Dynamic Diversity or Malfunctional Mixing? Challenging the Conventions of Focus Group Composition
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19479105 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Nicolaisen (University of Southern Denmark, corresponding author), Peter Busch Nicolaisen (0000-0002-8199-6297, Aarhus University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-19 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/16094069251411160 |
| OpenAlex | W7128702466 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 48 |
The optimal constellation of focus groups is a prime concern of scholarship within qualitative methodology. Most focus group experts discourage strong heterogeneity among participants, as status differentials are considered a hazard for the social interaction that is the driving force of the method. This paper sets out to engage empirically with this widespread wariness. It does so by drawing on a focus group study involving Danish climate scientists, climate journalists and members of the public in both single-actor and mixed groups. To develop a refined appreciation of the power dynamics within the fifteen focus groups, they were examined with a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative analysis showed no obvious relationship between background characteristics and the number and length of speaking turns. Further, the assessment of the participants’ discursive positioning in the discussions also lends credence to the unpredictability of the power dynamics within the groups. For example, the members of the public in the mixed groups often managed to position themselves as equals to the professionals and sometimes even imposed their opinions on the group. Taken together, the results counter the common caution against high heterogeneity in focus groups. This inquiry concludes by highlighting key aspects to carefully consider when designing and executing highly heterogeneous focus groups, aiming to inspire others to mix people from different walks of life when the research question calls for it
Credence · Diversity (politics) · Focus (optics) · Focus group · Position (finance) · Qualitative property · Qualitative research · Scholarship · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Focus Groups
Focus Group Research
Focus Groups
Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher
Making sense of focus groups
Real qualitative researchers do not count
Counting in Qualitative Research
Collecting and analysing qualitative data
Introduction
Focus Groups in Social Research
Focus group methodology
Crossing Multidisciplinary Divides
The Concern for Sociality—Practicing Equality and Hierarchy in Denmark
The micro-dynamics of power and performance in focus groups
Using and analysing focus groups
A State of Emergency or Business as Usual in Climate Science Communication? A Three-Dimensional Perspective on the Role Perceptions of Climate Scientists, Climate Journalists, and Citizens
Identity-in-Interaction and Social Choreography
Demeanor, Status Cue or Performance
Status and Performance Characteristics in Social Interaction
Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research
Varieties of Positioning
Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks
Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations
Focus groups in feminist research
Status Characteristics and Social Interaction
Disputes as Complex Social Events
Qualitative Content Analysis
Displaying opinions
Using focus groups
Focusing on focus groups
Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research
The methodology of Focus Groups
Diffuse Status Characteristics and the Spread of Status Value
Status cues and the formation of expectations
| Highly cited | No |
|---|