Introduction
Focus groups have become a cornerstone of qualitative research, prized for their ability to uncover rich insights through group interaction. This methodology leverages social dynamics to elicit detailed responses, shaped by both individual perspectives and collective cues. While traditional face-to-face focus groups offer significant advantages, they also present challenges, especially when engaging geographically dispersed or hard-to-reach populations, and when discussing sensitive subjects. As technology advances and internet access expands, Online Focus Groups emerge as a compelling alternative. They not only address the limitations of geographical barriers but also offer cost-effective solutions by eliminating the need for physical meeting locations.
Over the past two decades, online platforms have been increasingly utilized for focus groups, primarily employing asynchronous text-based platforms such as email and discussion boards. These methods have proven valuable in diverse research settings, including studies with rural nurses, traveling nurses, and men with cancer. The benefits of asynchronous online focus groups are clear: faster data collection, reduced costs, and broadened access for diverse participant groups. However, relying solely on text-based communication alters the fundamental nature of focus groups. Key criticisms include the loss of spontaneity in responses and the absence of visual and aural cues, which are vital for conveying emotions and guiding group dynamics. Synchronous chat services have been explored to address the real-time aspect, yet they still lack the crucial non-verbal elements, and demand strong written communication skills from both moderators and participants to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings. Furthermore, the text-based nature can lead to compromised data quality as participants adopt shortcuts in writing to expedite communication.
Audio-visual technologies, particularly web conferencing services, offer a promising avenue to replicate the nuanced experience of face-to-face focus groups more closely. Despite this potential, this approach appears to be underutilized in research. Limited bandwidth and platform inadequacies previously posed significant technical hurdles to online face-to-face groups. However, with the rapid expansion of internet access and speed, these barriers are diminishing. Research also indicates that social interactions can be effectively mirrored in online environments, suggesting that online face-to-face focus groups could serve as a robust alternative to traditional methods. Despite these advancements, empirical evidence on the practical experience of conducting focus groups using web conferencing remains limited. To bridge this knowledge gap, this paper shares our experiences of using a web conferencing service for online focus groups, drawing comparisons with traditional face-to-face focus groups to illuminate the similarities and differences.
Methods
This study is part of a larger evaluation of a postgraduate public health subject at the University of Sydney, approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Project No. 2014/1015). The subject under evaluation offers students the option to study either face-to-face or online. The online modality is primarily chosen by students located at a distance from the campus or those with commitments that hinder face-to-face attendance. While the subject content remains consistent across delivery modes, we hypothesized that the learning experience would differ significantly between face-to-face and online students. Ensuring equitable participation from both groups was crucial for this evaluation. Therefore, focus groups were conducted with both former and current students, offering both face-to-face and online options to maximize inclusivity. The online focus groups were conducted in real-time using Blackboard Collaborate TM (Version 9.1; http://www.blackboard.com/online-collaborative-learning/), a web conferencing service.
Participants were recruited through a two-stage email process. Initially, expressions of interest were sought from all students who had completed the subject in 2013 or 2014 (n=400). Emails were sent to their official university email addresses. Subsequently, those who expressed interest (n=23) were asked to complete a brief survey detailing their preferred focus group platform and their time and date availability (see Supplementary material). Two participants withdrew at this stage due to scheduling conflicts.
In total, five focus groups were conducted: three face-to-face (two groups with n=4 and one with n=6 participants) and two online (n=3 and n=4 participants, respectively). Each focus group session lasted approximately 90 minutes. Online participants were invited to log in prior to the scheduled start to allow time for microphone and camera setup. Furthermore, the invitation included a link to a Help page (http://sydney.edu.au/elearning/staff/help/collaborateHelp.shtml) where participants could test Blackboard Collaborate TM and verify their system compatibility.
All focus groups were moderated by the same researcher (JK) to maintain consistency in moderation style across both online and face-to-face settings. This included allowing simultaneous speakers in online groups, mirroring natural face-to-face conversations, rather than enforcing a single-speaker setting in Collaborate TM. The discussion topics, identical for both online and face-to-face groups, centered on assessment practices, tutorials, and lectures within the subject (see Supplementary material for the complete discussion guide). The only procedural difference was the inclusion of a brief tutorial on using key Blackboard Collaborate TM features at the beginning of the online sessions. The findings from these focus groups, beyond the methodological reflections, are reported separately.
