I have quantitative data from phase 1 and 2 and qualitive focus groups as phase 3. I would like to consider few focus groups as control and other focus groups as study ones where I will introduce the quantitative findings from phase 1 and 2 to the study focus groups then check for their responses while leaving the control focus groups with normal discussion. Is that legitimate intervention?
You seem to be grappling with your preconceptions.In your study by prompting FGD conversation around the generated questions from phase 1 and 2 of your study smacks a biased approach. You need to clear your research initiative, your question is concealing some vital intent. I reckon, question is concealing real intent. In qualitative work agreements and disagreements get evaporated of it's own, then, why you need to prompt a control group with your cherry picked questions. It seems your giving swerve to your research towards something conceived beforehand.
You seem to be grappling with preconceptions.In your study by prompting FGD conversation around the generated questions from phase 1 and 2 of your study smacks a biased approach. You need to clear your research initiative, your question is concealing some vital intent. I reckon, question is concealing real purpose. In qualitative work agreements and disagreements get evaporated of it's own, then, why you need to prompt a control group with your cherry picked questions. It seems you are giving swerve to your research towards something conceived beforehand.
Share
I don't see any problem with asking for feedback on your prior findings. In terms of mixed methods research, this would be an "explanatory sequential" design, where the goal is to gain more understanding about your quantitative results.
In terms of an intervention, it seems to me like you would need to run a substantial number of groups in each of your two formats in order to get a reasonable comparison. In addition, you would need to have a strong content analytic framework to compare the two sets of discussions. If you are thinking about making a statistical comparison, I would say that it is out of the question without a large number of groups.
As an alternative, you might consider what is known as a funnel design for your questioning. The analogy is to starting with a wide, open-ended beginning, followed by a narrower set of questions. In this case, you would begin by hearing the participants' own perspective before you introduce any of your results, and then move into getting their reactions to your more targeted questions.
Well, I do not know the nature of your study nor the topic but Focus group discussions are actually meant to give you an in depth understanding of your subject of study. What you get are not mere responses but an opportunity to get different in depth opinions on the issue you're canvassing. So ideally, it should help throw more light on your findings from your phases 1 and 2. So they can very much work together.
@David L Morgan.... Agreed, content analytic framework is going to sail him through. I am not coming to terms with comparing to FGD groups by weaving a framework of themed or questions generated from phase 1 and 2 .I learnt about funnel design, it's exquisite one, just beautiful way to zero down to your aspirational question.All said and done, what is control FGD?????
If you are changing the original proposal that was IRB approved, you are ethically required by federal regulations to present your proposed change to gain IRB approval. If you are not associated with an institution that is mandated to have an IRB, you don't have a problem. The IRB has the legal right to destroy all your research if you are found out of compliance with the regulations.
As a piece of "practice evaluation," there is no ethical problem in changing the protocol. However, I wouldn't call it a "focus group." The term "focus group" is usually reserved to describe a research methods tool and not a method for intervention. Within clinical practice, there is a variety of jargon to employ for what you are doing.
As I said earlier, running a "few" focus groups in one condition versus another is not going to produce enough data for statistical analysis.
I have published two research articles employing focus groups without including a statistical analysis. In research methods, the focus group is commonly used for theory construction. Both articles are available on ResearchGate.
David, I believe my problem with your question is related to the jargon you're using and not the substance of your ideas.
I am still bamboozled by his idea of intervention. I totally agree with @ stephen M Marson, FGD is used as a study tool.... I am yet to come to terms with control FGD. My question remains un answered. There's a component of bewilderment...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science