Thinking Critically and Creatively about Focus Groups

Thinking Critically and Creatively about Focus GroupsAuthor(s): Peter E. HopkinsSource: Area, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 528-535Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of BritishGeographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40346074 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 19:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:32:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40346074?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Area (2007) 39.4, 528-535

Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups

Peter E Hopkins School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU

Email: [email protected]

Revised manuscript received 22 June 2007

Focus groups are now widely used by human geographers conducting qualitative research, and are clearly recognised as an established research method within the

discipline. Despite this, there is a lack of discussion about the various methodological issues involved in using focus groups. This paper aims to open up discussion by suggesting that there is a need to think critically and creatively about using focus groups in human geography. I draw upon my experience of conducting focus groups with

young Muslim men in order to suggest some of the ways in which human geographers might think critically about using focus groups. Some of the issues discussed include

group size, location, context and timing, sensitivity of topic, the age of research

participants and the positionalities of the researcher.

Key words: focus groups, qualitative research, locality, timing, group composition, sensitive topics

Introduction

During the late 1980s and 1990s, geographers started to discuss the issues involved in the use of groups as settings for the collection of qualitative data (see, for example, Burgess 1996 1999; Burgess et al. 1998a 1999b; Goss 1996a; Holbrook and Jackson 1996; Kong 1998; Longhurst 1996). Scholars writing about the use of focus groups in human geography have raised a number of important methodological issues including, but not limited to: the merits of using focus groups with only two participants (Longhurst 1996), the potential for focus groups to be empowering experiences for research participants (Goss 1996b; see also Johnson 1996) and the use of groups of people who know each other compared with groups comprised of relative strangers (Holbrook and Jackson 1996).

The reasons why researchers might choose to use focus groups have been rehearsed on many occasions in research methods textbooks and guides (e.g. Barbour and Kitzinger 1999; Hoggart etal. 2002; Kitchin and Tate 2000; Morgan 1998). Some of the

motivations of researchers using focus groups include the fact that, as Longhurst (2003, 120) notes, focus

groups are useful for 'researchers wishing to orien- tate themselves to a new field' and can enhance the role of the research participants in regulating the research findings. Alongside this, they are often

thought to work in ways which decrease, reshape or rework the power of the researcher (Pratt 2002). Certain qualities of focus groups, often used by the 'sellers of commodities', can also be used by social researchers for 'very different, radical purposes' (Johnson 1996, 521). Rather than simply soliciting opinions about products and merchandise, the use of radical focus groups opens up the possibility that the groups might assist the participants to have cathartic experiences, or they might transform or

challenge their views, opinions and experiences of

society (Chui 2003). Furthermore, focus groups could also potentially assist in galvanising political action as participants actively seek to change their social worlds. Using focus groups can help in facilitating access to 'tacit, uncodified and experiential know-

ledge', as well as the opinions and meanings of the

Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528-535, 2007 ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007



Thinking about focus groups 529

participants. The 'synergy' offered by being part of a

collective, as well as the opportunity to combine the use of other methods, can also act as an attraction

(Johnson 1996, 521-3). Undoubtedly, as a result of the many advantages of using focus groups, they are now a widely accepted research method employed by human geographers interested in exploring various

qualitative aspects of people's everyday engagements with their social and spatial worlds. This is demon- strated through the inclusion of chapters about focus

groups in many research methods textbooks in human

geography (Bedford and Burgess 2001; Longhurst 2003; Cameron 2005; Conradson 2005).

Although I have outlined a number of merits in using focus groups, the literature on focus groups is pro- blematic, because as Goss suggested over a decade ago:

Unfortunately, the common sense and the preferred practices of a few researchers have been reified into rules of thumb, or myths, that specify the ideal form of the focus group discussion, including: group composition, that is the number, gender, age, social status and life experience of participants; the com- munication skills and personality of the moderator; the nature of the topic and questions under discussion; and the timing, setting, seating arrangements and provision of refreshments. (1 996a, 1 1 3-1 4)

Unfortunately, I would argue that this is still the case today. The practices of very few researchers have become influential and codified in focus group literatures in part because, compared with other research methods, relatively few researchers have written about focus groups as a research method.

