Focus group composition: A comparison between natural and constructed groups

Objective: To provide insight into the effects of focus group composition. Method: In an early phase of an ongoing study of parental reception to mess ages about childhood immunisation, we conducted four focus groups; two with participants who had never met before (constructed groups) and two with pa rticipants who were part of a preestablished first-time mothers' group (nat ural groups). Results: Marked differences were noted in the group dynamics, depth of inte raction and diversity between groups. Discussions with constructed groups w ere animated, enthusiastic, expressed more divergent views and articulated greater complexities of the topic. Discussions with natural groups were gen erally flatter and less enthusiastic, displaying a higher level of apparent conformity to conventional wisdom. The need to protect other participants from potentially disturbing information about vaccination was expressed acr oss groups but acted to censor natural groups, where participants knew more of each others' sensitivities. Implications: Insight into the factors contributing to such differences may enhance understanding of the contexts in which constructed groups are more appropriate. The processes of social censorship may be of primary interest to the researcher. However, where it is paramount to elicit a range of opi nions about a potentially controversial topic, we suggest that natural grou ps in the delicate stage of norming be avoided. The peculiarities of each i ndividual research circumstance are best explored in pilot studies.