This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Balch, G. I. Articles by Mertens, D. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Focus Group Design and Group Dynamics: Lessons from Deaf and Hard of Hearing Participants

Balch Associates, 635 S. Kenilworth Avenue, Oak Park, IL 60304-1129, gbalch{at}uic.edu

Donna M. Mertens

Department of Educational Foundations and Research, Gallaudet University, Kendall Green, 800 Florida Avenue N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-3695, Donna.Mertens{at}Gallaudet.edu

Focus groups are a common tool in evaluation. Here we report experience conducting focus groups with deaf and hard of hearing people, from which we reflect on lessons learned about how we can more effectively "listen" to people in all focus groups—particularly those that don’t intentionally include people with a hearing loss. We learned that: (1) focus groups with deaf and hard of hearing people can be highly productive on even the most sensitive issues and across disparate socioeconomic and ethnic differences if they share a common interest and mode of communication; (2) the physical environment of group communication may count more than we usually notice; (3) insuring communication requires a very high level of vigilance by moderators and observers; (4) it is hard to "focus" focus groups in some cultures, so one must allow for that; (5) genuine communication may require more time and patience than one might expect; (6) confidentiality in a marginalized community may require special attention; (7) an experienced moderator who is an "outsider" to the group’s culture or experience can be very useful; and (8) feedback from observers, evaluators, and participants can improve communication. Most of all, we learned that focus groups can be much more productive when we are sensitized to invisible communication difficulties.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 2, 265-277 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/109821409902000208


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. A. Abma, C. J. Nierse, and G. A. M. Widdershoven Patients as Partners in Responsive Research: Methodological Notions for Collaborations in Mixed Research Teams Qual Health Res, March 1, 2009; 19(3): 401 - 415. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Kroll, R. Barbour, and J. Harris Using Focus Groups in Disability Research Qual Health Res, May 1, 2007; 17(5): 690 - 698. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. A. Abma Patients as Partners in a Health Research Agenda Setting: The Feasibility of a Participatory Methodology Eval Health Prof, December 1, 2006; 29(4): 424 - 439. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. A. Abma The Practice and Politics of Responsive Evaluation American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2006; 27(1): 31 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. A. Abma Patient Participation in Health Research: Research With and for People With Spinal Cord Injuries Qual Health Res, December 1, 2005; 15(10): 1310 - 1328. [Abstract] [PDF]