Lessons Learned: Online Focus Groups with Young People
We recently facilitated online focus groups with an unusual and challenging set up for an evaluation of a youth program. While we the evaluators joined the videoconference from our laptops individually, the participants – a group of children and young people who knew each other – were physically present in the same room together. In this blog we discuss the challenges, learnings and also some silver linings of conducting focus groups this way.
Since Covid, online data collection via videoconferencing has become a more common method for research and evaluation alike. Interviewing children and young people via videoconference has unique challenges such as building rapport and children becoming inattentive or even anxious[1].
We recently evaluated a youth program for children and young people at risk of experiencing and/or inflicting family violence. Our client wanted the experiences and voice of the program participants to be central to the evaluation.
Due to the scope and timeline of the evaluation, data collection was conducted via online focus groups. Focus groups are an excellent way to encourage safe data collection with children and young people. Having peers present in the group reduces the power imbalance and can help participants to feel more comfortable sharing[2]. We had 10 participants aged 10-15 years in each of our groups, with one team member conducting the interview, and another taking notes. We were informed ahead of time that the participants would be joining via one laptop and participants were physically present with each other in the same room.
The challenges and their silver linings
This set up brought with it some challenges that also held benefits. The shared space offered more opportunity for distraction. However, it also allowed us to observe body language, enabling us to identify when children or young people were becoming distracted, and engage them with the conversation and to give us cues to tell us when to end the focus group.
Challenges include: more opportunities for distraction due to shared space and participant relationships; and some participants feeling less comfortable sharing with peers who know them. Benefits include ability to observe body language, more candid responses, rich data from interactions, some participants feeling more comfortable sharing with peers who know them.
The focus group participants all knew each other from the program, providing a unique group dynamic compared to focus groups with participants who are strangers to each other. This did create some distractions, but also meant we got more candid information from participants through their interactions with one another. It may have also allowed some participants to feel more comfortable sharing, while for others they may not have wanted to voice their opinions among their peers.
Lessons learned and practical recommendations
Here are our key lessons learned and practical recommendations if you find yourself collecting data in this format with children and young people.
Technology and preparation
Lesson learned: The more prepared you can be, the better. We had difficulty hearing all the participants with only one laptop capturing audio and video for the group. This was especially tricky during introductions where we were trying to get everyone’s names. Comparatively, when participants join individually, generally their names are displayed in the videoconferencing software.
Practical recommendation: If possible, ask the client to prepare and test an audio system that can sit in the centre of the group, while keeping the video camera at the front. Obtain a list of everyone’s name and age prior to the session to learn names in advance.
Rapport building
Lesson learned: An ice breaker is never a waste of time and helps to build rapport with children and young people. We did a fun activity of ‘this or that’, where you place hands on heads for one answer and hands on the table for another. An example (that was exceptionally popular with the participants) was “Hands on heads if you prefer McDonalds or hands on the table if you prefer KFC”. The advantage of this icebreaker is that once it’s familiar, it can also be used for data collection. For example, “Hands on heads if you preferred the outdoor program activities or hands on the table if you prefer the indoor program activities”
Practical recommendation: Always include an ice breaker. Consider your participants and the kind of icebreaker that would be most appropriate. You may like to read our blog post Getting Your Icebreaker Right to help with this.
Length of focus group
Lesson learned: The shorter the better. Our focus groups were set for 45 to 60 minutes and participants began to lose focus and/or interest towards 35 to 40 minutes. We perhaps spent too long on introductions due to the large number of participants, which left less time for the interview questions.
Practical recommendation: Aim for shorter focus groups up to 30 minutes. If possible, conduct more focus groups with smaller numbers of participants to keep introductions and ice breakers shorter and get the most out of the sessions.
Reflections
Although we found it an unconventional method for collecting data, it was immensely valuable in learning how the program we were evaluating had benefited the children and young people. The report findings were strongly rooted in the experiences of the program participants, fulfilling the client’s vision. Participants told us that the program had allowed them to make friends, learn in a judgement free environment, better regulate their emotions and realise that it’s okay to talk to someone when you need to.
Videoconferencing with young people from a shared space allows for more observation and nuanced findings, yet requires thoughtful planning. Children and young people always have worthy insights to share in evaluating activities which involve them. We encourage you to share your thoughts or similar experiences and welcome you to reach out if you are planning similar focus groups.
Resources
Blog post – Engaging Children and Young People | ARTD
Blog post – Getting your icebreaker right | ARTD
Peer reviewed article – Studying Voices of Middle Childhood Online: Conducting Online Video-Based Focus Groups With Children.
Peer reviewed article – Using Creative Approaches and Facilitating Remote Online Focus Groups With Children and Young People: Reflections, Recommendations and Practical Guidance
References
[1] Van der Voort, A., Tessensohn, L. M., & de Jonge, M. V. (2023). Studying Voices of Middle Childhood Online: Conducting Online Video-Based Focus Groups With Children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231168800
[2] Acocella, I. (2012). The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages. Quality & Quantity, 46, 1125-1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9600-4
