Content uploaded by Susi Peacock
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susi Peacock on Nov 09, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Focus groups are a well-established qualita-
tive research method used to gain insights
into people’s experiences (Kitzinger, 1995;
Morgan, 1997) providing ‘tiny glimpses’
into the worlds of others (Krueger and Casey, 2000).
There are two principal schools of thought regard-
ing focus group terminology. Morgan (1997) used a
broad typology defining focus groups as:
‘A research technique that collects data
through group interactions on a topic
determined by the researcher.’
However, a more precise definition is favoured by
authors such as Frey and Fontana (1989) who have
suggested specific criteria must be met in order for
a group interview to be classified as a focus group.
Despite such contrasting views, there is broad
agreement that interaction is ‘the hallmark’ feature
of a focus group.
The focus group was originally developed on the
basis that many consumer decisions are made in a
social context in discussion with others. Thus, this
method can be used to explore how individuals’
attitudes and beliefs are formed and what influences
their thinking (Kitzinger, 1995).
Surveys routinely reveal inconsistencies between
knowledge and behaviour: what people know
– such as smoking is harmful to health – and what
they actually do. Kitzinger (1994) argued that focus
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 551
The analysis of interaction in
online focus groups
groups can help in understanding why these dis-
crepancies exist, which is important if they are to
be reduced. Other advantages of group interaction
include facilitating ‘collective remembering’, ena-
bling more reserved participants to discuss sensitive
issues and allowing people to clarify ideas.
This unique ability of focus groups to tap into
the social interaction between people has popular-
ized this method in healthcare studies. The impor-
tance of including social interaction as an integral
part of the data analysis was emphasized by Asbury
(1995) while Kitzinger (1994) suggested that inter-
action should be ‘openly exploited and explored’.
However, in a critical review of nursing literature
between 1990 and 1999, Webb and Kevern (2001)
reported that while the importance of group inter-
action in focus group research studies is acknowl-
edged and often given as justification for its use, it
is inadequately considered in many research articles.
Moreover, Catterall and Maclaran (1997) stated that
some researchers view interaction as a ‘nuisance’
rather than valuable research data.
The changing face of The focus
group
Advances in Internet and computer mediated com-
munications technology have enabled researchers
Computer mediated communication has enabled researchers to transfer the focus group method to
the online environment. This has important practical, ethical and theoretical implications including
the challenge of maximizing and analysing focus group interaction in a faceless medium, devoid
of visual and vocal cues. In the online setting where written communication is the only means of
understanding data, interaction offers the researcher a critical window to interpret meaning and to
understand better what is happening in the social context of the group.
A schema of questions has been used in this study to draw attention to this interaction and to
examine the transcripts of online focus groups, which sought to investigate the lived experiences of
sufferers of repetitive strain injury. Five asynchronous online focus groups were conducted on a closed
website specifically created for the study.
Online focus group interaction was found to generate rich qualitative data. More studies are
required to explore what is potentially an innovative tool for qualitative researchers.
Key words: Methodological research, qualitative studies, asynchronous online focus groups, Internet
Watson M, Peacock S, Jones D (2006) The analysis of interaction in online focus groups 13(12): 551–7
Clinical
Mohinder Watson
is Research Student,
Avenue de Crousaz 2c,
1010 Lausanne,
Switzerland,
Susi Peacock is Lecturer
in e-learning and Derek
Jones is Lecturer in
Occupational Therapy,
Queen Margaret
University College
Correspondence to:
M Watson
mohinderw@bluewin.ch
Mohinder Watson, Susi Peacock, Derek Jones
its nature is changed in the online environment
(Sweet, 2001). No one is physically present. Body
language such as, reassuring smiles, visual expres-
sions of encouragement, confusion, enthusiasm,
boredom, raised voices and eye contact are all
absent online.
Online communication is solely reliant on words
and symbols typed on a computer screen and inter-
preted by the reader. Despite the different principal
means of communication, the written word should
not be underestimated in its capacity to induce
strong feelings and reactions, but viewed simply as
different and context specific. It is argued that the
written word in the absence of other stimulation,
such as aural or visual, can heighten other senses
(Sweet, 2001) in the same way that a book can
unleash the imagination differently from the cin-
ematic version (Stewart and Williams, 2005).
