the possibility of having a direct bodily experience, both among the group members and between the group members and the researcher (Marra et al., 2020). However, building a trusting environment is crucial to stimulate the interpersonal and group dynamics that constitute the unique quality that distinguishes focus groups from, for example, individual research interviews (Morgan, 1997).

In this article, we work with the assumption that in terms of data quality, the use of online focus groups is suboptimal when compared to face-to-face focus groups. Yet since the use of online technology has become a reality and is not likely to disappear, as researchers we need to learn how to make the best of both worlds. This article focuses on how the distinguishing quality of focus-group interviewing—the added value of a group gathering—can be maintained to a good-enough extent while using online platforms. The quality of focus-group research hinges on the researcher’s ability to build sufficient trust among the participants and between the participants and the researcher, because the willingness to share one’s experience depends on a certain level of trust (Morgan, 1997). This willingness to share is, in turn, a prerequisite for the interpersonal interaction that is crucial in order to take advantage of the distinctive quality of focus groups (Morgan, 1997), where group members stimulate one another to share and, consequently, to develop each other’s ideas.

A constructive group climate arises when the participants build on and help develop each other’s statements, by communicating about and comparing ideas and opinions. In this communication, however, group dynamics may emerge that can either help or hinder a successful focus-group interview. Group dynamics refer to patterns of conscious and unconscious group behavior (emotions, thoughts and actions) that are a function of the tensions that arise in response to the group task and to working with others (Tasca, 2020; Vansina & Vansina-Cobbaert, 2008). A challenge for any group member is to maintain one’s individuality while also being a group member (McClure, 2005). More or less consciously, group members ask themselves: “Will I be accepted by the group while having different ideas than the others?” “Do I dare to be different, or do I rather conform?” For example, if one participant feels disliked or disapproved of, this can reduce the participant’s feeling of belongingness and acceptance, which might again influence their degree of engagement. This disengagement can then influence the group climate in a negative way.

As stated, group dynamics may impede working on the group’s task, for example, related to phenomena such as groupthink or scapegoating (Trotzer, 2006). However, the group dynamics may also be beneficial for the group, if an atmosphere of openness, mutual respect, engagement and space for differences develops (Trotzer, 2006). All group members, including the researcher(s), play a role in creating, and are affected by, group dynamics. This is what makes the facilitation of groups in general a complex endeavor (Trotzer, 2006), which thus also applies to focus groups.

The emphasis on group dynamics in the focus-group literature has been scarce. Farnsworth and Boon (2010, p. 605) point out that the focus-group literature has “routinely” ignored this aspect and argue that “an orientation to group relations is essential to expanding the method’s sensitivity as an effective research procedure.” Literature that explicitly addresses group dynamics in focus groups as a methodological issue, and that explores how the researcher can stimulate a constructive group climate, is scarce.

The online aspect of focus groups was addressed long before the pandemic, for example, by Schafer (1996). Lobe (2016, p. 228) asserts that the use of online focus groups “calls for different skills from both researcher and participants” and points to a minimum level of “computer literacy” as a crucial component in establishing interaction among participants. Willemsen et al. (2023) provide a list of practical advice to researchers who plan to conduct online focus-group interviews. Although they touch upon the interaction between participants and researchers, they focus mainly on the technical aspects of this interaction. Emphasizing how to stimulate interaction among the participants, they advise researchers to encourage participants to keep their cameras on and to provide clear information at the beginning of the interview about the use of the “raise your hand” button when one has something to say.

The aim of this article is to address the knowledge gap concerning group dynamics in online focus groups and to provide strategies for how researchers can create conditions that foster a constructive group climate online, thereby making use of the group setting, which is crucial to take advantage of the uniqueness of focus-group data. While the strategies are, to a large degree, also valid for offline focus-group interviews, this article also contributes to confirming existing knowledge about the researcher’s role in stimulating a constructive group climate in focus groups in general, but with the online setting as the primary context of analysis. Given this background, we ask: How can researchers stimulate a constructive group climate in online focus-group interviews?

While the research literature and theory presented below form the basis for our analysis, we are also guided by our own empirical work as researchers regarding group dynamics, our years of training within psychology and counseling, our practical experience as group consultants/facilitators, and our experience of using both online and offline focus groups in our research. We have conducted research of group dynamics in small teams, yet also in groups that consist of members representing a multitude of different organizations (Schruijer, 2021a), as well as of interpersonal relational dynamics (Roald, 2015, 2016). We have explored communication in teams that meet online (Van Woerden et al., in review) and relational aspects of online teaching (Landrø et al., 2022; Roald et al., in review).

Moreover, we draw on our experience of using both offline (Roald, 2015, 2016; Roald et al., 2021) and online (Landrø et al., 2022; Neergård, 2022; Neergård & Roald, in review; Roald et al., in review) interviews and focus-group interviews. Finally, we draw on our extensive experience as facilitators of face-to-face and online group meetings and workshops.

On using the terms “online focus-group interviews” or “online focus-groups,” we refer to what has previously been called “online synchronous focus-groups” (e.g., Willemsen et al., 2023) which implies that the researcher(s) and participants meet on an online platform in a synchronous video meeting, in which every participant can participate with both a camera and a microphone. As opposed to online focus groups, we refer to “offline,” “physical” or “face-to-face” encounters/focus-group interviews. The facilitator of a focus-group interview is often referred to as the “moderator” or “facilitator” in the focus-group research literature. We will, however, consistently use the term “researcher” in this article, assuming that the researchers conduct the focus-group interviews themselves. We will not use the personal pronouns “she”/”he” or “her”/“his,” but instead “they”/“their,” when addressing the researcher(s) in general terms where gender markers would otherwise have been required.

