Focus Group Methodology Review and Implementation

Elizabeth Gearin and Chris Kahle

Spring 2001

This research paper demonstrates how focus group research methodology can be applied
in situations when the target population is diverse, either in ethnicity, age, gender, or
other factors. Given that the demographic composition of our study area in a densely
populated area of Los Angeles contained a rich diversity of residents, our research team
would need to plan, structure, and implement successful focus group interviews for
diverse populations. In addition to an introductory section on “Modifying Focus Groups
for Different Populations,” we designed a step-by-step “Blueprint” for executing focus
groups, including recruitment, room layout, equipment, and post- interview techniques.
Finally, after testing our research with a mock focus group using the preliminary set of
questions for the Nature’s Services research study sponsored by the John Randolph and
Dora Haynes Foundation, we compiled our results. In addition to suggestions on question
structure, we also commented on the questions themselves, and documented how
respondents reacted in the focus group interview. Ultimately, these documents
demonstrate our archival research into the methodology and our implementation of the
methodology. The analysis of our mock focus group provided valuable results for
finalizing questions and techniques for actual interviews conducted in summer 2001 in
the study area of the Vermont Corridor.

Modifying Focus Groups for Different Populations

Enhancing a Social Science Research Methodology

Historical Background of Focus Groups

Focus groups are a method to systematically question several individuals simultaneously

in formal or informal settings, wherein a moderator uses probing to get at opinions and
underlying thoughts (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, Billson 1994). A focus group interview
has five central traits. It is “(1) a small group of people (2) meeting in a non-threatening
central location (3) to participate in an intensive and carefully planned discussion (4)
conducted by a skilled moderator (5) who focuses the interaction around discussion of
predetermined questions” (Lamp 1994).

Focus groups are used for marketing research and political and sociological work. The
purposes of focus groups include exploratory work, pretest work, aiding event recall, and
triangulation with other data collection methods (for example, creating a contextual
forum for individual responses) (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, Bristol and Fern 1996).

Historically, focus groups were used to develop survey questionnaires in the 1920s, for
product marketing between World War II and the 1970s. They later expanded to include
social science research beginning in the 1980s, assessing individual values and attitudes
(Billson, 1994). Growth in group querying of attitudes has been at least partly in response
to concerns with the effectiveness of information gathering at the individual level,
wherein the interviewer influenced questions and responses (Madriz 2000). Focus groups
are also lauded for their inclusiveness both in terms of process and results. This
inclusiveness renders this technique especially appropriate for conducting research with
diverse populations. Despite their inclusiveness, focus groups are inappropriate when the
primary intent is other than research, for example building consensus; broaching subjects
inappropriate for group discussion forums; and querying participants who are too little
involved in the topic (Morgan 1993).

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

Focus groups are relatively inexpensive (Krueger 1994), especially compared to

individual interviews, and the format is flexible and allows elaboration of answers
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000, Billson 1994, Lamp 1994). In addition, the social orientation
of the focus group takes advantage of the inherent social orientation of individuals. The
group process stimulates individual respondents and allows observation of interaction
(Madriz 2000, Krueger 1994). Focus group participants enrich the quality of the data, by
questioning each other, and providing reality checks on each other’s responses (Jarrett
1993). They allow probing for attitudes and opinions and provide valuable qualitative
data and broad insights that would be difficult to obtain in other ways (Billson 1994,
Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994). Focus group insights can be used to confirm quantitative
data, and to confirm or deny hunches (Lamp 1994). The group discussion aspect of focus
groups provides input into contemporary issues (Burgess 1988). Moreover, focus groups
have high face validity, in that participants understand the technique (Krueger 1994).
Results can be assessed quickly.

In addition, focus groups provide discrete advantages to other types of research, including
instances when the power differential between the participants and the decision-makers is
great enough to discourage participation without the security of a peer group; when one is
interested in complex behavior or motivations, and will benefit from a mix of attitudes;
where there is a desire to learn more about consensus on a topic; and when work with
focus group participants can enlighten professionals regarding a knowledge gap with a
target audience (Morgan 1993).

Disadvantages

At the same time, the multivocality of the participants results in limited researcher control
over the focus group process, and the relatively unstructured nature results in limited
researcher control over the interview (Krueger 1994). Other disadvantages include that
focus group results cannot be generalized or replicated, that group expression can
interfere with individual expression, and that results may reflect a ‘groupthink’ (Denzin
and Lincoln 2000). Focus groups are also difficult to assemble, many factors influence

2
responses, the focus group environment needs to be conducive to conversation, and
moderators require on-the-job training (Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994). Data is more
difficult to analyze. In addition, focus groups vary considerably and the research team
needs enough groups to balance out any oddities in responses (Krueger 1994).

Further, focus groups can be expensive because they often include donated time and
labor. They are also not necessarily quick, when one factors all the time needed for
preparation and analysis(Morgan 1993). They typically require carefully trained
interviewers (Krueger 1994).

Modifications for Different Populations

While much focus group research methodology emphasizes the need for a homogenous
group, heterogeneous or more diverse groups that are structured to be sensitive to group
hierarchies may better represent more diverse, natural groupings (Kitzinger 1995). The
most important consideration is to avoid replicating hierarchical relationships based on
power, such as supervisor-employee, or in some cases, husband-wife (Kong 1998).
Further, the topic, more than group diversity or any artificial imposition of homogeneity,
appears to be most closely related to the participant self-disclosure that characterizes
focus groups.

Before discussing modifications for different populations, it is important to note that

focus groups are considered very useful for soliciting the opinions and attitudes of
traditionally marginalized groups both as a whole, and specifically. This is because they
emphasize the collective knowledge of the group and decrease the dominance of the
interviewer/researcher. They also increase the comfort level of participating minority
women, especially, as part of group. In addition, they provide opportunities to observe
vertical as well as horizontal interaction and allow participants to build on each other’s
thoughts (Madriz 2000).