In addition, different levels of interaction can
occur from superficial one-way responses, through
two-way reactive interaction – where one person
sends a message and another person resonds to it
– or more in-depth interactions where views and
ideas are formed, changed, and clarified between
several group participants simultaneously much like
in a conversation. This latter type of interaction is
what researchers must aim to maximize if subtleties
in meaning are to be explored.
Recent research suggests new methods of inter-
acting using the keyboard are partly compensating
for the lack of visual cues in the online environ-
ment by helping to convey mood and nuances in
expression. Examples include the use of asterisks,
exclamation marks, line spacing, fonts and acro-
nyms, such as LOL (‘laugh out loud’) (Madge
and O’Connor, 2003; Kenny, 2005; Stewart and
Williams, 2005). Emoticons such as, smileys :-) or
sad faces :-( can be used as well as capital letters
to express emotions and feelings. Even more infor-
mally, expressions such as ‘yuk!’ and ‘Hmmm’ are
used indicating the narrowing divide between the
written and spoken word.
With the emergence of such strategies that ena-
ble people to indicate the emotional tone of online
communication, it should be possible to avoid the
criticism levelled at some FTF research that inter-
action is inadequately analysed (Webb and Kevern,
2001).
analysing online group
inTeracTion
The analysis of focus group transcripts differs from
other forms of qualitative data analysis because of
its focus on interaction. Therefore, while words and
in particular their meaning, remain a fundamental
aspect of analysis, attention should also be paid to
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 553
552 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
Clinical
to adapt face-to-face (FTF) focus groups into the
online environment (Murray, 1997; Selwyn and
Robson, 1998; Madge and O’Connor, 2003; Kenny,
2005; Stewart and Williams, 2005). Literature is
now emerging comparing online and FTF groups
(Mann and Stewart, 2000; Sweet, 2001) as well as
different modes of operation: synchronous or asyn-
chronous (Stewart and Williams, 2005).
While it is recognized that online studies are only
appropriate for particular types of research and can
exclude certain groups, they have the potential to
overcome some of the limitations of the traditional
FTF focus group. Increased Internet access has seen
a proliferation of online support groups where peo-
ple meet to share experiences (Eysenbach and Till,
2001). Such groups can provide access to potential
participants and overcome one of the major dif-
ficulties faced by researchers: recruitment (Madge
and O’Connor, 2003; Stewart and Williams 2005;
Hamilton and Bowers, 2006).
Furthermore, geographically dispersed groups
can be brought together at a relatively low cost as
well as difficult-to-access groups, such as, ‘busy
professionals’ (Mann and Stewart 2000, Madge and
O’Connor, 2003; Murray, 1997). Global perspec-
tives can be gained rapidly as in the comparative
cross-cultural study of young people by Stewart et al
(1998). Significantly larger numbers of individuals
can also participate enabling a potentially broader
perspective to be gained (Selwyn and Robson’s
(1998) study involved 57 people for 2 months).
In addition, the flexibility of asynchronous online
focus groups allows participants to respond at their
own convenience and for longer periods that may
lead to more in-depth perspectives (Sweet, 2001).
Finally, a major advantage of the online method is
that the text-based social interactions generated can
be captured and recorded free of transcription errors
(Chen and Hinton, 1999; Mann and Stewart, 2000).
One of the key issues facing future researchers is
how well technology can facilitate online communi-
cation so that interaction can be maximized (Stewart
and Williams, 2005). This objective is crucial if
interaction is to be upheld as the ‘hallmark’ feature
of the online focus group method. This central role
of interaction and its analysis in online focus groups
therefore warrants further consideration.
online group inTeracTion
Interaction refers to the full range of everyday
interpersonal communication used between group
participants in FTF focus groups, including eve-
rything from anecdotes, humour, sarcasm, argu-
ing, questioning, challenging, teasing and boasting
(Kitzinger, 1994). While interaction remains cen-
tral to the online focus group method, inevitably
the full range of communication, such as body lan-
guage, gestures and tone of voice (Krueger, 1998).
