Online Focus Groups: Tools and platforms that support research.

This blog article was originally posted on When the Field is Online, a Substack blog by qualitative research methodologist and author Janet Salmons, PhD. We highly recommend visiting Janet’s blog and subscribing here.

Online focus groups take a variety of forms, each with specific communication needs that influence our choice of technological setting.

One big distinction relates to timing: do moderators and participants interact in real time, or not? Naturally there are pros and cons to each choice when choosing synchronous versus asynchronous focus groups.

Everyone is online at the same time in synchronous focus groups. This means the conversation can proceed naturally, comparable to a sit-down meeting around a table. The advantage is that participants can respond to the moderator and each other in the moment. Researchers learn about participants’ first impressions, their top-of-mind reactions to questions, prompts, or stimuli. There is an immediacy in participants’ reactions to others in the group.

A defined lapse of time between the moderator’s question and participants’ responses characterizes an asynchronous focus group. Participants in different time zones, with different commitments, can engage when it fits their respective schedules. In addition to convenience, asynchronous focus groups allow participants to reflect on the questions, and perhaps find examples or evidence to strengthen their responses.

In between, there are options for communication that allow for an elongated conversation even though the moderator and participants are not online at precisely the same time. Near-synchronous exchanges allow for more flexibility and inclusion, while keeping the conversation moving forward.

Given the purpose of the study and the geographic locations of participants, what will best fit your study? Do you want immediacy or flexibility? Do you want gut reactions or considered answers? Do you want to schedule a time, conduct the group, and move on to the next stage of the research project? Or do you want to build answers to your research questions in a sequential fashion?

Another consideration: will communication be primarily verbal with spoken questions and responses or primarily written? Either option is possible in synchronous or asynchronous online focus groups.

Communicating verbally comes naturally to some people and most people can speak faster than they can type. Participants listen to each other and add their own perspectives. That said, some participants might be reluctant to talk and prefer a written option. They might not all share the same first language, so prefer to take the time to read and translate. Or they might be responding in a location where it would be inappropriate to speak, or where they’d risk being overheard. Or they might not have access to the kinds of broadband-reliant tools that are used in verbal communication online.

In either case, will you use visual materials such as graphics, artwork or artifacts, videos or photographs as stimuli in the questioning, or as representations or examples shared by participants? If so, what will be used, how? As mentioned in previous posts, when visuals or media are created or selected by the researcher, they can ensure that there are no copyright restrictions or depictions of people who are not consenting participants. If visuals or media are to be created or selected by participants, researchers might not have permission to use the images with other people, in presentations, or publications. (See More Creative Research Methods and Ownership, Anonymity, and Rights in previous newsletters.)

Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) for Focus Groups

When thinking through the options and making decisions about what will work for your study the inevitable question is: what information and communication technology tool(s) should I use? Let’s look at the communication functions of focus groups again and think about what technology tools might fit depending on whether we are leaning towards synchronous or asynchronous, primarily written or primarily verbal interactions that may or may not have a visual element.

In a videoconference or chat the moderator invites a multimedia exchange. When cameras are used and we can see each other, nonverbal cues provide rich data. Moderators can speak or write questions, or share an image or video that depicts the phenomenon being investigated. Shared whiteboards add visual interactions, generating mind maps or diagrams that illustrate points or show relationships. The moderator can call on participants for answers and comments to each other.

In a primarily text-based focus group the moderator can post or share written questions and prompts to guide the conversation through the set of topics central to the study. Written exchanges can include group text or chat that is synchronous or nearly so. An asynchronous group mail can offer more space for complex questions. In either case participants can include embedded images, media, or links. In a discussion forum researchers post questions and other stimuli, and participants post responses. When using such tools researchers should clarify expectations and the timeframe for responses. Do you want near-synchronous interactions, perhaps 48 hours, or asynchronous interactions over the course of a week? It is always a balancing act to decide whether more time will allow more flexibility and thought behind responses, or whether more time will mean the exchanges get lost and the immediacy of the project recedes from participants’ priorities.

This continuum is not meant to be all-encompassing – use it when you are analyzing the styles of communication that are possible with the platform(s) and/or tools you are evaluating. More questions to ask:

• Does this ICT fit the purpose of the study? Will the ICT(s) allow me to collect the kind of data I need for the study?

