2METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN NURSING RESEARCH

Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some

aspects of their use in nursing research
Christine Webb PhD RN
Professor of Health Studies, Institute of Health Studies, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

and Jennifer Kevern BSc MSc RN RNT

Senior Lecturer (Research), Institute of Health Studies, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

Submitted for publication 18 May 2000

Accepted for publication 27 October 2000
3

Correspondence: WEBB C. & KEVERN J. (2001) Journal of Advanced Nursing 33(6), 798805
Christine Webb, Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing
44 Chandlers Walk, research
Exeter EX2 8BA,
Objective. To evaluate and critique reports in the nursing literature in the period
UK.
19901999 of the use of focus groups as a research method.
E-mail: cwebb@webbc.u-net.com
Methods. The articles were identied by a computerized search of the CINAHL
database and subjected to critical review.
Findings. The result of the search was that very few articles were found that
reported on a specic piece of research using the method. Methodological
discussions were more common and these were sometimes at a somewhat supercial
level without analysis or critique. The largest category of articles was concerned
with service development projects. The research-based articles were found to be
relatively unsophisticated in their use of the method, in particular in relation to data
analysis and social interaction within focus groups. Terms such as `content analysis'
and `grounded theory' were used in nonrigorous ways and incompatibility between
the underlying research approach and implementation of the method was identied
in the cases of phenomenology and grounded theory. Whilst selection of the focus
group method was often justied in terms of the benets that participant interaction
could yield, this interaction was rarely reported or discussed in the articles. One
author proposed a scheme for analysing this type of interaction, and this is
recommended to future researchers as a possible framework for interaction analysis.
Conclusions. The article concludes by calling for more in-depth consideration at the
research planning stages of the underlying assumptions of methodological approa-
ches that may be used to underpin focus group research and methods to be used to
analyse and report the data generated.

Keywords: data analysis, focus groups, grounded theory, phenomenology, nursing

research database

process for several empirical research projects, it emerged

Introduction
Focus groups as a method of data collection seem to have
grown in popularity in nursing in recent years, as evidenced
by the number of publications reporting their use. In the
process of reviewing the method as part of the planning
that focus groups were being used in nursing not solely for
qualitative research but for a number of other purposes
perhaps more closely related to their earlier uses in political
and marketing programmes. Furthermore, many articles were
`theoretical discussion' papers not based on actual experience

798 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd

2 Methodological issues in nursing research
with the method and relying on secondary sources in nursing
literature rather than citing the original developers of the
method or social science writings on the methodology. The
most notable issue was the variety of data analysis methods in
use, some of which did not seem strictly appropriate to the
method. Therefore it was decided to conduct a more system-
atic analysis of the published material in relation to nursing
research.
Search strategy
Because the interest was specically in nursing research, a
search was conducted using the CINAHL database and the
keywords `focus groups' limited by the term `research' and to
the period 19901999 and articles written in English. This
yielded 124 articles, of which 22 were published in or since
1995. Thus it appears that enthusiasm in nursing for the
method in the early 1990s diminished somewhat in the
second half of the decade.
Abstracts of the articles were scrutinized and those
appearing to be research-based and concerned with nursing
were obtained for detailed reading. This reduced the total to
33 articles obviously reporting nonresearch-based work
(descriptions/discussion of method n 32, service develop-
ment n 28, health promotion, n 10, curriculum develop-
ment n 10, teaching n 4, miscellaneous n 7) being
omitted. Nevertheless, when the 33 retained articles were
examined it emerged that only 16 were actually based on
experience of conducting a piece of empirical research. The
remaining 17 were discussions of the method based on
references to the literature and were very much in the `how
to' genre. Hand searching of the articles did not identify any
further relevant papers. Thus, despite the earlier attempt to
screen out nonresearch articles, the majority of the 33 articles
were not research-based or -related. Many were very short
and simplistic and clearly not based on any systematic
consideration either of the available literature or of the
method as a research tool (See for example Fox 1993a,
Clarke 1999); articles of this type were usually published in
`professional' rather than `academic' journals. This high-
lights the importance of a systematic consideration of a
research method when planning a study and is a reminder of
the fact that computerized databases must be used critically
when attempting to identify relevant articles for such a
review.
Conclusions from the search
From the search and preliminary scrutiny it emerged that the
apparent surge in nursing interest in focus groups as a
2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
Focus groups: a critique of nursing research1
qualitative research method was not conrmed. There was
indeed an increase in use of the method, but this had occurred
more in relation to nursing education and management
projects than to research studies. The next stage in the
attempt to understand how the method should be used in
research, and in particular at the data analysis stage, involved
detailed reading of the remaining 16 articles and following up
relevant references in the articles themselves. The rest of this
article is devoted to a consideration of the ndings from this
extended process.
Denitions and processes of focus groups
Much has been written about what focus groups are and how
to conduct them. The more in-depth theoretical discussions
appear in the social science literature, the most-cited experts
being the North Americans, Merton (Merton et al. 1956),
who has been credited with initiating the use of focus groups
in social science, and more recently, Morgan (1988, 1993),
who has been a leading exponent of the method. In the
United Kingdom (UK), a recent edited collection of papers on
focus group research by social scientists is concerned with
`Developing Focus Group Research' (Barbour & Kitzinger
4 1999).
As the uses, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups
have been explored in these readily available sources, as well
as the nursing articles mentioned earlier, they will not be
rehearsed again here. Rather the discussion will explore
methodological issues emerging from the review, and speci-
cally compatibility between methodological approaches and
focus groups as a method, interaction among participants as a
key feature of the method, and data analysis. A consideration
of denitions of focus groups will pave the way for this
discussion.
Denitions
A straightforward denition of focus groups is given by
5 Krueger (1994, pp. 1011):
The focus group interview taps into human tendencies. Attitudes
and perceptions relating to concepts, products, services or programs
are developed in part by interaction with other people. We are a
product of our environment and are inuenced by people around us.
This denition links to the principal justication for using
focus groups, which is that they `capitalize(s) on the inter-
action within a group to elicit rich experiential data' (Asbury
1995, p. 414).
Developing this emphasis on interaction, Kitzinger (1995,
p. 299) writes that:
799
C. Webb and J. Kevern
The idea behind the focus group method is that group processes can
help people to explore and clarify their views in ways that would be
less easily accessible in a one to one interview When group
dynamics work well the participants work alongside the researcher,
taking the research in new and often unexpected directions.
