Organised Crime & Crime Prevention - what works? - Scandinavian ...

NSfK’s 40. forskerseminar, Espoo, Finland 1998
Focus groups
A focus group is an in-depth group discussion on a pre-defined and limited topic by a small
group of between five to eight panellists under the guidance of a moderator. The responses of
the panellists are recorded as data for content analysis. It is a qualitative methodology and its
success depends on the quality of the answers to the questions raised in the focus group
discussions to provide an insight into the topic under investigation. The panel discussions
normally last between one and a half and two hours.
It is useful both as a method of inquiry and consultation for it can be used to probe
assumptions and meanings, examine key players’ assessment of the credibility of reforms and
the implications of changes in practice. Focus groups in this field work best when a very
specific and limited topic is explored in-depth. They offer a systematic but unstructured way
of looking at a topic in detail. The discussions held in a focus group panel are not as wide
ranging as an academic seminar. In contrast to the questionnaire the responses in a focus
group are not confined to pre-determined response categories and can be expressed in the
respondents’ own words. This approach gives much richer material for content analysis but
as a consequence it creates more problems for the analysis of responses and limits the extent
to which generalisations can be made.
In a previous study using focus groups to examine views about the use of community
sentences (Davies 1993) we asked panellists to give us feedback through the use of follow-up
evaluation questionnaires about their experience of the focus group. In California and
England there was a considerable degree of support for the method. In response to the
question ‘Did you find the focus group a useful way of expressing your view?’ California
criminal justice officials commented as follows:
A judge wrote, ‘Rarely is there any type of forum to explore these issues with other agencies
that are in a position to influence change.’ A sheriff wrote,’ There are limited opportunities
available for expressing views that have a state-wide implications.’ A public defender wrote,
‘All who were there have direct knowledge of the problems and work with it everyday, so we
could speak with first hand information and share our own concerns with each other.’ A
superior court judge wrote, ‘There was a good interplay of ideas.’ (Davies 1993 p.105)
The response of magistrates in England (lay judges) following focus group panels to
examine attitudes towards community sentences were, as in California, overwhelmingly
positive. Comments from the evaluation questionnaire in England included the following
comments:
‘It focused my ideas. It was beneficial to hear the other views of magistrates I do not
normally sit with.’
‘It was good to explain views and then discuss the implementation of realistic ideas.’
‘An opportunity to discuss matters of concern with fellow magistrates. We see little of each
other normally.’
‘Possibly the only opportunity to hear and express views I’ve been given so far.’
‘One gets an inside version of how your fellow magistrates approach justice and penalties for
wrong doing.’
154