Furthermore, those who have used focus groups rely on guides written by Morgan (1995 1997 1998), Krueger (1995 1998a 1998b 1998c), Barbour and

Kitzinger (1999), the special issue of Area published over 10 years ago now, or the passing on of practice and experience from researcher to researcher. Along- side relying on the practices of a few researchers, it has also been observed that:

in our view, a great deal of focus group work adopts a formulaic approach which fails to develop the full potential of this method. In particular, social scientists are in danger of uncritically adopting market researchers' models of such research rather than adapting and expanding them, taking into account our own purposes and theoretical traditions. (Kitzinger and Barbour 1999, 1)

Furthermore, focus groups are often criticised for

only offering a shallow insight into a topic, parti-

cularly when compared with individual interviews, although clearly different methods often result in different forms of data being produced. Personal information and experiences may also be withheld from a focus group discussion, and certain person- alities may take over the discussion (Hollander 2004; Pain and Townshend 2002). Although there is limited reflection about the critical and creative

ways in which geographers use focus groups, the dearth of literature is not reflective of practice. Many geographers use focus groups in diverse, creative and experimental ways yet choose not to concentrate their efforts on reflecting upon these issues extensively in their writing.

I would like to propose that - although focus

groups have now become a mainstream research method employed by human geographers - there is a need to develop literatures that are attentive and considerate to the various ways in which researchers might critically and creatively use focus groups as a qualitative research method. This will involve

moving beyond the reliance on textbook chapters devoted to focus groups, in order to engage in detail about the issues, concerns and resources involved and produced in using focus groups. The reflections in this paper stem from a qualitative research

project about the life and times of young Muslim men living in Scotland. This project employed focus

groups and interviews in order to engage young Muslim men, aged 16-25,1 in discussions about issues related to their multiple senses of identity, belonging and in/exclusion. Overall, 11 focus groups were conducted with seven being undertaken in

Glasgow and four in Edinburgh. Drawing upon my experiences of moderating these 1 1 focus groups, I now suggest a number of ways of thinking creatively and engaging in critical dialogue about the use of focus groups in human geography.

Thinking critically and creatively . . .

Defining focus groups Bedford and Burgess provide a definition of a focus

group:

We define focus groups as a one-off meeting of between four and eight individuals who are brought together to discuss a particular topic chosen by the researcher(s) who moderate or structure the discussion. (2001 , 1 21 ; my italics)

This definition is particularly useful because it

highlights that a focus group involves a 'one-off

Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528-535, 2007 ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author. Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007



530 Hopkins

meeting, reflecting its origins as a tool used by social and market researchers. Burgess etal. (1988b, 457) use the term 'once-only group' to refer to focus

groups and contrast this with In-depth small groups' which often meet on numerous occasions high- lighting their connection with practices in training, educational and therapeutic contexts. This is an

important distinction, and clearly the nature, format and data collected during a 'once-only group' may vary in important ways compared with 'in-depth small groups' (see also Kneale 2001). Yet, often this distinction is not made in writings about focus

groups. Cameron (2005, 116), for example, when

discussing focus groups, mentions that 'you might see parallels with university tutorial group meetings'. Although this highlights the ways in which a focus

group involves a group of people discussing a

particular issue facilitated by a moderator, this

comparison is also unhelpful as university tutorial

groups often meet throughout the year and so are

very different from the one-off nature of focus

groups. In recognising this important difference, there

are clearly various methodological considerations associated with using one-off or in-depth groups and relative advantages and disadvantages connected with each technique. It is clear that, although both

practices are group based, they each have different histories and potential future trajectories in the dis-

cipline, different philosophical purposes and motivations, and therefore it is likely that the nature of what Kneale (2001, 137) calls 'dialogue within

group relationships' will be different. Kneale (2001, 137), for example, refers to the 'group history' that

develops over time with in-depth groups. This is

very different from the one-off nature of the focus

group discussions I had with young Muslim men. Furthermore, in some cases, focus groups are also

classified alongside individual interviews, based on

assumptions that both of these methods have a lot in common. For example, when discussing focus

groups, Cameron (2005, 119) clarifies that they are 'focused interviews', Cronin (2001, 165) calls them

