A Literature Review of Studies that Have Compared the Use of Face-To-Face and Online Focus Groups

Abstract

Online communication in our work and private lives has increased significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative research has evolved with this trend with many studies adopting online methods. It is therefore timely to assess the use and utility of online focus groups compared to face-to-face focus groups. Traditional Pearl Growing Methodology was used to identify eligible papers. Data were extracted on data collection methods, recruitment and sampling strategies, analytical approaches to comparing data sets, the depth of data produced, participant interactions and the required resources. A total of 26 papers were included in the review. Along with face-to-face focus groups ( n = 26) 16 studies conducted synchronous, eight asynchronous and two both online focus group methods. Most studies ( n = 22) used the same recruitment method for both face-to-face and online focus groups. A variety of approaches to compare data sets were used in studies. Of the studies reporting on depth of data ( n = 19), nine found that face-to-face groups produced the most in-depth data, four online groups and six equivalent data. Participant interaction was reported to be greater during face-to-face groups in 10 studies; three reported online groups produced greater interaction and six equivalent interaction. Detailed resource use comparisons were not presented in any of the studies. This review demonstrates that to date there is not a clear consensus as to whether face-to-face or online focus groups hold specific advantages in terms of the data produced and the resources required. Given these findings it may be appropriate for researchers to consider using online focus groups where time and resources are constrained, or where these are more practicable.

Using Microsoft Teams to Facilitate Asynchronous Online Focus Groups

“…In general, research concerning the use of online focus groups contends that the content generated in both in-person and online spaces is relatively similar (Jones et al, 2022; Reisner et al, 2018). However, the format in which this information is presented may indeed differ depending on the medium and context (Woodyatt et al, 2016).…”

“…Non-linear discussion provides many benefits for participants. It provides time for individuals to reflect on their responses and to compose and edit their thoughts (Jones et al, 2022; Reisner et al, 2018; Skelton et al, 2018). For example, as noted, several participants took opportunities to revisit questions from previous channels as the conversation moved forward into new weeks.…”

“…Despite the advantage posed by Teams as a text-based group that removes the need for transcription when managing data (Jones et al, 2022), the platform complicates the extrapolation of participant data into qualitative analysis software (or other relevant programs). Given that conversations across the platform are not aggregated linearly, moving the transcribed data from Teams into a separate program becomes a major task if one waits until the conclusion of the group, especially if the sequence of conversation matters for the chosen data analytic method (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory).…”

Conducting Online Focus Group Interviews With Two Generations: Methodological Experiences and Reflections From the Pandemic Context

“…The increasing adoption of online methods has led to the inevitable comparison of the use and utility of face-to-face and online focus groups (e.g., Archibald et al, 2019; Davies, 2020; Jones et al, 2022; see also Neo et al, 2022, regarding asynchronous text-based focus group discussions on WhattsApp). Reviews of comparative literature highlight mixed results regarding mainly the depth of data production and the interaction and cohesion between participants.…”