Drawing attention to the diversity of uses of the term `focus
groups', Kitzinger and Barbour (1999, p. 4) initially dene
them as `group discussions exploring a specic set of issues'
that are `focused' because the process involves `some kind of
collective activity'. This is done by the researcher `encoura-
g(ing) participants to talk to one another: asking questions,
exchanging anecdotes, and commenting on each others'
experiences and points of view'. However, while distin-
guishing other methods such as group interviews, nominal
groups, brainstorming, Delphi groups and other consensus
groups from focus groups, they conclude that the key feature
of focus groups is the active encouragement of group
interaction among participants.
Thus, all denitions of focus groups centre on the use of
interaction among participants as a way of accessing data
that would not emerge if other methods were used. Interac-
tion is the key to the method, giving the method a high level
of face validity (Krueger 1994) because what participants say
can be conrmed, reinforced or contradicted within the group
discussion.
Focus groups and phenomenology: methodological
incompatibility
A number of variants of phenomenology have become the
basis of approaches to qualitative research and a brief
overview of these is given by Holloway and Wheeler
(1996). However, it is fundamental to phenomenology that
it:
thematizes the phenomenon of consciousness, and, in its most
comprehensive sense, it refers to the totality of the lived experiences
that belong to a single person (Giorgi 1997, p. 236).
The goal of phenomenological research is to seek the
`essences', essential or invariant characteristics of phenomena
and to achieve this, `nave' subjects are asked to `respond to a
research question, either by interview or description' (Giorgi
1989, p. 72). In other words, an individual is encouraged,
through asking them a broad and general question of the type
`Tell me what it was like to be told that you had cancer', to
describe their experiences of a phenomenon. A phenomeno-
logical approach requires that an individual describes their
experiences in a relatively `uncontaminated' way and there-
fore a group method of data collection involving interaction
800
between several participants is not compatible with phenom-
enological research.
Despite the fact that a phenomenological approach is
incompatible with a focus group method, a number of the
research reports traced in the search have used this combi-
nation. It therefore seems appropriate to discuss this incom-
patibility in further detail in order to demonstrate the
problems that can arise from this mismatch.
Issues of rigour in focus group research have been
addressed by suggesting that more than one researcher
analyse the data to establish reliability (McDaniel 1996,
Higginbottom 1998) and that the data analysis be fed back to
participants for `member checking' of its validity or plaus-
ibility as an explanation of what was said (Higginbottom
1998). However, this too would not be compatible with a
phenomenological approach, which recognizes that `If the
essential description truly captures the intuited essence, one
has validity in a phenomenological sense' (Giorgi 1988,
p. 173). That is, if a description is judged plausible by the
researcher who has written it, who has used a transparent
and systematic approach to data analysis and has communi-
cated this to others, including accounting for the steps of the
analysis process, then that description is `valid'. Another
researcher or any of the research participants might produce
another version, but that in itself does not render the rst
version `invalid' it merely adds another plausible descrip-
tion for readers to examine. This argument applies equally to
the descriptive phenomenological approach taken by Giorgi
and to the interpretive or hermeneutic approach of
Heidegger, Van Manen and colleagues. Thus, some of the
procedures recommended by users of focus groups to ensure
`validity' or rigour are not compatible with a phenomeno-
logical approach. There is not space here to consider the
debate about the use of terms such as `validity' and `reliab-
ility' and alternative approaches to `rigour' in evaluating
qualitative research, but these have been addressed elsewhere
6 (See for example, Morse 1991, 1994).
7 Nevertheless, Gray-Vickrey (1993, p. 21) claims that:
Focus groups are well suited for a full range of qualitative studies
including grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology.
She claims to have carried out a phenomenologic [sic] study
using a focus group to study the experiences of caregivers of
relatives with Alzheimer's disease. The picture is further
complicated because, as is appropriate to phenomenological
research, the focus group was begun by asking two general,
open questions: `Tell me what is has been like to take care of
' and `What are your feelings about this caregiving
experience?' (p. 24) However, Gray-Vickrey justies asking
these questions by appealing to the work of Spradley and
2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
 2 Methodological issues in nursing research
calling them `grand tour questions'. Spradley's work is
grounded in an ethnosemantic and not a phenomenological
approach (Spradley 1979). There is no discussion of phenom-
enology in the article and no reference to phenomenological
