Using Focus Group Research to Support Teaching and Learning

This article was downloaded by: [David Simm]On: 10 July 2012, At: 08:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Geography in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20

Using Focus Group Research to SupportTeaching and LearningHeather Winlow a , David Simm a , Alan Marvell b & Rebecca Schaafa

a Department of Social Sciences, Bath Spa University, UKb Department of Leisure, Tourism, Hospitality and Events,University of Gloucestershire, UK

Version of record first published: 02 Jul 2012

To cite this article: Heather Winlow, David Simm, Alan Marvell & Rebecca Schaaf (2012): UsingFocus Group Research to Support Teaching and Learning, Journal of Geography in Higher Education,DOI:10.1080/03098265.2012.696595

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.696595

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Using Focus Group Research to SupportTeaching and Learning

HEATHER WINLOW*, DAVID SIMM*, ALAN MARVELL** &REBECCA SCHAAF**Department of Social Sciences, Bath Spa University, UK, **Department of Leisure, Tourism, Hospitality and

Events, University of Gloucestershire, UK

ABSTRACT Using qualitative research methodologies for pedagogic research can provideinformative insights into student experiences of the teaching and learning environment in HigherEducation. This paper considers the practicalities of undertaking a pedagogic study using focusgroups by outlining strategies for effective focus group organization, highlighting good practicefrom the social sciences and pedagogic literature and providing a critique of a recent geographicalstudy, in which focus groups were used as the sole research method. Furthermore, the paperillustrates how a pedagogic research study can be used to enhance teaching and learning and toinform curriculum planning and course management.

KEY WORDS: Focus groups, pedagogic research, qualitative methodologies, reflection, Foundationdegrees, student support

Introduction

Involving students in qualitative research can bevaluable for pedagogic study and can provide

insights into learning and teaching issues, including the effectiveness of course delivery and

the adequacy of support networks in place in Higher Education (HE) environments. Here we

outline how focus group methodology can be applied to pedagogic research, discuss the key

stages to be considered in designing the framework for analysis and provide critique of a

recent geographical research project that we have undertaken. We build on the practical

guidance given by Breen (2006) by critically reflecting on the logistics and practicalities of

designing, undertaking and applying a focus group methodology to pedagogic research.

The paper is intended to provide guidance to lecturers who are considering undertaking

qualitative pedagogic research with students in HE contexts.

Project Summary: Supporting Foundation Degree Students

This paper incorporates discussion of the methodological design for a recent pedagogic

research project (2008–2009) which focused on the effectiveness of support networks in

place for Foundation degree students studying courses in Development Geography and

Tourism Management at three institutions: Bath Spa University (BSU); Weston College,

ISSN 0309-8265 Print/1466-1845 Online/12/0001-13 q 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.696595

Correspondence Address: Heather Winlow, Department of Social Sciences, Bath Spa University, Newton Park,

Bath, BA2 9BN, UK. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Geography in Higher Education,iFirst article, 1–13, 2012

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

Weston-super-Mare; and City College Plymouth. The results and recommendations of this

research are discussed elsewhere (Simm et al., 2011; Simm et al., 2012). Our project aims

were:

. To gain understanding of the needs, motivations and experiences of Foundation

degree students, focusing on (i) their transition from school or further education

(FE) into HE (either within a FE college or at university) and (ii) their transition

by ‘top-up’ into the final year of an undergraduate honours programme.

. To investigate the experiences of Foundation degree students taking contrasting

pathways.

. To enable managers and tutors to gain a better insight into the recruitment and

retention of this group.

. To maintain and develop appropriate academic and pastoral support structures.

To meet the project aims we required a qualitative methodology which allowed for both

expression of opinions and student cohort discussion of issues relating to their course,

institution and the support networks in place. Focus groups were selected as appropriate to

our project aims.

Focus Groups: An Effective Method for Pedagogic Research?