'group interviews' and Longhurst (2003, 118) observes how interviews and focus groups are both 'about talk-

ing with people ... in ways that are self-conscious, orderly and partially structured'. Although there are

undoubtedly similarities and connections between interviews and focus groups as qualitative research methods - and many people choose to use both methods in research projects - there are also important differences, both in the nature of the discussion,

the ways in which power operates between research

participants and the characteristics of the data that are produced. The young Muslim men who I

individually interviewed were, like the young men consulted by Frosh et al. (2002), far more likely to reveal personal experiences of racism during individual interviews than they were in focus group discussions. Furthermore, Hollander (2004) also

points out that the social context of focus groups has important influences over issues of disclosure, social conformity and desirability. Human geographers could usefully explore the methodological issues involved in using interviews and focus groups in

conjunction with each other, as well as the possibil- ities for creative and critical connections with other

qualitative research methods, including participatory research (Pain 2004; Pain and Francis 2003). This could usefully include reflecting upon the ways in which social relations and expectations influence what is, and is not said, in such discussions (Hyams 2004). Having explored the definitional boundaries of focus groups, I now concentrate on specific assumptions about focus groups and the ways in which they can be reworked and revised, or used in constructive and innovative ways.

The number of participants and the composition of the group The number of participants required for a focus

group discussion appears to be a very important defining characteristic of focus groups according to the existing literature. Morgan (1997, 2) offers a

general definition, noting that focus groups rely on 'interaction within the group, based on topics that are supplied by the researcher who typically takes the role of a moderator'. Most other definitions include reference to the actual number of participants in the group. Bedford and Burgess (2001, 121) suggest that the group should be 'a one-off

meeting of between four and eight individuals', as does Cronin (2001), whilst Cameron (2005, 116) states that a focus group involves 'between six and ten people'. Others state that 'approximately ten volunteers' are required (Kitchin and Tate 2001, 41). Longhurst (1996) attempted to form focus groups to discuss pregnant women's experiences of public space in Hamilton, New Zealand. Three of these focus groups involved two participants, and so

according to the literature, Longhurst (1996, 144) initially categorised them as 'failed' focus groups, yet later acknowledged the groups as a useful method for data collection.






Table 1 Focus groups: location and numbers

Focus group Date No. of participants Location

1 6 March 2002 12 Community Centre 2 19 June 2002 6 School 3 1 7 July 2002 4 Community Centre 4 24 July 2002 3 Community Centre 5 5 September 2002 3 Community Centre 6 3 October 2002 1 1 School 7 10 October 2002 8 School 8 1 4 November 2002 6 School 9 4 February 2003 5 School

10 3 April 2003 6 School 11 30 April 2003 3 Mosque

From my experience of using focus groups, the number of participants is important, but only alongside a range of other issues, such as the age and

composition of the participants, the location of the focus group meeting and the sensitivity of the topic being discussed. Table 1 sets out the number of

participants and locations of the 1 1 focus groups in this research project. The focus groups involved between three and 12 participants, and generally, the focus groups with fewer young men ran smoothly with everyone having a chance to voice their opinions on matters of importance to them. With the larger groups, there were points where the tape-recordings were unclear because of the number of young men

speaking at the one time due to their anger and frus- tration with the inequalities they experience. There is a need then to consider the many possible influences on group dynamics rather than concentrating on the numbers that should be included in each

group. Clearly, all of these issues contextualise the focus groups and have a bearing on the researchers'

interpretations. In terms of group composition, 'a standard argu-

ment within focus group methodology is that group members should be homogeneous in respect of the relevant selection criteria, but unknown to each other' (Tonkiss 2004, 201). This idea may be built on principles of survey logic and makes assumptions about the dynamics of focus group interactions as well as the people that participants know. As Tonkiss (2004) notes, there are many examples of researchers using focus groups where the participants know each other already. In this regard, Holbrook and Jackson note that

focus groups with people who already know each other and share a sense of common social identity

have different strengths and weaknesses from research with groups of comparative strangers. (Holbrook and Jackson 1996, 141)