Thus, Kitzinger (1994) suggested the creation of
specific coding categories for these other forms of
communication such as questions asked by group
members. Catterall and Maclaran (1997), in their
paper on computer assisted coding, emphasized the
importance of including both the thematic analy-
sis of the transcripts online and augmenting this
with an analysis of the group social interactions
offline. After reviewing the literature on the analysis
of focus group data they concluded that:
‘The focus group is not simply a data
gathering technique where data
collected are analysed for their specific
content such as all text relating to
a particular theme. Important and
potentially insightful communication and
learning processes occur in focus groups
as a result of participant interaction.’
(Catterall and Maclaran, 1997)
In the online environment, researchers face the chal-
lenge of interpreting meaning from online inter-
actions embedded in words and symbols. Various
approaches are available to assist researchers in the
analysis of online focus groups ranging from count-
ing the number of threads in a conversation (Kenny,
2005) to analysing sequences of threads to retain a
greater context of meaning (Reed and Payton, 1997).
Stewart and Williams (2005) proposed three ele-
ments to online data analysis:
nForm – which equates to the context in which the
data was generated such as web board messages
nContent – which refers to the main analysis of
the text based transcript
nStyle – which refers to non-verbal cues.
Stevens (1996) developed a schema of analytical
questions for the analysis of focus group interac-
tion. These questions can be used to examine the
transcript of an online focus group to ensure that
in the data analysis both interaction and content are
addressed equally. This schema of questions has
been applied in the study described here and aug-
mented with additional questions drawn from the
work of Kitzinger (1994), Catterall and Maclaran
(1997), Robinson (1999), Kenny (2005), and
Stewart and Williams (2005).
Thus, this paper sets out to:
nExplore the feasibility of using this particular
online method to capture repetitive strain injury
(RSI) sufferers’ group experiences
nDetermine if interaction, the hallmark feature of
focus groups, can be upheld online and whether
Stevens’ (1996) model is helpful in accessing
this
nAdd to the body of existing knowledge on online
research studies.
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 553
552 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
Clinical
a case sTudy: The analysis of
inTeracTion in online focus
groups exploring rsi
The qualitative researcher faces the task of avoid-
ing the limitations of generic qualitative research
(lacking in clear statements regarding underlying
assumptions) and methodolatry (an emphasis on
methodology at the expense of substantive findings)
(Caelli et al, 2003). The research described here can
be considered as phenomenological in the sense that
it is interested in exploring the ways in which indi-
viduals understand their world, and adopts a ‘subtle
realist’ position that acknowledges the socially con-
structed nature of reality while rejecting extreme
relativism (Murphy et al, 1998).
Research was undertaken using asynchronous
online focus groups with the aim of gaining a deeper
understanding of the experience of having RSI and
obtaining sufferers’ views on improvements in the
management of this condition. Ethical approval was
obtained from the University Ethics Committee.
The procedures were guided by the Association of
Internet Researchers (AoIR) report (Ess and AoIR
ethics working committee, 2002) and the Ethical
and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research
on the Internet report (Frankel and Siang, 1999).
Specific ethical questions proposed by Eysenbach
and Till (2001) were addressed, including such
issues as:
nLevel of intrusion
nSite privacy
nVulnerability of the virtual community
nMethods of obtaining informed consent
nWhen consent can be waived
nConfidentiality and anonymity.
Practical measures included seeking permission to
‘lurk’ (to be present without engaging in discussion)
and recruit participants from the list owners. This
involved posting to the whole list (not individuals as
this was not permitted) to explain the study and to
offer participants opportunities to address concerns.
Informed consent and demographic information
were obtained from focus group participants before
the study.
The design strategy involved analysing archived
emails from a virtual support group, which was fol-
lowed by five mixed-gender asynchronous online
focus groups. The five groups, run in series during
May/June 2003 lasted for 10 days each on a closed
private password-protected online site created spe-
cifically for the study using WebCT (a virtual learn-
ing environment available within the University).
This site was accessible to all participants through
an Internet-enabled computer.
Selection and description of sampling strategies
in qualitative research is beset by variation in termi-
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 555
554 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
Clinical
nology and theoretical debate, particularly regard-
ing attempts to generalize to the wider population
(Coyne, 1997; Murphy et al, 1998). This research
used a purposive strategy – also referred to as
purposeful or selective sampling – that has been
identified as an approach that aims to capture the
‘information rich’ experience of people relevant to
the phenomenon under investigation and meet the
aims of the research (Coyne, 1997).