Pedagogic research may be designed with the goal of improving aspects of teaching and

learning and educational support systems. When undertaking pedagogic research the

appropriateness of the method must be considered in relation to your research aims. Focus

groups are a participatory form of qualitative research and can be viewed as group-based

interviews which can reveal a range of opinions and perspectives on a topic. Focus groups

were originally used for market research and are now widely used within the social

sciences to gather opinion-based data. Like other qualitative methods, focus groups allow

the researcher to gather in-depth information from a small group of participants, but can be

time-consuming to plan and undertake. The advantage of focus group research is that, like

interviews, they allow informants a role in shaping the research (Bennett, 2002) and can be

semi-structured in format, allowing dialogues, rather than interrogations (Valentine,

2005). Unlike one-to-one interviews, focus groups can be used to expose the differences,

contradictions, unique experiences, views, perceptions and attitudes expressed by different

group members (Bennett, 2002; Hyden & Bulow, 2003), allowing for a richer

understanding of the issues. Cameron (2000, p. 101) observes that although focus groups

require much planning and interpretation, they are “an exciting and invaluable research

tool for geographers to use” and “can generate insights and understandings that are new to

both participants and researchers.” This approach also allows for observation of

interaction between group members (Denscombe, 2010).

Cameron (2000) argues that focus groups can either be the sole research method for a

project, or can be combined with quantitative methods. If undertaking pedagogic research,

focus groups can be used as part of a medium or large scale research project, but the

method can also be applied at a smaller scale, perhaps to analyse the effectiveness of

teaching methods within a module and to aid in its future development. For example, focus

groups can be combined with a quantitative survey, such as annual module evaluation or a

questionnaire, in which summary information can be collected quickly from a large group.

Volunteers can then be selected for participation in a focus group to provide additional

2 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

depth to the findings. For a larger research project, it may be appropriate to incorporate

quantitative and qualitative methods into a longitudinal study, in which the progression of

particular groups of students is measured, or, alternatively, to take a ‘snapshot’ approach

with students from different year groups. In some contexts, pedagogic research approaches

may evolve into an integral part of the learning and teaching strategy of a module or

programme. For instance, focus groups may be beneficial in situations requiring students

to reflect on their experiences of undertaking research, overseas fieldwork (Simm &

Schaaf, 2011) or work placements. Hopkins (2007) suggests that focus groups can also be

combined with other qualitative techniques, such as one-to-one interviews—which can

reveal individual opinions that may not be revealed in a group-based approach.

As demonstrated in the literature, focus groups have been used to explore a wide range of

socio-geographic issues. For example, raising awareness of education and training needs in

ethnic communities (Fallon & Brown, 2002), community reactions to the threat of natural

hazards (Burgess, 1996), analysis of retail behaviours (Holbrook, 1996), identity

construction among young Muslim men (Hopkins, 2007) and reactions to school

regulations among teenagers (Raby, 2010). Geographers and other educationalists have also

used focus groups for pedagogic research: firstly, to study institution wide changes, such as

the effectiveness of personal development portfolios (Kneale, 2002), the development of IT

resources (Breen, 2006) and student attitudes to plagiarism (Gullifer & Tyson, 2010);

secondly, to compare the effectiveness of different teaching approaches, such as Fuller

et al.’s (2003) cross-institutional comparison of fieldwork-based versus classroom-based

approaches and thirdly, to reflect on the effectiveness of specific courses or modules, or on

academic and pastoral support in place for specific groups of students, as in our study.

Focus Group Organization

If focus groups have been selected as appropriate for your pedagogic research project,

several considerations need to be made in planning and implementing the research,

including:

. Research ethics

. Sampling strategy and group size

. Focus group design

. Session management

. Recording, transcription and data analysis

Here, these elements are considered as stages in the process of carrying out effective

focus group research, and while some of this advice is generic, we also suggest how the

methods can be applied specifically to pedagogic research.

Stage 1: Research Ethics

Any research involving human participants must undergo an ethics assessment in advance

of undertaking research. Most universities, or academic schools, have ethical guidance and

procedures in place which must be followed (see The British Sociological Association

(2002) for in-depth guidance on research ethics). Ethical questions include:

. Is the research covert or deceptive?

. Does the research involve working with vulnerable groups?

Focus Group Research 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

. Has informed consent of all participants been sought? (i.e. the aims of the

research should be clearly explained and on this basis individuals may consent to

be involved in the project).

. Will individual responses be anonymized?

. Will individuals have the right to withdraw from the project at any time

(without penalty)?

. Will there be financial rewards for involvement in the project?

Some of these points are more applicable to a pedagogic environment than others.

For example, working with vulnerable groups is more likely when working with the

general public on social issues (e.g. homelessness and domestic violence). However, the

power relations inherent in the lecturer–student relationship should be taken into account

in research design and focus group management. Other aspects such as anonymization of

student responses will allow for more liberal discussions about their experiences of their

course and institution (without fear of repercussion) and overt research and informed

consent will usually be required.