The research project with young Muslim men involved 1 1 focus groups where, in most cases, the participants in each group already knew each other. My priority in recruiting participants was that they were all young Muslim men, and not that they did not know each other. Also, given the nature of the

topic and my experiences of moderating 11 focus

groups, it might be that participants would have been less willing to speak about personal issues

concerning their Muslim identities when they did not know the other focus group members, whereas, when participants already knew each other, discussion was often more interactive and others felt easier about disagreeing with particular points or issues raised. It would also have been difficult to recruit an appropriate sample of young Muslim men had the main criteria been that they should not know each other, and regardless of sample population, it

may well be impossible to avoid people knowing each other anyway. Again, however, further discussion about the relative merits of different forms of group composition - and the critical and creative ways in which we might engage with these issues - may help human geographers to shed light on the various methodological issues involved in using focus groups.

Location, timing and context Much of the existing research about focus groups tends to concentrate on issues such as: the number of participants in the discussion (as mentioned above), the influence and role of the moderator (Fallon and Brown 2002; Krueger 1998a) as well as




532 Hopkins

the possibility of linking focus groups with other research methods (Kitchin and Tate 2000; Linhorst 2002; Mitchell 1999). Although these issues are all

significant to thinking through the use of focus

groups, there is also a need to concentrate on the broader geographical setting of the discussion, the

particular timing of focus groups in terms of local, national and global events and circumstances as well as the social context of the particular discussion. These issues all can, and often do, have an

important influence on the nature of the focus group interaction and discussion.

Focus group location is an important consideration when conducting research with people where access has involved a series of negotiations with

gatekeepers. All of the 11 focus groups conducted with young Muslim men relied on gaining access

through an adult gatekeeper, be this a teacher, youth worker, religious leader or office worker. On initial reflection, the focus groups in the schools are

likely to be policed most severely, and were conducted within the atmosphere and rules of the school as a social setting. Unlike the community centre, the young people in the school have less

spatial, verbal and behavioural freedom. I was sur-

prised, however, by the freedom that the young people were given in the school focus groups, and five of the focus groups involved me being with the young men, without the presence of a teacher or other authority figure. Three focus groups even involved me meeting one of the focus group participants at the school gate, and being accompanied by them to the room where the focus group took place. Only during one focus group did the teacher remain in the room, sitting in the corner of the room mark- ing classwork, and periodically listening in on the focus group conversation. So, the location of a focus group discussion is important; however, we should be cautious about making hasty assumptions about preferred locations. A number of factors, such as the presence of other authority figures, the age of the young people (and the freedom afforded to them in the school) as well as the ethos of the school can all influence the nature of the discussion.

Alongside location, group size and many of the other issues raised above, the particular timing of focus groups can be crucial in influencing the range and intensity of discussions. This not only includes the time of day or week during which a focus group is conducted but also the ways in which particular geopolitical events or other circumstances influence the focus group discussion. Looking to my research

with young Muslim men, all focus groups were conducted in the period following the events of 11 September 2001 in New York. Also, on the

evening of 19 March 2003, British and American

troops waged the first attacks in Iraq. This continued for some time, as did large public demonstrations in Scotland's main cities. On 1 May 2003 there were Scottish Parliamentary elections, where many Mus- lims planned to vote strategically in order to prevent the repeated success of the Labour Party. The final focus group discussion of this project took place the

day before these elections and so the broader location and timing of the focus group situation worked to influence the nature and intensity of the discussion. These are just some of the events that have had a direct impact upon the focus group discussions in this research project. The influence of these events

may have been to increase the intensity of the dis-

cussions, and in some cases they may have worked to bring out the anger of the participants about world affairs, politics and racism. Alternatively, these events may have worked to exclude some of the young men who may have withdrawn from a more active role in focus group discussion. So, the wider context is both an ever present resource, but also a potential problem of compatibility between

groups over time.

