You have to take it to the mattresses and go beyond just the words. Ideally you want to do a rhetorical, schematic analysis along with transcription. First, according to Naomi Quinn (see citation below), meaning in discourse is based on key words, metaphors, and lines of reasoning. In the course of a group achieving synergy, which is the key to focus group success, the people in the group negotiate shared metaphors and agree on lines of reasoning. Second, a detailed analysis includes transcription. This not only provides an accurate account of the words spoken, but includes information on pace, pausing, interruptions, changes in tone, and the prosodic structure of the groups interaction. A transcription will help you determine the negotiation of metaphors and development of lines of reasoning as well.

Here is Naomi Quinn's edited volume and chapter citation:

Quinn, Naomi. 2005a. Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods. Edited by Douglas Holland, Culture, Mind, and Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2005b. “How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share, From What They Say.” In Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods, edited by Naomi Quinn, 35-82. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

What an interesting question!

In my opinion, the group interaction may be more or less important, depending on the topic of the study. That is, it may be essential in some studies, or regarding some questions within the study, and less important in others.

I did a study on ideas about child sexual abuse where we had separate focus groups for: younger African American men, older African American men, younger African American women, Older African American women, Spanish speaking Latinas (women), English Speaking Latinas, Spanish speaking Latinos (men) and English speaking Latinos. The different styles of interacting among the participants within each group were immediately evident. In general, the men from all groups were more apt to disagree with each other openly in a kind, joking way, and the women were more apt to "add onto" each other's statements and interweave their different ideas. Additionally, the men were more apt to interrupt each other. We also noted that the Spanish speaking Latinas (most likely less acculturated) clutched their purses in their laps throughout the group and seemed less comfortable in general--perhaps due to the topic, perhaps due to the fact that it was being videotaped, perhaps due to the fact that their group facilitator was a man (not my decision!).

We didn't use any elaborate procedure for documenting this. Certain things jumped out in the video recordings and we noted them in our write-up.

Please say more about what you're doing and thinking--sounds interesting.

Lisa

Thanks for your answers!

I'm into a study about ambulance clinicians experiences of relationships to patients and significant others. We chose FGs while the clinicians are used to work in teams while providing care, and that the team is an important factor. However, I have to find a way arguing not only for choosing FGs but for how they generated a depth of data. How can I argue that it was a FG and not a group interview with less interaction involvement. I have read different aspect of dealing with this interaction while reporting. Some prefer to transcribe all different kinds of both verbal but also non-verbal interaction. This is not my case. We chose a low-moderate involvement, audio recording and transcribed all verbatim interaction and "word-like"-sounds as Mmm etc. My opinion is that the interaction as a way of deepening the topic, is the most interesting. The interaction in itself is not in my first interest, but how the interaction produce the content of data. However, to argue for the choice of FGs I think I have to report both the interaction and the content in some way. And my concern is how I can make the interaction explicit and visible while reporting and analyzing?

Mats

I'm not sure exactly why you have to justify your choice of FG and differentiate it so clearly from group interviews--this is nothing I have ever encountered in my context in the U.S. Focus groups are exceedingly common in the health field and there are decades of research demonstrating their effectiveness. If nothing jumps out at you as important in terms of the interactions, why focus on it? I don't mean to be dismissive....just trying to understand. Perhaps the interactional issues can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs or a page or two. For me, this is part of the beauty of qualitative research--you don't know beforehand what will matter most and we have the ability to focus on what matters most--both in terms of the content and the process. Best wishes,

Lisa

A good source for tracking recent work on interaction in focus groups would be citations to:

Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15, 832-840.

I agree with Lisa's original comment that it isn't necessarily important to track the actual interaction in focus groups -- that depends on your purposes, which could well match what Mats is proposing. Here is another citation where I make the point: "saying that the interaction in focus groups produces the data is not the same as saying that the interaction itself is the data" (p. 718)

Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 718–722.

A bit different point of view. Question itself is just fantastic. But FGI is not that obvious choice. The rescuers are a team. Usually you invite different experts and observe interactions and creation of new group opiniom. Therefore it is so important to have different voices to watch the creation od unique group opiniom. In that matter, the specific situation is more of sociometrics. It would be worthfull to explain the choice od FGI and add sociometrics along with nonverbal communication (maybe time gaps of silence, eruptions od excitment, much more contextual analysis).

My experience with conducting focus groups fall into three general areas.

1- Political campaigns and/or commercial product marketing. In these groups the researchers are most interested in behavior change dynamics, eg: what causes a participant to move from position A to position B... from candidate A to candidate B...from brand A to B.

2- Social scientists and health professionals who seem to be most interested in what position a participant holds and why... what belief a person has and why. (More interested in personal/psycho-social and less interested in behavior change or dynamic content.)  I think there should be more overlap here with the dynamic research described above.

3- Researchers who are developing and refining quantitative measurement (usually surveys).  Here, FG are used prospectively to develop items, eg: how do prospective respondents interpret the term "abstinence" in item #5...or do the respondents hall have a similar understanding of the term "intercourse" in item #7?  Also FG are used retrospectively to refine the survey. Here, participants who have participated in a pilot survy are asked about specific items, confusion over item meaning, etc. 

I believe the COMBINATION of focus group, interviews, etc. (qualitative methods) and surveys, etc. (quantitative methods) work best.

Perhaps you could run two or three one-on-one interviews with like subjects and the same questions and compare the responses with those in the focus groups?

I don't know how many focus groups you have recorded but have you tried analysing them using NVIVO.  I ask because, as was said earlier, in qualitative research you never know what you will get and if you have a large number of focus groups modern Nvivo programmes can do such things as analyse whether different ages or genders use the same terminology, phrases if you have also collected any demographic data on your participants, and whilst not visual can add an extra layer of depth to the analysis and highlight some less overt interactions

Thanks for everybody's efforts responding this issue. I have got a lot to think about. But, think I have to in this study follow the path of letting the interaction produce the data. I have done 4 FGs and analyze them manually. So far I think the amount of data is able to grasp in that way.

I've looked through the discussion once again and have a question - did these fgis take place in specific interview situation or during normal work-day. You used an expression "are used to work as a team." If the last situation - it has much more to do with observation than just FGI. Just wondering, because the question is really good and analysis you try to conduct is sophisticated.

They took place in a specific interview situation. The expression of "are used to work as team" was meant to validate my choice of data-Collection. We had in the planning phase in mind doing individual interviews as an alternative to FGs.