. 2018;9(1):20-32.
Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in‐depth understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique. In addition, there are no readily available guidelines for conservation researchers.
Here, we reviewed the applications of focus group discussion within biodiversity and conservation research between 1996 and April 2017. We begin with a brief explanation of the technique for first‐time users. We then discuss in detail the empirical applications of this technique in conservation based on a structured literature review (using Scopus).
The screening process resulted in 170 articles, the majority of which (67%, n = 114,) were published between 2011 and 2017. Rarely was the method used as a stand‐alone technique. The number of participants per focus group (where reported) ranged from 3 to 21 participants with a median of 10 participants. There were seven (median) focus group meetings per study. Focus group discussion sessions lasted for 90 (median) minutes. Four main themes emerged from the review: understanding of people's perspectives regarding conservation (32%), followed by the assessment of conservation and livelihoods practices (21%), examination of challenges and impacts of resource management interventions (19%) and documenting the value of indigenous knowledge systems (16%). Most of the studies were in Africa (n = 76), followed by Asia (n = 44), and Europe (n = 30).
We noted serious gaps in the reporting of the methodological details in the reviewed papers. More than half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size and group size (n = 93), whereas 54 studies did not mention the number of focus group discussion sessions while reporting results. Rarely have the studies provided any information on the rationale for choosing the technique. We have provided guidelines to improve the standard of reporting and future application of the technique for conservation.
1 INTRODUCTION
Conservation social science has come of age (Bennett et al., 2017). From being an outlier and on the sidelines of the discourse on conservation, the importance of understanding human perspectives is now centre stage in conservation decision making (Bennett et al., 2017; Khadka, Hujala, Wolfslehner, & Vacik, 2013; Paloniemi et al., 2012). Within the repertoire of tools that conservation biologists can use, focus group discussion is a commonly used method. Focus group discussion is a technique where a researcher assembles a group of individuals to discuss a specific topic, aiming to draw from the complex personal experiences, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of the participants through a moderated interaction (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Hayward, Simpson, & Wood, 2004; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Kitzinger, 1994; Morgan, 1996).
Focus group discussion is widely used in conservation research unlike some of the other relatively lesser known techniques such as Nominal Group Technique (Hugé & Mukherjee, in prep) and Q methodology (Zabala & Mukherjee, 2017). The method's popularity is closely linked to the rise of participatory research, especially the “active experimentation with focus groups” in the academic social sciences during the 1980s (Morgan, 2002). The technique emerged as a qualitative data collection approach and a bridging strategy for scientific research and local knowledge (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Focus group discussion is perceived to be a “cost‐effective” and “promising alternative” in participatory research (Morgan, 1996) offering a platform for differing paradigms or worldviews (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Orr, 1992). Sociologists and psychologists have used the method since the 1940s (e.g. Merton & Kendall, 1946; Merton, Fiske & Kendall 1956). However, its popularity and application has grown across a wide range of disciplines including education (Flores & Alonso, 1995), communication and media studies (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996), sociology (Morgan, 1996), feminist research (Wilkinson, 1998, 1999), health research (Wilkinson, 1998) and marketing research (Morgan, Krueger, & King, 1998; Szybillo & Berger 1979).
Focus group discussion is sometimes seen as synonymous with interviews, especially the semi‐structured “one‐to‐one” and “group interviews” (Parker & Tritter, 2006). Similarities between these techniques relate to the tendency to uncover people's perceptions and values (e.g. Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Sewell, 1997; Skeggs, 1997). Consequently, there are cases where authors have confused and conflated these two distinctive methods (Parker & Tritter, 2006). However, existing evidence on the role of the researcher and the relationship with the participants points to a fundamental difference between the two techniques (Smithson, 2000). Interviews involve a one‐to‐one, qualitative and in‐depth discussion where the researcher adopts the role of an “investigator.” This implies the researcher asks questions, controls the dynamics of the discussion, or engages in dialogue with a specific individual at a time. In contrast, in a focus group discussion, researchers adopt the role of a “facilitator” or a “moderator.” In this setting, the researcher facilitates or moderates a group discussion between participants and not between the researcher and the participants. Unlike interviews, the researcher thereby takes a peripheral, rather than a centre‐stage role in a focus group discussion (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001; Hohenthal, Owidi, Minoia, & Pellikka, 2015; Johnson, 1996; Kitzinger, 1994).
The link between people's perceptions and their socio‐cultural situation is critical to decision‐making on natural resources since most people derive their notions, mental constructions and interpretations from their immediate surrounding and develop these from experiential knowledge (Berkes, 2004). Given the rise of participatory research in conservation over the last few decades (Bennett et al., 2017), it is crucial to reflect on the scope and remit of focus group discussion as a methodological tool. Currently, there is relatively little or no critical discussion on the merits and demerits of focus group discussion in comparison to other similar qualitative techniques. It is therefore difficult to ascertain when and in which context, focus group discussion would be most appropriate. There are no guidelines for best practice for the application of the technique in conservation literature. In addition, there are no comprehensive reviews of the use of focus group discussion in conservation to the best of our knowledge.
Here we assess the strength and weaknesses of the focus group discussion technique based on a review of its application in conservation in the last two decades. We first briefly explain the procedure of the technique and then provide an overview of the different forms of focus group discussion. On the basis of a critical analysis of the relevant literature, we discuss the merits and potential pitfalls of the technique. Finally, we provide guidelines for reporting future applications of the technique and suggestions to address key psychological biases that can impact group interactions.