In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions

Abstract

Online focus group discussions (FGDs) are becoming popular as a qualitative research method. Methodological examinations regarding the data quality of online versus more traditional in-person FGDs are limited. We compared two online FGDs with two in-person FGDs conducted with gay and bisexual men using a sensitive topic (the experience of intimate partner violence) to examine differences in data quality between the two methods. The online FGDs resulted in larger word count but were shorter in time than the in-person FGDs. There was high overlap in the themes generated across groups; however, the online discussions yielded one additional theme regarding a sensitive topic. In-person FGDs involved less sharing of in-depth stories, whereas sensitive topics were discussed more candidly in the online FGDs. The results illustrate that although theformatof the data generated from each type of FGD may differ, thecontentof the data generated is remarkably similar.

Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations for Online Focus Group Discussions

“…The Internet also offers access to virtual spaces that LGBTQ people, particularly LGBTQ youth, perceive to be safer to socialize in than offline settings (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, 2013; Hillier et al, 2012; White Hughto, Pachankis, Eldahan, & Keene, 2016). Capitalizing on the familiarity of online settings, researchers have begun to explore the health of LGBTQ populations through online focus group discussions (DuBois et al, 2015; Thomas et al, 2013; Woodyatt et al, 2016; Ybarra et al, 2014). Ybarra and colleagues (2014) used online focus groups to explore attitudes about sexual behavior and sexual health among gay and bisexual male youth and found that communicating in online environments was not only familiar and nonthreatening but also offered participants the opportunity to disclose sensitive information about their sexual behavior and identities in a secure setting that they may not otherwise have divulged (Ybarra et al, 2014).…”

Exploring Social Media Group Use Among Breastfeeding Mothers: Qualitative Analysis (Preprint)

“…Deggs and Woodyatt have published the strengths and opportunities of online FGDs, along with others [22][23][24][25][26]. Further, the utilization of this methodology for this study is available online for review, which describes recommendations for including mothers in qualitative studies to yield rich data [18].…”

‘I’d rather you didn’t come’: The impact of stigma on exercising with epilepsy

“…It is recognised that different methods of data creation will create differing types of data (e.g., limited ability to view nonverbal communication as may be conveyed by the positions of his/her body, more sharing of sensitive topics) (Tuttas, 2015;Woodyatt et al, 2016) and this was taken into account in our analysis.…”

“…Videoconferencing provides access for a greater number of participants, thus encouraging higher levels of recruitment and allows the participants and researcher to view each other, thus also preserving the group dynamic (Tuttas, 2015;Woodyatt et al 2016). As was done throughout the in-person focus groups, notes documenting body language (that could be seen), pauses, and subsequent questions were taken during the videoconferencing focus group.…”