In-depth interviews gives a scope for phenomenological and ethnographic analysis and can be both inductive and deductive in approach.

Focus Group Discussions opens up the scope for intersectionality approach and is usually inductive in nature as far as research approach goes. It will beat suited to use Grounded Theory and the theory of Phenomenology for FGD data analysis.

Good question Junaid Alam Memon and yes your understanding is very good. See references below. First though, there are many combinations of individual interview and focus group techniques for data collection. These are essentially data collection techniques.

Research methods such as phenomenology, grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory along with others use both individual interviews and or group interviews. They may also use observation (again individual and or group) all based on the research question (RQ). Ethnography for example uses group observation over time and more often retrospective historical analysis. Almost all of these research methods discussed above (e.g., phenomology, ethnography) are inductive and constructive or pragmatic as a research ideology.

You may also wish to consider techniques like narrative analysis (can be used with above methods), Delphi (electronic) interviews, Consentual Qualitative Research analysis which we used in a recent study (Strang, Che, Vajjhala, 2019). In that study I described it as "We applied a sequential mixed-methods research design featuring the consensual qualitative research method and the nonparametric multiple correspondence analysis statistical technique" (p. 7). I could also recommend a book chapter about case studies as an alternative research method to phenomenology or grounded theory (Steenhuis, 2015).

I would have to know your RQ to better help you. Ken

Steenhuis, H.-J. (2015). Iterative-Pragmatic Case Study Method and Comparisons with Other Case Study Method Ideologies. In K. D. Strang (Ed.), Palgrave Handbook of Research Design in Business and Management (pp. 341-374). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137484956. Retrieved from https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137379924.

Strang, K. D., Che, F., & Vajjhala, N. R. (2019). Urgently strategic insights to resolve the Nigerian food security crisis. Outlook on Agriculture Journal, doi:10.1177/0030727019873012. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/0030727019873010.0030727019871177/0030727019873012.

I think either method can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and that the particular purpose you are pursuing should be what determines your approach to analysis. In most cases, the goal is to summarize the important aspects of what participants said, which matches some form of thematic analysis.

Thank you for your response these are very useful. I was more interested in the way we present quote from QL and how the presentation differ for KII and FGD. We normally tend to give quotations in our text to validate our argument based on QL analysis. I have been struggling with how quotes from and In-depth Interview (with an individual) or FGD (interviews with a group) differ. In most of the cases, quotations resemble the former no matter even if these are coming from FGD. So in that sense the quotes coming from FGD are decontextualised as rarely I see any clues on the kind of interaction that was going on when that particular quote emerged. This to me seems problematic as context is very important in QL.

Focus group as qualitative data collection is used for knowing the experience of people who lived a similar situation and look for the shared construction of the experience through the group´s dinamic discussion. The way of data presentation in similar as in-depth interview; in both cases the contextualization and the coherence in the data presentation depends of researchers ability for organized the data with imagination, rigor and credibility.

The idea that "context is very important" in qualitative research can be taken too far. If what matters most is one person said at one point in a focus group, then you can of course quote that directly.

Also, you seem to be ignoring that context is just as important in individual interviews, but if you took that Idea seriously you would have to report the whole interview to put any given remark "in context."

FG can be very helpful in paving the way for developing set of questions and highlighting areas to be explored in the interviews. Furthermore, analyzing the interviews, e.g. thematic analyses, can highlight trends to be compared with the FG initial results. These can be in line or conflicting which may be very helpful for further investigations.

To Fouzi Bubshaitf. Very good answer. I agree that if one is using both KIIs and FGDs in exploring similar set of issues, comparison would be good as one can clearly see the differences between negotiated and relatively un-negotiated knowledge. What I would hesitate to agree is an implicit idea that FGD and KII conflicting results should (though these can) be used as an interim analysis and would require further investigation. In my opinion, these conflict between results of FGD and KII can be final results in themselves and should be publishable.

Having said that, we are going little off-the track as the concern what simple: how should we present a FGD quote such that to reader it (regardless if he or she reads the contextual text) stands alone as a FGD quote and is not confused as a KII quote.

To David L Morgan, I think I am not ignoring the importance of the context in KII or FGD. I in fact want to get your valuable insights on making these context more explicit, where in FGD, the context is shared values, arguments and confrontation and agreements and disagreements with other actors in the issue some of whom are present on the spot of FGD. Whereas, in KII, such conflicts and consensus may prevail but not on the spot of interview which gives KI liberty to express his or her values, opinions and arguments in a relatively unchallenged manners (except the challenge by interviewee).

So making this explicit, may result in their differential treatment and that is exactly my reason when I invite you to reflect upon differences in data presentation.

Dear Juanid,

you are quite right in your understanding that "the in-depth interview is different from FGD in the sense that in the former the intent is to understand the issue to a deeper level; whereas, in the latter the intent is to see how meaning in a context is negotiated and shared between the participants of varying power, standpoints, genders and age etc., - so called inter-subjectivity."

As for scholarly sources where you can find some answers if not more questions, one would be my article on "constructivist-grounded theory in elite interviews" sharing theoretical background as well as my practical experiences with the methodology.

Schara, T., & Common, R. (2016). Leadership and elite interviews. International Journal of Public Leadership, 12(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-03-2016-0007

All the best,

Tomaž Schara

Hello, please take a look at this research. These statistical coefficients are used for determining the conformity or reliability of experts' evaluations, and the Kendall coefficient with a value greater than or equal to 0.7 was considered as the stopping index for the procedure of the Delphi method.

Article A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization