On the face of it, I'd say yes.

But what are your results?

And what are you looking for with this study?

the direction of my study is on the importance of financial management to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). This result is supposed to represent the plight of OFWs in Oman.

How many focus groups did you have? Did the focus groups meet multiple times each?

I have to re-iterate Daniel's question, above; for your study to represent the plight of OFWs in Oman, 1 focus group of 10 meeting even multiple times would not I'd say, invite great credibility; however, several groups (6-10?) meeting several times would elicit more robust data.

thanks for the valuable information. I would be grateful to consider your advice. Thanks!

Good morning, focus groups and discussion groups are a great tool for comprehensive interpretive research, in these cases, the number of groups or participants in your study is not so important, but the response you have raised and the objectives that Chases

More important are the categories you are investigating and the effects of your project within the community.

I agree with Philip Adams that more focus groups would add to the credibility of your research.

Objectives of an FGD and how you channalize the discussion would indeed bring out effective results

Thanks I appreciate much your answers!

Qualitative research, by definition, is not generalizable.  Its goal is to understand the experiences of people, in a given context.  So there is no question of sample size.  However, you need to show that you have collected data from enough people to represent a full set of experiences.

Creswell (a well-known authority) recommends 5-25 subjects for phenomenological qualitative research.  It would be my personal preference to do individual interviews rather than focus groups because some people may be reluctant to speak out in a group, whereas they WOULD comment when they are anonymous. But either way, the secret is to explore the subject thoroughly, not superficially.  

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

It is apparently so, that some people are reluctant to speak out in focus groups; however, the focus group facilitator (the researcher) may be able to encourage participation.

In focus group interviews the participants can share their experiences with their peers, ask them about the relevant questions. Furthermore, they can comment on each other's experiences. I think the focus group interview should be followed by individual in-depth interview. The data from the focus group gives you a general picture and the data of individual interviews provides you with detailed meaning.

The following resources/interesting story may help:

• Abbott, S. (2006). Are Focus Groups Really Obsolete? Or Just One Tool out of Many? Retrieved from Customer Experience Crossroads: http://www.customercrossroads.com/customercrossroads/2006/01/are_focus_group.html
• Kitzinger, J. (1995) Introducing focus groups, British Medical Journal, 311, 7000, pp. 299-302.
• Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G. and Namey, E. (2005) Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide, Family Health International, North Carolina, US. (vide: Focus Groups pp. 51-82)

Focus groups alone would be found wanting in terms of enhancing reliability. One would need to have lucid research objectives, methods and clear research protocol. Individual interviews, observations and desk research would compliment focus groups and assist with triangulation.

In qualitative research one continues data collection until saturation has been reached. To this end it is important to iteratively collect data and analyse data. Of course, it is important to carefully define who the participants are (purposeful sampling).

The book of Cresswell (2013) provides good information on this type of research.

Success with your research.

An essential advantage of a Focus Group is that the interaction between respondents enables them to give more considered answers than they might otherwise do in a 1-1 interview; from which it follows that a Focus Group is really for 'less deep' research than a 1-1 interview; but I begin to digress.

Did you have 1 Focus Group of 10 respondents? Or. say, 2 Focus Groups of 5 respondents?

(Incidentally, what were the results of your study?)

Essentially, I would say that the results of a project using Focus Groups would be better supported by having at least a few Focus Groups returning much the same data with  the interaction inside the FGs returning this data being much the same.

(So you have to take note of the FG dynamics as well.)

For a more helpful suggestion, I'd really have to know the results of your study; however, I'd say at this juncture, that the results of your study really can't be supported with a single Focus Group.

I thing that the focus group could be very good to promote the dialog between the members of the group and the information reveled can be must more reach than in the interview with one only person. This method is very usefull when you pretend to know the opinion of the children.

Hi Revenio,

In my view, that would not be enough to generalise the results, as representativeness might not have been achieved, but definitely it would help in understanding the phenomenon under consideration.

Focus group sessions are mainly employed to develop a knowhow of the hypothesis in picture, though from a small number of people but in great depth that can't be achieved by quantitative methods.

A researcher may come across some new attributes that might be of paramount importance, but were neglected or were realized by other researchers in the past.

To conclude, focus group sessons are conducted to design, and to make the quantitative phases of the research robust.

You may either take a representative sample for your focus groups in order to generalize the outcomes of your research.

With Regards

Ashu