Theoretical Background

The quality of focus-group research relies on the researchers’ capability to facilitate the dynamic interplay among the group members, while also ensuring that they acquire the data needed for the research. This can be a balancing act in that they must manage the interaction among the participants, to keep the conversation “on track,” while also not interfering too much with the flow of communication among the participants (Morgan, 1997). The free-flowing interaction is the beauty and unique quality of focus-group research (Farnsworth & Boon, 2010; Morgan, 1997). The question is: What is required of the researcher to achieve this in an online setting?

The Role of the Researcher in Focus-Group Interviews

A false belief regarding focus-group interviews is that they merely offer a more efficient way of gathering data from many participants than individual interviews. This belief does not take into consideration that the data generated is, by its very nature, different from the data which comes from individual interviews (Morgan, 1997; Parker & Tritter, 2006). In individual interviews, the researcher has a greater amount of control while asking questions and collecting answers, and more detailed information is gained from each informant (Morgan, 1997; Parker & Tritter, 2006). A focus-group interview allows for the emergence and possibly the enlargement of similarities, as well as differences, among the ideas and opinions of group members, whereas the researcher would have had to look more systematically for such variations, or lack thereof, on comparing individual responses (Morgan, 1997).

An important task of the researcher while facilitating a focus-group interview is to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard and to encourage the participants to build on each other’s perspectives and statements (Morgan, 1997). Thus, the researcher serves as a facilitator of a conversation between participants, as opposed to a conversation between the researcher and the participants (Farnsworth & Boon, 2010; Parker & Tritter, 2006). However, drawing on group counseling theory (Trotzer, 2006), we argue that the relationship between the researcher and the participants is also important in developing a constructive group climate that enhances the interaction between the group members and thus provides the researcher with high-quality data.

Farnsworth and Boon (2010, p. 608) suggest that the shift from a focus on creating relations with the research participants in individual interviews, to facilitating the relationship among the participants in focus-group interviews, implies that “the researcher retains the status of the objective scientist of positivist research practice.” Yet, drawing on group counseling theory (Trotzer, 2006), we argue that the researchers, as facilitators of focus-group interviews, are in a dual role of being both a part of, and an outsider to, the group. They are outsiders in terms of having a different role than the participants. As the interview hosts, they have the power to “set the scene” for the interview. They thus contribute to the norms and the culture of the group by influencing the members and the climate in the group through the way they relate to the other participants and intervene during the interview.

The researchers cannot fully control how the participants build relationships with each other during the relatively short duration of the focus-group interview, but they can be aware that everything they do and say, or, often even more important, do not do or say, contributes to the relation-building process (Røkenes & Hansen, 2012). In this sense, they are also inevitably a part of the group, and for this reason, being aware of how one acts as a researcher in focus-group interviews is important if one aims to create the conditions for a constructive group climate.

A Constructive Group Climate: The Defining Quality of Focus-Group Interviews

Another advantage of the focus-group interview is the opportunity to establish trust with the informants in a less confrontational setting, where they can adjust their participation level to a greater extent than in an individual interview (Kress & Schoffner, 2007). Yet social influence processes can obstruct the process of gathering high-quality data. One example is the risk of group polarization: the tendency of individuals to adopt more extreme positions than they would have taken individually (Abrams et al., 1990). The researcher’s group facilitation skills are therefore of utmost importance.

Using “process consultation” skills (Schein, 2009), the researcher can work with group dynamics as they occur in the “here-and-now.” Process consultation is basically about focusing on “the communication process itself,” and on “how the interaction is occurring” (Schein, 2009, p. 61). In the context of the focus group, the researcher can, for example, facilitate interaction by actively asking the participants to build on each other’s statements, such as: “Does anyone else have experience with what X just said?,” or: “What thoughts come to your minds while listening to X?” Furthermore, one may also work with what is not being addressed, by asking, for instance: “I wonder why no one is responding to Y, how come?” or: “It strikes me that no one has addressed possible disadvantages of the issue we are discussing.” In this way, one can help group members to address the full range of perspectives and sentiments regarding the topic in question. However, this is a balancing act and a paradox for the researcher. Process interventions that encourage the participants to express differing opinions must take place in ways that do not make people feel unsettled to the degree that psychological safety can be compromised.

Contributing to a Climate of Psychological Safety in the Focus-Group Interview

Psychological safety is defined as: “a climate in which people are comfortable expressing and being themselves” (Edmondson, 2019, p. xvi). Edmondson (2019) links the presence of psychological safety to an absence of fear of other people’s judgments or other negative consequences, and writes about “fearless” environments. The concept of psychological safety has been explored using focus-group interviews, for instance, in the medical education context (Park & Kim, 2021) and the management context (Marder et al., 2021), but has not, to our knowledge, been conceptualized in the methodological literature on focus-group interviews.