• Can I manage a focus group using this ICT? Will I need an assistant or co-researcher to manage platform features?

• Given the target population, will participants have the level of internet access and the digital literacy skills necessary to participate?

• Can I protect the data, including identities of participants, sensitive or confidential information?

Online Research Platforms and Data Protection

Protecting participants from harm is a central pillar of research ethics. We are responsible for safeguarding participants’ identities and the data we collect in online research from access or disclosure. How can we fulfill this responsibility? On the one hand the whole concept of privacy seems quaint in the era of AI and scraping bots. On the other hand, anonymity of participants (and their workplaces or institutions) is more important than ever. If we conduct interviews or focus groups to study sensitive, personal, or proprietary issues we do not want the data to become available and risk cyber bullying or other ramifications.

Commercial and social media platforms are not neutral. They are in the business of collecting, mining, selling and/or training AI with the data shared on their platforms. Data is stored on their servers. In numerous examples companies have been sold or gone out of business and released data users thought was private, such as one-one messaging. Depending on where in the world you are located, you might have a lot of protection for data privacy, or you might have none at all. Whether regulated or not the issue of merits our attention as respectful, ethical researchers. Thoughtful selection of the technology tools and platform(s) where we collect data can make a difference. Sadly, the free tools researchers used in the past are no longer good choices because these gratis tools are the worst when it comes to protecting data.

We can’t guarantee that we can protect the data, but we can scrutinize the ICTs we are considering and make the best choice given what is available. Carefully scrutinize data management policies and practices addition to considering the affordances for communication between moderators and participants, and the potential for observers who are not visible to the participants.

When evaluating your options, look for:

• The option to record meetings directly to your own computer’s hard drive, instead of the company’s cloud service. For example, a paid Zoom account allows you to use this option; Microsoft Teams does not.

• Reputation of the company. Who uses the platform? Has Is it used by companies or financial institutions that have a need to protect proprietary information and transactions?

• Platforms designed for research rather than platforms designed for social communications where concerns about ethics are not a priority.

   

Focus Groups on the itracks Platform

A couple of years ago I was invited to give a webinar with representatives from NVivo and itracks. After trying to align research needs with platform features designed for other purposes, I was fascinated to discover that itracks was developed specifically to meet the needs of online qualitative researchers. itracks offers both asynchronous and synchronous options designed specifically for focus groups and/or interviews. I was impressed by the firm commitment to data protection and privacy.

Since then, itracks has been generous in offering me an account to use with my own projects, and we’ve had a chance to discuss the needs of academic researchers in comparison to the needs of their clients who conduct business or market research.

Itracks offers a synchronous platform, Realtime. It has a clean interface and the capacity for chat as well as videoconferencing. One or more observers can join without being visible to participants. In the analysis stage it is possible to view the group as a whole or to view each participant to observe their reactions.

Itracks Board, the asynchronous platform, allows the researcher to post written questions or prompts, as well as visual materials and/or videos. The platform is very flexible, allowing for many different ways for participants to engage. Participants can respond in writing or by recording comments.

Since I create a lot of diagrams and mind maps, I particularly like the “iMark IT” feature that allows participants to annotate the figure, see and add to others’ comments. In response to the figure below, a format I had used for years, I learned that no one liked the arrows!

When setting up the discussion board researchers can decide whether to compel participants to answer questions in a particular sequence or not. You can also allow participants to see prior comments before they respond, or organize the so discussion participants post their own thoughts before seeing what others said.

Both platforms are accessible through browsers or with an app. Both allow observers , which would also be helpful when supervisors want to monitor students’ projects or give the moderator input as the focus group unfolds.

Whether you want to use this platform or not, looking at it will help you think about the types of features you want to use for your online group.

Take a look!

This presentation shows and explains how itracks works. It was offered at a Lumivero Virtual Conference:

 

Here is a recording of a webinar discussion about using itracks for an academic project. Click to view ALS TALK: Asynchronous online focus groups for people facing participation barriers. Hear University of Alberta researchers Shelagh K Genuis and Westerly Luth discuss a study exploring how people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and their family caregivers experience health communication. The presentation explains:

• Effectiveness of using asynchronous, online focus groups (AOFG) for people facing participation barriers, and lessons learned.