Reflective practice was employed to evaluate the similarities and differences in the conduct and content of focus groups across the two platforms. This involved reviewing audio recordings and transcripts, reflecting on the group dynamics and researcher interactions, and considering potential improvements for future sessions. Our reflections primarily focus on our experiences as researchers in managing and moderating these groups. These reflections are based on our observations of group functioning and the salient issues that emerged. While participant feedback on their experiences in each format was not directly solicited, insights were gleaned from comments made during the focus group discussions.
Participants’ and Researchers’ Experience
When scheduling the focus groups, potential participants were asked about their preferred platform. Survey responses indicated significant interest in online focus groups (n=17 of 23), particularly among those with work or family commitments that made face-to-face participation challenging. Several online participants expressed gratitude for the opportunity to contribute their perspectives in a format that accommodated their circumstances, highlighting the increased accessibility of online focus groups.
“Thanks for doing this. Interesting to know subjects seriously evaluating how they do things.”
A key advantage of web conferencing over chat services for synchronous online focus groups is its ability to replicate the nuances of face-to-face interactions. Participants can respond to visual and auditory cues, fostering a more natural and dynamic conversation. This was evident in our online focus groups, where participant engagement and interaction with the moderator closely mirrored that of the face-to-face groups. Participants were actively involved and attentive, although occasional distractions from personal environments (e.g., phones, children, background noise) did interrupt discussions. However, we observed that communication was generally slower, and more time was spent on topics tangential to the research compared to face-to-face groups. Specifically, online participants spent time familiarizing themselves with the web conferencing service, discussing its novelty, and addressing technical issues, as illustrated below:
Participant 1: “[I think the] mic is bad. This is not working well.”
Participant 2: “We can hear you alright but it is just cutting out.”
Participant 1: “I’ll try logging off.”
While the slower pace and distractions resulted in less overall data volume, the quality of the data obtained from online focus groups was comparable to that from face-to-face groups, aligning with the findings of Abrams et al. Thematic analysis revealed similar themes across both formats, yet critical differences in the student experience between online and face-to-face learners became apparent. For instance, a group assignment was extensively discussed in all focus groups, but the experiences of face-to-face students (positive) and online students (negative) were markedly contrasting. This crucial distinction might have been overlooked without the inclusion of online focus groups.
Importantly, the online sessions effectively functioned as focus groups, fostering genuine discussion among participants, rather than just participant-moderator exchanges, characteristic of group interviews. Despite covering fewer topics than face-to-face groups, the online discussions yielded valuable insights. Recognizing this, the moderator adapted the second online focus group by prioritizing topics where online and face-to-face student experiences were expected to diverge most significantly (e.g., tutorials and group work) and allocating less time to topics likely to be similar across both groups (e.g., written assignments). This adjustment involved time allocation within the existing discussion guide, without altering the core questions.
Moderating online focus groups shared similarities with face-to-face moderation, but also presented unique challenges. The online moderator needed to be proficient in Blackboard Collaborate TM to provide technical support to participants, a requirement absent in face-to-face groups. This included managing participants who used the chat feature due to microphone issues. Integrating chat participation added complexity, requiring the moderator to allow extra time for typing, reading, and responding to chat contributions. However, this did not significantly disrupt the conversation flow, although the possibility of chat users employing writing shortcuts, as noted in previous research, remains. Notably, the moderator’s speaking style and pace did not require adjustment, as audio clarity was generally sufficient for natural conversation flow, similar to face-to-face settings.
We observed a higher rate of withdrawal among online participants. Initially, five participants were recruited for each focus group, but three withdrew shortly before the first group (two participants) and the second group (one participant). Two more participants withdrew during the sessions (one per group), citing technical difficulties and childcare distractions. In contrast, only one participant withdrew from the face-to-face groups. This higher attrition in online groups suggests a potentially weaker commitment or greater susceptibility to external disruptions in the online environment. It is important to note that these observations are based on a small sample size and further research with larger groups is needed to confirm these trends.
Finally, audio quality posed a significant challenge, particularly for transcription. While participants could generally hear each other during the sessions, echoing in the recordings made accurate transcription extremely difficult and time-consuming. This highlights a critical technical consideration for researchers utilizing web conferencing for online focus groups.
Discussion
Our experience indicates that web conferencing services hold considerable promise for conducting online focus groups, despite several challenges. The gratitude expressed by online participants and the unique insights gained regarding the contrasting experiences of online versus face-to-face students underscore the value of this approach. These differences might have been missed using methods like surveys, which lack the dynamic social interactions inherent in focus groups. This highlights the importance of continuing to explore and refine online methodologies to enhance inclusivity and participation in research, particularly for hard-to-reach populations.
