Voevodins' Library _ "Focus Groups" 3rd edition / Richard A. Krueger & Mary Anne Casey ... Interview, People, Discussion, Decision Making, Development, Single-Category Design, Multiple-Category Design, Double-Layer Design, Broad-Involvement Design, Audience, Written Plan, Questioning Route, Categories of Questions, Opening Questions, Introductory Questions, Transition Questions, Key Questions, Ending Questions, Campaign, Strategies for Selecting Participants, Sampling Procedures for Focus Groups, Moderating Skills, Moderator, Discussion, Head Nodding, Question, Analysis Strategies, Long-Table Approach, Using the Computer to Help Manage the Data, Rapid Approach, Sound Approach, Principles of Reporting, Written Reports, Narrative Report, Top-Line Report, Bulleted Report, Report Letter to Participants, Oral Reports, Styles of Focus Group Research, Telephone Focus Groups, Internet Focus Groups, Media Focus Groups Voevodin's Library: Interview, People, Discussion, Decision Making, Development, Single-Category Design, Multiple-Category Design, Double-Layer Design, Broad-Involvement Design, Audience, Written Plan, Questioning Route, Categories of Questions, Opening Questions, Introductory Questions, Transition Questions, Key Questions, Ending Questions, Campaign, Strategies for Selecting Participants, Sampling Procedures for Focus Groups, Moderating Skills, Moderator, Discussion, Head Nodding, Question, Analysis Strategies, Long-Table Approach, Using the Computer to Help Manage the Data, Rapid Approach, Sound Approach, Principles of Reporting, Written Reports, Narrative Report, Top-Line Report, Bulleted Report, Report Letter to Participants, Oral Reports, Styles of Focus Group Research, Telephone Focus Groups, Internet Focus Groups, Media Focus Groups


Voyevodins' Library ... Main page    "Focus Groups" 3rd edition / Richard A. Krueger & Mary Anne Casey



Texts belong to their owners and are placed on a site for acquaintance

Q. How Do You Know Your Findings Aren't Just Your Subjective Opinions?
A. We've approached this study, recognizing the importance of two guiding principles: researcher neutrality and systematic procedures. We've addressed researcher neutrality in several ways. The research team consisted of people with differing backgrounds to ensure that the results presented reflect multiple perspectives. Our research team was aware of the need for neutrality and the importance of capturing all participants' views.
Throughout the study, we've used accepted systematic procedures for data collection, data handling, and data analysis. We've used field notes and electronic recordings to capture the comments, which were then reviewed and used in the analysis process. During the focus group, we would ask participants to explain their views if we did not clearly understand what was said. Then, following the discussion, we offered a summary of key findings that participants verified. Our later debriefing and reports involved a team approach. We used accepted systematic steps in the analysis to identify key points and then compared results to other groups to identify patterns. For each point identified in our results, we have established a trail of evidence that can be verified. We have been very careful and are confident that the findings are an accurate reflection of what the focus group participants said. We are open to discussing alternate interpretations of the findings and recommendations.
Background
A study that is subjective is one in which researchers are so close and familiar with the study that their judgments influence the results.
Objectivity, on the other hand, makes use of instruments or standardized procedures that precisely measure something without human influence.
We use teams and standardized procedures to help us gather and analyze the data, so we aren't just paying attention to things that support our expectations or worldview, to things we like, or to things we understand. We are careful to distinguish the findings-what was said in the group-from our interpretations and recommendations. We expect more subjectivity in the interpretations and recommendations. But these are also the parts of the study that are open to debate. People with different backgrounds and different experiences may very well come up with different interpretations and recommendations.
Thoughts
It is hard to judge the intent of this question. Sometimes this is a friendly question where someone wishes to help the researcher. Other times, this is a cynical question inferring disrespect for certain types of research. Therefore, give thought as to how you answer. Be respectful and honoring of other points of view or research philosophies, even if others do not show respect for your views. Also, avoid becoming defensive as you give your answer. In general, we avoid words such as subjective versus objective or soft versus hard.
CHECKLIST
Answering Questions on Subjectivity (or Softness)
Q Don't be surprised
Q Be respectful
O Don't get defensive
Q Assume they really want the answer
Q Tell how people worked together to ensure neutrality
Q Describe how data were captured
Q Describe how data were verified
Q Describe how data were analyzed
Now, do all the above in less than two minutes
<< Is This Scientific Research?
Isn't This Soft Research? >>