A methodology for cross-national comparative focus group research: illustrations from discussions about political protest

Abstract

We propose a methodology for comparative cross-national focus group research and illustrate how this methodology is useful for advancing our understanding of political protest. Focus group research allows researchers to study the collective process of meaning making and formation of intersubjective attitudes. This process has been shown to be relevant for how people discuss politics, and how in turn it could influence participation in politics. However, a systematic methodology for examining the influence of the historical, social, and political context in different countries has not been developed hitherto. In order to allow for comparisons between the formation of attitudes in different countries, we put forward several methodological decisions aimed at achieving standardization in cross-national focus group research design. Group composition, recruitment strategies, and moderation style are the key facets of focus group research that need to be standardized in order to make meaningful cross-national comparisons, but more practical considerations in implementing focus groups cross-nationally are also discussed. We illustrate and critically assess the proposed methodology based on data from an international comparative research project in which 80 focus groups were conducted in nine different countries in Europe and Latin America.

Social Psychological Explanations of Political Inaction: Citizens’ Perspectives in Brazil, Hungary, and the Netherlands

“…The study was approved by an ethical committee of the authors’ university in each of the three countries where the focus groups were conducted. The focus group discussions were conducted in the capitals of Brazil, Hungary, and the Netherlands between October 2015 and February 2016 (see Van Bezouw, Garyfallou, Oană, & Rojon, for a full description of the research methodology). The primary goal in our methodological decisions was to ensure comparability in the research design between the three countries, while at the same time allowing the participants to discuss politics freely.…”

“…We stated that we were looking for participants for a discussion on societal issues, rather than political issues, to limit self‐selection bias. We administered a short (5–10 minutes) screening questionnaire by phone or email, based on which we invited the participants (see Van Bezouw et al., ). Additionally, recruitment agencies provided participants according to the different selection criteria above for the Hungarian focus group discussions, and for the Dutch groups when not enough participants could be found through our public advertisement (i.e., the 18–25 and 26–40 low education groups, and part of the activist group).…”

“…The number of participants in each focus group ranged from three to eight. There were sufficient differences in political preferences and attitudes within the groups in each country to elicit discussion (see Van Bezouw et al., ). The participants in all three countries reported high levels of previous participation in political action.…”

Supply chain movement risk in the sneaker industry: an empirical study

“…(Wei 2005). In 2002, China produced products to become "the world's number one manufacturer," including within the shoe industry (Tung 2003). In 2013, 10 labor-intensive industries-textiles, clothing, shoes, sporting goods, scooters, toys, hygiene, lighting, heating, and furniture-achieved the highest exports, accounting for 39.3% of the world's production volume of these goods.…”

“…This study used a focus group method (van Bezouw et al 2019), which allows participants to share their thoughts on a given subject. Interactions and discussions among company members, government officials, and academic experts and scholars were initiated (8…”