Sensitivity of topic The level of sensitivity of the topic under con-

sideration, coupled with the size and timing of the

group discussion, is also an important issue when

using focus groups. Holbrook and Jackson (1996) conducted focus groups about consumption and

identity, and so it is likely that such research may have benefited from larger group sizes due to the

subject matter under discussion. Longhurst (1996) had very small focus groups, and this could be

interpreted as one of the successes of her research because the topic under consideration was sensitive and personal for many of the participants, focusing as it did on their experiences of using public spaces whilst pregnant. Since the project on which I am

drawing upon is about the geographies, identities and everyday lives of young Muslim men living in Scotland, there was already sensitivity in subject choice that has to be respected. Many of the young men experienced racism on an everyday basis and this has heightened in intensity since the events of 1 1 September 2001 . Including the influence of world affairs and events, it is clear that this research

project required a tactful approach.





At the start of a focus group in Glasgow (5 September 2002), I was aggressively challenged by Talib,2 who

suggested that I was a representative of the govern- ment. He queried why I was doing the research, conjectured that I had links with the British National

Party, questioned my religiosity and asked who was

funding the research. I attempted to confirm to Talib that my research was funded by the University of

Edinburgh and that I was doing the research for anti-racist purposes, while acknowledging that it is

impossible to control how others use my findings. This particular incident, and others during the pro- cess of doing this research, required a diplomatic approach. It may also be the case that the small size of this focus group, as well as the timing, worked in a range of different ways to heighten or decrease the initial tension experienced. So, alongside issues

relating to size, timing and location, geographers using focus groups could usefully engage in discussions about the different ways in which the particular topic being discussed work to heighten the significance or lessen the influence of the many different factors

affecting the dynamics of the group discussion.

Age of participants and positional ities of the researcher and researched Combined with matters relating to group size, timing and location, as well as the sensitivity of the topic, are issues concerning the age of the participants. All of the focus group participants in this research were

aged 16 or over; however, one focus group did include a young man who was 15, and his parents signed a consent form allowing him to opt-in to the

research, and the school had agreed to his partici- pation. Issues of informed consent are particularly important in conducting research with young people (Hill 2005), although, irrespective of their age, I re-

quested that all research participants sign a consent form. This is a 'useful way of giving them a sense of control, individuality, autonomy and privacy' and

gives them the opportunity 'to learn how to make safe choices and to read the document [information leaflet and consent form] carefully' (Valentine 1999, 144). I also stressed to all research participants that

they may opt out of the research at any point, and

may choose to answer some questions and withdraw from participating in others.

My experiences from doing this research have led me to suggest that when doing research with children and young people, it may well be appropriate to con- duct focus groups with fewer participants, especially when the subject matter is potentially controversial


and/or sensitive. The focus groups in this project with fewer participants generally ran smoothly and all of the young people had their say. However, the

larger focus groups often involved the exclusion of some of the young people, despite my persistent efforts to moderate the discussion in such a way that would assist them in voicing their opinions. These focus groups also included periods where I was unable to hear what was being said when transcrib-

ing the tape recordings because of the number of

young people speaking at any one time. This issue is probably a combination of the number and age of

participants, topic under discussion and timing of the group; however, when the number of participants is reduced, such problems appear to be minimised. So, there is an issue here about the ways in which more time and resources might usefully be utilised with smaller groups for better quality outcomes.

Many of the factors that may affect the dynamics of focus group interactions can also be influenced

by the various positional ities of researcher and researched, the ways in which researchers choose to represent themselves and the interpretations made by focus group participants of the social class

background, race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability and other identities of the researcher and their fellow focus group participants. This may be a particularly important issue depending on the sensitivity of the

topic being discussed. For example, when doing research with young Muslim men there were points where assumptions were made about my positionalities and this was often a topic of conversation. Some young men equated my whiteness with Chris-

tianity, assuming that the Bible was 'my book', some were interested in placing me as being from

Glasgow, others queried what school I attended and

many were interested in my motivations for doing the research. Critical engagement with the various influences on focus group discussions, including the

age of participants and the positional ities of researcher and researched may help to improve the validity and reliability of the data collected, the overall rigour of a research project and the ways in which focus

group data are analysed.