Ethical considerations also need to be made if pedagogic research methods are being

used to evaluate and develop teaching. Can focus groups and other participatory

approaches be integrated within the formal teaching of a course or module? If this is done,

is the pedagogic research study advertised to students or are data surreptitiously collected?

Do students have the choice to opt-out of the research, without missing out on key teaching

input? Alternatively, focus groups may take place outside the taught curriculum, resulting

in enhanced independence but presenting issues of representivity.

Stage 2: Sampling Strategy and Group Size

Focus groups can be selected in several ways: they may be arranged around a random

sample drawn from a broader population, or could be selected on the basis of specific

demographic characteristics (such as gaining a mixture of different genders, ethnicities or

ages), or through ‘purposeful sampling’ (Cameron, 2000) with participants chosen on the

basis of their shared experience in relation to the research topic. The latter provides a

‘common communicative ground’ (Hyden & Bulow, 2003, p. 311) around which

discussions can take place. ‘Natural groups’—where group members know each other—

will provide different group dynamics to a group of strangers (Holbrook, 1996; Hyden &

Bulow, 2003). In an educational context, a purposeful sample, or natural group, may be of

greater value than a random sample. As Breen (2006, p. 466) observes “if the focus groups

are designed to investigate students’ learning experiences, they should consist of

participants who have been exposed to similar experiences.”

Guidance on focus group size suggests using between 5 and 12 participants (Cameron,

2000; Fallon & Brown, 2002; Hyden & Bulow, 2003; Longhurst, 2003). Group dynamics,

and the contribution made by each person, will vary with group size. Crang & Cook (2007)

note that 10–12 members is a large group, while 6–8 is ‘lively.’ Wibeck et al. (2007)

suggest five for promoting small-group discussion, allowing each participant to play a

prominent role, while Onweugbuzie et al. (2009) propose that ‘mini’ focus groups of three

to four participants are feasible. There can be difficulties in recruiting participants to focus

groups, so advanced planning, and keeping participants informed is vital. If the

budget allows, a free lunch or other refreshments may help in terms of recruitment!

4 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

If working with students from a particular course of study, it may be appropriate to use a

scheduled timetabled slot to increase participation rates. A carefully structured letter or e-

mail explaining the aims of the study should be sent in advance to potential participants, to

ensure the informed consent of participants.

In our study, the student cohort for each year group on each award provided a purposeful

sample of an appropriate size for carrying out focus group research, with 7 focus groups

undertaken, and 32 participants (see Table 1). We used focus groups as the sole method for

this study as we wished to gauge student opinions on the effectiveness of support

mechanisms and to allow for group discussion of issues.

In this study, two focus groups had only two participants due to cohort size. The length

of these sessions was adapted to 40minutes, which allowed time for individual reflection.

Our experience was that, rather than being a disadvantage, the small groups enabled a full

discussion of participants’ views, whereas in larger groups more management was

required. Hopkins (2007) observes that focus group guidance can be overly formulaic and

that small groups can yield useful data, and Longhurst (1996) observed similar advantages

of (unintentionally) small focus groups. Therefore, if a very small focus group or dual

interview occurs, this should still be regarded as useful data to be incorporated into your

wider study.

Stage 3: Focus Group Design

Effective question or topic design includes, firstly, deciding on the key topics of

discussion, which will be linked to research aims and, secondly, careful consideration of

wording, useful key phrases and the sequencing of questions (Cameron, 2000). Some

authors suggest the use of a topic or interview guide (if using a semi-structured

framework) consisting of around 6–12 main points, with sub-points (Dunn, 2000; Crang

& Cook, 2007). Dunn (2000, p. 61) notes that semi-structured interviews are organized

around “ordered but flexible questioning”, while Krueger & Casey (2009) note that the

questioning route should flow in a natural, logical sequence. Dunn (2000) identifies

‘funnelling’ and ‘pyramid’ techniques, where ‘funnelling’ involves an initial focus on

general issues, moving towards more personal matters or specific issues, with sensitive

questions at the end (similar to Breen’s (2006) suggestion that key questions should take

place in the final third of the schedule), while the ‘pyramid’ technique begins with easy to

answer questions at the start, deeper questions in the middle and generalized questions at

the end. In terms of individual question design, Longhurst (2003) suggests starting with a

question that puts participants at ease before getting on to more sensitive or thought-

provoking topics. Krueger & Casey (2009) argue that, to maintain a balanced perspective,

it is important to ask positive questions before negative questions. Guidance suggests a

focus group length of between 1 and 2 hours (maximum). The length that a session takes

will be linked to how fully participants engage in the discussion and how much they have

to say about the topics raised.