Creating conditions for psychological safety in a focus-group interview involves laying the foundation for a climate of trust among the participants, which is a central theme in the focus-group literature (Morgan, 1997). The development of trust is crucial for all qualitative research where the researchers meet their research participants face-to-face (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2010). However, in the focus-group interview, an extra dimension is added to the researcher’s challenge, since the participants must not only trust them, but also each other, to the extent that they dare to raise their voice and speak their mind. Carl Rogers (1961/2004) asserts that if individuals are to thrive and develop adequately in relation to other people, they need to be met by persons who show a basic acceptance of who they are, irrespective of differences in values, interests and personality. Furthermore, they must be met with empathy, to create a feeling of being understood the way one understands oneself (Rogers, 1961/2004). Finally, Rogers (1961/2004) posits that they need to be met by a congruent person, someone who is authentically and genuinely present in the relationship, as a whole person. Being met in such a way implies feeling safe, welcomed, and accepted for who one is, without being afraid of judgment or negative evaluation (Rogers, 1961/2004), which are characteristics of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). By showing acceptance, empathy and congruence, the researcher can model relation-building and trust-enhancing behavior in the group, which can then inspire a culture of relation-building, trust and psychological safety among the participants.

Furthermore, the establishment of a “common ground” (Morgan, 2016) may facilitate the development of psychological safety in a group. A common ground refers to a “mutual understanding of the issues involved in the topic so that each participant can be reasonably sure that the others will be able to relate to what they say” (Morgan, 2016, p. 416). It involves the possibility of having a respectful conversation while there can still be room for disagreement (Morgan, 2016, p. 416). The process of establishing a common ground relates to the development of group norms. In any group that comes together for the first time, people bring with them their individual assumptions and expectations about acceptable behavior, and a sensitivity to each other’s assumptions of what is acceptable (McClure, 2005). This means that a certain dependency among group members characterizes the communication between the participants (McClure, 2005). Before entering a new group, and during the first meeting with the group, one tends, more or less consciously, to ask oneself: “Is there a place for me in this group?” “Do the other group members like me?” “Does the (formal or informal) group leader like me?” “What is ok for me to say and do in this group?.”

While acting and communicating, one receives continuous feedback through the other group members’ body language, verbal communication and paralanguage, and this feedback is then used to adjust one’s behavior. From this complex social interplay, a set of group norms will arise, whether the participants are aware of it or not (Sjøvold, 2022). Sjøvold (2022, p. 275) uses the metaphor of the “invisible hand” to explain how emerging norms of the group function as enablers and barriers to certain actions and behaviors. Farnsworth and Boon (2010, p. 609) argue that to avoid participant behaviors that can censor, direct, or even sabotage other participants’ behavior in the group, the researcher must use techniques that allow the “natural range of opinions” to be articulated in the group. One such technique can be to define “ground rules” of communication within the group. By doing this, the “invisible hand” (Sjøvold, 2022) can become “visible”: If all the members of the group agree upon, and live by, these “rules,” they become explicitly established and agreed-upon norms of behavior.

In the context of the focus-group interview, the researchers, like all group facilitators, thus have the opportunity to work actively to create the conditions for a group climate that makes it possible for the participants to freely share their thoughts and perspectives and build upon each other’s statements. They can do this by suggesting explicit “ground rules,” but also by modeling behavior (Bandura, 2016), through the example they set with their own actions and interventions.

The Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews

We build on the assumption that creating a constructive group climate is more difficult online than offline. This relates to the lack of physical presence: A person is represented only through a tile on a screen. This makes the range of nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, face color, tone of voice, body posture) more limited (Marra et al., 2020), which creates a dilemma: If persons are displayed as their entire body in the tile, one might get an idea of the body posture and body language, but it becomes more difficult to detect their facial expressions. On the contrary, if they are displayed only by their face, there is less body language to make use of while interpreting each other’s actions and utterances.

In addition, there is no direct eye contact because it is impossible to look directly into the camera and at other participants’ tiles at the same time. Thus, sensing the other persons through a bodily experience is more difficult (Marra et al., 2020). Yet people continue to form more or less conscious interpretations about each other, and the relationships they have with each other, since humans are inherently interpretative beings (Gadamer, 1960), despite having fewer cues and signs than one is used to in physical encounters. This makes online encounters a potentially exhausting experience (McLeod & Gupta, 2023, p. 428). “Zoom fatigue” is a consequence of engaging with each other through an “unnatural configuration of communication cues” (Queiroz et al., 2023, p. 2). This kind of fatigue is primarily physiological, due to the intense on-screen eye contact over time (Fauville et al., 2021, 2023; Oducado et al., 2021, 2022; Queiroz et al., 2023). It seems that people compensate for the reduced opportunities for relating and connecting that one has access to in a physical room, through nonverbal communication, by overdoing body language and facial expressions (Queiroz et al., 2023, p. 2).

Yet interviewing people who are in their personal space, while the researchers are in their personal space, may provide an equal starting point for the conversation (Howlett, 2022). Also, online teaching may help some students feel more willing to share personal experiences, as compared to an offline setting, just because they are in their own, personal space (Roald et al., in review). Finally, the fact that the person’s name is usually written in the tile of each participant makes it easier to address each other by name. Although there might be cultural differences (Milak, 2022), calling people by their names might express a willingness to create an egalitarian relationship (Prentice, 2017), which can, in turn, promote a feeling of being acknowledged as a person, helping to build psychological safety. In a focus-group interview in the study described by Neergård and Roald (in review), phrases such as: “Just like you said, X,” or “As mentioned earlier by Y” frequently occurred.

