A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research
Focus groups have an established history in applied research and evaluation. The fundamental methods of the focus group technique have been well discussed, as have their potential advantages. Less guidance tends to be provided regarding the analysis of data resulting from focus groups or how to organize and defend conclusions drawn from the analysis. This article reviews the methodology of the focus group with an emphasis on thematic analysis of latent data at three levels, articulated, attributional, and emergent. The three levels are described and illustrated with respect to their value and contribution to evaluation within the framework of the group method and qualitative standards of thematic analysis.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thayer, Colette E. & Fine, Allison H., 2001. "Evaluation and outcome measurement in the non-profit sector: stakeholder participation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 103-108, February.
- Hardy, Mary & Teruya, Cheryl & Longshore, Douglas & Hser, Yih-Ing, 2005. "Initial implementation of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Findings from focus groups in ten counties," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 221-232, May.
- Catterall & Maclaren, 1997. "Focus Group Data and Qualitative Analysis Programs: Coding the Moving Picture as Well as the Snapshots," Sociological Research Online, Sociological Research Online, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6.
- Trondsen, Marianne & Sandaunet, Anne-Grete, 2009. "The dual role of the action researcher," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-20, February.
- Holte-McKenzie, Merydth & Forde, Sarah & Theobald, Sally, 2006. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 365-376, November.
- Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:1:p:21-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.