• Data collection methods for AOFGs, hosted on itracks Board platform, for a safe and convenient method to gather insights and develop in-depth understanding of participant perspectives.

• Analyzing itracks data with NVivo, qualitative data analysis software, for rigorous qualitative and quantitative insights into the experiences of people affected by ALS.

Learn more!

Study methods and examples in these open-access articles:

Bolin, G., Kalmus, V., & Figueiras, R. (2023). Conducting Online Focus Group Interviews With Two Generations: Methodological Experiences and Reflections From the Pandemic Context. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231182029 (Original work published 2023)
Abstract. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, many research projects were forced to adapt their design and conduct interviews online. This paper discusses the benefits and challenges of using online focus groups with participants representing different generations and cultural and social backgrounds. Based on the researchers’ experiences and field notes from a three-country comparative project, aiming at analysing the extent to which previous experience of state surveillance impacted attitudes to commercial monitoring and tracking of online behaviour among two generational cohorts, the paper identifies seven aspects where the move from offline to online interviewing interfered with the original research design.

Brown, C. A., Revette, A. C., de Ferranti, S. D., Fontenot, H. B., & Gooding, H. C. (2021). Conducting Web-Based Focus Groups With Adolescents and Young Adults. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921996872 (Original work published 2021)
Abstract. This methodologic paper aims to update researchers working with adolescents and young adults on the potentials and pitfalls associated with web-based qualitative research. We present a case study of synchronous web-based focus groups with 35 adolescents and young women ages 15–24 years old recruited from a clinical sample for a mixed methods study of heart disease awareness.

Chen, J., & Neo, P. (2019). Texting the waters: An assessment of focus groups conducted via the WhatsApp smartphone messaging application. Methodological Innovations. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119884276

Abstract. Focus groups are a well-used research method in the social sciences. Typically, they are conducted in person to generate research insights through group discussion and interaction. As digital technologies advance, there have been efforts to consider how to conduct focus groups in an online format, often using computer-based tools such as email, chat and videoconferencing. In this article, we test the potential of smartphone-based mobile messaging as a new method to elicit group-level insights.

Colom, A. (2022). Using WhatsApp for focus group discussions: ecological validity, inclusion and deliberation. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120986074

Abstract. WhatsApp’s ubiquity in many people’s everyday lives points at new possibilities for conducting online and mobile focus groups. Yet, research on the benefits and potential pitfalls of this is negligible. This paper offers new empirical insights from using the method as part of a digital ethnography with young activists in Western Kenya. The presence of WhatsApp in participants’ everyday lives offers a context with high ecological validity. The paper suggests that this opens up new options for designing online focus groups, transcending the traditional categorisation between synchronous and asynchronous interactions and some limitations of both approaches.

de Souza, J., Gillett, K., Salifu, Y., & Walshe, C. (2024). Changes in Participant Interactions. Using Focus Group Analysis Methodology to Explore the Impact on Participant Interactions of Face-to-Face Versus Online Video Data Collection Methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241241151 (Original work published 2024)
Abstract. Qualitative data collection using online focus groups is increasing in popularity. However this may change the way discussion is created and steered by the participants and facilitators in these focus groups and so potentially influence the data collected. In a focus group study exploring end of life family conversations in African and Caribbean heritage communities, two focus groups were held face-to-face and a further three took place online using the online video conference software, Microsoft teams. Sociograms and an interaction questionnaire were used to analyse participant interactions in each group.

Ferrari, E. (2022). Visual focus groups: Stimulating reflexive conversations with collective drawing. New Media & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221136082

Abstract. In this methodological article, I introduce a qualitative research method, called the visual focus group (VFG), which incorporates a collective drawing task within the structure of a focus group. The VFG was specifically developed to support engaged research about how activists conceptualize the political role of technology, by stimulating participants to reflect on their unspoken assumptions about digital technologies. After reviewing the relevant literature on focus groups and graphic elicitation techniques, the article presents two types of VFGs: diagnostic and speculative.