The purposive sample consisted of participants
whose ages ranged from 22–62 years and included:
males (14) and females (43); employed and unem-
ployed individuals; those on sick leave; parents with
young children and students. The study involved
participants at different stages of RSI and who lived
in: Switzerland (3); New Zealand (2); the USA (2);
Australia (1); France (1) as well as the UK (48). The
level of acquaintanceship varied from total strangers
to those who had communicated via the main dis-
cussion list from which they had been recruited.
The 57 participants’ anonymity was surrendered
but no email addresses were visible during the
study. In total, 702 postings were made. On aver-
age there were 140 postings per group with the
facilitator contributing approximately 23 postings
per group, most of which focussed on creating a
welcoming and safe online milieu. The length of
individual postings varied from quite short to more
than four screen lengths. Consistent with the find-
ings of Kenny (2005) a high degree of technical
knowledge and computer expertise was not required
of the facilitator or participants.
A thematic analysis approach was undertaken.
Nvivo software assisted coding of the data from
the five focus groups. To complement the thematic
analysis of the transcripts, Stevens’ (1996) schema
of analytical questions was used to guide the analy-
sis of online group interactions (Table 1).
Minor changes to Stevens’ (1996) questions were
made in order to tailor them for this study (Table 1).
For example, the question on consensus was omit-
ted as consensus building was not the author’s aim.
Conversely more relevant questions were added to
direct attention towards how members interacted
and related to each other. Question five for example,
was intended to draw attention to how participants
compared their own experiences to those of others’.
Question seven was added to encourage exploration
of the range of communication used in the online
environment. This is critical where all interpretation
depends on written words and symbols. Therefore,
referring to others by name, offering cyberhugs,
using bad and/or strong language, using capitali-
zation etc, are useful indicators for appraising the
group atmosphere and context.
findings
Key themes identified through thematic
analysis
Group experiences of having RSI were success-
fully captured in the online focus groups. The data
generated were both retrospective, 25 years in one
case, and immediate and unfolding with events tak-
ing place earlier in the same day being shared later
with the group. Healthcare, occupational and private
experiences were described, which provided ‘tiny
glimpses’ into the lives of those experiencing RSI:
‘I’ve had problems for over 2 years now
with this disease. Well I say ‘disease’,
but you can’t catch it, you can’t be
infected with it and you certainly can’t
see it, but believe me I can feel it. This
debilitating injury now controls the
majority of my life, work and personal...
The worst part, as I’m sure you will all
agree, is the frustration caused by lack
of understanding by employers and even
friends... I can walk, talk, hear and see,
I don’t wear a brace or a cast or have a
disabled badge, yet I have a disability
that is forgotten about by others because
its not visible to the eye!’ (participant O)
From analysing the substantive focus group data
on RSI experiences, key themes emerged (Table 2)
which resonate highly with extant literature on RSI
(Reid et al, 1991) and back pain (Walker et al, 2006).
The analysis of group interaction
The online focus groups were cohesive, amicable
and had a high level of conformity; only one group
had a reduced level of cohesion as a result of insuf-
ficient time for group rapport to develop. This man-
ifested itself by the significantly reduced number
of postings (around 50% of the other groups), far
fewer references to other group members and less
interaction with each other. There was also evi-
dence of new topics being introduced by partici-
pants and cases where individuals expressed views
contrary to the group opinion. Several examples
TABLE 1.
Stevens’ (1996) amended analytical questions contextualized for the online
repetitive strain injury study
1. What common experiences were expressed?
2. What questions did participants ask?
3. How did participants compare their experience with others?
4. What did participants agree and disagree on?
5. What was the range of communication forms used in the group?
6. What are the controversies (and contradictions) within the group?
7. How do participants interact with and influence each other online?
8. How were emotions expressed and handled online?
9. Was a particular member or viewpoint dominant or suppressed?
10. What level of group cohesiveness was attained?
11. What was the relationship between the researcher and the participants?
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 555
554 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
Clinical
of serendipitous data generation were seen includ-
ing a ‘mini survey’ conducted by a female in one
group on the personality traits of sufferers and an
in-depth account of RSI referenced to a diary kept
for 5 years.
