Focus group discussions have been recognized to be a useful tool in research. Despite the existence of many definitions of a focus group in the literature, but features such as organised discussion (Kitzinger, 1994), collective activity (Powell, et al., 1996), social events (Goss & Leinbach, 1996) and interaction (Kitzinger 1995) confirm the contribution that focus groups make to social research. A useful definition by Powell, et al., (1996: 499) describes a focus group as “a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research.”
FGDs are meant to generate qualitative information through an organized discussion with a selected group of individuals on a particular topic (Gibbs 1997:3). Thus, as noted by Webb and Kevern (2001:800) all definitions place emphasis on interaction among participants as a way of accessing data that would not emerge if other methods were used. Interaction gives the method a high level of validity because what participants say can be confirmed, reinforced or contradicted within the group discussion.
Some researchers suggest that FGDs can be comprised of up to fifteen people (Goss and Leinbach, 1996), however the recommended number of people per group is usually six to ten (MacIntosh, 1993). Focus group sessions usually last from one to two hours. The meetings can be held in a variety of places ideally there should be conducted at an accessible place where the participants hold their regular meetings. Neutral locations can be helpful for avoiding either
negative or positive associations with a particular site or building (Powell and Single, 1996).
Focus Group Discussions versus Other Methods
FGDs enable researchers to draw upon respondents’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions in a way in which would not be feasible using other methods such as observation, one-to-one interviews or questionnaire surveys. Individual interviews draw out individual attitudes, beliefs and feelings whilst focus groups elicit a multiplicity of views and emotional processes within a group context. An individual interview is relatively easy to control than a focus group where participants may take the initiative. When compared to observation, FGDs enable the researcher to gain a larger amount of information within a short time frame whilst observational methods tend to depend on waiting for things to happen (Gibbs, 1997).
As much as focus groups are a form of group interviewing there are stark differences to note. Focus groups rely on interaction within a group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher (Morgan, 1997: 12), whilst group interviewing involves interviewing a number of people at the same time with emphasis being on questions and responses between the researcher and participants. Therefore, FGDs can be used either as a method in their own right or as a complement to other methods, especially for triangulation (Morgan, 1988) and validity checking.
Advantages of Focus Groups
i. Focus groups can be relatively flexible, low cost and provide quick results. The actual time and cost for planning, conducting, and analysing data may be relatively small when compared to alternatives such as survey projects and individual interviews.
ii. Interactions between the moderator and participants allow the moderator to probe issues in depth, address new issues as they arise, and to ask participants to elaborate on their responses. FGDs provide an opportunity to participate in decision making processes, to be valued as
experts and interact with researchers which may be empowering for many participants (Race, et al., 1994, Goss and Leinbach, 1996). If successful, a focus group works may effectively explore solutions to a particular problem jointly as a unit (Kitzinger, 1995), rather than as individuals.
iii. Participants may be more comfortable talking in a group than in an individual interview. Interactions can generate more discussion and, therefore, more information. FGDs can become a forum for change both during the focus group meeting itself and afterwards (Gibbs, 1997, Race et al., 1994). A study by Smith et al., (1995) involving patients in a hospital who were invited to air their views about the quality of services and suggest ways of improving them. Consequently the changes that took place at the hospital were a direct result of patients’ input.
iv. FGDs enable data to be collected in the respondents’ words which is easily understood and will provide insights into how respondents think about the topic. As noted by Gibbs (1997), interaction between participants during FGDs provides a forum for them to highlight their view of the world, their values and beliefs about a situation. This enables them to jointly interrogate an issue, ask questions to each other, re- evaluate and reconsider their own understanding of their specific experience or issue (Kitzinger, 1995). Where multiple understandings and meanings exist, multiple explanations of their behaviour and attitudes will be more readily articulated.
