Information Retrieval in Face-To-Face and Online Focus Groups. A Systematic Review
As qualitative research continues to adapt to technological advancements, the evaluation of data quality and quantity in online versus face-to-face focus groups becomes increasingly important. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore how the format of a focus group (online or in-person)...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:2445/218803 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/218803 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Entrevista en profunditat Investigació qualitativa Focus groups Qualitative research |
| Sumario: | As qualitative research continues to adapt to technological advancements, the evaluation of data quality and quantity in online versus face-to-face focus groups becomes increasingly important. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore how the format of a focus group (online or in-person) influences the quality and quantity of data collected. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, the review analyzes a total of 45 cross-sectional studies published between 2000 and 2023, providing both quantitative and qualitative comparisons across various metrics, including word count, idea expression, participant interaction, and statements of agreement or disagreement. Word count was generally higher in face-to-face focus groups, suggesting a tendency for more extensive verbal expression. However, the total number of ideas expressed did not significantly differ between the two modalities. Qualitatively, 62.5% of studies reported more detailed responses in face-to-face focus groups, while asynchronous online focus groups were found to elicit more expansive responses in some instances. In terms of the characteristics of focus groups, synchronous formats were more common for online focus groups, with the duration of sessions varying widely across the two modalities. These results suggest that although online and face-to-face focus groups exhibit distinct characteristics, they are similarly effective in yielding data of comparable quality, especially in terms of idea generation. Accordingly, combining the two formats within a single study is likely to maintain data integrity. Overall, the findings from this review offer valuable insights for researchers and practitioners across diverse disciplines and should help them to strategically design their focus group studies so as to align with specific research objectives and contexts. |
|---|