Cargando…

Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study

BACKGROUND: Despite growing support for mixed methods approaches we still have little systematic knowledge about the consequences of combining surveys and focus groups. While the methodological aspects of questionnaire surveys have been researched extensively, the characteristics of focus group meth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carlsen, Benedicte, Glenton, Claire
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22943658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-134
_version_ 1782244133442682880
author Carlsen, Benedicte
Glenton, Claire
author_facet Carlsen, Benedicte
Glenton, Claire
author_sort Carlsen, Benedicte
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite growing support for mixed methods approaches we still have little systematic knowledge about the consequences of combining surveys and focus groups. While the methodological aspects of questionnaire surveys have been researched extensively, the characteristics of focus group methodology are understudied. We suggest and discuss whether the focus group setting, as compared to questionnaire surveys, encourages participants to exaggerate views in a negative direction. DISCUSSION: Based on an example from our own research, where we conducted a survey as a follow up of a focus group study, and with reference to theoretical approaches and empirical evidence from the literature concerning survey respondent behaviour and small group dynamics, we discuss the possibility that a discrepancy in findings between the focus groups and the questionnaire reflects characteristics of the two different research methods. In contrast to the survey, the focus group study indicated that doctors were generally negative to clinical guidelines. We were not convinced that this difference in results was due to methodological flaws in either of the studies, and discuss instead how this difference may have been the result of a general methodological phenomenon. SUMMARY: Based on studies of how survey questionnaires influence responses, it appears reasonable to claim that surveys are more likely to find exaggerated positive views. Conversely, there are some indications in the literature that focus groups may result in complaints and overly negative attitudes, but this is still an open question. We suggest that while problematic issues tend to be under-communicated in questionnaire surveys, they may be overstated in focus groups. We argue for the importance of increasing our understanding of focus group methodology, for example by reporting interesting discrepancies in mixed methods studies. In addition, more experimental research on focus groups should be conducted to advance the methodology and to test our hypothesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3447657
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34476572012-09-21 Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study Carlsen, Benedicte Glenton, Claire BMC Med Res Methodol Debate BACKGROUND: Despite growing support for mixed methods approaches we still have little systematic knowledge about the consequences of combining surveys and focus groups. While the methodological aspects of questionnaire surveys have been researched extensively, the characteristics of focus group methodology are understudied. We suggest and discuss whether the focus group setting, as compared to questionnaire surveys, encourages participants to exaggerate views in a negative direction. DISCUSSION: Based on an example from our own research, where we conducted a survey as a follow up of a focus group study, and with reference to theoretical approaches and empirical evidence from the literature concerning survey respondent behaviour and small group dynamics, we discuss the possibility that a discrepancy in findings between the focus groups and the questionnaire reflects characteristics of the two different research methods. In contrast to the survey, the focus group study indicated that doctors were generally negative to clinical guidelines. We were not convinced that this difference in results was due to methodological flaws in either of the studies, and discuss instead how this difference may have been the result of a general methodological phenomenon. SUMMARY: Based on studies of how survey questionnaires influence responses, it appears reasonable to claim that surveys are more likely to find exaggerated positive views. Conversely, there are some indications in the literature that focus groups may result in complaints and overly negative attitudes, but this is still an open question. We suggest that while problematic issues tend to be under-communicated in questionnaire surveys, they may be overstated in focus groups. We argue for the importance of increasing our understanding of focus group methodology, for example by reporting interesting discrepancies in mixed methods studies. In addition, more experimental research on focus groups should be conducted to advance the methodology and to test our hypothesis. BioMed Central 2012-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3447657/ /pubmed/22943658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-134 Text en Copyright ©2012 Carlsen and Glenton; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Debate
Carlsen, Benedicte
Glenton, Claire
Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title_full Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title_fullStr Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title_full_unstemmed Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title_short Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
title_sort scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22943658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-134
work_keys_str_mv AT carlsenbenedicte scanningforsatisfactionordiggingfordismaycomparingfindingsfromapostalsurveywiththosefromafocusgroupstudy
AT glentonclaire scanningforsatisfactionordiggingfordismaycomparingfindingsfromapostalsurveywiththosefromafocusgroupstudy