Thirty Five Years of Focus Group Research In Social Work: Progress and Challenge In Elevating Critical Voices.

Background/Purpose: Focus group research can potentially elevate voices and ideas of people most affected by situations and conditions. From early days of their introduction, they were adopted by many disciplines, including social work. Focus groups research is not the same, but has similarities to community based group work. They have unique capactiy to bring an egalitarian ethos, giving participants’ ideas standing. The purpose of this study is to track 35 years of focus group research in social work, documenting purposes, participants, leadership, and methods. This study broadens understanding of the breadth and features of focus groups as they have evolved in scope and utilization.

Methods: This study’s content analysis of focus group research in articles identified Social Work Abstracts data base can also be seen as “data mining” of extant material. Both abstracts and accompanying full articles were reviewed and analyzed. Quantitative data collected included: publication year, journal, population, practice area, auspice, number of participants, number sessions, relationships of leaders with members, recording strategies, analysis methods, and session structure. Qualitative data included focus groups’ purpose(s), findings, limitations and conclusions. Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS, primarily frequency distributions and correlations of variables. Qualitative data was analyzed for themes, and when appropriate, coded and added to the quantitative data base. Exemplary articles were identified, as reflecting issues emerging in the analysis.

Results: The number of articles reporting focus group methods has increased exponentially. The data base Social Work Abstracts identified 225 peer reviewed journal articles using this research method between 1990 and 2009, and over 850 between 2010 and today. The clarity with which focus group research is described has increased, and while many early entries conflated “meetings” with “focus groups”, rigor in reporting methods has increased. Along with growing usage, wide variations in use of focus groups were found. While the most common use was understanding workers’ views about practice and policy issues, focus groups were used in diverse practice settings and organizations. There is much to applaud in the growth of focus groups, and articles reported narratives of community members previously marginalized and excluded from research. Also found, was wide variation in the level of familiarity of the focus group facilitator with members and the members with each other. Particularly in the early decades studied, it was common for the focus group facilitator to be in a position of authority over members.

Conclusions and Implications: Focus group research has grown in utilization, rigor and acceptance in a wide range of peer review journals. We are in key positions to support this growth while insuring it is accompanied by education sufficient for credible research, in line with our unique professional identity. This engagement can be expanded by engaging clients and community members in research design, implementation, analysis and dissemination. Scholars and educators can insure that all social workers gain familiarity and competence in this approach that incorporates our profession's commitment to community and social justice.