For our research project, the focus group design followed a logical sequence, employing

the ‘pyramid’ approach (following Dunn, 2000), covering the path of the student from

entry to graduation and beyond. The topic schedule included five linked sections: (1) pre-

arrival, (2) on-arrival, (3) at college/university, (4) looking back and (5) looking forward.

We applied the pyramid approach because by following the sequential experiences of the

students, the central part of the interview (peak of the pyramid) would relate to their

Focus Group Research 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

Table

1.Focusgroupcomposition

Institution

Programmeofstudy

Year

group

Number

of

participants

Gender

(male/female)

Number

of

mature

students

Sam

pling

strategy

WestonCollege

FdTourism

Managem

ent

17

1M/6F

2Purposeful

WestonCollege

FdTourism

Managem

ent

26

1M/5F

2Purposeful

CityCollegePlymouth

FdTourism

Managem

ent

16

1M/5F

2Purposeful

CityCollegePlymouth

FdTourism

Managem

ent

23

1M/2F

1Purposeful

BSU

FdDevelopmentGeography

12

0M/2F

1Purposeful

BSU

FdDevelopmentGeography

26

2M/4F

2Purposeful

BSU

BScTourism

Managem

ent

(top-upfrom

FdTourism

Managem

ent)

32

1M/1F

0Purposeful

6 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

experiences of their programme and the university environment. This section is where

both positive and negative experiences, and potentially contentious issues, would be

discussed. Questions were designed to ease participants into the discussions at the start

including asking them about where they had applied and why, with more general questions

about future aspirations coming at the end. Our topic schedule is shown in Table 2. Other

aspects of our focus group design included:

. Prompts for all topics, to be used only if required. (Often key issues were raised by

students, without prompting.)

. Repetition of Sections 3 and 4 for top-up students, in relation to their experience

at their second institution.

. Same set of questions and prompts used for all seven focus groups, allowing

comparison between data-sets.

. Focus group recordings were between 40 minutes (in which there were two

participants) and 1 hour. ‘Recorded’ focus groups were preceded by c. 15 minutes

session briefing.

Stage 4: Focus Group Management

Focus group management includes consideration of setting or environment, the role of the

moderator(s), group dynamics and power-relationships. To help put participants at ease, it

is generally recommended that focus groups take place in familiar surroundings. If you are

working with students the focus group can take place on their campus, either in a seminar

room, or in a more informal meeting area. Alternatively, as campus can be seen as a formal

environment, another neutral, but accessible, venue could be chosen. A decision about the

practicalities of on-campus sites versus the need for a neutral venue will need to be made.

Crang and Cook (2007) note that the ‘associational contexts’ of a venue need to be

considered, including whether it has links with particular groups of people or types of

information, or could reinforce power relationships. Power-relationships between group

members (for example friendship groups, gender, age and confidence levels) can also

affect responses.

The role of the moderator(s) is a key consideration. Burgess (1996) suggests using two

moderators, one ‘interviewer’ and one ‘note-taker,’ who acts as a participant-observer but

does not contribute to discussions. The role of the ‘interviewer’ includes ensuring that all

topics are covered, using prompts where required, ensuring that all participants have

chance to comment on each topic, and picking up on issues raised by participants. The role

is to guide discussions when needed, but not to dominate. Crang and Cook (2007) note that

the moderator must be sensitive to power relations, and that the group may need to be

managed to encourage participation from all members. Some participants may feel under-

confident in expressing their views, and moderators must actively encourage inclusivity

and participation. This may involve directly asking quieter participants what they think

about an issue, and in some cases may require interrupting more vocal members to allow

someone else to speak. Another role of the moderators is to outline verbally the aims of the

focus group at the beginning of the session, so that this is clear to all participants.

Participants should be reminded directly before the focus group takes place that they have

the ‘right to withdraw’ from the process at any stage during the discussion. This is

particularly important if sensitive topics are being discussed. If the aims and reasons for

Focus Group Research 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

Table

2.Topic

schedule,based

on‘pyramid’approach

Pyramid

approach

Questiontype

Topic/question

Exam

ple

prompts

(only

use

ifrequired)

1.Pre-arrival

Openingquestionto

putstudentsat

ease

What

attractedyouto

theFoundationDegree?