Gender

One concern with using focus groups and similar group discussion techniques with both
male and female participants in the same sessions is the question of whether men and
women participate differently with mixed and same gender groups. Research shows that
groups of same gender participants may be dominated by leaders, while groups of mixed
gender can lead to confounding (Lassiter et al 1998). Specifically, women were found to
be more likely to agree and to act to defuse group tension. Men were more likely to
disagree as part of their involvement in group discussions. These gender differences held
for same sex discussion partnerships – women tended to agree with one another, while
men tended to disagree with each other (Carli 1989). It is therefore not clear that single
gender groups are likely to yield truer, less biased responses. Moreover, mixed gender
groups more closely represent real world experience, and interaction (Lassiter et al 1998).

3
Children and Youth

Concerns with accurately obtaining attitudes and preferences of child focus group
participants include issues of peer pressure. In order to avoid peer pressure influencing
responses, moderators can avoid using multiple members of pre-established groups and
cliques, in favor of stranger groups as participants (Krueger 1994). On the other hand,
pre-established groups can yield group cohesion, which in turn is believed to help
generate responses, especially on sensitive topics. Thus, depending on the topic, focus
group work with children and youth may, in fact, be facilitated by interviewing a group
of participants who know one another (Pugsley 1996).

A second concern is helping children articulate their attitudes and opinions. Marketing
research, in particular, indicates that children are definitely not mini- adults in terms of
their preferences (Spethmann 1992). In order to transcend superficial stereotypes, one
needs to interact directly with kids and to carefully focus the research queries, especially
for very young children. Children’s attitudes and opinions, especially for vague and hard
to conceptualize ideas such as “environment,” influence understanding and therefore
participation. When querying for attitudes towards these concepts, moderators must
consider what children use, and how they play, specifically (Burgess 1988).

Finally, the focus group process itself may be modified to facilitate the participation of
children. Given that young people are more influenced by their immediate environment
and are more skeptical that all opinions are equally valid, focus groups for youth may be
conducted outside of adult-run institutions, such as schools. For teens, use of same age
moderators may further reduce the appearance of adult authority that can inhibit active
participation. Given their varying interest levels, children’s focus groups should be
limited in time to 60 minutes or less, and/or incorporate discrete tasks a brief survey
halfway through. Given the great range of understanding implicit in the age range of
children and youth, it is recommended to limit the age range of any one group of
participants to within two school grades. In addition, it is recommended, where possible,
to segregate children’s focus groups by gender if participants are younger than high-
school age (Krueger 1994).

Different Ethnic Groups

Concerns with obtaining the participation of members of different ethnic groups include
ensuring inclusiveness. Just as focus groups can be considered very useful for increasing
the voice of traditionally marginalized populations via their process, they also increase
inclusiveness, particularly for diverse ethnic groups, via their style. The y do not exclude
those who cannot read or write, or read or write in a specific language (Goss and
Leinbach 1996, Kitzinger 1995). Moreover, with regard to both ethnicity and gender, the
participatory, interactive nature of focus groups facilitates participation by those who
typically feel too shy, or inhibited, to discuss their opinions and attitudes (Kitzinger
1995). In particular, minority women focus group participants find the multiple lines of
communication of the focus group process a safe environment for self- expression, so
long as the group is of similar socio-economic background (Madriz 2000). While none

4
of this ensures members of all groups will participate equally in a given focus group
session, it does suggest that the focus group setting is better designed than other interview
research methodologies to facilitate widespread participation.

Although it is generally recommended that focus group participants be unknown to each

other (Krueger 1994), successful recruitment of participants, especially hard to reach
participants, such as ethnic minorities, may be facilitated by using one or more key
individuals to rally other participation, in a snowball- type fashion (Kong 1998).

An additional concern focuses on enhancing researcher rapport and interaction with focus
group participants of one or more different ethnic groups. Such rapport may be enhanced
through obtaining ample background knowledge to determine which language to conduct
the focus group in, the culture and traditions of the group participants, and whether to
consider a local moderator; seeking local support in terms of identifying who can
sanction the focus group study; and specifically seeking multiple viewpoints during the
focus group session (Krueger 1994).

Role of Moderators

In general, the interviewer or moderator for the focus group interview needs to be
flexible, objective, empathic, persuasive, and a good listener (Denzin and Lincoln 2000).
The moderator also needs to be expressive and oriented toward feelings, as well as
instrumental and oriented toward future consequences. These latter traits include
timekeeping and arbitrating (Billson 1994). Even if the moderator does not have
experience leading groups, he or she should have experience and comfort dealing with
groups (Krueger 1994, Morgan 1993). Finally, the moderator needs to develop rapport
with group participants (Pearce 1998.) Perhaps the single most important role the
moderator plays is ensuring equal and widespread participation, including that
individuals or small groups do not dominate the conversation, that the reticent are
encouraged to participate, and that they elicit the fullest possible coverage of the topic
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000).

Related to the concerns of potential modifications for different populations is the issue of
matching focus group moderator’s and participants’ gender, race and/or ethnicity. One
school of thought holds that it is better to match the two. Disparity between the
moderator and participants in terms of gender, race, age, socio-economic status, and
technical knowledge may inhibit group discussion (Krueger 1994). Matching the gender
of the moderator and the focus group participants (Lamp 1994), and matching the race of
the moderator with focus group participants will enhance rapport and increase the
willingness of participants to respond (Madriz 2000, Jarrett 1993). In any case, it is
desirable to avoid using a white moderator for a group made up of diverse population;
many participants may be inhibited because this represents a traditional authority figure.

Another school holds that matching the two is not critical. What is critical is cultural
sensitivity. Any ethnic or cultural disparity between the moderator and the focus group

5
participants may be successfully downplayed by a moderator who is nonjudgmental, and
sensitive to different ethnic and cultural values (Lassiter et al 1998). The critical
component is a sense of shared concerns that encourages participants to be forthcoming
with opinions and attitudes (Jarrett 1993).

Participant Selection

Focus group participants are usually selected for shared characteristics relevant to the
group topic. The general sense is that individual participants who are part of groups that
are homogenous in terms of age, class, race and gender tend to be more expressive. A
second advantage to selecting participants based on homogeneity, rather than diversity, is
to avoid deference by participants to those they feel are more knowledgeable (Madriz
2000, Menakshy 1994). At the same time that participants share key traits, they should
also be unknown to each other (Krueger 1994).