Despite these potential advantages, the challenge of researchers in online focus-group interviews remains how they can stimulate a constructive group climate. We will now present three main strategies for researchers who wish to conduct online focus-group interviews.

Three Strategies for Stimulating Constructive Group Dynamics in Online Focus-Group Interviews

The three strategies that we propose are (a) creating conditions before the interview; (b) creating conditions at the beginning of the interview; and (c) active interventions during, and at the end of, the interview.

Strategy 1: Creating Conditions Before the Interview

Preparing the Online “Venue”

The location of the focus group is important for the convenience and the psychological experience of the participants (Stewart et al., 2007). The “venue” should be accessible and allow the participants to feel safe and comfortable (Gundumogula, 2020, p. 299). This is highly relevant for the online focus-group setting, as it is particularly important to give an introduction to how to log onto and use the online platform at hand, whether it be Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Google Meet, Skype, or other online meeting tools (Willemsen et al., 2023). Such an introduction can make the participants feel that the researchers have thought through the online aspects of the interview and that they will aim to create a predictable and well-functioning online space, which can foster a sense of psychological safety.

Willemsen et al. (2023) suggest that one arranges preconversations to ensure everyone’s participation. In the project described by Neergård and Roald (in review), we personally video called around 200 potential participants via Microsoft Teams, to recruit 57 poeple. This was a time-consuming endeavor, but having such recruitment conversations on the same platform as the interview can function as a “warm-up” for the interview, both technically (Willemsen et al., 2023) and relationally, and thus like an introduction to the online venue. The need for such an introduction might depend on the sample. For instance, in our research (Neergård & Roald, in review), all the participants were affiliated with the same university and were familiar with the platform we used through years of online meetings and lectures. Nevertheless, this short recruitment call might have contributed to laying a foundation for psychological safety in the online focus-group interview. Although the thematic focus of such recruitment conversations is giving information about the research and asking potential participants to join, one can take a friendly, warm, and accepting (Rogers, 1961/2004) attitude, in terms of nonverbal actions such as smiling and nodding (Ivey et al., 1998), which can build trust toward the researcher and make the participant feel comfortable and welcomed into the group.

The researchers should be sure to avoid any disturbance or noise that could interfere with the interview itself (Gundumogula, 2020). This is just as relevant in an online focus-group setting as in a physical venue. In one of the aforementioned online interviews (Neergård & Roald, in review), we experienced, for instance, the inconvenience of a fire drill. We had to evacuate our offices, asking the participants to take a break, and apologizing for not having been aware of the fire drill. The conversation was resumed when the drill was over, but the event undoubtedly disrupted the constructive group climate.

Furthermore, in online interviews, all participants and researchers log on from their own physical spaces. These spaces should be optimal for the interview situation in terms of, for instance, light, and sound (Gundumogula, 2020). Preconversations, as suggested by Willemsen et al. (2023), can be a good opportunity to test the sound and camera function, and the lighting conditions in the room. Being able to see everyone’s face well is important to create the right conditions for a constructive group climate, as we need facial cues to interpret the meaning of people’s utterances. This is extra important in the online setting, since we have fewer cues to use in the communication (Marra et al., 2020).

Researcher Work Tasks

Another aspect of preparation concerns the number of researchers involved in the online focus group. Academic research is often dominated by single-handed focus-group facilitation, but adding a co-facilitator makes it possible to collect observational data while facilitating the discussion between participants (Parker & Tritter, 2006). Communicative cues such as body language and paralanguage can be an important aspect of process facilitation, as they can be used to stimulate interaction. The presence of an additional researcher can therefore contribute to enhancing the constructive group climate. For instance, while one researcher is busy responding to the person who talks, the other can observe a smile on another person’s face that can be explored, by saying: “I noticed that you smiled while X talked, Y, did you think of something you would like to share?”

In a physical focus-group interview, it can be beneficial if one researcher is seated at the opposite side of the circle to the other, so as to observe what the other does not see. In an online encounter, the presence of a second researcher has a different meaning. Here one can see everyone’s faces at the same time, but still, one has fewer nonverbal cues to interpret (Marra et al., 2020). Furthermore, the second researcher can also serve as a technical “assistant” (Willemsen et al., 2023). If the focus-group interview is characterized by technical problems, a constructive group climate will naturally be obstructed, since the flow of the conversation will suffer.

Strategy 2. Creating Conditions at the Beginning of the Interview

What happens at the beginning of the interview is important when it comes to setting the norms of the group (McClure, 2005; Sjøvold, 2022). Although a focus group normally meets only once, and the duration of the conversation is relatively short, the researchers can, to a large degree, contribute to the group climate by being active and cognisant of how their actions may influence the group norms from the start.

Ground Rules

Formulating and communicating ground rules can accelerate the development of psychological safety, as it creates explicit norms of behavior and thereby predictability in an early phase of the group’s life cycle. In line with Willemsen et al. (2023), we suggest that participants are explicitly encouraged to push the “raise hand” button if they want to share something. Another ground rule can be to turn the cameras on and keep them on during the interview. Keeping cameras on during online meetings has been found to give an experience of increased authenticity and richness among the participants (Olson et al., 2012). However, in a study of psychological safety in online medical education, McLeod and Gupta (2023) found that students felt watched over and judged while keeping their cameras on. Although the interview setting is different to the educational one, this underscores the necessity of communicating a ground rule on the use of cameras in advance, thereby creating predictability and clarity, which can enhance the likelihood of psychological safety in the interview.