Whydid

youchoose

anFdcourse,

rather

than

aBSc?

2.On-arrival

Transitionquestion

When

youarrived,did

youfeel

equipped

for

university/collegelife?

Did

youfindthetransitioninto

thefirstyearofuniversity/

collegeeasy

ordifficult?

3.Atcollege/university

Key

questions

(alwaysaskpositivequestions

before

negativequestions)

What

are/wereyourpositiveexperiences

ofthecourse?

What

has

thelevel

ofsupport

beenlike?

(e.g.tutoravailability,

availability/accessto

hardcopy/

onlineresources)

What

are/wereyournegativeexperiences

ofthecourse?

What

wereyourpositiveexperiences

oftheinstitution?

How

havetheseissues

been

dealtwith?(ifcontentiousissues

raised

bystudents)

What

wereyournegativeexperiences

oftheinstitution?

4.Lookingback

Transitionquestion

Sofar,has

yourFE/HEexperience

beenas

youexpected?

Isthereanythingyou

would

havechanged

about

yourexperience

asawhole?

5.Lookingforw

ard

Closingquestion

What

areyourplansaftercompletion

oftheFd/BSc?

Doyouplanto

top-upto

year3?

(reasons?)

What

career

areyouplanning

topursue?

8 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

your study have been clearly explained to participants throughout the planning stages, the

risks of withdrawal will be minimized.

Our pedagogic study was multi-institutional and involved travel to several different

towns/cities, so logistically arranging focus groups on the college or university site was

preferable. While the power-relationships associated with the campus environment

(e.g. staff–student hierarchies) may be reinforced through this approach, conversely the

venue is familiar to students. Focus groups took place in seminar rooms, and to provide an

informal setting the focus groups were set up in a circle around tables, and refreshments

were provided. Before beginning each focus group, the research aims were outlined, and

participants were advised that they could withdraw without penalty at any stage of the

process. BSU staff acted as moderators due to familiarity with project research aims and of

the courses involved. Following Burgess (1996) two moderators were used for each group,

one note-taker and one interviewer.

Recording, Transcription and Data Analysis

In the planning stages you will need to decide whether to record the focus groups.

Commentators acknowledge that the presence of a recording device may deter some

people from full participation (as can taking extensive notes), but it is also recognized that

recording discussions provides the fullest record of the conversation, enables eye contact

and removes the potential biases of hand-written notes. Whether or not discussions are

recorded (traditionally using a dictaphone, or alternatively a video-recorder to record both

sound and body language), it should be made clear to all participants that individual

responses will be anonymized—which may alleviate some concerns with being recorded.

The alternative to recording is to take written notes, and make notes of body-language

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009), and the tone of the discussions. Even if discussions are being

recorded it is recommended that written notes should always be taken, in case of

equipment failure (Dunn, 2000; Crang & Cook, 2007), and also to help with clarity. If

taking written notes only, these should be written in short hand and fully written up as soon

as possible after the session. Recording discussions may raise tensions as this can affect

the flow of discussions, and ground rules need to be put in place, such as asking

participants not to talk over one another, to facilitate clear recording.

A decision needs to be made about whether to transcribe the focus groups before

analysis. If you have the option of paying a research assistant to undertake this time-

consuming task (or out-sourcing the work to an online company), this is probably

worthwhile. Where a detailed record is required, recordings should be fully transcribed

and transcripts checked for accuracy against the recordings before beginning data analysis.

Transcripts should then be read through several times in order to identify key themes

within and between groups. Coding systems can be used to identify themes, such as

colours, number, letters or symbols (Cameron, 2000). If working on a large study, it may

be appropriate to use a qualitative data package such as Atlas ti* or NVivo (which has

largely absorbed the earlier Nu*dist package) making it easier to assign codes to emerging

themes and to establish relationships between themes (Breen, 2006; Onwuegbuzie et al.,

2009). However, these packages can be cumbersome and time-consuming to use at least

initially. The final write-up should be balanced between direct quotes from participants

and interpretation of the discussions (Cameron, 2000). Quotes may be used to reflect

important themes and also to illustrate new findings.