The time spent addressing technical issues and service familiarization in online focus groups was expected. To mitigate this, we provided a Help page and encouraged early log-ins, and allocated time for a brief tutorial at the start of each session. While these measures were utilized by some participants, significant time was still diverted from research topics to technical matters. This suggests a need for more robust strategies to address this, such as allocating longer session times for online focus groups compared to face-to-face counterparts, or reducing the number of discussion topics to accommodate technical onboarding.
Blackboard Collaborate TM was chosen due to its integration with the university’s learning management system and participant familiarity with the broader platform. This eliminated the need for participants to create new accounts or download software. Collaborate TM also offered features like slide uploading and an integrated recording system, simplifying logistics. However, despite familiarity with the learning management system, participants were less acquainted with Collaborate TM itself, as it was a relatively new university-supported tool. One participant even questioned the choice of Collaborate TM over more familiar platforms like Skype. Researchers considering web conferencing for focus groups should, therefore, follow Tuttas’ recommendation to evaluate and compare various web conferencing services to select the most suitable platform for their specific study needs and participant demographics.
Similar to our experience, Tuttas encountered sound quality issues. A potential solution, implemented by Tuttas, is to request participants to mute their microphones when not speaking. While this may improve audio quality by reducing echo and background noise, it could also diminish the spontaneous and dynamic nature of group discussions, potentially shifting the format closer to a group interview than a naturalistic focus group. An alternative strategy to mitigate audio issues and enhance recording quality is to require all participants to use headsets with microphones. Headsets can effectively minimize echoing and improve the clarity of individual voices, leading to cleaner audio recordings for transcription and analysis.
The higher withdrawal rate among online participants, also noted by Tuttas, suggests a potential disconnect between participants and the research in online settings. While online environments can foster anonymity and potentially encourage more open sharing, this anonymity might also weaken participant commitment and increase the likelihood of disengagement. To compensate for this attrition, over-sampling, as suggested by Tuttas, is advisable. However, we also observed that smaller group sizes in online settings were easier to manage. Larger online groups might further limit the number of topics adequately covered within the session timeframe. Therefore, researchers might benefit from planning for more online focus groups with fewer participants per group than they would for face-to-face sessions.
Online focus groups are increasingly employed in biomedical and health-related research, often to facilitate discussions on sensitive topics with geographically dispersed or hard-to-reach populations. Their potential is also recognized in advertising research, relevant to health researchers examining the impact of advertising exposure. However, limitations of text-based platforms, such as challenges in managing real-time groups, reliance on highly motivated participants for asynchronous formats, and exclusion of participants with limited literacy, are well-documented. Our experience suggests that web conferencing services offer a robust alternative to face-to-face focus groups, overcoming many of the barriers inherent in text-based online approaches and strengthening the rigor of online qualitative research methodologies.
A primary limitation of this study is the lack of a pre-planned formal reflective process. Our exploration of online focus groups emerged during the study, rather than being designed from the outset. Consequently, our reflections are based primarily on our researcher perspectives, without direct participant feedback on their experiences with the different focus group formats. Despite this limitation, we believe these reflections offer valuable insights for researchers considering online focus groups, as practical guidance in this area remains scarce. While further formal research is needed to rigorously evaluate this methodology, our experiences can contribute to improved design and implementation of online focus groups in the interim.
Conclusions
Our experience with using web conferencing for real-time online focus groups presents a mixed but promising picture. Web conferencing offers a potentially realistic and comparable alternative to face-to-face focus groups, particularly for geographically dispersed populations. Further investigation and testing of various web conferencing services are warranted. However, technical challenges, especially concerning ease of access for participants and audio recording quality, necessitate careful consideration and thorough testing of the chosen platform prior to conducting online focus groups. Researchers should prioritize user-friendliness and robust recording capabilities when selecting a web conferencing service to ensure a smooth and productive online focus group experience.
Data availability
The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2017 Kite J and Phongsavan P
The qualitative data underpinning this analysis is not available because it cannot be sufficiently anonymised.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank all of the students who participated in this study, as well as Catherine Kiernan for transcribing the focus groups.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney’s Research into Teaching Seed Funding, 2014.
[version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]
Supplementary material
Click here for additional data file. (20.4KB, tgz)
References
[1] F1000Res. 2017 May 18. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.11236.r22904