sources. This article therefore represents an example of the
point made earlier about the adoption of a research approach
without going back to primary sources, resulting in claims
that do not stand up to any attempt at rigorous criticism.
A confusion between methodology and methods or tech-
niques is also made by Nyamathi and Schuler (1990, p. 1283)
when they write that focus groups are:
a qualitative method which bears similarities to ethnography,
grounded theory, phenomenology and participant observation.
This reveals a confusion between the concepts of methodo-
logy and methods and reinforces the point about not relying
on secondary sources. This article by Nyamathi and Schuler
is frequently quoted as a principal source of information by
writers of the articles reviewed here without critical appraisal
of its content (DiIorio et al. 1994, Macleod Clark et al. 1996,
McDaniel 1996, Stevens 1996, Reed & Payton 1997, Idvall
& Rooke 1998, Sim 1998, Sloan 1998, Twinn 1998).
Data analysis
Techniques of data analysis are seldom discussed in any detail
or at all in accounts of focus groups research (Carey 1995,
Frankland & Bloor 1999) and this was also the case in the
nursing research focus groups identied earlier. Stevens
(1996, p. 172) claims that `any number of qualitative analysis
strategies can be adapted to these purposes' and Sloan (1998,
p. 41) similarly states that `analysing data from focus groups
is essentially the same as analysing qualitative data from
other sources'. Carey (1995, p. 126) writes of analysis
processes varying from the `less intense' (coding and categ-
orizing) to the `more intense' (grounded theory). Apparently
taking the same position, many authors write about using
various techniques of cutting and pasting, both manual and
computerized, in a process of coding, categorizing and
8,9 identifying themes (e.g. Reiskin 1992, Fox 1993a, Fox
8,9 1993b, DiIorio et al. 1994, Idvall & Rooke 1998, Morrison
10,11 10,11
& Peoples 1999). Some writers recommend the use of
analysis grids drawn out on paper to aid organization of
data and identication of themes (Miles & Huberman 1994,
Higginbottom 1998, Robinson 1999).
Sometimes the analysis process is referred to as `content
analysis (McDaniel 1996, McFarland et al. 1998, Sim 1998),
but this term is more usually reserved for techniques used
to quantify qualitative data by counting frequencies of
occurrences of words, phrases or themes as discussed by
2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
Focus groups: a critique of nursing research1
Krippendorff (1980) and Stewart and Shamdasani (1990).
`Latent' as well as `manifest' content may be identied using
this method, but this may also rely on quantication of data.
Carey (1995, p. 492) points out that any attempt at counting
frequencies in this way is inappropriate `unless a question is
directly asked or probed for across groups', and Robinson
(1999, p. 909) agrees that `it is not appropriate to give
percentages'. In other words, quantication should only be
used when all respondents (in the case of individual inter-
views) or groups (in the case of focus groups) have been asked
the same question. Otherwise the results of counts are merely
serendipitous and `will generally not be meaningful' (Carey
1995, p. 492).
Reports do not give details of whether focus groups were
conducted in the same way when more than one was used in a
particular study. Therefore it is plausible to assume that they
were similarly conducted. Thus, as Robinson (1999, p. 909)
points out, `each transcript must be looked at in the same
way, and all the transcripts must be used' so that analysis is
systematic. However, some reports claim to have used
`grounded theory' as a data analysis method and the next
section will consider the appropriateness of this.
Grounded theory and focus groups
According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 23):
A grounded theory is one that is discovered, developed, and
provisionally veried through systematic data collection and analysis
of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore, data collection,
analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other.
The method is characterized by the use of theoretical
sampling, constant comparative data analysis, theoretical
sensitivity, memo writing, identication of a core category
and the concept of `theoretical saturation'.
Four of the articles identied in the literature search for this
article claim to have used grounded theory as a method for
data analysis. However, they do not report having used
concurrent data generation and analysis as would be required
in grounded theory. As the above criteria demonstrate, for
grounded theory method to be claimed, data should be
subjected to constant comparative analysis as additional data
are collected. On the basis of the developing coding system
and increasing theoretical sensitivity developed by the resear-
cher as the analysis continues, theoretical sampling should be
used to gather additional data in an attempt to corroborate or
otherwise existing data and to elaborate on the categories and
their properties and interlinkages. This process of iteration
continues until a core category is identied and there is
theoretical saturation. That stage marks the end of data
801
 C. Webb and J. Kevern
collection because additional data is not adding to the
analysis.
It is clear that, if several focus groups are conducted in a
