European Research Institute
European Research Working
Paper Series
Number 22
Focus Groups and the Political Scientist
Nathaniel Copsey
January 2008
The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT
℡ 0121 414 8241
www.eri.bham.ac.uk
European Research Working Paper Series
Number 22
FOCUS GROUPS AND THE POLITICAL
SCIENTIST
Nathaniel Copsey
European Research Institute
University of Birmingham
[email protected]
© Nathaniel Copsey 2008
The views expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author.
Focus Groups and the Political Scientist∗
Abstract
This article argues that those who dismiss focus groups as too ‘soft’ and
unrepresentative to be of use misunderstand their purpose. Focus groups, in common
with most qualitative data, complement quantitative data and must be employed as
part of a properly triangulated research methodology. The aim of this short article is
to bring focus groups in from the cold by disproving the accusation that focus groups
are too ‘soft’ to be of use, and, secondly, to provide a practical overview of how focus
groups may be gainfully employed by political scientists.
Introduction
Although focus groups have been increasingly employed by political parties to gauge
public attitudes towards particular policies since at least the mid-1990s (Savigny,
2007), it is only in recent years that political scientists have begun to employ them as
a useful means of gathering data on what a particular segment of public opinion
thinks about a specific political issue. Moreover, focus groups are often viewed with
suspicion by some political scientists and the accusation has been levelled that they
provide ‘soft’, unverifiable data – an issue which is linked to the current vogue for
quantitative methodologies (Devine, 2005, p. 197). As a result, little has been written
on the use of focus groups in political science, with the exception of practical
handbooks (Krueger and Morgan, 1998; Greennbaum, 1999; Oates, 2000). Moreover
– with some worthy exceptions (Kucia, 1999) – those political scientists who have
employed focus groups to gather data often do not include a methodological note on
how the groups were conducted in the write-up of their research. I argue that to
dismiss focus groups as too ‘soft’ and unrepresentative to be of use is to
misunderstand their purpose. If focus groups were really of such little value, they
would hardly be employed for gathering data by so many businesses and political
parties. Focus group data, in common with most qualitative data, complements
quantitative data and must be employed as part of a properly triangulated research
methodology. The aim of this short article is to bring focus groups in from the cold by
∗
This article is based on the experiences of the author in conducting focus groups in south-eastern
Poland and western Ukraine, as part of a project that looked at the relationship between informed
public opinion and foreign policy-makers in those two states. The focus groups were generously
funded by a UACES scholarship in 2005.
disproving the accusation that focus groups are too ‘soft’ to be of use, and, secondly,
to provide a practical overview of how focus groups may be gainfully employed by
political scientists.
I. The Conduct Focus Groups in Political Science
Are Focus Groups Appropriate for the Research Question?
Focus groups seek to gather data on the views of a specific group of individuals on a
particular topic and are an appropriate additional source of data that complements
quantitative data. For example, an opinion poll may reveal that a certain segment of
the population believes party X to be more competent than party Y in controlling
inflation. What the poll will not reveal – at least not in any depth – is why this
segment holds the opinion that it does, and how it interacts with its peers when
discussing this issue. If it is this kind of question that a political scientist wishes to
investigate, then the focus group is an appropriate tool. For broader questions, and
certainly for research questions concerned with society as a whole, focus groups are
inappropriate. Focus groups are definitely not budget surveys and the data they
produce provides the greatest insight when viewed in conjunction with quantitative
material.
What is a Focus Group?
A focus group is a gathering of around eight people with a broadly similar socioeconomic profile (in terms of age, income, education and social class) convened by a
researcher who wishes to find out what they think in depth of a certain issue. Not only
does the group have to be relatively homogenous, it is also important that the issue
they are discussing is suitably narrow in scope. For example, one could ask a group of
small businessmen running firms with a turnover of less than £150,000 in the 35–54
age bracket what they think of the changes in the regulation of their business. It would
not be appropriate to enquire about broader issues if the data gathered is to be
meaningful.
Preparations
In order to conduct a focus group, at the absolute minimum both a moderator and a
recruiter are required. Some political scientists on a tight budget may be tempted to
perform all of these functions themselves. This is perhaps a false economy, given that
a political scientist is unlikely to have a good network of contacts in the geographical
area that he wishes to conduct. With training, however, political scientists may be
able to moderate their own focus groups, should they have the right language skills.