In order to create a focus group participant pool that is either heterogeneous in terms of
attitudes but homogenous in terms of occupation, education, age, gender, and family
characteristics, use systematic recruitment. If limited, target as the most important group
individuals who meet specific criteria. Set exact specifications for participants, and
maintain control of the selection process.

While others convincingly argue that heterogeneity in focus groups does not seriously
impede useful data collection, it is absolutely critical to avoid creating focus group
populations where participants may be uncomfortable with one another, including
participants who are openly hostile to one another (Madriz 2000). Such a scenario could
arise in relation to ethnic diversity within a larger ethnic group, for example.

Finally, note that women of lower socioeconomic status, including minority women, may
agree to participate, then not show, due to a variety of factors, including demands on their
time and a general unwillingness to say no (Madriz 2000). Oversampling (over-
recruiting) is therefore recommended for low- income minorities and other hard-to-reach
groups (Jarrett 1993).

References

Billson, Janet Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for
Sociologists on the Use of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Bristol, Terry and Ed ward R. Fern. 1996. “Exploring the Atmosphere Created by Focus
Group Interviews: Comparing Consumers Feelings Across Qualitative Techniques,”
Journal of the Market Research Society, April, v38, no2, 185-196.

6
Burgess, J., M. Limb, C.M. Harrison. 1988. “Exp loring Environmental Values Through
the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice.” Environment and Planning A. Vol
20, 309-326.

Burgess, J., M. Limb, C.M. Harrison. 1988. “Exploring Environmental Values Through
the Medium of Small Groups: 2. Illustrations of a Group at Work,” Environment and
Planning A. Vol 20, 457-476.

Burgess, Jacquelin, Carolyn M. Harrison and Melanie Limb. 1988. “People, Parks and
the Urban Green: A Study of Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City,”
Urban Studies, Vol 25, 455-473.

Carli, Linda L. 1989. “Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol56, No4, 565-76.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln, editors. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative

Research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Goss, John D. and Thomas R. Leinbach. 1996. “Focus Groups as Alternative Research
Practice: Experience with Transmigrants in Indonesia,” Area, vol28.2, 115-123.

Jarrett, Robin L. “Focus Group Interviewing with Low- income Minority Populations: A
Research Experience,” in Morgan, David L., editor. 1993. Successful Focus Groups:
Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp.84-201.

Kitzinger, Jenny. 1995. “Introducing Focus Groups,” British Medical Journal, July 29,
v311, n7000, 299(4).

Kong, Lily. 1998. “Refocusing on Qualitative Methods: Problems and Prospects for
Research in a Specific Asian Context,” Area, March, v30.1.

Krueger, Richard A. 1994. Focus Groups, Second Edition: A Practical Guide for Applied
Researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Lamp, E. Joseph, “Focus Group Interviewing: Theory and Practical Application,” in

Billson, Janet Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for
Sociologists on the Use of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Lassiter, Unna, Jennifer R. Wolch and Alec Brownlow. 1998. “Attitudes Towards Marine
Wildlife: Designing a Focus Group Analysis for Culturally Diverse Settings,” Working
Paper #5, USGS-TR-01-99.

Madriz, Esther, “Focus Groups in Feminist Research” in Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna
S. Lincoln, editors. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.835-848.

7
Menakshy, Meena, “Focus Groups: Some Practical Considerations,” in Billson, Janet
Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for Sociologists on the Use
of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research. Washington, D.C.: American
Sociological Association.

Morgan, David and Richard A. Krueger, “When to Use Focus Groups and Why,” in
Morgan, David L., editor. 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the
Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp.3-19.

Pearce, Michael. 1998. “Getting Full Value from Focus Group Research,” Ivey Business
Quarterly, Winter, v63, 12, 72(5).

Pugsley, Lesley, “ Focus Groups, Young People, and Sex Education,” in Pilcher, Jane
and Amanda Coffey, editors. 1996. Gender and Qualitative Research. Avebury, England:
Ashgate Publishing Co., pp.114-130.

Spethmann, Betsy. 1992. “Focus Groups Key to Reaching Kids,” Advertising Age,
February 10, v36, n6, pS1(2).

8
Blueprint | Focus Groups

This paper is a practical guide outlining focus group implementation, including timing for
questions and answers, suggested follow-up queries to clarify participant responses, and
techniques for generating widespread group responsiveness.

Before the Focus Group

Define Concepts to Investigate

• Assess the purpose of the focus group – why, what kinds of information needed,
how to use the information, and who is interested in the information.

• Evaluate the research process, including the appropriateness of using a focus

group. Recall that they most appropriate when investigating insights and
attitudes, and seeking additional information needed for larger studies.

• Determine the ideal end-result, including its probable use.

• Decide on characteristics of individuals for sessions. Control characteristics

common to all groups and characteristics that differentiate groups, such as social
status or gender.

• Select, generally, who to study – decision groups, employees, customers.

• Determine, generally, number of sessions. Consider whether different subgroups

of the population have different levels of knowledge or different attitudes which
may be relevant to the research, and expected generalizability to the population at
large. More groups usually provide increased reliability.

• Listen to the broad target audience to determine how to select participants,

appropriate incentives for various groups, and ideal questions and moderator
characteristics to maximize participant responsiveness.

• Select a location that is easy to find, minimizes distraction, provides a neutral

environment, and ideally that has a table and chairs and facilitates sitting in a
circle.

• Develop a plan and establish resources needed, such as a written description of

the problem, and a plan of action.

• Formulate potentia l questions in terms of issues for discussion.

(Sources: Katcher 1997, Krueger 1994, Knoedel 1993, Lengua et al 1992, Kitzinger
1995, Grunig 1990, Ledingham and Bruning 1998.)

9
Recruit for Focus Group Participation

• Determine planned focus group size. The ideal focus group size ranges from 4-
12, with recommendations varying between 4-8, 6-10, 7-10, and 8-12 (Pugsley
1996, Lamp 1994, Menakshy 1994, Kitzinger 1995). Larger groups can be used
for more exploratory purposes, although they tend to fragment into smaller groups
beyond a maximum group size of 12. Some researchers use mini focus groups of
4-5 to gauge reactions (Krueger 1994), but these can fail to generate useful
discussion (Ledingham and Bruning 1998).