The interaction analysis guided by Stevens’
(1996) modified schema of questions ensured that
group interaction was integrated with the thematic
data analysis by drawing attention to the social con-
text in which the data was generated. By looking at
how people influenced each other, processes such as
decision making and learning from each other were
more visible:
‘I must have been barking mad, putting
so much emphasis on work pressures
rather than my health, but at the
time the pressure to work on was
overwhelming, and only now do I realise
that I need to refocus.’ (participant P)
‘What was it that made you decide
to refocus? Was there a clear point
at which you thought, right, I’ve had
enough or was it more gradual or some
combination of the two? I’m really
struggling with this one at the moment.’
(participant Q)
‘The first point, when I got more info,
was when I’d been told to go off sick, so
had, if you like, been given permission
to be ill. The second time, when I started
to think about other work is more
difficult…The real change was when I
was made redundant, so I had no choice
but to think about ‘what next’, and I still
haven’t decided.’ (participant P)
‘I would be interested in finding other
work which didn’t aggravate my RSI but
I don’t know what else I can do which
doesn’t involve computer work or using
your hands/arms...’ (participant R)
Table 3 provides two specific examples of the appli-
cation of Stevens’ (1996) schema to the RSI study.
discussion
The aim of qualitative research to provide maxi-
mum insights into the topic under study is equally
applicable to online groups. However, this becomes
more challenging and critical in the case of online
data where visual observations are not possible
and aural cues are lacking, necessitating a greater
reliance on the transcript to gain all meaning.
Interaction, the ‘hallmark’ feature of focus groups,
is important since it emulates more closely everyday
‘real conversations,’ which can provide insights into
how decisions and opinions are formed, influenced,
challenged and changed in reality. Also, it can help
illuminate how people make meaning of their condi-
tion through shared experiences and language under-
stood by others within the group, but which may be
exclusive to that particular social group setting.
In this study, Stevens’ (1996) schema, modified to
accommodate the online shift, provided a practical
and systematic tool, which guided the analysis of the
online group interactions. Primarily it ensured that
the researcher examined the whole of the transcript
to determine if group discussions were candid and
to establish if all participants had freely expressed
their thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, the ques-
tions assisted in the analysis of levels of group rap-
port, hostility and agreement as demonstrated in the
examples provided in Table 3.
In essence, the schema ensured that consideration
was given not only to what was said in the groups
but also to how people related to others within the
group and influenced each other. The assumption
made here being that people’s views are not static
but are amenable to change in the light of listen-
ing and talking to others. These processes can be
traced in the transcript as discussions progress and
reported as part of the analysis. For example, the
schema helped determine if interaction was well
developed and participants had performed collec-
tively to produce group perspectives or whether they
had remained a collection of individuals.
conclusion
This study demonstrates that online focus groups
can meet the criteria used to define traditional FTF
focus groups. Based on the experiences of conduct-
ing this study, the authors believe that this method
• Pain and its various dimensions such as invisibility, communication, validity,
treatment, unpredictability, inconsistency
• Limitations in social role functioning expressed as things participants could no
longer do, and conversely as indicators of recovery
• Invisibility of RSI and wanting to be believed; appearing healthy on the outside
• Emotions such as anger, frustration, isolation and depression
• Future uncertainty including not knowing whether and when participants might
recover, difficulty in planning ahead
• Effects on work and career such as whether to disclose RSI to employer; finding
alternative devices to continue working or alternative types of work; lack of
support, awareness and understanding of managers, role of stress
• Making sense of RSI including coping strategies, attribution for RSI and theorizing
on causes, reflecting on self and acceptance
• Importance of support in RSI from healthcare professionals, work and family
• Financial and legal implications
• Wider social awareness: lack of acceptance of RSI, feeling it was ‘not taken
seriously’ and the notion that while not life threatening, it was life changing.
TABLE 2.
key themes identified through thematic analysis of the transcripts from the
repetitive strain injury (RSI) study
has more similarities than differences to FTF groups.
Moreover, it satisfied the Turney and Pocknee
(2005) criteria for being defined as a focus group
and the authors view it as a variation of an already
established versatile method rather than a new and
different method.
However, it is also acknowledged that the nature
of the data generated from an online environment
may be different from that obtained from FTF
groups but emphasized that this difference should
not render it invalid. Furthermore, the data from
the study indicates that the ‘hallmark’ feature of the
focus group: interaction, can occur and be captured
in this new online frontier devoid of visual and vocal
cues. It also supports Webb and Kevern’s (2001)
suggestion of the potential usefulness of Stevens’
Clinical
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 557
556 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
TABLE 3.
