Absence, multiplicity and the boundaries of research? Reflections on online asynchronous focus groups

Abstract

During the COVID 19 pandemic, Online Asynchronous Focus Groups (OAFG) through WhatsApp were conducted to explore women’s experiences in the context of Congenital Syphilis prevention in Colombia. This paper discusses issues raised by the OAFGs (not least in relation to face-to-face focus groups). After a review of the literature on online and offline focus groups, there is a consideration of some key features of our OAFGs. In particular, we note how silence, presence, attention, continuity and multiplicity manifested in our OAFGs. We suggest that rather than regarding OAFGs as inferior to the ‘gold standard’ of face-to-face focus groups, our OAFGs raise important questions about our assumptions about focus group methodology. For instance, what counts as participant engagement, what comprises ‘useful’ social data, and what constitute the boundaries of a focus group all emerge as critical issues. We go on to reflect on some of the implications of these issues for the fruitfulness of OAFG methods.

Using Microsoft Teams to Facilitate Asynchronous Online Focus Groups

“…Walther’s (1992) social information processing (SIP) framework supports this perspective, positing that individuals adjust their communication behavior in online spaces by using a variety of cues (like emojis) in place of the traditional nonverbal cues often present in face-to-face interactions. In this case, everyone in the focus group – including us – used a variety of other platform affordances to fill this void (Estrada-Jaramillo et al, 2022). Such affordances help make up for the absences of physical expressions (Rolland & Parmentier, 2013) and demonstrate how this unique qualitative method has its own advantages (Graffigna & Bosio, 2006).…”

“…Our study experienced a 5% drop-out rate, which is significantly lower than traditional face-to-face focus groups that experience a drop-out rate up to 50% (Tausch & Menold, 2016). The permanence of the asynchronous written medium as a facilitator for interaction meant that conversation did not flow linearly (Estrada-Jaramillo et al, 2022).…”

“…Questions designed to illuminate participants’ experiences relative to a specified topic (i.e., translational research) occur among a variety of side conversations, technical knowledge, and other discordant background features. As such, Estrada-Jaramillo et al (2022) argued that the nature of the AOFG itself raises the possibility of “rethinking what counts as insightful reading” among participants and for the researchers (p. 14). For example, although the AOFG allowed participants to share resources directly and efficiently, this often occurred through conversations that were tangential to the main topic or probe.…”

“…AOFGs benefit researchers by providing access to hard to reach or geographically dispersed populations, incorporating social technologies that many individuals regularly use as part of their everyday lives (e.g., WhatsApp; Colom, 2022; Chen & Neo, 2019), and integrating paralinguistic cues (e.g., emojis; Hayes et al, 2016) that make up the lack of nonverbal cues in mediated spaces compared to rich, face-to-face contexts. Yet, AOFGs also pose unique challenges, such as the increased need for constructive and present moderation to continue the flow of discussion (Zwaanswijk & van Dulmen, 2014), the ability to withdraw without explanation, and less clarity surrounding participants’ presence and attention (Estrada-Jaramillo et al, 2022).…”