Focus Group Research- Reliability, Validity, Replicability, Generalisability Essay

A snap pigeonholing can be outlined as a sort inter enamour- centered on a particular(prenominal) topic and facilitated and co-ordinated by a moderator or facilitator- which seeks to generate primarily soft data, by capitalizing on the interaction that occurs in spite of appearance the host setting. The idea asshole the boil down crowd method is that theme dish outes can help raft to explore and clarify their views in agencys that be less intimately accessible in a one to one interview. While the focalise group opens up exciting analytical possibilities, it as well crock ups rise to a number of likelyly tangled issues in this respect.Definitions Reliability- The quality of being reliable, ripe or trustworthy. severeness- The state or quality of being valid (having few foundation based on truth) Replicability- Property of an activity, process, or test return that allows it to be duplicated at some other(a) location or time. Generalisability- Generalizability is a process in testing and statistics theory that takes a score from a model of behaviors and applies them to the entire possible set of observations The group dynamics which take taper in a pore group ar central to its success.However, these interpersonal processes may cause problems in the interpretation of concentersing group data. whizz problem is that of the censoring of dissenting views held by less confident participants within the group. The emergence of dissonant views and perspectives what Kitzinger (1994b) calls argumentative interactions often contri furnishdes importantly to the richness of nidus group data, but may be conventionalisedly suppressed. Certain members of the group may be to a greater tip assertive or articulate than others, and their views may come to dominate the proceedings such individuals buzz off been described as thought leaders ( Henderson 1995).This reflects the tendency of those who find themselves in a nonage to acquiesce to the m ajority view ( Asch 1951, Deutsch & Gerard 1955, Carey & Smith 1994). There is a merely problem here. If a stand which is shared by most of the group lies in one direction or other on the view continuum it may be exaggerated through with(predicate) what is known as a group polarization effect ( Turner 1991). The prevalent group viewpoint entrust tend to converge on the end of the continuum in promontory, but pull up stakes also tend to be amplified in the process. In comparison, either divergent viewpoints will tend to be suppressed.Interestingly, when the topic in question is one which elicits an evaluative response from group members, Carey (1995) suggests that this convergence of viewpoint tends to be negative rather than positive. The more homogeneous the participants (which, as previously noned, is in other respects advantageous), the greater the likelihood of polarization. Another negative conniption is that the centre group output is not projectable. If a great co nsider of consistency in the results from a series of localize groups have been set and it is very likely that the results from these sessions probably can represent a large number of people.We cant expect point groups to be projectable in the same way as quantitative study findings can be. My proceed point close the disadvantages is that focus groups are a very artificial environment which can influence the responses that are generated. This is frequently the argument that ethnographers will use when recommending their methodology versus focus groups. Because inquiryers using the ethnographic technique will situate themselves in the real environment, that is unreachable for focus groups.In focus groups people are collected in a meeting direction thus they might behave differently from how they behave when they are not watched and it will effect the quality of research results. But there is also a high number of advantages of focus group research . number 1 of all the auth ority role of the moderator. The face-to-face involvement of a capable moderator can ensure that the conversation is always on track, and encourage participants combat without one individual dominating the meeting. Another point is the dynamic spirit of the methodology.Due to the dynamic environment the moderator can modify the topics, which are prompt before the session to make the topic more suitable for the purpose. The susceptibility to involve the lymph gland military force in the research Process is another important advantage. In traditional focus groups it is possible for the client personnel to watch the whole discussion behind a one-way mirror. The client personnel can provide their thinking to the moderator, which may help the moderator discover handle the direction of discussion, and improve the quality of output. Also the capability to put on non-verbal behavior as a research input can be useful .The expression, attitude of individual, the intensity of the conv ersation etc. can be perceived by the researcher, which can modify the moderators decision and also can be counted in the research result. Another positive typeface is the level of participant involvement in the research. Because every participant is under observation by the moderator and everybody know the process has been videotaped, it is easy to make participants full engage even during non-discussion time. My last point is the greater security associated with focus group research.The possibility to screen each participant, lets the researcher know who have been involved. This ensures that for example your competition is not involved. (PBWorks, 2007, P. 1) Reliability of snap Groups Reliability is the issue to which a measure (such as a focus group) is accurate and replicable. With focus groups, this could concern whether another focus group, of similar but different people, would give similar answers. Focus groups often have problems with reliability. These can be diminish if the moderator is highly trained and if questions are relatively specific. Validity of Focus GroupsValidity is the extent to which a measure measures what it purports to measure.For focus groups, this could mean whether it is reasonably reliable that people are talk of the town about what you think they are talking about. Focus groups tend to be strong on validity. ( Peter Flom, N. D. , P. 1) Generalizing from focus groups There are two perspectives from which the issue of generalizing from focus groups may be problematic. The first perspective sees the focus group as a essay from a target population and thus presumably regards generalization as a legitimate goal but recognizes a number of methodological barriers.Because focus group participants are often gathered together through a process of non-probability sampling, this will not provide the degree of representativeness of a larger population that may be achieved in, for example, some mail surveys. Furthermore, there is a tendency for the more self-confident and articulate individuals to be more willing to agree to take part in a focus group in the first place, and it may be necessary to provide inducements to encourage less forthcoming participants to come forward.The other perspective on the external validity of focus group data raises epistemological, not methodological, difficulties. This view would stress the fact that focus group data are securely contextualized within a specific social situation. They therefore produce situate accounts, tied to a particular context of interaction which may not be a particularly natural one for some(prenominal) participants. The outcome that would seem to emerge on this issue is that generalization from focus group data is not impossible, but is of a very different character from that displayed by orthodox quantitative approaches to research.ConclusionThe focus group has large potential as a means of gathering qualitative data. This potential will not, ho wever, be realized unless due wariness is paid to the problematic methodological issues to which the focus group gives rise. In this respect, the principal conclusions to arise are the following The skills and attributes of the moderator and the manner of data recording will exert a powerful influence on the quality of the data collected in a focus group.Focus groups explore collective, not individual, phenomenology, and attempts to infer the latter(prenominal) from focus group data are likely to be unfounded. Focus group data may be a poor forefinger of attitudinal consensus, though they may reveal a divergence of opinion and the extent to which certain issues recur across groups. Focus groups can reveal the nature and range of participants views, but less so their strength. Generalization from focus group data is problematic, but is likely to be more fruitful at the level of theoretical generalization than at that of empirical generalization.The use of focus groups is increasing at a faster rate than our knowledge about these qualitative research methods. Every indication , however, is that this environment is dynamically ever-changing and will continue to do so over the next 50 years. To keep up with those changes more research on focus group methods is needed. Ultimately the best teacher is experience . Like most other research tools , proficiency comes with practice. This provides an opportunity to see a variety of groups interact and the way the moderator handles specific problems as they arise.We also have drawn attention to the limitations of focus group interviews as well as to their advantages. The greatest of the limitations associated with focus groups is that each group really represents a single observation. In the pillowcase of focus groups , the demand effects are likely to result from the motif of the group , the presence of a particularly dominant member of the group, the actions of the moderator , or some other group related factor.Thus, focus groups share many of the same limitations as many other research tools, including survey research and experimentation. The source of these limitations and problems may differ somewhat, but the problems are the same. All in all if you do it on the right way with the right tools, focus group research can be very helpful for your line of work to come up with new ideas and to find out the best way to act with your target groups.