Disadvantages of Focus Groups
i. Groups can be difficult to assemble a representative sample and may discourage certain people from participating, for example those who are not very articulate or confident, and those who have communication problems or special needs. Therefore, more planning is required for FGDs than other types of interviewing as getting people to group gatherings can be difficult and setting up appropriate venues with adequate facilities requires a lot of time (Gibbs 1997).
ii. Recruitment of appropriate participants can be time consuming, especially if the topic under consideration has no immediate benefits to participants. Differences in gender or wealth class, professional and education among participants may considerably impact on their contributions.
iii. The group setting can influence the responses of individuals, which is problematic when a dominant member affects the outcomes. This means the researcher has to ensure that participants converse with each other, ask questions and express reservations and opinions as well as keeping them focused on the topic. By its nature focus group research cannot be entirely predetermined since it is open ended (Gibbs, 1997).
iv. Some participants may find FGDs intimidating, especially those who are not able to clearly articulate themselves or are generally shy. Limited confidentiality may also discourage some participants from trusting others with sensitive or personal information. The quality and quantity of focus group data is therefore dependent on the ability of the moderator, making it essential for him/her to be trained and skilful.
v. Due to small numbers involved, they are limited in their ability to generalise findings to a whole population. Gibbs (1997) notes that despite this limitation there are numerous examples of research in which focus groups have been employed which include developing HIV education in Zimbabwe (Munodawafa et al., 1995), understanding how media messages are processed (Kitzinger 1994), and distance interviewing of family doctors (White and Thomson, 1995).
During the study, six (6) FGDs (3 per ward) were conducted at randomly selected venues in Wards 11 and Wards 13 of Hurungwe District. Each discussion group had between 10-12 randomly selected participants who were men, women and youths (mixed) of ages 17-21 years. Three trained facilitators used about eight guiding questions to moderate the discussions with participants selected through random sampling taking into account gender, age, length of stay in the district and socio-economic category among other factors. Judgment or quota sampling was employed according to the researcher’s
judgment to ensure participants with the sufficient demographic and socio- economic representation (i.e. individuals involved in agricultural activities, micro-enterprise, casual labour and small business). In total, 72 participants comprising women, youths and men were separately engaged in discussions to ensure balanced representation and input. The sampling in this study was done with the research assistants who knew the area and the people very well.
To ensure balanced input, the approach used during focus group discussions entailed interviewing men, women and youths of various ages involved in different livelihood activities. The focus group discussions were intended to explore ideas and opinions from community members involved in non- farm livelihoods. These discussions provided further insight into community members’ experiences and perceptions on livelihood diversification in line with the objectives of the study. Interacting with community members in their natural setting promoted openness and cross fertilization of ideas among participants. Discussions were conducted at accessible community centres in the two wards as explained in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: Community Focus Group Discussions Details
Group Details
Group 1: Men/male
community members
These were two groups (one from each ward) comprising a total of 25 participants. In consultation with the village heads and community leaders, the men who were selected were either engaged in farm and off farm livelihoods such as brick moulding, casual labourers, beer vending and vegetable gardening. These were selected from three nearby villages taking into account length of stay in the district and their willingness to engage in positive discussions on livelihoods and food security. Their participation was very good as they provided meaningful dialogue on the subject matter for about one and half hours.
Group 2: Female /Women community members
A total of twenty eight (28) women from the two wards participated in FGDs. The group comprised women engaged in enterprises such as rearing of poultry, weaving of mats and baskets, peanut butter grinding, casual labour, vending of vegetables and sewing. Discussions at each centre lasted almost two hours. Community development facilitators from World Vision in consultation with the community leadership nominated these participants who were drawn from about 4 villages. Discussions were very lively and insightful.
Group 3: In school and out of school youths
Thirty boys and girls aged between 17-21 participated in FGD at the two centres. These were selected in consultation with school authorities and village leadership. Discussions took about an hour for both groups. These were youths who were either still in school but would also engage in livelihood activities after school and during school holidays. Out of school youths also participated in the discussions and were mainly involved in casual labour, bee- keeping and gardening activities. They all freely shared they experiences and observations at community level with regards to livelihood diversification and food security. This group was chosen mainly due to need to also ensure balanced view and verify information provided men and women groups.
Among the number of weaknesses in FGDs includes the fact that they lack confidentiality, they discourage certain people from participating who are not confident enough and that identifying an individual message from a group is
complicated. Whilst ethical considerations for focus groups are the same as for most other methods of social research (Homan, 1991), a particular ethical issue to consider in the case of focus groups is the handling of sensitive material and confidentiality. There is need for researchers to clarify that each participant’s contributions will be shared with the others in the group as well encouraging confidentiality and the researchers’ responsibility to anonymise data from the group (Gibbs, 1997). In view of this, efforts were made during the training and orientation of research assistants to ensure that confidentiality of participants is assured, maximum participation is encouraged and all views are accorded the same amount of attention and respect. All views were documented and recorded during the discussions. It was used also for triangulation with information obtained from Key Informant Interviews.