Fischbein, R., Bracken, R., Bhambra, R., Congeni, D., & Hameed, O. (2024). Beyond Universal Research Design: Lessons for Developing Accessible Virtual Focus Group Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241257942 (Original work published 2024)
Abstract. People with disabilities (PWD) face significant health disparities, yet they have largely been excluded from health research and clinical trials, including in-person and virtual focus group research. The lack of clear protocols for recruiting research participants with disabilities and designing fully accessible online focus groups may contribute to their exclusion. This article presents a concrete example and lessons learned from the application of principles of accessible research design to a project utilizing virtual focus groups.

Flynn, R., Albrecht, L., & Scott, S. D. (2018). Two Approaches to Focus Group Data Collection for Qualitative Health Research: Maximizing Resources and Data Quality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750781

Abstract. This article discusses four challenges to conducting qualitative focus groups: (1) maximizing research budgets through innovative methodological approaches, (2) recruiting health-care professionals for qualitative health research, (3) conducting focus groups with health-care professionals across geographically dispersed areas, and (4) taking into consideration data richness when using different focus group data collection methods. In light of these challenges, we propose two alternative approaches for collecting focus group data: (a) extended period of quantitative data collection that facilitated relationship building in the sites prior to qualitative focus groups and (b) focus groups by videoconference. We share our experiences on employing both of these approaches in two national research programs.

Gordon, A. R., Calzo, J. P., Eiduson, R., Sharp, K., Silverstein, S., Lopez, E., Thomson, K., & Reisner, S. L. (2021). Asynchronous Online Focus Groups for Health Research: Case Study and Lessons Learned. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921990489 (Original work published 2021)
Abstract. Increasingly, social life—and accordingly, social research—is conducted in online environments. Asynchronous online focus groups (AOFGs) have emerged as an important tool to conduct remote research with geographically diverse populations. However, there remain few systematic accounts of AOFG methods to guide researchers’ decision-making in designing and implementing studies.

Lathen, L., & Laestadius, L. (2021). Reflections on Online Focus Group Research With Low Socio-Economic Status African American Adults During COVID-19. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211021713

Abstract. The COVID-19 pandemic has sped the adoption of online data collection approaches among qualitative researchers. While videoconferencing software has been a tremendous resource for replicating key aspects of the face-to-face focus group environment, online approaches to data collection also face unique challenges. Prior work has offered insights on the value of face-to-face versus online focus groups and strategies for improving the online focus group experience for participants and moderators. However, little has been published on the unique needs of participants from low socio-economic status (SES) populations. In light of the digital divide and the ways in which COVID-19 has exacerbated existing inequalities, researchers must seriously reflect on the ways in which SES and online methods intersect.

Li, B. Y., & Ho, R. T. H. (2019). Unveiling the Unspeakable: Integrating Video Elicitation Focus Group Interviews and Participatory Video in an Action Research Project on Dementia Care Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919830561 (Original work published 2019)

Abstract. With the intention to comprehensively reflect the reality, foster interactions between researchers and participants, and empower the marginalized groups to be heard, videos are increasingly used in health studies. The findings of an action research project that integrates video-based methods into the development of dementia care in an aged care home in Hong Kong are reported. A working alliance consisted of practitioners, community-dwelling volunteers, service managers, university educators, and researchers was formed to develop a sustainable, need-based play program for the institutionalized elderly with dementia (EWD). Two innovative methods, namely, video elicitation focus group interview (VEFI) and participatory video (PV), were applied.

Richard, B., Sivo, S. A., Ford, R. C., Murphy, J., Boote, D. N., Witta, E., & Orlowski, M. (2021). A Guide to Conducting Online Focus Groups via Reddit. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211012217

Abstract. Now more than ever there exists a need to conduct data collection online in a safe environment while ensuring that methodological rigor is not sacrificed. Widely available online platforms allow for text-based focus groups to be conducted quickly, easily, and efficiently, but protocols must be maintained to ensure they do not descend into casual observation of naturally occurring conversations. Various online platform options and their merits are discussed. Reddit is provided as a case study to illustrate the steps through which researchers can conduct an asynchronous online focus group. Key opportunities such as a similar quality of results, a lower cost, easier recruitment, and the ability to accommodate more sensitive topics are discussed, as well as challenges including a stigma against online focus groups, when they are most appropriate, and the potential for deviant behavior.