Two examples of the application of Stevens’ schema to the repetitive strain injury (RSI) study
Two examples of the
analytical questions
used for the analysis
(questions three
and five) Quotations from the RSI study
Question three: Participant A:
How do participants ‘I’ve been reading through people’s accounts and it seems like
compare and relate their we’ve all had the same sort of experiences – ie
own experiences to Difficulty/lack of understanding by employers, friends and family
others in the group? – after all we don’t look injured unless we have visible scars.
Constant testing of different treatments – and finding there isn’t a cure.
Trying to stay positive vs depression. Not so easy when your future looks bleak.
Inability to carry out simple domestic tasks without pain – brushing teeth,
washing dishes etc’
Participant B:
‘I agree. I might add another thing to your list, which is:
Feeling scared not knowing what’s happening to yourself.’
Question five: Anecdotes Participant C
What is the range of Subject Re: Different pains for different days
communication used ‘I never thought I’d be laughing in this discussion group – but (X) your
within the online group? comments really did make me laugh. It is so true. The only consolation for me
yesterday after two painful work days was that at least the pain would be
present at my first appointment with the osteopath, this morning. Yet would you
believe it, I was relatively pain free come the appointment’
Humour Participant D:
‘Naprosyn was about as much good as a tube of smarties’
Participant E:
‘Despite what has been written in the press, I have never had textual relations
with that woman!’
Statements of support and Participant F:
empathy, cyberhugs ‘Look after yourself, and don’t worry about being a nutter! You ain’t!! XX’
Asterisks Participant G:
‘I’m trying to spend more time at the gym (the pub keeps calling), but you can
normally find me kicking the **** out of a treadmill 2–3 times a week.’
Informal use of written Participant H
language similar to that ‘Oof – difficult question.’
used in spoken form Participant I
‘On to nerve conduction studies – ouch they hurt ‘
Participant J
‘Whoo Hoo!!!’
Participant K
‘Phew, didn’t realize I had so much to say already!’
Strong language Participant L:
‘The rheumatologist you saw – what a bastard!’
Participant M
‘And had a lying toe rag of a manager (and that’s putting it mildly) who
promised the world for my return and delivered nothing’
Capitalization Participant N
‘Yet it is at this point where individuals most need help. THIS IS THE CRITICAL
TIME when actions can be put in place to stop problems becoming worse.’
(1996) schema of questions to assist in the analysis
of that interaction.
While not suitable for all research and despite
the inherent biases it carries, such as only including
‘e-literate’ individuals from certain socioeconomic
backgrounds with computer access, online research
is likely to grow as Internet access becomes more
widely available.
The authors agree with other researchers (Stewart
and Williams, 2005; Turney and Pocknee, 2005) that
online focus groups may offer the academic com-
munity a theoretically sound alternative method for
generating rich qualitative data, where the method is
congruent with the research aims.
It is encouraging to see more studies are exploring
this new technology, which is likely to result in the
rapid evolution of the online focus group method
providing further ‘twists’, like variations on a theme
to an already established method. The authors con-
cur with others for the need to address ethical issues
carefully and to tread cautiously to avoid Internet
communities from being ‘over-researched’.
Conflict of interest: none.
The authors would like to thank the Listowners (past and
present) and research participants without whose help and
support this research would not have been possible and Daniel
Ross (technical assistance), Marie Donaghy (feedback) and
Valerie McKeown (proofreading).
Asbury J (1995) Overview of focus group research.
Qualitative Health Research 5(4): 414–20
Caelli K, Ray L, Mill J (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward
greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods. Available at: http://www.
ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/pdf/caellietal.pdf (accessed
17/11/06)
Catterall M, Maclaran P (1997) Focus group data and qualita-
tive analysis programs: Coding the moving picture as well
as the snapshots. Sociological Research Online. Available
at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/abstract.pl?2/1/6.
html (accessed 1/8/06]
Chen P, Hinton SM (1999) Real time interviewing using the
World Wide Web. Sociological Research Online. Available
at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/3chen.
html (Accessed 10/06/06)
Coyne IT (1997) Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful
and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?
Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 623–30
Ess C, AoIR ethics working committee (2002) Ethical deci-
sion-making and internet research: Recommendations
from the aoir ethics working committee. Approved by
AoIR, November 27, 2002. Available at http://www.aoir.
org/reports/ethics.pdf (accessed 20/11/06)
Eysenbach G, Till JE (2001) Ethical issues in qualitative
research on internet communities. British Medical Journal
323: 1103–5
Frankel MS, Siang S (1999) Ethical and legal aspects of
human subjects research on the internet: A report of a
workshop June 10-11, 1999. Available at http://www.
aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf (accessed
21/11/06)
Frey J, Fotana A (1989) The group interview in social
research. Social Science Journal 28: 175–87
Hamilton RJ and Bowers BJ (2006) Internet recruitment and
e-mail interviews in qualitative studies. Qualitative Health
Research 16(6): 821–35 Available at http://qhr.sagepub.
com/cgi/reprint/16/6/821 (accessed 20/11/06)
Kenny AJ (2005) Methodological issues in nursing research.
Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group. Journal
of Advanced Nursing 49(4): 414–22
Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the
importance of interaction between research participants.
Sociology of Health and Illness 16(1): 103–21
Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: Introducing focus
groups. British Medical Journal 311: 299–302
Krueger RA (1998) Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group
Results. Sage, London
Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) (3rd Edition) Focus Groups:
A Practical Guide For Applied Research. Sage, London
Madge C, O’Connor H (2003) Focus groups in cyberspace:
using the Internet for qualitative research. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal 6(2): 133–43
Mann C, Stewart F (2000) Internet Communication and
Qualitative Research, A Handbook for Researching Online.
Sage, London
Morgan DL (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
2nd edn. Sage, London
Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P
(1998) Qualitative research methods in health technology
assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology
Assessment 2(16)
Murray PJ (1997) Using virtual focus groups in qualitative
research. Qualitative Health Research 7: 542–9
Reed J, Payton VR (1997) Focus groups: Issues of analy-
sis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26:
765–71
Reid J, Ewan C, Lowey E (1991) Pilgrimages of pain: the ill-
ness experiences of women with Repetition Strain Injury
and the search for credibility. Social Science Medicine
32(5): 601–12
Robinson N (1999) The use of focus group methodology
– with selected examples from sexual health research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 29(4): 905–13
Selwyn N, Robson K (1998) Using email as a research tool.
Social Research Update, Issue 21 University of Surrey.
Available at: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU21.html
(accessed 10/7/06)
Sweet C (2001) Designing and conducting virtual focus
groups. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal 4(3): 130–5
Stevens PE (1996) Focus groups: Collecting aggregate- level
data to understand community health phenomena. Public
Health Nursing 13(3): 170–6
Stewart F, Eckermann E, Zhou K (1998) Using the internet in
qualitative public health research: A comparison of Chinese
and Australian young women’s perceptions of tobacco use.
Internet Journal of Health Promotion. Available at http://
www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/12/index.htm. (accessed
21/11/06)
Stewart K, Williams M (2005) Researching online popula-
tions: the use of online focus groups for social research.
Qualitative Research 5(4): 395–416
Turney L, Pocknee C (2005) Virtual focus groups: New
frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods 4(2): Article3. Retrieved (July 2006)from http://
www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/backissues/4_2/pdf/turney.pdf
Walker J, Sofaer B, Holloway I (2006) The experience of
chronic back pain: accounts of loss in those seeking help
from pain clinics. European Journal of Pain 10: 199–207
Webb C, Kevern J (2001) Focus groups as a research method:
a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 33(6): 798–805
Clinical
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12 557
556 International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, December 2006, Vol 13, No 12
nOnline focus groups can generate rich qualitative data on the shared
knowledge and experiences of sufferers of repetitive strain injury.
nIn this study, attempts were made to dovetail two complementary aspects
of online focus group analysis: thematic and interaction in order to gain
more meaning by paying greater attention to group dynamics and to ensure
that potential limitations, such as candour, conformity and censorship were
addressed.
nThe study seeks to encourage further debate on the use of online
focus groups as a potential viable tool for the qualitative researcher’s
methodological toolbox.
KEY POINTS