Another ground rule regarding cameras could be to encourage the participants to avoid blurring their backgrounds or using virtual backgrounds to stimulate individuality. Howlett (2022) argues that being given a glimpse into each other’s worlds can stimulate a feeling of contact and connection in online interviews. To at least give an illusion of eye contact, we suggest that every participant makes sure to keep their camera at an angle that makes it possible to look as directly into the camera as possible. Eye contact is a crucial aspect of relation-building communication (Ivey et al., 1998). If, for example, people are only visible as their profile, they may give an impression of not being interested in the other members of the group and thereby create feelings of insecurity and discomfort, impeding psychological safety.

Structure

Like Willemsen et al. (2023), we suggest a duration of around 1.5 hours becaues it can generally be difficult to make a group of people schedule more time for an interview, and not least since the online format can be experienced as more exhausting (Queiroz et al., 2023). To avoid “zoom fatigue” (Queiroz et al., 2023), it is recommended to arrange a short break halfway through the interview (Willemsen et al., 2023). The participants can benefit from a moment away from the screen, as well as from the group, to maintain a high energy level throughout the interview. In addition, this gives the researcher(s) a moment to check whether the interviewing strategy should be changed, or whether to give new prompts and questions.

Communicating clearly about the intended structure, committing to the planned break, and ending the interview on time seem necessary to create predictability, which can alleviate the distress that characterizes the first phase of any group process (McClure, 2005). However, it is important to note that such an information session should not take too long (Morgan, 1997, p. 49), as a comprehensive introduction by the researcher could create an expectation that the researcher will take full control of the process and that the participants will be passive. To stimulate a constructive group climate, this is, in other words, another balancing act for the researcher to be aware of and manage.

Welcoming

A way of making the participants feel welcomed, thereby enhancing the likelihood of psychological safety in the group from the beginning, can be to informally welcome each participant as they enter the online room, by saying “hello,” and the participant’s name, and maybe adding a “how are you?” or some other informal comment or question. In a physical room, participants might spontaneously say hello and talk among themselves in subgroups before a meeting or an interview starts, but this does not happen as easily in online rooms, since a feeling of chaos is likely to arise if several people talk at the same time. This makes the role of the researcher more important: People are not likely to speak spontaneously, unless given the word. However, according to Howlett (2022), an informal and personal atmosphere can be more easily established in online rooms, just because people are situated in different locations, as this provides an obvious topic of informal conversation. One can, for instance, ask where everyone is located, in terms of geography, home office or not, and so on.

Being able to welcome every participant into the room requires that the researcher is present in the room before the participants enter. A side-effect of welcoming each participant into the room is the opportunity to check that everyone’s microphone is working and to ask the participants to turn their cameras on if they have not already done so. However, to create psychological safety for all, it is important to give such a reminder in a friendly manner, to avoid participants feeling that they have done something wrong, which could make them feel uncomfortable and thereby hamper the psychological safety in the group.

In cases where people experience trouble with logging in or do not show up, it can be important to check whether they are “on their way.” In such situations, being two researchers in the online room is a clear advantage, as it makes it possible for one of them to keep an informal conversation going in the group, which can be an important part of creating psychological safety, while the other researcher contacts the missing participants. However, waiting too long for one participant can create a sense of impatience among the other participants, and a feeling of wasting one’s time. If, for this reason, the interview is started before everyone has arrived and a participant arrives after the interview has started, we suggest taking the time to welcome this person into the group and giving a short introduction to what has been said and done so far.

Allowing All Participants to Present Themselves

In addition to the informal welcoming of participants, we suggest letting all participants present themselves briefly. This presentation serves two purposes: First, having some information about all group members, and having heard each and everyone’s voice, is vital as they start relating to each other (Trotzer, 2006, p. 134). Second, taking the time to do this explicitly gives everyone a “voice” and a “space” in the online room, which can make it easier to share one’s ideas and thoughts when discussing the interview topic later on.

Inviting Participants to React to Each Other

From the beginning of the interview, we encourage the researcher(s) to actively invite participants to respond or react to each other during the interview. But since it might create confusion and frustration if several people talk at the same time in an online setting, active facilitation by the researcher is called for. As mentioned above, the use of the “raise hand” button can be communicated as a ground rule, so that the researcher can invite people to talk based on this sign. Having these “ground rules” can make participants feel that someone is taking a process lead and structuring the conversation, which can enhance the feeling of psychological safety.

Strategy 3: Active Interventions During, and at the End of, the Interview

Stimulating Differing Ideas and Opinions

We suggest explicitly stating that the interview is intended as a group endeavor and saying that interaction among the participants is welcomed, even if the session is likely to be of short duration. A way of stimulating a constructive group climate is to explicitly encourage a wide range of differing ideas or opinions. If the group members feel psychologically safe enough to express their thoughts and opinions, the consequences of social pressures, such as polarization (Abrams et al., 1990), may be mitigated. However, the researchers must show that they are genuinely interested in whatever opinions the participants may have. The researcher can ask, for instance: “So far, several of you seem to agree that . . . and this is interesting! We would, however, also be very interested in other perspectives on this. Do any of you regard this differently?” It is of great importance that the researchers respond to any expression or utterance with interest and acceptance, rather than with judgment and evaluation, to enhance psychological safety. Otherwise, they would communicate an incongruent message: Saying that they are interested in a diversity of perspectives, but showing that some perspectives are better or more interesting than others. Genuineness and congruence are imperative for building trusting and accepting relationships (Rogers, 1961/2004) which are, in turn, considered crucial for the development of psychological safety.

