In evaluation and applied social research, focus groups may be used to gather different kinds of evidence (e.g., opinion, tacit knowledge). In this article, we argue that making focus group design choices explicitly in relation to the type of evidence required would enhance the empirical value and rigor associated with focus group utilization. We offer a descriptive framework to highlight contrasting design characteristics and the type of evidence they generate. We present examples of focus groups from education and healthcare evaluations to illustrate the relationship between focus group evidence, design, and how focus groups are conducted. To enhance the credibility of focus group evidence and maximize potential learning from this popular qualitative data collection method, we offer a set of questions to guide evaluators reflection and decision making about focus group design and implementation.
BalchG. I.MertensD. M. (1999). Focus group design and group dynamics: Lessons from deaf and hard of hearing participants. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 265–277.
2.
BaurV. E.Van EltergenA. H. G.NierseC. J.AbmaT. A. (2010). Dealing with distrust and power dynamics: Asymmetric relations among stakeholders in responsive evaluation. Evaluation, 16, 233–248.
3.
BelzileJ. A.ObergG. (2012). Where to begin? Grappling with how to use participant interaction in focus group design. Qualitative Research, 12, 459–472.
4.
BloorM.FranklandJ.ThomasM.RobsonK. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London, England: Sage.
5.
ButtramJ. L. (1990). Focus groups: A starting point for needs assessment. American Journal of Evaluation, 11, 207–212.
6.
CarvalhoS.WhiteH. (2004). Theory based evaluation: The case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 141–160.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
DenzinN. K.RyanK. E. (2007). Qualitative methods. In OuthwaiteW.TurnerS. P. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social science methodology (pp. 578–594). London, England: Sage.
10.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25, 582–602.
11.
EpsteinD.HeidtJ. B.FarinaC. R. (2012, July). The value of words: Narrative as evidence in policy-making. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Interpretive Policy Analysis, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
12.
FarnsworthJ.BoonB. (2010). Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research, 10, 605–662.
13.
FazioR. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.
14.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
GergenK. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–276.
16.
HackingI. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
HollanderJ. A. (2004). The social context of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602–637.
18.
HydénL. C.BülowP. H. (2003). Who’s talking: Drawing conclusions from focus groups – some methodological considerations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 305–321.
19.
JarrettR. (1993). Focus group interviewing with low-income minority populations: A research experience. In MorganD. (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 184–201). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
KamberelisG.DimitriadisG. (2011). Focus groups: Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 545–561). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
KamberelisG.DimitriadisG. (2013). Focus groups: From structured interviews to collective conversations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
22.
KaplowitzM. D.LupiF.HoehnJ. P. (2004). Multiple methods for developing and evaluating a stated-choice questionnaire to value wetlands. In PresserS.RothgebJ. M.CouperM. P.LesslerJ. T.MartinE.MartinJ.SingerE.. (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 503–524). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
23.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103–121.
24.
KruegerR. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
KruegerR. A.KingJ. (1997). Involving community members in focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
LezaunJ. (2007). A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups. The Sociological Review, 55, 130–151.
29.
MacDougallC.FudgeE. (2001). Planning and recruiting the sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 117–126.
30.
MarkovàI.LinellP.GrossenM.OrvigS. A. (2007). Dialogue in focus groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge. London, England: Equinox.
31.
MertonR.KendallP. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541–557.
32.
MertonR. K.FiskeM.KendallP. L. (1990). The focused interview (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
33.
MitraA. (1994). Use of focus groups in the design of recreation needs assessment questionnaires. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 133–140.
34.
MorganD. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
MorganD. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 141–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
MorganD. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 718–722.
37.
MorganD. L. (2012). Focus groups and social interaction. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A.MarvastiA.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 161–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 1001 et seq. 115 Stat. 1439 (2002).
39.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Poitras DuffyB. (1993). Focus groups: An important technique for internal evaluation units. American Journal of Evaluation, 14, 133–139.
41.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.
SchwandtT. A. (2009). Toward a practical theory of evidence for evaluation. In DonaldsonS. I.ChristieC. A.MarkM. M. (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice (pp. 197–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
SolanoC. H. (1988). The interactive perspective: Getting the social back into social psychology. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 3, 35–44.
45.
SoleD.EdmondsonA. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13, 17–34.
46.
StewartD. W.ShamdasaniP. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1988). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
49.
WebbC.KevernJ. (2008). Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33, 798–805.
50.
WilkinsonS. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 1, 181–203.