• When recruiting for focus group participation, emphasize the need for
participants’ insight to discuss ‘special topics’ rather than participation as part of a
‘focus group.’ Telephone screening, using short questions to determine eligibility
if soliciting specific population, may be useful. Personal recruiting is likely to
result in a higher participation rate.

• Over-recruit by 20-25 percent. This is especially critical when soliciting

participation of hard-to-recruit populations, including low- income minority
groups. Do this 1-2 weeks before scheduled focus group.

• Where possible recruit members of the same socioeconomic status in order to

encourage widespread participation. Similarly, avoid placing any subgroup in a
situation where they are unlikely to participate due to intimidation.

• Send personalized letters of invitation on company or organization stationery.

• Telephone a reminder of the focus group meeting the day before and re-
emphasize the confidentiality of the discussion.

• Schedule focus groups for convenient times – usually 7:30 p.m. weekdays, unless
there is major national event, including television network sweeps week – and
places.

• Do not exceed two hours for a focus group meeting with adults, or 60 minutes for
kids.

• Provide an incentive ($20-50 in 1994), as well as food. Gifts may be an

appropriate incentive.

• Select a site location that does not generate potentially confusing preconceptions.

• Do not provide alcohol. Discourage smoking.

• Identify the research sponsor.

10
 • Where possible, build on existing community relationships to encourage
participation.

(Sources: Jarrett 1993, Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994, Menakshy 1994, Lassiter et al 1998,
Lengua et al 1992, Pearce 1998.)

Create Questions

• In order to ensure replicability, use a generic set of questions in a loose running

order, with specific prompts to facilitate participant understanding and to
encourage responses

• Opening questions should be used to identify common characteristics among the

group.

• An introductory question can be used to introduce the topic of conversation and

foster conversation.

• Use 2-5 key questions or topics that drive the study. (For example, query for
level of knowledge, then for formation of perceptions and/or misperceptions.
Alternately, begin with questions about topics that the least likely to participate
are likely to have the greatest knowledge about. For example, for mixed adult
male- female groups, start with questions about child care, or cost of groceries.)

• Use an ending question to establish closure: all things considered approach where
state final position; a summary question, such as “Is this an adequate summary?”
asked after brief summary given; or final question format where overview the
entire process and end with “Have we missed anything?”

• Questions should be semi- structured but prepared; should be clear (relatively

short, unidimensional, simple wording); accompanied by sufficient background to
minimize assumptions; placed in context where appropriate; and serendipitous at
end to avoid derailing group discussion. 1

• Questions should be open-ended rather than dichotomous yes- no; should avoid
why and instead breakdown into specific subquestions; should be uncued,
followed by cued if necessary; and can include various formats, such as sentence
completion, conceptual mapping (situation-response).

1
Participants vary in their preferences along three basic dimensions, including: structure,
with some participants preferring more structure, others less, and still others resisting the
moderator and attempting to take over the discussion; varying levels of intimacy, and
ability and willingness to engage in self-disclosure; and varying levels of participation
(Billson 1994).

11
 • Consider whether to use direct questions versus a topic guide. Direct questions
are more exact and take longer to create; are efficient because there are no subtle
differences; and are better if using multiple moderators. A topic guide feels more
spontaneous to participants; works well when one moderator uses for all focus
groups or for a veteran moderator.

(Sources: Grunig 1990, Goss and Leinbach 1996, Pugsley 1996, Krueger 1994, Billson
1994.)

Pretest

• Conduct the discussion, or focus groups, at least once (Menakshy 1994) or

preferably several times with different participants to identify trends, thought
patterns, and attitudes, until the results yield few if any additional results (Krueger
1994

Moderator Preparation 2

• Moderator needs to be flexible, objective, empathic, persuasive, and a good

listener, needs to develop rapport with group participants, and needs to respect the
participants and communicate in a clear, friendly demeanor.

• If the focus group participants make up a distinct cultural group, it is useful to

have a moderator with cultural sensitivity. Even if the moderator does not have
experience leading groups, he or she should have experience and comfort dealing
with groups.

• Moderator needs to maintain control over the group, and have an interest and
background knowledge in the topic in order to ask appropriate follow-up
questions.

• Moderators should dress as they expect focus group participants to dress.

(Sources: Denzin and Lincoln 2000, Pearce 1998, Krueger 1994, Morgan 1993.)

Commencement of the Focus Group

2
Generally moderator roles vary between expert, and individual with mere familiarity.
Moderators can adopt different roles which build on their existing strengths and knowledge:
seeker of wisdom emphasizes obtaining understanding and insight; the enlightened novice
displays herself as bright but in need of knowledge in the area of the participants’ expertise; the
expert consultant acts as an expert in the field; the challenger is combative and challenges
participants to respond; the referee balances opposing points of view; the writer takes notes and
relies on flip-charts to guide the discussion; the team of discussion leader and technical expert
share the moderator roles; and the therapist seeks psychological motivation (Lassiter et al 1998,
Krueger 1994).

12
Preparation

• Prepare copies of questionnaires, handouts if any.

• Identify small talk topics for discussion with participants as they arrive. News
events may be appropriate. Avoid the focus group topic.

• Secure extra batteries, tapes, extension cords, notepads and pens.

• Arrive early to prepare and ensure absence of disruptive background noise that
might interfere with discussion or taping.

• Make name tents.

• Arrange room (furniture).

• Test equipment (from different areas of the room). Situate remote microphone on
table; set up equipment.

• Set out refreshments.

• Have honorariums/incentives ready.

(Sources: Krueger 1994).

Participant Selection

Participants are usually selected for shared characteristics relevant to the focus group
topic. Individual participants who are part of groups that are homogenous in terms of
age, class, race and gender tend to be more expressive. Another reason to select
participants based on homogeneity, rather than diversity, is to avoid deference by
participants to those they feel are more knowledgeable (Madriz 2000, Menakshy 1994).
At the same time, participants should be unknown to each other (Krueger 1994).

Avoid focus groups where participants may be uncomfortable with one another, including
participants who are openly hostile to one another (Madriz 2000). (I imagine this could
be related to ethnic diversity within a group.)

Use systematic recruitment and seek a homogenous group in terms of occupation,

education, age, gender, and family characteristics. If limited, target the most important
group. Note that men typically outperform women (the peacock effect). Set exact
specifications for participants, maintain control of the selection process, beware of bias.

