Qualitative Parallels between Online and in-person Focus Groups: Strengths and Weaknesses Seen through Iramuteq
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Introduction Focus Groups are essential tools in qualitative research, due to its capacity to acknowledge different points of view and analyze them in one cohesive methodological process. It can occur either in-person or online, with strengths in both methods. This project focus on the comparison between two modalities of focus group research, noting relevant differences between the two. Goals: To analyze each method’s strengths and weaknesses through the author’s empiric experiences with both modalities of focus groups and the data processed in Iramuteq. Methods: In-person and online Focus Groups, the latter accomplished through Google Meet, with posterior analysis and comparison of collected data in the eight accomplished Focus Groups through Iramuteq’s tools: Word Cloud Similitude analysis and lexicographic text analysis. Results The lexicographic text analysis, alongside both Word Cloud and Similitude Analysis, showed a positive change in participant engagement and discussion length, except for one of the feminine focus groups. Both word frequency and word correlation grew in the second year of the other three focus groups, when comparing with the first year. Focus group recording became easier through online discussions due to the file being already in a format ready to use and being a video file, showing each person in the discussion at the same time. Discussion: From the data gathered, it can be implied that the focus groups became more comfortable with the online method of discussion, when compared to the in-person version applied in the year before.
Conclusions. Online focus groups are more practical to researches and participants alike, however, it is necessary to focus on the engagement of the group in a determined method before choosing the more practical way to apply it.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
openAccess
BITTENCOURT, Renato Nunes. Ensino Remoto e extenuação docente. Revista Espaço Acadêmico, v. 20, n. 227, p. 165-175, 2021.
Camargo BV & Justo AM (2018). Tutorial de uso do Software IRAMUTEQ, Recuperado em 03 março de 2021, de http://www.iramuteq.org
Dall’Agnol CM, Magalhães AMM de, Mano GC de M, Olschowsky A, Silva FP da. A noção de tarefa nos grupos focais. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem. 2012;33(1):186–90.
Gatti AL, Witter C, Gil CA, Vitorino S dos S. Pesquisa qualitativa: grupo focal e intervenções psicológicas com idosos. Psicologia: ciência e profissão. 2015;35(1):20–39.
Loubère L. & Ratinaud P. (2014). Documentation IraMuTeQ 0.6 alpha 3 - version 0.1 [Computer software]. Recuperado em 19 fevereiro de 2014, de http://www.iramuteq.org
Martínez MG, González LS. Contribución de la técnica del grupo focal al acercamiento a la percepción estudiantil sobre accesibilidad en el entorno universitario. Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación. 2015;15(1):1–16.
Nóbrega DO, Andrade E dos RG, Melo ES do N. Pesquisa com grupo focal: contribuições ao estudo das representações sociais. Psicologia & Sociedade. 2016;28(3):433–41.
Prates LA, Ceccon FG, Alves CN, Wilhelm LA, Demori CC, Silva SC da, et al. A utilização da técnica de grupo focal: um estudo com mulheres quilombolas. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2015; 31:2483–92.
Souza MAR, Wall ML, Thuler ACMC, Lowen IMV, & Peres AM (2018). O uso do software IRAMUTEQ na análise de dados em pesquisas qualitativas. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 52(03353).
Woodyatt CR, Finneran CA, Stephenson R. In-person versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis of data quality. Qualitative health research. 2016;26(6):741–9.