similar way and then the transcripts are subjected to a
grounded theory type of analysis, this does not full the
criteria for grounded theory. Sim (1998) argues that data
analysis of several groups should be done concurrently in
order to determine when there is consensus on the issues
considered relevant by group members, and refers to this
consensus as `saturation'. However, he does not discuss
grounded theory as such, and indeed writes that `analysis of
focus group data is likely to follow the same process as for
other sources of qualitative data' and that `many of the
problems that arise in analysing focus group data are those
relating to qualitative data in general' (Sim 1998, p. 348).
Thus, he seems to miss the point that data collection methods
will vary in order to be consistent with a researcher's
underlying methodological approach. Also, he selectively
adopts some but not all of the features of grounded theory
without explaining the reasons for this.
An example of this claimed ground theory method being
used but only after data had been collected is provided by the
report of Goss (1998) who used ve focus groups to study
nurses working in women's health care and the topic of
violence against women. The report mainly discusses meth-
odological issues and very little detail is given of the
substantive research project. However, Goss reports using
`a four-step process of data analysis for focus group data'
(p. 33) developed by Koniak-Grifn et al. (1994). Following
transcription and accuracy checking, step 2 `involves the
techniques borrowed from grounded theory' of coding and
developing themes and categories. Step 3 uses `constant
comparative procedures, both within and among groups' and
this is continued `until saturation is reached'. Step 4 involves
validation using `an outside researcher familiar with the focus
group method but uninvolved with the data collection' and
`respondent validation' (p. 33). Thus it seems that all data
were collected and the analysis was conducted afterwards
rather than concurrently. The method cannot then legitim-
ately be called `grounded theory', because the essence of the
method is that it is `cumulative', as was discussed earlier and
as Strauss and Corbin themselves explain:
Each event sampled builds from and adds to previous data collection
and analysis. Moreover, sampling becomes more specic with time
because the analyst is directed by the evolving theory (Strauss &
Corbin 1998, p. 203).
12 Carey and Smith (1994) term grounded theory a `more
intense' method of analysing focus group data but Carey's
later methodological article on the analysis of focus group
802 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
data does not use the term explicitly. Instead she writes that
`purposively sampling within relevant categories will enhance
the likelihood of saturation of data' as will conducting `more
than one group for each salient segment (of the population)'
(p. 491). She also writes that:
Often it is useful for the guideline questions to be rened with
increased understanding of the topic as the study progresses.
Although analysis across sessions will be somewhat limited by the
lack of total comparability of data, the rened questions should
provide more useful data (Carey 1995, p. 491).
This approach therefore closely parallels the grounded theory
method but does not use that term and does not speak of core
category identication or theorizing that are basic features of
grounded theory.
Grounded theory was the approach chosen by Donovan
(1995) for a study of men during their partners' pregnancies.
This was the only nursing study traced which explicitly
described all stages of the method as being used in the
research in an appropriate way. Men were recruited via a
general practice and focus group data were collected with
them over a 6-month period. These data were supplemented
by observations in antenatal classes conducted by midwives.
A research diary was also recorded. Donovan describes how:
coding, analysis of data and theorizing occurred simultaneously
Logic diagrams and memos were written throughout the process to
guide thinking and to record analytical insights and interpretations
the researcher employed the steps of reduction, selective sampling of
the literature, and selective sampling of the data for the purpose of
describing the analysis and presenting substantiation for the conclu-
sions drawn (Donovan 1995, p. 712).
If a grounded theory method is to be used for data analysis,
then, this must be built in to a study from its conception
because data generation and analysis need to occur concur-
rently. If this is not done, it is hard to see the justication for
calling an analytic method `grounded theory' rather than
`thematic analysis', which is what seems to have been used in
most of the articles traced for this review. Thematic analysis
is described by Kitzinger and Barbour (1999, p. 16) as:
Drawing together and comparing discussion of similar themes and
examining how these related to the variation between individuals and
between groups.
Reporting focus group ndings: interaction
As the denitions of focus groups have shown, a key feature
of the method is the exploitation of group interaction among
participants to stimulate the generation of data that might
2 Methodological issues in nursing research Focus groups: a critique of nursing research1