Some would also argue that academics are well placed to do this given their
experience in conducting group discussions. This is a good point, but it should always
be borne in mind that a focus group is not a seminar and that a different set of skills
are needed. Unless one has native speaker level competence in a given foreign
language, it is unwise to attempt to moderate a focus group discussion in this
language. An important note of consideration for the recruiter (who should be aware
of this anyway) is that ideally none of the participants should know each other. Once
the focus group participants have been recruited, a room with appropriate recording
equipment is required. Finally, it is highly desirable that focus group participants be
paid. Payment has the effect of professionalizing the relationship between those
conducting the focus group and the participants, and provides an additional incentive
for recruiters to draw upon.
On the Day
Once the focus group participants have gathered prior to the discussion, it is essential
for ethical reasons to brief them about the purposes of the discussions they are taking
part in, and for practical reasons to explain to them that their comments will be
recorded anonymously. For this reason, no focus group participant is required to use
his or her real name during the proceedings. A point of crucial importance is that the
investigator should be present throughout all the focus groups in order to witness how
the focus group participants are articulating their views, their body language and so
on – and of course, to ensure that the session is conducted according to the proper
standards of investigation in the social sciences.
Analysis of Focus Group Data
Gathering focus group data, particularly when the study is being carried out in a
foreign country, can be a fraught and complicated affair, and there may be a tendency
for the investigator to feel that the most complicated part of his or her job has been
completed when the electronic typed transcripts of the focus group sessions land on
his or her desk. This could not be further from the truth, since the analysis of focus
group data is complicated, not least because the nature of conducting a few 120-
minute focus groups is that they tend to produce an embarrassment of riches in raw
data.
In coding and analysing focus group data the challenge is to chart a course
between organising the data in a meaningful and clear manner that will allow the
social scientist to ask questions of it on the one hand; and, over-reducing the data into
what looks like the results of a quantitative survey conducted with a tiny number of
participants on the other. It is worth mentioning that there are instances when coding
the data prior to analysis may be unnecessary (in fact a large number of private
companies do not code market research data, in order to distinguish their work more
obviously from that of quantitative colleagues), for example, if a political scientist
were assessing student attitudes from one focus group towards a given course –
however, for research projects on a scale larger than this, coding data is essential.
Different political scientists will favour different methods for coding data, but
the simplest and most effective means is that suggested by Berkowitz (1997), which is
that in reading through the scripts, the investigator should focus on ‘the relevance of
the particular data for answering particular questions’. Data that does not focus on
these issues should be put to one side, and may be useful in suggesting future lines for
further research. Particularly trenchant direct quotations may be employed in writing
up the focus group results, which can help to preserve the richness of the focus group
data.
II. Advantages of Focus Groups
The first and perhaps most important advantage of focus group data is that it provides
detailed, qualitative, in-depth results which simply would not come out in a poll or
survey. Further, it can begin to shed light on how views are formed.
A second advantage of gathering data through focus groups is that there is far
greater potential for participants to give their own views. The onus is on the
participants in focus groups to express their own opinions. Thus the results of a focus
group can be far harder to predict in advance. However, focus group data can open up
many more new avenues for enquiry, thus advancing the sum of human knowledge in
a specific area.
A third advantage of focus groups is that they provide an ideal format for
gathering community views, for example, the attitudes of borderland communities
towards their neighbours on the other side of the border. As a part of this, they also
shed light on how views can be formed and shaped through discussion with peers.
A fourth advantage, which is of particular value in some fields of area studies,
is that focus groups are a good way to gather data in an environment where relatively
little other data exists. For example, in post-Soviet studies, there is frequently a dearth
of quality data on public opinion, and the data that does exist may be hard to
disaggregate and verify.
A fifth advantage of focus group data is that it is a relatively cost effective
means of gathering a political scientist’s own data. The questions asked and the fields
of investigation are those chosen by the political scientist himself, not by the pollster.
Such data is more likely to advance the sum of human knowledge in a given field.
Obviously there are some instances where academics commission their own surveys
or add their own questions as a supplement to existing polls, but this can be extremely
costly.
A final advantage is that focus groups can be used for pre-pilot work in the
early stages of planning a quantitative survey. Focus groups can not only point to
areas requiring the collection of more quantitative data, but by spending a relatively
small sum on a pilot study, the researcher may avoid more making more expensive
mistakes later on in the project.