Dedios-Sanguineti, M. C., Guarin, A., Torres-García, A., & Martínez Gómez, M. (2025). Assessing Meaningful Interaction in Focus Group Discussions Conducted Over WhatsApp. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251321599 (Original work published 2025)
Abstract. Focus group discussions (FGDs) differ from other qualitative data collection techniques because they offer unique insights into how collective sense-making occurs in real time in social settings. However, systematic qualitative tools to analyze interaction in FGDs and the richness of data it yields remain scarce. In this article, we propose a seven qualitative indicator model, adapted from previous studies on FGD data quality, to assess group interaction. We apply the model to FGDs (n = 12) conducted via the instant messaging application WhatsApp as part of a study on access to social protection programs in Colombia conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Schweinhart, A., Atwood, K., Aramburu, C., Bauer, R., Luseno, W., & Simons-Rudolph, A. (2023). Prioritizing Participant Safety During Online Focus Groups With Women Experiencing Violence. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231216628 (Original work published 2023)
Abstract. Although researchers have convened focus groups to collect individuals’ opinions for some time, many have transitioned data collection from in-person to online groups. Online focus groups became even more important as COVID-19-related restrictions to movement and shared spaces interrupted the ability of researchers to collect data in person. However, little is published about conducting online groups with populations whose physical and emotional safety is at risk, such as those experiencing domestic violence. Working with these populations raises concerns related to participant safety, mental and emotional well-being, COVID-19 social distancing requirements, participant confidentiality, and data security.

Tran, B., Rafinejad-Farahani, B., Moodie, S., O’Hagan, R., & Glista, D. (2021). A Scoping Review of Virtual Focus Group Methods Used in Rehabilitation Sciences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211042227
Abstract. Virtual methods for conducting focus group studies are increasingly being used in many fields, including rehabilitation sciences. This is partly due to the current pandemic, and the need for social distancing, however, may also relate to factors such as convenience and practicality. Virtual research methods enable investigators to collect data at a distance from the participant(s) through the use of technology-mediated data collection methods incorporating new tools and technologies. The aim of this scoping review was to identify, synthesize, and present current evidence related to the methods for conducting virtual focus groups. A comparison of asynchronous and synchronous data collection methods was conducted. The objectives, inclusion criteria, and scoping review methods were specified in advance and documented in a protocol. The 40 articles in this review included virtual focus group research conducted in rehabilitation sciences including data collection conducted using both synchronous (22.5%) and asynchronous (77.5%) models and using a defined moderation method. Three modes of focus group discussion were reported including email, chat-based, and videoconferencing; these were facilitated through the various technology platforms reported in the review. Reported barriers and facilitators to conducting virtual focus group research were extracted and summarized. Commonly reported facilitators to virtual focus group research included the ability to recruit participants from diverse geographical locations and the participants’ ability to engage at times convenient to them. Both computer literacy and access to technology were reported as common barriers. This review highlighted the need for further research and guidance around virtual focus groups conducted using face-to-face synchronous methods and with younger participants groups.

Willemsen, R. F., Aardoom, J. J., Chavannes, N. H., & Versluis, A. (2022). Online synchronous focus group interviews: Practical considerations. Qualitative Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221110161

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a sudden shift was warranted from face-to-face to digital interviewing. This shift is in line with the existing trend of digitalization. However, limited literature is available on how to conduct focus group interviews online successfully. This research note provides practical guidelines, tips, and considerations for setting up and conducting online synchronous focus groups for eight relevant factors: preparation, the number of participants, the duration, a break, the usability of the online platform, the interaction between participants and researchers, support and roles of the research team, and privacy considerations. These guidelines were formulated based on the available literature and our own positive hands-on experiences. We consider online focus groups to be an excellent option when taking into account the considerations related to the eight factors.

This license enables reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. In other words, you can use and share but you do NOT have my permission to upload the newsletter or art to AI.

Thanks to Beth Spencer for this badge, indicating that no AI tools were used to create this post!