Conclusions In conclusion, I have proposed in this paper that there is a need to open up the discussion about the use of focus groups as a qualitative research method in human geography. Apart from the special issue of Area published over 10 years ago, occasional




534 Hopkins

chapters in research methods texts and passing reference to the use of focus groups in various research papers, there is a lack of critical reflection about the use of focus groups within the discipline. This omission appears particularly striking given that other research methods, such as interviews (El wood and Martin 2000; Mullings 1999), ethnography (Herbert 2000; Parr 2001 ) and participatory research (Kesby 2007; Pain 2004), have received much critical attention. Furthermore, in a series of recent reviews of qualitative methods in human geography (Crang 2002 2003 2005), despite the observation that 'the use of focus groups has boomed' (Crang 2002, 650), only passing references are made to their employment as research methods within the discipline. Geographers do use focus groups in a range of creative, engaging and innovate ways - evidenced from conversations with colleagues - however, these issues are not reflected in geographical writing, and so I have used this paper to suggest that it is surely time to start to develop a literature about the critical and creative ways in which human geographers use focus groups when doing qualitative research.

Using the experience of conducting focus groups with young Muslim men in Scotland, I have high- lighted a number of areas on which we might focus this critical reflection. Within the social science literature on focus groups (e.g. Barbour and Kitzinger 1999; Krueger 1994; Morgan 1997), as well as in some of the earlier work in human geography, much attention is given to the micro-geographies of the focus group interactions: the role of the moderator, the phrasing of questions and the interaction between the group members, including the moderator. All of these issues are important and geographers could make interesting contributions to these debates. However, in this paper, I have also suggested that human geographers are ideally placed to contribute to critical reflection on the complex ways in which locality, context and time influence focus group interactions. This may include analysing the ways in which particular locations, places and times of day - local landscapes - influence focus group discussion, but also the ways in which issues, concerns and events at different scales and macro-geographies -

global, transnational, national - influence focus group discussions and interactions. Consideration of the multiple influences on the nature, context and setting of focus groups, as well as the finer points of the focus group discussion, will hopefully contribute to their continued employment by human geographers as a qualitative method.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Rachel Pain, Gordon Walker and four

anonymous referees for their constructive comments and

helpful observations on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1 All young people aged under 16 who participated in the research did so after parental consent (and the informed consent) of the young person had been obtained.

2 In order to protect the confidentiality of the research participants, all names used are pseudonyms.

References

Barbour R S and Kitzinger J 1 999 Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice Sage, London

Bedford T and Burgess J 2001 The focus group experience in Limb M and Dwyer C eds Qualitative methodologies for

geographers: issues and debates Arnold, New York 121-35

Burgess J 1 996 Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a

project for the Commission Forest Unit Area 28 1 30-5

Burgess J 1999 The genesis of in-depth discussion groups: a

response to Liz Bondi Professional Geographer 51 458-60

Burgess J, Limb M and Harrison C 1 988a Exploring environ- mental values through the medium of small groups 1 : theory and practice Environment and Planning A 20 309-26

Burgess J, Limb M and Harrison C 1 988b exploring environ- mental values through the medium of small groups 2: illustrations of a group at work Environment and Planning A 20 456-76

Cameron J 2005 Focussing on the focus group in Hay I ed

Qualitative research methods in human geography Oxford

University Press, New York 83-101 Chui L F 2003 Transformational potential of focus group

practice in participatory action research Action Research 1 165-83

Conradson D 2005 Focus groups in Flowerdew R and Martin D eds Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing a research project Pearson Education, Harlow 128-43

Crang M 2002 Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography 26 647-55

Crang M 2003 Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see?