13
Note that women of lower socioeconomic status may agree to participate, then not show,
due to a variety of factors, including demands on their time and a general unwillingness
to say no (Madriz 2000). Oversampling/over-recruiting is therefore recommended for
low- income minorities and other hard-to-reach groups (Jarrett 1993).

Consider the gender, race, age, SES, and technical knowledge of the moderator and
ability to inhibit the discussion (Krueger 1994). Match the gender of the moderator and
the focus group participants (Lamp 1994). Match the race of the moderator, or facilitator,
with focus group participants to enhance rapport, and increase the willingness of the
participants to respond (Madriz 2000, Jarrett 1993). At the same time, the critical
component seems to be a sense of shared concerns in order to encourage participants to
be forthcoming with opinions and attitudes (Jarrett 1993).

Participant Arrival

• As participants arrive, moderator and assistant moderator greet guests as they

would visitors to their home, make purposeful small talk but avoid the topic of the
focus group.

• Moderators assess communication types. Based on assessment, moderators place

name tents in desired spots around the table, with dominant communication styles
near the moderator and more reticent participants across from the moderator to
facilitate eye contact. Separate individuals who know one another.

• Allow uninvited participants to complete written open-ended questionnaires, but

do not allow them to participate in the focus group.

(Sources: Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994).

Moderator Introduction, Welcome, Overview

• Moderator explains taping and assistant begins taping.

• Once all seated, moderator welcomes group, introduces self and assistant
moderator, gives releva nt background or overview of the topic, and stresses
opportunity of participants to give voice to their opinions, including that the
researchers are there to learn from the participants. Moderator may include, in
self introduction, demographic characteris tics he/she would like the participants to
share, as well.

• Moderator explains to the focus group what the results of the focus group will
mean, what form the data will take, and what purpose it will be used for.

• Moderator takes this time to establish his or credibility and knowledge in the area
of the discussion. He or she should exhibit a sense of humor.

14
 • Moderator outlines the ground rules: emphasize that the focus group is not a sales
pitch; state that only one person speaks at a time; explain that the tape recorder is
there only to make sure that all comments are noted (and then move on); assure
that no names will be used in the final report; and emphasize that both negative as
well as positive comments are important to the discussion, giving explicit license
to different points of view, even asking “Anyone see it differently?” “Are there
other points of view?”3

(Sources: Grunig 1990, Madriz 2000, Pugsley 1996, Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994.)

Warm-up/Ice-Breaker Question

• Moderator uses an initial question to break the ice and get everyone to speak.
Once they comment, they are more likely to comment again. Answers to this
question should be descriptive and take about 15-20 seconds.

• Warm-up questions may be based on direct news events to guide discussions

(Sources: Krueger 1994, Lassiter et al 1998).

During the Focus Group

Moderator

• Covers all questions in an agreed-upon manner, exactly as written.

• Limits non-verbal and verbal responses that may indicate approval, such as
nodding, in favor of brief neutral verbal responses, such as “ok”.

• Limits the use of ‘why’ questions.

• For questions where concerned about potential ‘follow-the- leader’ response, may
ask participants to write down a few words or notes that represent their thoughts
as a way to help them remember their response for the discussion.

• Uses pauses (doesn’t respond for at least 5 seconds after someone responds).

3
Group communication typically goes through five stages, irrespective of length of time group
devotes to work together. The first stage is characterized by polite, superficial contact and
general getting acquainted. The second focuses on the definition of group goals, and includes the
formation of subgroups and cliques, and comparison of goals. In the third stage, the group does
not yet have a group identity, and this stage includes bids for power and attempts to influence the
group. The fourth stage is constructive and characterized by active listening and tolerance among
group members. Finally, the group is cohesive and engages in mutual trust and high energy
(Cogg’s Ladder in Billson 1994).

15
 • Uses probes, such as “Tell us more,” “Would you explain further?” and “I don’t
understand”. Probes are best used early on to stress the importance of precise
responses.

• Limits eye contact with ramblers.

• Emphasizes, periodically if necessary, that everyone there is an expert to

discourage some from seeing themselves as experts, and that all perceptions need
to be heard.

• Ensure that individuals or small groups do not dominate the conversation, that the
reticent are encouraged to participate, and that they elicit the fullest possible
coverage of the topic.

• Controls crosstalk, by being sure to sure to correct first and all subsequent
occurrences by addressing entire group. Suggested comments include: “one at a
time, please, everything you say is important to us and we need to hear you,”
“John, we want to hear what you have to say, and you’ll have your chance after
Barbara is finished,” and “everybody’s opinion is important; one at a time, so we
can hear from all of you, please.”

• Understand roles played by participants in order to facilitate widespread

participation. 4

• With assistant moderator, troubleshoot participant responses for improved

discussion and later analysis. 5

4
Initiators suggest ideas, and alternatives; harmonizers mediate and reconcile opposing views;
aggressors struggle for status and attention, may be hostile, and blame others; energizers prod the
group for action and urge toward decision-making; dominators tend to interrupt and assert
authority; negativists argue, reject ideas, and exhibit generally pessimistic attitudes; tension
reducers stretch in their chair and offer jokes; deserters are withdrawn and aloof; and gatekeepers
encourage wide participation and limit the time of dominant participants.
5

Nonverbal Behavior Possible Interpretation

Silence Disinterest in idea presented
Squinting eyes Confusion or concern
Smiling Happiness or agreement
Arms folded in front while observing others’ Nonacceptance of idea, disassociation
reactions
Squirming in one’s seat Discomfort or boredom
Head nodding Agreement with what’s being said
Deep breathing Disgust or extreme annoyance
Finger tapping on table Disinterest in what’s happening
Lots of hands being raised, shouting to talk Enthusiasm for discussion, but not necessarily
positive reactions
Yawning Boredom or disinterest

16
Assistant Moderator

• Takes notes on flipcharts for discussion and review.

• Takes notes, especially for pertinent quotes and enlightening views, and
nonverbal activity, including any body language at odds with verbal
communication.

• Diagrams seating arrangement.

• Monitors recording equipment.