Another way of encouraging differing opinions is to invite all the participants to take a few minutes to write down their initial reflections regarding the theme of the interview and then to ask them to share these reflections, one by one (Morgan, 1997, p. 49). Writing down their reflections makes it more likely that the participants will commit to sharing their initial thoughts and ideas (Morgan, 1997, p. 50). In our experience from the interviews in Neergård and Roald (in review), people frequently referred to their written reflections by saying, for instance “I wrote that . . .” In addition to stimulating differing opinions, this also provides the researchers with a reservoir of thoughts and reflections that can help them in the further facilitation of the conversation. The researcher could, for example, say: “Like you said in the beginning, X . . .,” which could make people feel that their voice is of interest, thereby making them feel appreciated, which might create a feeling of psychological safety in the group.

Reducing Power Differences

The researcher can play an important role in “smoothing out” potential power differences among the participants. In the study described by Neergård and Roald (in review), professors and students were part of the same focus-group interviews. Starting the interviews with a brief individual reflection, as shown above, can contribute to reducing power asymmetry in the focus-group interview. It can reinforce the experience that everyone’s voice is of equal interest to the researcher, which might, again, create a feeling of psychological safety. When following up with a “round” in which the participants share their initial thoughts on the topic, one by one, who the researcher asks to start sharing their thoughts can be of importance. For instance, in a group like that described by Neergård and Roald (in review), one can start with the student instead of the professor, to show that every perspective is equally relevant. Feeling free to share whatever perspective one brings to the table without fear of negative evaluation can, again, contribute to psychological safety in the group (Edmondson, 2019).

Process Interventions

Since group dynamics can have an impact on the group climate that ensues in any group, and thus also in online focus groups, we consider it desirable that the researchers make use of their process consultation skills (Schein, 2009). To stimulate a constructive group climate, they can take advantage of verbal and nonverbal cues that arise in the interaction among the group members. As mentioned above, nonverbal communication is not as rich in the online encounter as in face-to-face meetings, since one is generally left with only a tile in which the face and the torso are most often displayed at the expense of the rest of the body. This makes it even more important to be aware of the few cues one has and to use them to stimulate a constructive group climate.

As in offline focus-group interviews, these cues can, for instance, be related to paralanguage, such as tone of voice or the accentuation of words, which the researchers can address by saying, for instance: “I noticed that you emphasised the words ‘sick and tired’ when you spoke, X, would you like to elaborate on what that means?.” They can also make use of metaphors or allegories that are used by participants, by saying, for example: “X, you just used the metaphor of a huge wave coming towards you while describing the workload. Does this make sense to anyone else?” In other words, by being extra cognisant of communicative cues among the participants, the researchers can help stimulate a constructive group climate in the online focus-group interview.

Reviewing

At the end of the interview, the researchers should reserve some time for joint review of the participants’ experiences of the interview, as this might create an extra opportunity to look back on what has, or has not, been said, and why, and to add something or to modify or correct utterances (Vansina, 2005). Reviewing is not the same as evaluating: It is about gaining a deeper understanding of what has happened and learning from it. To create a psychologically safe environment, judgments and evaluations should be suspended by all, while experiences are shared, explored, compared, and enriched.

Conclusion

This article discusses how researchers can prepare before, and act at the beginning, during and at the end of online focus-group interviews, to create the necessary level of psychological safety to stimulate a group climate that favors a dynamic interplay between the participants in the group, as well as between the researcher and the group members. The three proposed strategies are believed to increase opportunities to capitalize on the added value of meeting as a group, rather than merely as a collection of individuals. Yet they do not guarantee that the group atmosphere and the group dynamics required in a focus-group interview will occur.

Although providing a time- and cost-efficient alternative to offline focus groups (Daniels et al., 2019; Forrestal et al., 2015; Gundumogula, 2020; Willemsen et al., 2023), researchers who plan to use online focus groups should consider the possible pitfalls and disadvantages of the online context. We believe that the three strategies outlined and discussed in this article can contribute to creating focus-group data that are “good enough.” By looking into the researcher’s role of stimulating a constructive group climate in online focus-group interviews, this article responds to how focus-group literature has, to a small degree, discussed the group dynamics and relational aspects of focus groups in general, and in the online context in particular.

Although the underlying principles regarding the need to create an appropriate setting, work with the unfolding dynamics, and what this implies for the researcher, are comparable when it comes to offline and online focus groups, there are differences in degree and content. In offline focus groups, working with the dynamics is easier, as these are likely to be more conspicuous, in contrast to online focus groups. This implies that interventions by the researcher need to be more deliberate, consistent, repetitive, and explicit, for example, when it comes to articulating ground rules, establishing a containing climate, asking participants to react to one another, and making process interventions. Concrete differences obviously pertain to working with the technical aspects of online focus groups and the impact these may have on the quality of interactions.