III. Potential Problems with Focus Groups
Three common potential problems may be faced by political scientists in conducting
focus groups. First, the issue of defending the validity of the research findings. Given
that the findings for each group conducted are based on a sample of around eight to
ten people, many political scientists of the quantitative persuasion would question
whether the results have any general value. To question the size of the sample,
however, is to misunderstand the purpose of the focus group (or indeed qualitative
research in general). Focus groups produce data that has detail and depth. Their data
comes from a specific segment of society; they do not gather the views of society as a
whole. Moreover, they specifically do not set out to do so, since replicating or
updating the opinion polls is not the aim of a project that focus groups would be
appropriate for. Rather focus group data is a valuable supplement to such quantitative
findings. It is also worth noting that focus groups (once an appropriately small
segment of society as a whole has been selected for investigation) would hardly be
deployed by so many political parties and marketing agencies were their findings of
no value.
Second, there is a language question around focus groups when working in a
language of which you are not a native speaker. Problems of data analysis can be
overcome by conducting focus groups in a team that does include native speakers,
thus allowing for consultation in any instances of uncertainty as to what a participant
meant. Moreover, such difficulties are not confined to focus groups. During in-depth
interviews such problems also occur, and it is possible to ask the interviewee for
clarification. Moreover, such language difficulties are not merely confined to foreign
languages. Similar problems of understanding may be encountered by investigators
looking at, for example, attitudes towards smoking amongst white working class
teenagers in Glasgow. The crucial point here common to all focus groups is that there
is a team to consult so that such problems may be overcome.
Third, the potential for ‘group think’. It is a common observation that groups
of individuals will tend towards consensus. This is sometimes true of focus groups,
especially those concerned with marketing a given product. It is less likely that this
will be the case where the issue under discussion is salient for all the participants and
one on which they already have opinions that they are happy to discuss, but not likely
to change radically in the course of 120 minutes of discussion. It could be not
unreasonably argued that this is true for most people, when the issue is of interest to
them. Consider a meeting in the workplace; many people will tend to be conciliatory
and consensual for most of the meeting – since it costs nothing to do so and avoids
unnecessary confrontation – unless they have a point to argue which matters to them.
Thus the tendency towards group think may most easily be avoided by choosing for
discussion that is salient to the participants. However, there will also be instances
where group think takes hold of an otherwise well planned focus group. In these
instances, it comes down to the skill of the moderator in probing participants and
exploring new angles in the discussion. A skilled moderator is crucial to avoiding
group think, and it is the presence of this individual that separates the kinds of
discussion that will take place in a focus group from, for example, the deliberations of
a jury.
Conclusions
This article has argued that those who dismiss focus groups as too ‘soft’ and
unrepresentative to be of use misunderstand their purpose. Focus groups, in common
with most qualitative data, complement quantitative data and must be employed as
part of a properly triangulated research methodology. The article examined what kind
of research questions in political science a focus group can provide useful data for,
defined what a focus group is, and offered some guidance on how to run successful
focus groups. Subsequently it analysed the advantages and disadvantages of focus
groups, and suggested how potential difficulties maybe overcome.
There will always be political scientists whose epistemological standpoint
encourages them to scoff at focus group findings and question the value of
quantitative data in general. It is hoped that this article has contributed to dispelling
some of the myths that surround focus group research and provided a practical
introduction for those contemplating their use.
References
Berkowitz, S. (1997) ‘Analyzing Qualitative Data’. In J. Frechtling, Sharp Westat, L.
(eds) User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations (National Science
Foundation, Directorate of Education and Human Resources). Available at:
«http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/pubs/NSF97-153/CHAP_4.HTM».
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social
Research (London: Sage).
Devine, F. (1995) ‘Qualitative Methods’. In Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. Theory and
Methods in Political Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilan).
Greenbaum, T. (1999) Handbook for Focus Group Research (London: Sage).
Krueger, R.A. and Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Kit, 6 vols. (London:
Sage).
Kucia, M. (1999) ‘Public Opinion in Central Europe on EU Accession’. JCMS, Vol.
37, No. 1.
Oates, C. (2000) ‘The Use of Focus Groups in Social Science Research’. In Burton,
D. (ed) Research Training for Social Scientists (London: Sage).
Savigny, H. (2007) ‘Focus Groups and Political Marketing: Science and Democracy
as Axiomatic?’ BJPIR, Vol. 9, No. 1.