not otherwise emerge, for example in a series of single- Focus groups are different to other methods of data collection, and it
respondent interviews. This emphasis on interaction is `an is important to maintain a sense of the whole group within the
integral component that cannot be teased out' (Carey 1995, analysis (p. 150).
p. 488). Therefore, as Carey states:
This also presents a `challenge' in presenting data and this
An appropriate description of the nature of the group dynamics is should:
necessary to incorporate (sic) in analysis for example, heated
ideally contain examples of the discursive nature of the method, by
discussion, a dominant member, little agreement (p. 488).
using two or more participants in any quotations rather then (sic)
However, Kitzinger (1994, p. 104), in a review of over 40 presenting isolated excerpts from one individual (p. 151).
reports of focus group studies reports:
`Sequences of discussion' are given by Reed and Payton
I could not nd a single one concentrating on the conversation (1997) in their article discussing `issues of analysis and
between participants and very few that even included any quotations interpretation' in their study of the experiences of older
from more than one participant at a time. people moving into residential care. The sequences are used
to illustrate how consensus evolved as opinions were modi-
Similarly, there were very few examples in the articles
ed and developed through discussion. Using sequence
identied for this review in which there was any discussion
analysis of this kind also allowed the researchers to see
of interaction in the focus groups studied, and only one
how processes varied in their different groups. They also
(Twinn 1998) included details of the kind that Carey
comment on the dominance of one member in a group, where
suggests.
a manager dominated the discussion so much that it was
Twinn's (1998) article is a methodological discussion
more like an interview with one person. This raises questions
about using focus groups with Chinese populations and the
about the way the group was moderated and the skills of the
appropriateness of the method in this culture, as distinct from
moderator, which are discussed in a number of articles
the `Anglo-Celtic' groups with which they have previously
(Morgan 1995, Macleod Clark et al. 1996, Sim 1998,
been used. Twinn considers specically issues of `one member
Kitzinger & Barbour 1999).
dominance', the effect of `signicant group members',
Idvall and Rooke (1998) used `interaction quotations'
offering alternative opinions, the effect of the number of
(p. 518) to illustrate process aspects of their focus group
group members and the status and relationships of partici-
study of nursing care in surgical wards. This involved a
pants with the group leader. She gives quotations from the
coding system to identify individual speakers and the groups
data to support her conclusion that the project yielded rich
in which they participated. In addition an arrow was used
data, participants from that particular ethnic group were
between quotations to illustrate interactions. However,
willing to participate, and that therefore the method is
specic points identied from this interaction coding system
appropriate, with the proviso that groups and analysis are
are not discussed in the article and the conclusion drawn
conducted in the rst language of participants.
from this aspect is disappointing in view of the promise raised
In an article that uses examples of research into sexual
by the coding system:
health to illustrate the use of focus groups, Robinson advises
that: (It) can be considered an effective use of time to conduct focus group
interviews if you are interested in group rather than individual
The impact of the group dynamics and specic comments, jokes,
opinions (p. 518).
anecdotes, questions, censorship, changes of mind, deferring to the
opinion of others are all equally important (Robinson 1999, p. 909). The only specic guidance found in the articles traced for this
review was given by Stevens (1996). In an article reporting on
However, in the section of the article discussing her four
focus groups as a method for studying community health
examples she merely reports that the method was `encour-
issues, and in particular her own work with lesbians' health
aged interaction', was useful for studying `social process in
care experiences, she proposes the following questions as a
action' and that `reports of sexual activity were often
basis for analysing group interaction:
untruthful' (p. 911). Beyond this, however, no detail is given
about social interaction in the groups. How closely did the group adhere to the issues presented for
Macleod Clark et al's (1996) methodological discussion discussion?
article is based on their study of the perceptions of the
Why, how and when were related issues brought up?
philosophy and practice of nursing in Project 2000
programmes. They note that: What statements seemed to evoke conict?

