 |
|
|
|
|
|
Example Focus groups were the sole source of data in an investigation of the willingness of women in southwestern Uganda to receive counseling and to be tested for HIV during pregnancy (Pool, Nyahzi and Whitworth, 2001). Twenty four (24) groups of 6 to 10 women were organized. Each was led by an experienced group facilitator who asked the groups to discuss four questions: (1) Can a woman pass on HIV to her infant through breast feeding; (2) Can babies of HIV-positive women be born HIV-negative and, if so, can they be infected at birth; (3) Would you (a woman) be willing to be counseled regarding HIV and be tested if you become pregnant; and (4) Would you inform the medical staff if your test was positive? The facilitator led the women through discussions of each question. An assistant took notes on body language and other expressions of feelings. Discussions were tape recorded and later transcribed into English for analysis. Each session lasted about 90 minutes. The transcribed records of the discussions were analyzed using content analysis methods. Like most qualitative reports, the data consisted of extensive quotes from the women that illustrated typical or main points in the discussions. Analysis showed that virtually all women were willing to be counseled and tested in the event of pregnancy. They were anxious, however, about confidentiality of the results of testing and expressed fear that maternity staff might refuse to accept them, if they were known to be HIV-positive, when their time came for delivery. The women were also concerned that if their husbands found out that they were HIV-positive they would be blamed and that separation or violence might occur. The authors concluded that testing for HIV might be accepted in principle, but much needs to be done to ensure confidentiality and to allay the women's fears during pregnancy and thereafter. Strengths and limitations of qualitative research Strengths Observation is superior to other methods of data collection for describing actual behavior in a given situation. Available data describes only certain features of past situations while surveys provide only what respondents say is true about something. These verbal responses may or may not match what the respondents actually do in real life. Observation provides descriptions of what actually happens in real life situations. Observational methods also yield richer and more complex data than other forms of data collection. Observation is unequaled for describing the complexity of behavior, including the kinds and intensity of the actions of people, the emotions that are involved, what is said, and how different members of the group influence each other. In contrast, surveys generally provide far less data. Another advantage is that observation is a flexible way of collecting data. As new insights are gained or new leads open up, the observer can shift perspective quickly and explore new areas of inquiry. This is not possible with most surveys: Once questions are set, all are asked in the same way for all respondents. With available data, the investigator has no choice; he or she has to use whatever data is at hand. Lastly, observation studies can be carried out with less community attention or disturbance than surveys. This can be a powerful advantage when local officials or leaders have to grant permission for a study. Gaining approval for a study based on one researcher living in a community, for example, is easier than getting approval for a survey that will require interviews with a large number of persons. Case studies and focus groups share these strengths. In addition, case studies have several appealing features. The emphasis on understanding the dynamics of a case meets the practical needs of decision and policy-makers. A well written narrative with rich descriptions of actions and quotes from persons provides graphic, easily understood information. This kind of information can give additional meaning and value to statistical data from surveys or analysis of existing records. Case studies, unlike surveys, experiments, and other quantitative methods, also provide an opportunity to engage members of the group being studied in developing awareness of the group's situation. With increased awareness, the investigator can introduce training and other activities to help strengthen the group's problem-solving skills. Focus groups have unique strengths as well. This technique provides a fast, inexpensive way to obtain a large, rich body of information on some topic. Focus groups can be organized quickly and can be held almost anywhere - in an office, a classroom, or under a tree. During sessions the researcher can probe to clarify issues or to get into the deeper meaning behind comments. The open, flexible nature of focus groups also encourages participants to talk about topics they normally would not discuss with strangers. Ghorayshi (1996), for example, makes this point in relation to obtaining "suppressed discussion" among women. A focus group composed of only women, she demonstrates, encourages women to talk about differences in gender norms and practices more honestly than they would in a personal interview. Also, focus groups have a special advantage in developing countries: They can be used with participants who are illiterate. Focus groups also can be used with children. Another strength of focus groups is that the technique can be used at any stage of research and for a variety of purposes. Altareb (1997), for example, used five focus groups to get ideas for developing items for measuring attitudes toward Muslims. A research team in Yemen (Inaoka and others, 1999) used focus groups to supplement data obtained from structured interviews. Kagimu and others (1998) also used focus groups to enhance information obtained in surveys related to knowledge about AIDS. |