Assessing Meaningful Interaction in Focus Group Discussions Conducted Over WhatsApp

被引:0
|
作者
Dedios-Sanguineti, Maria Cecilia [1 ]
Guarin, Angela [1 ]
Torres-Garcia, Ariana [1 ]
Gomez, Mariana Martinez [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Los Andes, Sch Govt, Cra 1 19-27,Bloque Aulas,Piso 2,Of 318, Bogota 111711, Colombia
关键词
interaction; focus group discussions; qualitative methods; online research; WhatsApp; data richness; sense-making; FACE-TO-FACE; ONLINE;
D O I
10.1177/16094069251321599
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Focus group discussions (FGDs) differ from other qualitative data collection techniques because they offer unique insights into how collective sense-making occurs in real time in social settings. However, systematic qualitative tools to analyze interaction in FGDs and the richness of data it yields remain scarce. In this article, we propose a seven qualitative indicator model, adapted from previous studies on FGD data quality, to assess group interaction. We apply the model to FGDs (n = 12) conducted via the instant messaging application WhatsApp as part of a study on access to social protection programs in Colombia conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings show that the proposed indicators can assess meaningful interaction as it unfolds in asynchronous online FGDs. Unlike existing tools that examine interaction in online FGDs quantitatively and through a dichotomous understanding (either absent or present), our proposed model seizes the idea of varying types of meaningful interaction: stance-only, basic interaction, and complex interaction. Our results suggest that complex participant interactions can emerge in online FGDs conducted via WhatsApp, therefore situating messaging apps as promising data collection sites for including hard-to-reach and highly mobile populations in research. The proposed qualitative indicators model is a useful tool for assessing interaction in FGDs and provides insights into whether and how collective sense-making occurred.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] How to measure agroecology? A rapid appraisal approach based on focus group discussions
    Aye, Zar Chi
    Castella, Jean-Christophe
    Xiong, Maiyer
    Phimmasone, Sisavath
    Ehrensperger, Albrecht
    AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS, 2024, 48 (10) : 1428 - 1461
  • [42] SCREENING NATIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN FOR ASTHMA: FINDINGS FROM FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
    Rodehorst-Weber, T. Kim
    Wilhelm, Susan L.
    Stepans, Mary Beth Flanders
    Tobacco, Romaine
    delapaz, Francisco
    COMPREHENSIVE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT NURSING-BUILDNG EVIDENCE FOR PRACTICE, 2009, 32 (04): : 200 - 209
  • [43] An in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussions
    Reid, DJ
    Reid, FJM
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARKET RESEARCH, 2005, 47 (02) : 131 - 162
  • [44] Transportation Issues of Adults on the Autism Spectrum Findings from Focus Group Discussions
    Lubin, Andrea
    Feeley, Cecilia
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2016, (2542) : 1 - 8
  • [45] ENRICHING READING EXPERIENCES FOR BOYS IN EARLY ADOLESCENCE: FINDINGS OF THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
    Buzov, Ivanka
    Vukusic, Anita Mandaric
    14TH INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE (INTED2020), 2020, : 5894 - 5902
  • [46] Focus group discussions on secondary variants and next-generation sequencing technologies
    Christenhusz, Gabrielle M.
    Devriendt, Koenraad
    Van Esch, Hilde
    Dierickx, Kris
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2015, 58 (04) : 249 - 257
  • [47] FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND DEPTH INTERVIEWS - A TOOL FOR HEALTH-EDUCATION PLANNING
    DEGELING, D
    WATERS, J
    BENNETT, D
    COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES, 1989, 13 (03): : 372 - 372
  • [48] Researching with care: ethical dilemmas in co-designing focus group discussions
    Padan, Yael
    Ndezi, Tim
    Rendell, Jane
    ENVIRONMENT AND URBANIZATION, 2022, 34 (02) : 430 - 445
  • [50] The Critical Value of Focus Group Discussions in Research With Women Living With HIV in Malawi
    Mkandawire-Valhmu, Lucy
    Stevens, Patricia E.
    QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2010, 20 (05) : 684 - 696