Progress in Human Geography 27 494-504

Crang M 2005 Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside the text? Progress in Human Geography 29 225-33

Cronin A 2001 Focus groups in Gilbert N ed Researching social life Sage, London 1 64-77

Elwood S and Martin D G 2000 'Placing' interviews: locations and scales of power in qualitative research Professional Geosraoher 52 649-57

Fallon G and Brown R B 2002 Focusing on focus group: lessons from a research project involving a Bangladeshi community Qualitative Research 2 1 95-208






Frosh S, Phoenix A and Pattman R 2002 Young masculinities

Palgrave, New York Goss J D 1 996a Introduction to focus groups Area 28 1 1 3-

14 Goss J D 1 996b Focus groups as alternative research practice:

experiences with transmigrants in Indonesia Area 28 115-23

Herbert S 2000 For ethnography Progress in Human Geo-

graphy 24 550-68 Hill M 2005 Ethical considerations in researching children's

experiences in Greene S and Hogan D eds Researching children's experience: approaches and methods Sage, London 61-86

Hoggart K, Lees L and Davies A 2002 Researching human

geography Oxford University Press. New York Holbrook B and Jackson P 1996 Shopping around: focus

group research in North London Area 28 136-52 Hollander J 2004 The social context of focus groups Journal

of Contemporary Ethnography 33 602-37

Hyams M 2004 Hearing girls' silences: thoughts on the politics and practices of a feminist method of group discussion

Gender, Place & Culture 11 1 05-1 9

Johnson A 1996 'It's good to talk': the focus group and the

sociological imagination The Sociological Review 44 517-36

Kesby M 2007 Spatialising participatory approaches: the contribution of geography to a mature debate Environment and Planning A doi: 10.1068/a38326

Kitchin R and Tate N J 2000 Conducting research into human

geography: theory, methodology and practice Prentice

Hall, Harlow

Kitzinger J and Barbour 1999 Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups in Barbour R and Kitzinger J eds Developing focus group research: politics, theory and

practice Sage, London 1-20 Kneale J 2001 Working with groups in Limb M and Dwyer C

eds Qualitative methods for geographers: issues and debates Arnold, New York 1 36-52

Kong L 1998 Refocusing on qualitative methods: problems and prospects for research in a specific Asian setting Area 30 79-82

Krueger R A 1 994 Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research Sage, London

Krueger R A 1995 The future of focus groups Qualitative Health Research 5 524-30

Krueger R A 1 998 Moderating focus groups Sage, London

Krueger R A 1 998 Developing questions for focus groups Sage, London

Krueger R A 1998 Analysing and reporting focus group results Sage, London

Linhorst D M 2002 A review of the use and potential of focus

groups in social work research Qualitative Social Work 1 208-28

Longhurst R 1996 Refocusing groups: pregnant women's

geographical experiences of Hamilton, New Zealand/ Aotearoa Area 28 143-9

Longhurst R 2003 Semi-structured interviews and focus

groups in Clifford N J and Valentine G eds Key methods in geography Sage, London 1 1 7-32

Mitchell L 1999 Combining focus groups and interviews:

telling how it is; telling how it feels in Barbour R S and

Kitzinger J eds Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice Sage, London 36-46

Morgan D L 1 995 Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus

groups Qualitative Health Research 5 516-23

Morgan D L 1 997 Focus group as qualitative research Sage, London

Morgan D L 1 998 The focus group guidebook Saee, London

Mullings B 1999 Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting Geo- forum 30 337-50

Pain R 2004 Social geography: participatory research

Progress in Human Geography 28 652-63 Pain R and Francis P 2003 Reflections on participatory

research Area 35 46-54 Pain R and Townshend T 2002 A safer city centre for all?

Senses of 'community safety' in Newcastle upon Tyne Geoforum 33 105-19

Parr H 2001 Feeling, reading, and making bodies in space Geographical Review 91 1 58-67

Pratt G 2002 Studying immigrants in focus groups in Moss P ed Feminist geography in practice: research and methods

Blackwell, Oxford 214-29

Skop E 2006 The methodological potential of focus groups in population geography Population, Space and Place 12 113-24

Tonkiss F 2004 Using focus groups in Seale C ed Researching society and culture Sage, London 193-206

Valentine G 1999 Being seen and heard? The ethical com-

plexities of working with children and young people at home and at school Ethics, Place and Environment 2 141-55




Documents

Thinking Critically and Creatively about Focus Groups