2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805 803
C. Webb and J. Kevern
What were the contradictions in the discussion?
What common experiences were expressed?
Were alliances formed among group members?
Was a particular member or viewpoint silenced?
Was a particular view dominant?
How did the group resolve disagreements?
What topics produced consensus?
Whose interests were being represented in the group?
How were emotions handled?
(Stevens 1996, p. 172)
In the section of the article reporting on the `application of
focus group method' in her lesbian health project, a para-
graph is specically devoted to describing interaction and
reporting jokes, disagreements, and a `growing consciousness
of collective phenomena' (p. 173) as the discussion
progressed. The groups also allowed members to gain
`insights about their own experiences that they had not
had before the discussion' (p. 174) and to share solutions to
problems of how to access the health care system. The focus
groups thus had a `consciousness raising' effect for partici-
pants. In further sections giving `selected ndings' Stevens
gives more information on group processes in order to
contextualize quotations from the transcripts. Stevens, then,
goes further than any of the other nursing articles discussed
both in giving explicit guidelines on analysing process aspects
of focus groups and also in actually discussing her data in
terms of group interaction. It would be useful for other
researchers to experiment with applying her scheme to their
own data and to modify and develop it on the basis of their
own experiences.
Summary and conclusions
The CINAHL-based literature search that formed the basis
for this discussion identied only a small number of articles
reporting empirical research using focus groups in the period
19901999. Scrutiny of these articles and discussions of the
method by nurse authors revealed disappointingly supercial
and uncritical discussions and implementations of the
method. In particular, methodological incompatibilities had
13 DiIorio C., Hockenberry-Eaton M., Maibach E. & Rivero T. (1994)
not been recognized between phenomenology and focus
groups, and the requirements of a grounded theory approach
to data generation and analysis had not been respected. It was
common for authors to rely on secondary rather than primary
sources and this may help to account for the misinterpreta-
804 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
tions. The principal advantage claimed for focus groups,
namely the ability to use participant interaction to gain
in-depth and rich data that would not be obtained through
individual interviews, was rarely capitalized on. One author
proposed a list of questions to guide analysis of group
processes and this is recommended to future researchers as a
possible aid to gaining the benets of this aspect of the
method.
A more general conclusion is that nurse researchers should
study in greater depth the methodological underpinnings of
their proposed methods and should discuss these fully in their
reports. Where the word limits of journals prohibit a full
discussion of methodology then a separate article may be
needed, and this should be based on consultation of primary
sources. Whether articles are published in `academic' or
`professional' journals a rigorous approach to methodology is
essential, not only to ensure the integrity of the research being
reported but also because these articles will be consulted by
nurses and students attempting to develop their research
knowledge. Nursing research does not stand in isolation from
research in other disciplines, particularly the social sciences.
It is to be hoped that nursing scholarship will lead to
methodological learning and progress both for the discipline
of nursing and more widely, and not be conned to abstract
empiricist research of interest only to nurses. The social
sciences contribute to the knowledge base of nursing and this
relationship should be reciprocal if nursing knowledge is to
achieve higher status and wider recognition. This article is
intended to be a contribution towards this development.
References
Asbury J. (1995) Overview of focus group research. Qualitative
Health Research 5, 414420.
Barbour R.S. & Kitzingen J. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group
Research. Politics, Theory and Practice. Sage, London.
Carey M.A. (1995) Comment: concerns in the analysis of focus group
data. Qualitative Health Research 5, 487495.
Carey M.A. & Smith M.W. (1994) Capturing the group effect in
focus groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health
Research 4, 123127.
Clarke A. (1999) Focus group interviews in health-care research.
Professional Nurse 14, 395397.
Davis-McFarland E., Trickey B., Reigart B., Shilling L., Wager K. &
West V. (1998) Using focus groups to identify lifestyle and health
issues in the elderly. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education 18,
3350.
Focus groups: an interview method for nursing research. Journal of
Neuroscience Nursing 26, 175180.
Donovan J. (1995) The process of analysis during a grounded theory
study of men during their partners' pregnancies. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 21, 708715.
 2 Methodological issues in nursing research
Fox A. (1993a) Use of focus groups in program planning: the Tridec