Focus Group Research 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

For our study, focus groups were digitally recorded to provide a complete record of

discussions and to aid in data analysis. Transcription was undertaken by a paid research

assistant, scripts were cross-checked against the original recordings and participant

responses were anonymized. Transcripts were used as the basis for our analysis and have

allowed identification of both general themes and specific points, and aided in the process

of ‘triangulation’ or cross-checking of participants views (Holbrook, 1996; Denscombe,

2010), both within individual focus groups and between the seven focus groups.

Challenges of Method

Participation

Participation in terms of attendance at the focus group and the contributions of individual

members can be problematic to organize. Whether a focus group is embedded into a

scheduled teaching session or outside the timetable, participation in the research must be

voluntary to align with the ethical principles of research. Motivation for students to

participate might include a sense of obligation, peer-pressure, volunteering with a desire to

improve others’ learning based on their own experiences or as a platform to convey

grievances. Thus, participants of focus groups may be self-selecting and need to be

carefully managed, in particular when participants become too vocal or seek to promote

individual agendas. In our study, we worked with quite close-knit cohorts, but in some

instances there were quieter and more vocal participants. In some focus groups, it was

necessary to directly address quieter group members to ensure feedback from all

participants.

Power Relations

The relationship between participants and moderators needs consideration, with

arguments on both sides for familiar or independent moderators. In our case study, we

used moderators that were familiar to students. Inevitably, this means that power-

relationships between staff and students will have had some effect on what individual

students felt able to discuss. However, familiarity with staff appeared to encourage

students to participate and this approach wielded much more in-depth information than

relying only on written module evaluations. As Goss & Leinbach (1996) note, focus

groups do not eliminate unequal power relations between researcher and research subjects,

but they provide a more open forum for discussion and are collaborative. If more than one

institution is used, ensuring representivity and comparability between institutions is also

important.

Benefits of Method

Informal Environment

Focus groups allow for liaison with students in an environment which is different from a

more ‘formal’ teaching session. Staff may act as moderators, but the onus is on gathering

student opinions and reflections on their experiences (and staff act as facilitators and are

not ‘experts’ in the area).

10 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

Student Empowerment

Students are given the opportunity to discuss in-depth issues relating to teaching and

learning and support networks in HE, rather than just providing summary data in response

to quantitative surveys.

Potential to Integrate into Modules

Focus group methodologies can be appropriately integrated into the evaluation of

modules, and could be used in a seminar-based context.

Dissemination of Experiences and Good Practice

The qualitative nature of the data allows for reflection on student experience, further

developing provision or modifying learning and teaching methods where required, and

allows for wider dissemination of good practice.

Implementing Change

In our study with Foundation degree students, the focus group findings (Simm et al.,

2012) led both to increased awareness amongst staff of support issues, and to the

development of a series of one-off sessions which students could participate in. These

included group workshops, reading group sessions and social events for Foundation

degree students, events which address two issues (i) assisting student understanding of key

concepts and (ii) providing identity to the degree programme. For the on-site Foundation

Degree in Development Geography, student mentoring of second year students by third

year top-up students was adopted to support students in undertaking their overseas

development placement which is a key component of the course (Winlow et al., 2007;

Simm & Schaaf, 2011). This meant that students gained wider perspectives on how to

adjust to a different culture and to carry out a small research project overseas, beyond the

advice that could be offered solely by academic staff (who do not have in-country

experience of all destinations).

The facilitation of pedagogic or administrative change is often a key objective of

pedagogic research. It is important that pedagogic research is not an ephemeral episode but

that findings are translated into constructive outcomes for participant institutions, courses,

modules or cohorts of students. Outcomes may include disseminating findings as a report

or presentation to participant institutions and staff, publishing in relevant journals or

books, conference presentations and reporting to students through staff–student

committee or similar formal mechanisms. Focus group discussions may reveal negative

points, and researchers must exercise tact in dealing with contentious issues (in particular

complaints directed at individual staff or institutions). This includes ensuring anonymity,

and exercising caution when findings may involve ‘washing dirty linen in public’, which

may arise with external dissemination.

Focus groups can provide insights that quantitative approaches, such as module

evaluations or the National Student Survey, cannot. They can be a vehicle for student

empowerment, offering students a platform to voice their views and to influence decision

making, such as periodic reviews of teaching programmes or courses, and providing

Focus Group Research 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

formative feedback on new modules. Through participation, students may also develop

greater understanding and empathy for the objectives and challenges of university

teaching and learning.