Using online focus-group interviews thus requires active group facilitation by the researcher. Relevant training to adopt this role is necessary, as such skills are often not acquired during one’s initial training as a social scientist (Schruijer, 2021b; Schruijer & Curşeu, 2014). Such training will help researchers prepare to lay the foundation for psychological safety in focus-group interviews, which, in turn, is crucial in stimulating a constructive group climate that makes it possible to achieve the beauty and uniqueness of focus-group data—even while meeting online.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gunhild Marie Roald

Author Biographies

Gunhild Marie Roald has a PhD in counseling science, with a focus on coaching leadership, and with an interest in how to create good relationships between counselors and clients, leaders and employees, teachers and students—and among colleagues and team members. She now uses this competence to explore processes in higher education related to entrepreneurship.

Sandra Schruijer is Full Professor of Organization Science at the Utrecht University School of Governance. She studies the group dynamics of working across organizational boundaries. She also runs her own practice as a consultant, facilitator, and action researcher, in the domains of interorganisational collaboration, organizational change, and group dynamics. Sandra holds a PhD in social sciences, and has completed master’s degrees in social psychology, history, and architectural history.

Gunn-Berit Neergård has a PhD in entrepreneurship with a focus on how nurses become entrepreneurial. She explores entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in the context of health care, while also focusing on entrepreneurial universities, and entrepreneurial teaching and learning.

References

Abrams

Wetherell

Cochrane

Hogg

M. A.

Turner

J. C.

(1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x

Bandura

(2016). The power of observational learning through social modeling. In Sternberg

R. J

Fiske

S. T

Foss

D. J

(Eds.), Scientists making a difference: One hundred eminent behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp. 235–239). Cambridge University Press.

Daniels

Gillen

Casson

Wilson

(2019). STEER: Factors to consider when designing online focus groups using audiovisual technology in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919885786

Edmondson

(2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Farnsworth

Boon

(2010). Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110375223

Fauville

Luo

Queiroz

A. C. M.

Bailenson

J. N.

Hancock

(2021). Zoom exhaustion & fatigue scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, Article 100119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100119

Fauville

Luo

Queiroz

A. C. M.

Lee

Bailenson

J. N.

Hancock Jeffrey

(2023). Video-conferencing usage dynamics and nonverbal mechanisms exacerbate Zoom fatigue, particularly for women. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, Article 100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100271

Forrestal

S. G.

D’Angelo

A. V.

Vogel

L. K.

(2015). Considerations for and lessons learned from online, synchronous focus groups. Survey Practice, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2015-0015

Gadamer

H.-G.

(1960). Truth and method ( Weinsheimer

(revision) Marshall

D. G

, Trans.). Bloomsbury.

10.

Gundumogula

(2020). Importance of focus groups in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8(11), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.24940/theijhss/2020/v8/i11/HS2011-082

11.

Henttonen

Blomquist

(2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of trust through technology-mediated communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107–119.

12.

Howlett

(2022). Looking at the “field” through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691

13.

Ivey

A. E.

Packard

N. G.

Ivey

M. B.

(1998). Basic influencing skills (3rd ed., Vol. 3). Sage.

14.

Jarvenpaa

Leidner

(1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.

15.

Kress

V. E.

Schoffner

M. F.

(2007). Focus groups: A practical and applied research approach for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 189–195.

16.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2010). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju [The qualitative research interview] (Vol. 2). Gyldendal Akademisk.

17.

Landrø

Krogstie

C. H.

Roald

G. M.

Wallin

(2022). Relationship building in breakout groups. In Stefan

(Ed.), Designing courses with digital technologies (pp. 125–129). Routledge.

18.

Lobe

(2016). Best practices for online synchronous focus groups. In Barbour

R. S

Morgan

D. L

(Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice (pp. 227–250). Springer.

19.

Marder

Ferguson

Marchant

Brennan

Hedler

Rossi

Black

Doig

(2021). “Going agile”: Exploring the use of project management tools in fostering psychological safety in group work within management discipline courses. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100519 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100519

20.

Marra

Buonanno

P. M.

Vargas

Iacovazzo Ely

E. W.

Servillo

(2020). How COVID-19 pandemic changed our communication with families: Losing nonverbal cues. Critical Care, 24(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03035-w

21.

McClure

B. A.

(2005). Putting a new spin on groups: The science of chaos (Vol. 2). Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

McLeod

Gupta

(2023). The role of psychological safety in enhancing medical students’ engagement in online synchronous learning. Medical Science Educator, 33, 423–430.

23.

Milak

(2022). “Call me by my name”: Names, address, and the subjectivization of Korean women. Language & Communication, 85, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.04.002

24.

Morgan

D. L.

(1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 2). Sage.

25.

Morgan

D. L.

(2016). Conclusions: A call for further innovation in focus groups. In Barbour

R. S.

Morgan

D. L

(Eds.), A new era in focus-group research: Challenges, innovation and practice (pp. 411–420). Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Neergård

G.-B.

(2022). Nurse entrepreneurs’ ethical concerns: A qualitative inquiry of the pursuit of opportunity. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(7), 2346–2356.

27.

Neergård

G.-B.

Roald

G. M

. (in review). Competent to teach? Educators’ perceptions of entrepreneurship International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research Special issue: Developing the Future Scholarship of Entrepreneurship Education: Exploring educator authenticity through practice and identity.

28.

Oducado

R. M. F.

Dequilla

M. A. C. V.

Villaruz

J. F.

(2022). Factors predicting videoconferencing fatigue among higher education faculty. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9713–9724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11017-4

29.