experience. Beta Release 17, 1319.
Fox D. (1993b) The focus group interview: a choice method of data
14 collection. Michigan Nurse 66(9) 2930.
Frankland J. & Bloor M. (1999) some issues arising in the systematic
analysis of focus group materials. In Developing Focus Group
Research. Politics, Theory and Practice (Barbour R.S. & Kitzinger
J. eds), Sage, London, pp. 144155.
Giorgi A. (1988) Validity and reliability from a phenomenological
perspective. In Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology (Baker
W.J., Mos L.P., Rappard H.V. & Stam H.J. eds), Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 167176.
Giorgi A. (1989) Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the
psychological phenomenological method. Saybrook Review 7,
7185.
Giorgi A. (1997) The theory, practice and evaluation of the
phenomenological methods as a qualitative research procedure.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 28, 235260.
Goss G.L. (1998) Focus group interviews: a methodology for socially
sensitive research. Clinical Excellence for Nurse Practitioners 2,
3034.
Gray-Vickrey P. (1993) Gerontological research. Use and application
15 of focus group. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 19(5), 2127.
Higginbottom G. (1998) Focus groups: their use in health promotion
research. Community Practitioner 71, 360363.
Holloway I. & Wheeler S. (1996) Qualitative Research for Nurses.
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Idvall E. & Rooke L. (1998) Important aspects of nursing care in
surgical ward as expressed by nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing
7, 512520.
Kitzinger J. (1994) The methodology of focus group interviews: the
importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology
of Health and Illness 16, 103121.
Kitzinger J. (1995) Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal
311, 299302.
Kitzinger J. & Barbour R.S. (1999) Introduction: the challenge and
promise of focus groups. In Developing Focus Group Research.
Politics, Theory and Practice. (Barbour R.S. & Kitzinger J. eds),
Sage, London, pp. 120.
Koniak-Grifn D., Nyamathi R., Vasquez R. & Russo A. (1994) Risk
taking behaviors and AIDS knowledge: experiences and beliefs of
minority adolescent mothers. Health Education Research 9, 449
463.
Kreuger R.A. (1994) Focus Groups: a Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Krippendorff K. (1980) Content Analysis: an Introduction to its
Methodology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Macleod Clark J., Maben J. & Jones K. (1996) The use of focus
group interviews in nursing research: issues and challenges. NT
Research 1, 143153.
2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798805
Focus groups: a critique of nursing research1
McDaniel R.W. (1996) Focus group research: the question of
scientic rigor. Rehabilitation Nursing Research 5, 5359.
Merton R.K., Kendall P. & Fiske P. (1956) The Focussed Interview.
Free Press. Glencoe, IL.
Miles M. & Huberman A. (1994) An Expanded Sourcebook:
Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edn). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morgan D.L. (1988) Focus Groups in Qualitative Research. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Morgan D.L. (1993) Successful Focus Groups. Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Morgan D.L. (1995) Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus
groups. Qualitative Health Research 5, 516523.
Morse J.M. (ed.) (1991) Qualitative Nursing Research. a Contem-
porary Dialogue. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Morrison R.S. & Peoples L. (1999) Using focus groups methodology
in nursing. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 30,
6265.
Morse J.M. (ed.) (1994) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research
Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Nyamathi a. & Schuler P. (1990) Focus group interview; a research
technique for informed nursing practice. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 15, 12811288.
Reed H. & Payton V.R. (1997) Focus groups: issues of analysis and
interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26, 765771.
Reiskin H. (1992) Focus groups: a useful technique for research and
practice in nursing. Applied Nursing Research 5, 197201.
Robinson N. (1999) the use of focus group methodology with
selected examples from sexual health research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 29, 905913.
Sim J. (1998) Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues
raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28,
345352.
Sloan G. (1998) Focus group interviews: dening clinical supervision.
Nursing Standard 12, 4043.
Spradley J.P. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, New York.
Stevens P.E. (1996) Focus groups: collecting aggregate-level data to
understand community health phenomena. Public Health Nursing
13, 170176.
Stewart D.W. & Shamdasani P.N. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research.
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research.
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Twinn S. (1998) An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a
method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations in
nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28, 654661.
805