Acknowledgements

The project explained in the case-study was funded by the HEA-GEES Subject Centre Small-Scale Learning and

Teaching Research and Development Fund 2008–2009. We thank the staff and students at Weston College,

City College Plymouth and Bath Spa University for participating in this study and Emma Temple-Malt who

transcribed the audio recordings.

References

Bennett, K. (2002) Interviews and focus groups, in: P. Shurmer-Smith (Ed.) Doing Cultural Geography,

pp. 151–162 (London: Sage).

Breen, R. L. (2006) A practical guide to focus group research, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(3),

pp. 463–475.

Burgess, J. (1996) Focusing on fear: The use of focus groups in a project for the community Forest Unit,

Countryside Commission, Area, 28(2), pp. 130–135.

Cameron, J. (2000) Focusing on the focus group, in: I. Hay (Ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human

Geography, pp. 50–82 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Crang, M. & Cook, I. (2007) Doing Ethnographies (London: Sage).

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th ed.

(Maidenhead: McGrawHill/OUP).

Dunn, K. (2000) Interviewing, in: I. Hay (Ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, pp. 50–82

(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Fallon, G. & Brown, R. B. (2002) Focusing on focus groups: Lessons from a research project involving a

Bangladeshi community, Qualitative Research, 2(2), pp. 195–208.

Fuller, I., Gaskin, S. & Scott, I. (2003) Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in

the lights of restricted access to the field, caused by foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2001, Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 27(1), pp. 70–102.

Goss, J. D. & Leinbach, T. R. (1996) Focus groups as an alternative research practice: Experience with

transmigrants in Indonesia, Area, 28(2), pp. 115–123.

Gullifer, J. & Tyson, G. A. (2010) Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study,

Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), pp. 463–481.

Holbrook, B. (1996) Shopping around: Focus groups research in North London, Area, 28(2), pp. 126–142.

Hopkins, P. E. (2007) Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups, Area, 39(4), pp. 528–535.

Hyden, L. C. & Bulow, P. H. (2003) Who’s talking: Drawing conclusions from focus groups – Some

methodological considerations, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4, pp. 305–321.

Kneale, P. (2002) Developing and embedding Reflective Portfolios in Geography, Journal of Geography in

Higher Education, 26(1), pp. 81–94.

Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th ed.

(London: Sage).

Longhurst, R. (1996) Refocusing Groups: pregnant women’s geographical experiences of Hamilton, New

Zealand/ Aotearoa, Area, 28(2), pp. 143–149.

Longhurst, R. (2003) Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups, in: N. J. Clifford & G. Valentine (Eds)

Key Methods in Geography, pp. 117–132 (London: Sage).

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickenson, W. B., Leech, N. L. & Zoran, A. G. (2009) A qualitative framework for

collecting and analyzing data in focus group research, International Institute for Qualitative Methodology,

8(3), pp. 1–21.

Raby, R. (2010) Public selves, inequality, and interruptions: The creation of meaning in focus groups with teens,

International Institute for Qualitative Methods, 9(1), pp. 1–15.

Simm, D. & Schaaf, R. (2011) Providing specialist support to peers: Evaluating a student mentoring scheme for

semi-independent overseas fieldwork, Planet, 24, pp. 30–36.

12 H. Winlow et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012

Simm, D., Marvell, A., Schaaf, R. & Winlow, H. (2012) Foundation degrees in Geography and Tourism: A

critical reflection on student experiences and the implications for undergraduate degree courses, Journal of

Geography in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2012.692075.

Simm, D., Marvell, A., Winlow, H. & Schaaf, R. (2011) Student experiences of Foundation degrees in Further

and Higher Education, Planet, 24, pp. 2–9.

The British Sociological Association (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological

Association, Available at http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement þ Ethical þ Practice.htm (accessed

November 2011).

Valentine, G. (2005) ‘Tell me about . . . ’: Using interviews as a research methodology, in: R. Flowerdew &

D. Martin (Eds) Methods in Human Geography a Guide for Students Doing Research Projects, 2nd ed.,

pp. 110–127 (Harlow: Pearson Education).

Wibeck, V., Dahlgren, M. & Oberg, G. (2007) Learning in focus groups: An analytical dimension for enhancing

focus group research, Qualitative Research, 7(2), pp. 249–267.

Winlow, H., Simm, D. & Haslett, S. (2007) Extended work-related placements in developing countries:

Supporting remote learning and assessment, Planet, 18, pp. 28–32.

Focus Group Research 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

id S

imm

] at

08:

54 1

0 Ju

ly 2

012