• Monitors atmosphere – temperature, noise, etc.

• Provides oral summary at end of discussion.

• Stimulate response in an otherwise reticent group. (The moderator may solicit

appropriate responses or comments from the assistant.)

• Takes notes for voice comparison later.

(Sources: Denzin and Lincoln 2000, Pugsley 1996, Billson 1994, Krueger 1994, Lamp
1994, Lengua et al 1992, Tudor 1991, Ledingham and Bruning 1998.)

Focus Group Conclusion

• The moderator sums up the main points of view briefly, asks if they are accurate,
and if anything was missed. Answers any final questions about the focus group
work.

• Both the moderator and assistant moderator thank the group for their participation
and distribute incentives/honorariums.

(Sources: Krueger 1994).

Looking at watch or clock Lack of interest in topic being discussed

Sitting forward in one’s seat Intense interest in topic being discussed
Frowning Disagreement
Sitting way back in one’s seat Acceptance of discussion or disinterest
Greenbaum, Thomas L. 1988. The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research.
Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, in Billson 1994.

17
After Focus Group

• Moderator(s) check the tapes to make sure they taped, label materials, diagram the
seating arrangement, wrap- up and debrief.

• Prepare a brief written summary as soon as possible.

• Send thank you notes to all participants, and a copy of the discussion transcripts
to those interested.

• Make backup copies of all tapes.

• Have tapes transcribed.

• Moderator and assistant moderator review transcripts and add missing data,
observations, and names to transcripts.

• Review transcripts by focus group session, category, and theme.

• Develop code. Code data.

• Sort and diagram observations, findings.

(Sources: Krueger 1994).

Focus Group Evaluation

• To extent possible, analysis should be systematic and follow a prescribed,

sequential process that is verifiable and potentially replicable. The moderator(s)
should participate in focus group analysis.

• Assemble all raw materials to get a picture of the entire process. Use any
combination of transcripts, tapes, notes, and memory-based analysis.

• Listen for inconsistencies in the focus group, probes for understanding, and vague
comments.

• Consider actual words used and their meanings, context, internal consistency,
frequency of comments, intensity of comments, specificity of responses, and
emergence of any big ideas.

• Note nonverbal communication.

• Organize and divide data into useful segments (mechanical analysis) and also
criteria for organizing data into patterns and conclusions (interpretative analysis).

18
 • Code data into distinct segments on manuscript early in analysis stage. Use short,
descriptive words to summarize codes. Include nonsubstance codes for possible
illustrative quotes.

• Create overview grid/table to sum up focus group content (ie topic headings X
focus groups identifiers) and cells with ghost summaries of discussion group
content per topic. To assess reliability, have each team member construct own
overview grid.

• Highlight any patterns in moderator/ assistant moderator comments and

corroborate with tapes, and highlight any patterns within and between focus
groups.

• Demonstrate validity of focus group research by evaluating whether the report

measures what it set out to; whether it looks valid (face validity); whether the
results are borne out by future behavior (predictive validity).

(Sources: Lamp 1994, Knoedel 1994, Krueger 1994).

Final Report

• Consider the audience and report purpose (written, oral, or combination style).

• Separate by major points (1-2 pages), and notable quotes.

• Organize by introduction -- background info, description of study, including

participants, study findings by key points and by themes.

• Discuss recurrent themes, dissenting opinions, and group dynamics.

• Discuss concerns with group, including possible moderator bias, poor selection of
participants, etc.

• Use summaries as well as direct quotes.

• Optionally, the report may include a written narrative of the relationships among
participants, including their demographic background, if focus group members
know one another (with actual names changed to protect confidentiality).

(Sources: Krueger 1994, Lamp 1994, Kitzinger 1995, Pearce 1998, Burgess 1988b.)

19
References

Billson, Janet Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for
Sociologists on the Use of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Bristol, Terry and Edward F. Fern. 1996. “Exploring the Atmosphere Created by Focus
Group Interviews: Comparing Consumers’ Feelings Across Qualitative Techniques,”
Journal of the Market Research Society, April, v38, no2, 185-196.

Burgess, J., M. Limb, C.M. Harrison. 1988. “Exploring Environmental Values Through
the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice.” Environment and Planning A. Vol
20, 309-326.

Burgess, J., M. Limb, C.M. Harrison. 1988. “Exploring Environmental Values Through
the Medium of Small Groups: 2. Illustrations of a Group at Work,” Environment and
Planning A. Vol 20, 457-476.

Burgess, Jacquelin, Carolyn M. Harrison and Melanie Limb. 1988. “People, Parks and
the Urban Green: A Study of Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City,”
Urban Studies, Vol 25, 455-473.

Carli, Linda L. 1989. “Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Vol56, No4, 565-76.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln, editors. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative

Research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Goss, Jon D. and Thomas R. Leinbach. 1996. “Focus Groups as Alternative Research
Practice: Experience with Transmigrants in Indonesia,” Area, v28, no2, 115-123.

Greenbaum, Thomas L. 1991. “Outside Moderators Maximize Focus Group Results,”

Public Relations Journal, September, v47, no9, 31-2.

Grunig, Larissa A. 1990. “Using Focus Group Research in Public Relations,” Public
Relations Review, Summer, v16, no2, 36-50.

Jarrett, Robin L. “Focus Group Interviewing with Low- income Minority Populations: A
Research Experience,” in Morgan, David L., editor. 1993. Successful Focus Groups:
Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp.84-201.

Katcher, Bruce. 1997. “ Getting Answers from a Focus Group,” The Magazine
forMagazine Management, v25, n18, p222:1.

Kitzinger, Jenny. 1995. “Introducing Focus Groups,” British Medical Journal, July 29,
v311, n7000, 299(4).

20
Knodel, John. “The Design and Analysis of Focus Group Studies: A Practical Approach,”
in Morgan, David L., editor. 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advanc ing the State of the
Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp.35-50.

Kong, Lily. 1998. “Refocusing on Qualitative Methods: Problems and Prospects for
Research in a Specific Asian Context,” Area, March, v30.

