Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCarlsen, Benedicteeng
dc.contributor.authorGlenton, Claireeng
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-03T14:06:33Z
dc.date.available2014-11-03T14:06:33Z
dc.date.issued2012-09-03eng
dc.identifier.issn1471-2288
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1956/8705
dc.description.abstractBackground: Despite growing support for mixed methods approaches we still have little systematic knowledge about the consequences of combining surveys and focus groups. While the methodological aspects of questionnaire surveys have been researched extensively, the characteristics of focus group methodology are understudied. We suggest and discuss whether the focus group setting, as compared to questionnaire surveys, encourages participants to exaggerate views in a negative direction. Discussion: Based on an example from our own research, where we conducted a survey as a follow up of a focus group study, and with reference to theoretical approaches and empirical evidence from the literature concerning survey respondent behaviour and small group dynamics, we discuss the possibility that a discrepancy in findings between the focus groups and the questionnaire reflects characteristics of the two different research methods. In contrast to the survey, the focus group study indicated that doctors were generally negative to clinical guidelines. We were not convinced that this difference in results was due to methodological flaws in either of the studies, and discuss instead how this difference may have been the result of a general methodological phenomenon. Summary: Based on studies of how survey questionnaires influence responses, it appears reasonable to claim that surveys are more likely to find exaggerated positive views. Conversely, there are some indications in the literature that focus groups may result in complaints and overly negative attitudes, but this is still an open question. We suggest that while problematic issues tend to be under-communicated in questionnaire surveys, they may be overstated in focus groups. We argue for the importance of increasing our understanding of focus group methodology, for example by reporting interesting discrepancies in mixed methods studies. In addition, more experimental research on focus groups should be conducted to advance the methodology and to test our hypothesis.en_US
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherBioMed Centraleng
dc.rightsAttribution CC BYeng
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0eng
dc.subjectResearch methodologyeng
dc.subjectFocus groupseng
dc.subjectQualitativeeng
dc.subjectSurveyseng
dc.subjectMixed methodseng
dc.subjectPrimary care physicianseng
dc.subjectGPSeng
dc.titleScanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-studyeng
dc.typeJournal articleeng
dc.typePeer reviewedeng
dc.date.updated2013-08-23T09:08:59Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2012 Carlsen and Glenton; licensee BioMed Central Ltd
dc.rights.holderBenedicte Carlsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.eng
dc.source.articlenumber134
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-134
dc.identifier.cristin945389
dc.source.journalBMC Medical Research Methodology
dc.source.4012


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution CC BY
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution CC BY