The analysis and interpretation of focus group data require a great deal of

judgment and care, just as any other scientific approach. A great

deal of the skepticism about the value of focus groups probably arises from the

perception that focus group data are subjective and difficult to interpret.

It can even be quantified and submitted to sophisticated mathematical analyses, though the purposes of focus group interviews seldom require this type of analysis. Indeed, there is no one best or correct approach to the analysis of focus group data. As with other types of data, the nature of the analyses of focus group interview data should be determined by the research question and the purpose for which the data are collected.

for more details please see the attched file

Ideally, one should look for thematic patterns in responses and create categories. The next step is to sort responses in these categories. Once the responses are coded, it appears as a snapshot . The process of analysis becomes simpler. 

Focus group data collection is complicated by intra grouo dynamics, which even the experienced researcher can manage only to a certain extent, As context is a key part of analysis, it often helps to have a person in addition to the moderator to note non-verbal expressions that can help clarify what people actually say. Clearly, as Muayyad Ahmad notes, the reason for convening the group will dictate the appropriate analysis strategies, as apples are not oranges (seeking reactions to a new product is not the same as seeking to understand the experience of caregivers for elderly relatives). If the dynamics of group communication are also taken into account, such as conversational turn taking, the situation becomes even more complex. It is important therefore to define in advance the specific interests of the researcher and to develop the interview guide with care and attention to these interests.

I personally think that the analysis of focus group data is not much different from the analysis of any other kind of interview data. Most people who ask for specific analytic tools in focus groups do so because they don't have experience with analyzing other kinds of qualitative data, so they think there must be something unique about focus groups.

To the extent that focus groups are different, this arises from Andrea's point about the group interaction. But just because the interaction produces the data doesn't mean that the interaction is the data. In the vast majority of studies, the researcher is interested in the content of what gets said, rather than the mechanics of how it gets said. (Also, it helps to remember that every interview occurs in a "context" so you should always to pay attention to that.)

As for specific analysis techniques, of the most widely used methods for interview data are versions of content analysis and thematic analysis (2006).

As David says, analyzing focus group interviews is not greatly different from analyzing one-person interviews.  Here is the process I follow:

Thanks to everyone for making out time to answer me. I really appreciate...

As already people have suggested you how to analyse the data collected through, Focus Group Discussions or any qualitative data, I just want add a few things. Thematic coding is really important and you can find answers which can be coded multiple times. The NVivo software is a great help, which can help you in organising your data. I found the software very useful and it is not that hard to learn. You can watch a 10 minute video on you tube to start. A good organised data always help in analysis. 

Thanks Rajib

Thank you. I learnt something new

Not quiet different from the one-to-one interview.

Thanks for your question. I wish I saw your question earlier. I suggest my recent article on how to analyse focus group data:

Nili, A., Tate, M., & Johnstone, D. (2017). A Framework and Approach for Analysis of Focus Group Data in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 40, 1. 

Although analysis of focus group data for "Information Systems" researchers has been mentioned in the title of this paper, the paper is relevant to many other research fields. This is an 'A' journal in my field.

We are using the analysis framework in several academic and industry research projects in Australia and New Zealand. 

Hi,

On a similar topic, does anyone know of a free program to enter focus group text and code it?

Thanks!

Michael

I do my focus group data analytics with Raven's Eye. It is super easy. upload data and you have analysis done super fast. You can change variables and get comparisons on things like males or females in focus groups. Saves hours on data analysis time. Really is a great tool for focus groups.

https://ravens-eye.net

very wonderful idea, thanks everybody, I am happy wiht this new ideas

Michael,

You can use QDA Miner Lite. It's a free software for qualitative coding: https://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-software/freeware/

very good question

Great post, great answers.

I have two seperate audio recordings of two separate focus groups, each lasting 30 mins, any ideas how I can quickly transcribe them, please?

Craig Knudsen you might want to check Nvivo as it has a transcription function.

I usually use NVivo, and it's a very powerful tool for analysing qualitative data. There's a lot of online tutorials on YouTube that could help you learn how to use it. As for the steps you need to follow, you can check Braun and Clark's thematic analysis guidance, it's very simple and clear https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1347976.pdf

Craig Knudsen you could also check TranscribeMe services if you're willing to pay a fee for the transcription, their prices are quite reasonable and their quality is usually very reliable. https://newportal.transcribeme.com/login

I am a little disquieted by the reliance on software- there is no software that does analysis for you, they are for management and manipulation of data you have already analyzed, and can be very useful for these tasks, as they may sharpen and refine your initial work.

The responses given have been very insightful and educative. Thanks to you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise!

Following

Where FGDs are not involved with many groups, a simple thematic analysis where the researcher identifies themes and then critically puts the recurring ideas to their specific themes. Should try when discussing his/her findings, to engage the narratives to describe the theme and include quotations where necessary.

regarding those answers that software x and y have specific tools to "perform" focus group analysis - this is not correct. What most CAQDAS have these days is a feature that automatically codes all speakers. This could also be done before these tools were available using the common auto coding feature, but it was a bit more manual work. Now with the new tools, speakers - if transcribed consistenly - can recognized automatically and the entire speaker unit is coded with the name of the speaker. Mostly attributes like gender, age, etc.. can also be added. But this is not performing analysis - it is just preparing data.

If you have interview data, then you assign attributes to the entire document (or use document groups in ATLAS.ti). But this does not work for focus group data as there are multiple speakers in each document. Therefore you need to code speakers if in your analysis want to compare the responses of different speakers. So this is what these tools are doing.

Focus Group Discussion can also be analysed quantitatively. For example, you can count the number of times the same theme/ answer provided in the discussion. Then the percentage of the answer can be considered

If the typical focus group projects consists of approximately 6-8 groups, why would you want to count how often people say things? There is not possible way to do a statistical analysis on such a small N.

Thank you David for this response. I swi the same thing yesterday, but apparently didn’t add it correctly. I further pointed out that this plan would indicate a flawed study design.

I have actually done some counting of codes in focus groups. The specific purpose was to find patterns, after which I returned to the text to interpret the sources of those patterns. But I think that in general this is a rare approach.

Article Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths Not Taken

I tell my students the a write up of a focus group should look different than just a chain of ethnographic interviews. The interaction does matter. One key thing to note in journals of focus group data are instances in which the group generates an additional prompt or question beyond what is provided in the guide.

I agree with suggestions on data analysis as given by David and others. On the point of discussing findings as suggested by Nkadi, I am of the view that quotes should be given in the 'findings' section while the discussion section should focus on interpreting the findings in relation to previous research.

Thanks to everyone for this insightful discussion. I agree with Dr David. If number of instances are counted, it doesn't not accomplish the objective of the research as we look for why factor to report the pattern of a concept in qualitative studies.

Focus groups are accompanied by specialists in human behavior, so that, in addition to the posterior analysis that will be carried out by these professionals, what is done during the process is much more important.

Roberto - Minadeo I am not sure what you mean by your statement that "what is done during the process is much more important" than the analysis that occurs afterward. If you mean what people say during the group is the most important element of the data gathering, that is certainly true -- but using transcripts to examine those statements is the key element in the "posterior analysis" process.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion. When do we use content analysis and thematic analysis?

Please throw more light on the two.

Thanks

Content analysis is generally more deductive, so it is most effective when you have a pre-determined set of research topics that you can convert into a codebook. In contrast, thematic analysis typically relies on the inductive creation of the coding system during the analysis process.

Thank you so much for that clarification