Krueger, Richard A. 1994. Focus Groups, Second Edition: A Practical Guide for Applied
Researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Lamp, E. Joseph, “Focus Group Interviewing: Theory and Practical Application,” in

Billson, Janet Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for
Sociologists on the Use of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Lassiter, Unna, Jennifer R. Wolch and Alec Brownlow. 1998. “Attitudes Towards Marine
Wildlife: Designing a Focus Group Analysis for Culturally Diverse Settings,” Working
Paper #5, USGS-TR-01-99.

Ledingham, John A. and Stephen D. Bruning. 1998. “Ten Tips for Better Focus Groups,”
Public Relations Quarterly, Winter, v43, no14, 25-29.

Lengua, Lillian J., Mark W. Roosa, Erika Schupak-Neuberg, Marcia L. Michaels,

Carolyn Nourse Berg, and Louise F. Weschler. 1992. “Using Focus Groups to Guide the
Development of a Parenting Program for Difficult-to-Reach, High-Risk Families,”
Family Relations, 41, 163-168.

Madriz, Esther, “Focus Groups in Feminist Research” in Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna
S. Lincoln, editors. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.835-848.

Menakshy, Meena, “Focus Groups: Some Practical Considerations,” in Billson, Janet

Mancini, editor. 1994. Conducting Focus Groups: A Manual for Sociologists on the Use
of Focus Groups as a Tool in Social and Market Research. Washington, D.C.: American
Sociological Association.

Morgan, David and Richard A. Krueger, “When to Use Focus Focus Groups and Why,”
in Morgan, David L., editor. 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the
Art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp.3-19.

Pearce, Michael. 1998. “Getting Full Value from Focus Group Research,” Ivey Business
Quarterly, Winter, v63, 12, 72(5).

21
Pugsley, Lesley, “ Focus Groups, Young People, and Sex Education,” in Pilcher, Jane
and Amanda Coffey, editors. 1996. Gender and Qualitative Research. Avebury, England:
Ashgate Publishing Co., pp.114-130.

Spethmann, Betsy. 1992. “Focus Groups Key to Reaching Kids,” Advertising Age,
February 10, v36, n6, pS1(2).

Tudor, Stephanie. 1991. “Tips on Controlling Focus Group Crosstalk,” Quirk’s

Marketing Research Review, December.

22
Mock Focus Group Implementation

Background and Introduction

We, Elizabeth Gearin (USC Planning doctoral student) and Chris Kahle (USC Geography
doctoral student) convened a “mock” focus group on 20 March 2001 to query fellow
graduate students about their perceptions and knowledge of urban parks and the outdoors.
The purpose of this focus group was to test questions, structure, and content of the
materials prepared for USC Sustainable Cities Program research project Nature’s
Services sponsored by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation. The
evaluation will improve materials to be used during focus groups convened during
Summer 2001 in communities in the Vermont/Western Transit Oriented Neighborhood
(V/WTON). A background research paper, a blueprint for conducting focus groups, the
mock focus group implementation, and its evaluation fulfill partial requirements for our
USC SCP collaborative project. In Autumn 2001, we will use our background research,
base data, and Haynes project experience to conduct focus groups with children in the
V/WTON to gain insight into their perceptions of parks. This paper, Mock Focus Group
Implementation, details the process of planning and convening the mock focus group,
how it was conducted, and discoveries during the planning and group interview.

Given that the Haynes Foundation research on Nature’s Services was designed with focus
group methodology at its center, we believed that we could both benefit from learning
about this methodological technique and assist the project by doing background research,
outlining a blueprint for implementing the group, and holding a mock focus group to test
the questions and material that Stephanie Pincetl had prepared for the summer focus
groups. Most social science researchers recommend testing the question material on non-
subjects before convening the actual groups. In addition to the practice of setting up the
focus group, it allows the moderator(s) to know if the material flows well in the
discussion. The mock group may also reveal themes that researchers had not anticipated.

Details

We conducted the mock focus group in Kaprielian Hall classroom 345. Setting up at
11:00, we had asked participants to arrive between 11:15 and 11:30. We arranged chairs
in a circle with the moderator as part of the circle. Ea ch participant received a placard
with her or his name so that they could refer to each other by name during the discussion.
Prior to the discussion, participants were encouraged to enjoy a light lunch and
complementary sodas, juices, and waters. Elizabeth Gearin brought her daughter, Olivia,
to the session as well as a friend, Claudia Lizani to care for her while Elizabeth took
notes. Chris Kahle served as the moderator. In this role, he made a point to introduce
himself to each participant before the official start of the focus group interview. Based on
our knowledge of participants’ personalities, we arranged the most talkative next to the
moderator and the least talkative across from him. This arrangement facilitates making
eye contact with those who are not speaking, thus engaging them in the discussion. We

23
began the interview at 11:40 and ended at 12:30. We had one tape recorder with a floor
microphone to record the discussion.

Recruiting Participants

We decided to use graduate students and recent graduates somewhat familiar with the
concepts covered in the draft questions. As the actual focus groups will solicit many self-
selected individuals for participation who are interested and motivated to participate in a
discussion on urban parks and the outdoors, we believed that our mock group of students,
although reflecting a different knowledge base, would parallel future participants level of
engagement with the subject material. We sent electronic mail requests to particular class
groups, requested their involvement via telephone and in person when convenient, and
also used the snowball technique, asking colleagues and acquaintances to participate and
encouraging them to ask friends who might be interested. Two weeks before the date of
the mock focus group, we had asked approximately two dozen people of mixed race,
gender, nationality, and age to participate. We planned the group to occur after Stephanie
Pincetl’s undergraduate environmental studies seminar so those students could
participate. Because we used only volunteers, we were not required to have this work
approved in advance by the University’s Human Subjects Committee.

Many people informed us beforehand that they had conflicts during the scheduled time,
and they could not attend. Also, Prof. Pincetl’s class was canceled the day of the focus
group, so none of those students participated. Seven students did show up to participate:
two recent graduates of USC Geography, one masters and two doctoral students from
USC SPPD, and two SCP program doctoral students. This group was made up of two
men and five women, and included primarily United States residents. The majority of
attendees were Caucasian, with one Asian-American woman and one African man. The
participants ranged in age from early 20s to late 30s. Also attending as observers were
Prof. Pincetl, and Terry Young, program director for the Haynes research. Because the
focus group literature recommended groups with eight to twelve participants, we believed
the turnout of seven was sufficient to begin the mock focus group.