Oducado

R. M. F.

Fajardo

M. T. R.

Parreño-Lachica

G. M.

Maniago

J. D.

Villanueva

P. M. B.

Dequilla

M. A. C. V.

Montaño

H. C.

Robite

E. E.

(2021). Predictors of videoconference fatigue: Results from undergraduate nursing students in the Philippines. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 9(4), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.15206/ajpor.2021.9.4.310

30.

Olson

Grinnell

McAllister

Appunn

Walters

(2012). Towards a theoretical model of the impacts of incorporating webcams in virtual teams. Review of Business Information Systems, 16, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.19030/rbis.v16i2.6894

31.

Park

J. E.

Kim

J.-H.

(2021). Nursing students’ experiences of psychological safety in simulation education: A qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 55, 103163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103163

32.

Parker

Tritter

(2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304

33.

Prentice

M. M.

(2017). Ranks & files: Corporate hierarchies, genres of management and shifting control in South Korea’s corporate world [Doctoral thesis]. University of Michigan. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/138554/mprentic_1.pdf?sequence=1

34.

Queiroz

A. C. M.

Lee

A. Y.

Luo

Fauville

Hancock

J. T.

Bailenson

J. N.

(2023). Too tired to connect: Understanding the associations between video-conferencing, social connection and well-being through the lens of zoom fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, 107968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107968

35.

Roald

G. M.

(2015). Coaching og coachende lederskap [Coaching and coaching leadership]. In Kvalsund

Fikse

(Eds.), Rådgivningsvitenskap: Helhetlige rådgivningsprosesser: Relasjonsdynamikk, vekst, utvikling og mangfold [Counselling science: Holistic counselling processes: Relational dynamics, growth, development and diversity] (pp. 119–143). Fagbokforlaget.

36.

Roald

G. M.

(2016). When coaching flows into leadership: A phenomenological study of leaders’ lived experience of coaching leadership [Doctoral thesis]. Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim, Norway.

37.

Roald

G. M.

Hellesøy Krogstie

Landrø

Wallin

. (in review). Relasjonsbygging i nettbasert veilederutdanning: En kvalitativ studie av veilederes opplevelser NORVEI (Nordisk Tidsskrift i Veiledningspedagogikk), Special issue: Veiledning og digitalisering—muligheter og utfordringer.

38.

Roald

G. M.

Wallin

Dahler Hybertsen

Stenøien

J. M.

(2021). Learning from contrasts: First-year students writing themselves into academic literacy. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(6), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1813264

39.

Rogers

C. R.

(2004). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Constable. (Original work published 1961)

40.

Røkenes

O. H.

Hansen

P.-H.

(2012). Bære eller briste: Kommunikasjon og relasjon i arbeid med mennesker (Vol. 3). Fagbokforlaget.

41.

Schafer

(1996). Communications. Technology, 18(18), 102.

42.

Schein

E. H.

(2009). Helping: How to offer, give, and receive help. Berrett-Koehler.

43.

Schruijer

. (2021a). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.512

44.

Schruijer

(2021b). Whatever happened to group dynamics in the scientific study of groups? Team Performance Management, 27(3/4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2020-0091

45.

Schruijer

Curşeu

(2014). Looking at the gap between the social psychological and psychodynamic perspectives on group dynamics historically. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(2), 232–245.

46.

Sjøvold

(2022). Teamet: Utvikling, effektivitet og endring i grupper (Vol. 2). Universitetsforlaget.

47.

Stewart

D. W.

Shamdasani

P. N.

Rook

D. W.

(2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Sage.

48.

Tasca

G. A.

(2020). What is group dynamics? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000115

49.

Trotzer

J. P.

(2006). The counselor and the group: Integrating theory, training, and practice (Vol. 4). Routledge.

50.

Vansina

(2005). The art of reviewing. In Amado

Vansina

(Eds.), The transitional approach in action (pp. 227–254). Karnac.

51.

Vansina

Vansina-Cobbaert

M.-J.

(2008). Psychodynamics for consultants and managers: From understanding to leading meaningful change. Wiley.

52.

Van Woerden

Van Goch

Van der Tuin

Schruijer

. (in review). Students’ teamwork behaviour in multidisciplinary student teams: An ethnographic case study [submitted manuscript].

53.

Willemsen

R. F.

Aardoom

J. J.

Chavannes

N. H.

Versluis

(2023). Online synchronous focus group interviews: Practical considerations. Qualitative Research, 23(6), 1810–1820. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221110

The Researcher’s Facilitating Role in Stimulating a Constructive Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background

The Role of the Researcher in Focus-Group Interviews

A Constructive Group Climate: The Defining Quality of Focus-Group Interviews

Contributing to a Climate of Psychological Safety in the Focus-Group Interview

The Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews

Three Strategies for Stimulating Constructive Group Dynamics in Online Focus-Group Interviews

Strategy 1: Creating Conditions Before the Interview

Preparing the Online “Venue”

Researcher Work Tasks

Strategy 2. Creating Conditions at the Beginning of the Interview

Ground Rules

Structure

Welcoming

Allowing All Participants to Present Themselves

Inviting Participants to React to Each Other

Strategy 3: Active Interventions During, and at the End of, the Interview

Stimulating Differing Ideas and Opinions

Reducing Power Differences

Process Interventions

Reviewing

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References