Focus Group Interview Process

All participants were engaged during the discussion, but Chris actively engaged several
during the course of the interview. Looking around at the group while others were talking
and asking participants directly whether they agreed with another’s comments assisted in
the engagement process. One participant was very talkative, but did not dominate the
discussion, in part due to moderator intervention. Chris was able to cover all the material
in the draft questions during the 50 minute session. Several times participants laughed at
situations that others’ described and also demonstrated favorable body language (open
posture, relaxed muscles, smiling, and nodding) during the interview. When participants
agreed with others’ comments, they nodded their heads; conversely, disagreement was

24
also demonstrated with shaking of heads. Several participants had soft voices but because
the group was small and in a quiet room, everyone could hear their comments.

We found the circle structure helpful because it allowed for a balance of power among all
participants and did not favor anyone. Also, all participants could easily see each other
and the moderator. Observers were all behind the circle of chairs and remained quiet and
did not distract the process. The assistant moderator was off to one side and visible
taking notes.

Chris used comparisons between participants’ experiences growing up in different areas

or cultures to facilitate their sharing their own expertise with the group. This technique
was effective in getting participants to leave their comfort realms of professional
expertise and discuss their personal experience and perceptions.

Knowledge Generated

Some key issues that arose included: do parks include beaches, inaccessible open space,
unintentional parks; transportation access to parks in LA; parks as “commons”; formal
and informal parks in the US and Africa; passive and active recreation; and wildlife
habitat (specifically monarch butterflies).

Regarding diversity and the use of parks, all participants agreed that they had seen all
different types of people using parks in many different ways. Age was a factor that they
discussed throughout the session. Not only were people actively sharing their experiences
in parks, alleys, and other outdoor spaces during childhood, they also agreed that usage
shifted more with developmental stages (youth, adulthood, old age) than with race, class,
or gender.

Also, regarding park maintenance, participants brought up issues of ownership and

impact. Good parks will attract people from beyond the neighborhood, which causes
greater impacts on neighborhood because of parking, trash, and environmental
degradation. One participant was aware of new initiatives and partnerships between
neighborhood councils and the city to maintain parks.

All participants had extensive computer experience and were aware of GIS technology
and its possibilities for documentation and modeling.

Suggestions for Haynes Focus Groups

Evaluation of the mock focus group discussion suggested specific areas for application to
the Haynes Focus Group question outline.

25
Pre-Opening

In terms of administrative issues, although we tested the audio recording device in one
location, we moved it closer to the group and did not re-test it. We learned afterwards
that it had not, in fact, recorded the discussion. Moreover, we did not immediately check
the tape afterwards and thus did not learn until several days later that we had no recording
of the session. Although we were able to reconstruct many key discussion points from
our memories and notes, it is clear that testing of the recording tools and confirmation of
the recording immediately after the groups is critical. We recommend having at least two
tape recorders and two or three note takers during the focus group.

Finally, it may be distracting if participants have mobile phones or pages. We

recommend asking participants to switch to silent or vibrate modes if they need to be
available via wireless.

Warm Up/Opening

The introduction/ice-breaker should have a positive spin and perhaps could ask
participants to compare LA with their home town or country or one neighborhood with
another. This directly facilitates participation by those with different cultural or living
experiences who may be reticent to speak out.

Similarly, the moderator should avoid lecturing about any topic to avoid creating a
situation of power imbalance that could also discourage some participants from becoming
involved in the discussion. While participants tend to focus on the moderator as an
expert to provide information, if participants are not familiar with a topic or issue, the
moderator should ask other focus group participants to share their experience or
knowledge. Emphasizing that participants are the “experts” is key to getting their
personal responses. We recommend reiterating that point through the session.

The moderator, in addition to managing time and balancing participants, should also be
aware of who has and has not spoken during portions of the interview. Perhaps an
informal tally sheet for each question could be helpful. The moderator also needs to be
able to build on comments that are raised in the discussion if he/she feels these comments
illuminate the conversation. In the mock session, Chris used this technique to continue
querying others – “Did others sense this difference?” when Tsatsu noted that in Ghana,
parks are much less formal places than in the United States. This use of comparisons,
was, I think, particularly useful since our participants, like the anticipated focus group
members, hail from a range of places, including LA. Identifying differences between
places where a focus group member is an ‘expert’ seems to help draw them into the
conversation, highlight the importance of their own personal experience, and enrich the
conversation.

Where possible and relevant, we also recommend querying specifically for personal
experiences in order to unleash the attitudes and emotions of park experiences. In the

26
mock focus group, Kyle was very enthusiastic about visiting a butterfly garden, although
he could not recall either exactly when or where he visited it.

Key Topics

Key Topic 4, Cultural Values of Others, may better follow Key Topic 2, Attitudes
Towards Parks, Habitat and Open Space on Vacant Parcels. The mock focus group
participants also noted that rather than different cultures using the parks in different ways,
the same people use the parks in different ways based on changes in their own lifestyle.
For example, families of many nationalities have been observed using the same parks for
picnics. Different behaviors seem to be associated more closely with age, or life cycle,
than culture. The questions that make up Key Topic 4, then, might more closely uncover
attitudes if they were articulated specifically in terms of attitudes toward nature that vary
with culture, as well as with gender, age, and life cycle.

Key Topics 5 and 6, regarding Nature’s Services and Government, and Computers, may
need more or different cues.

The mock focus group participants had a great deal of computer experience, including
exposure to GIS, and familiarity with nature’s services. In fact, two of the participants
worked on the Sustainable Cities’ Cool Schools project summer 2000, and were able to
identify specific examples of Nature’s Services. Others in the group had computer
experience, but less familiarity with the benefits of greening. It may be useful to borrow
some of the nature’s services examp les offered as cues for the community focus group
discussion, such as the cooling effects of trees, sense of escape, decreased urban runoff,
and cleaner air and water.

Post-Closing

Again, we recommend checking the status of the audio and/or videotapes immediately.
In the event they have failed, use the time directly following the focus group discussion
to recall events, note responses, and reconstruct quotes, etc.

We also recommend sending thank you notes to all participants in the week after the
focus group concludes.

27