The Qualitative Report Volume 13 Number 4 December 2008 630-635

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/zuckerman-parker.pdf

The Town Hall Focus Group: A New Format for Qualitative

Research Methods
Michelle Zuckerman-Parker
Allegheny Singer Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Gary Shank
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
The town hall focus group method is described in this paper. We start by
outlining the circumstances that brought about this unusual research
strategy. Then, we describe the tactical decisions we made that allowed
this particular effort to be a success. We conclude with a series of
concrete suggestions for conducing focus groups with large groups of
people. Key Words: Focus Group, Town Hall, Professional Development,
Focus Group Size, and Qualitative Research

Introduction
Focus groups have played a crucial role in qualitative research since its modern
resurgence (Morgan, 2004). Because of its importance as a methodology, there have been
numerous guides for conducting focus groups. They range from comprehensive guides
(e.g., Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2002; Litosseliti, 2003; Morgan, 2004), to
practical guides (e.g., Krueger & Casey, 2000; Puchta & Potter, 2004), and even
advanced guides (e.g., Fern, 2001).
Because of this extensive methodological literature, there has been a tendency for
the field to gravitate toward an implicit set of best practices for the conduct of focus
groups (e.g., Freeman, 2006). These best practices can be divided into two broad
categories. The first category deals with how focus groups should be conducted as
interactive groups. The second category deals with the ways that focus group data needs
to be analyzed and reported. While there has been some very interesting work recently
dealing with expanding our understanding of how to analyze and understand focus group
data (e.g., Grim, Harmon, & Gromis, 2006; Vicsek, 2007), there has been relative
agreements in the field concerning many of the procedural aspects of focus group
research. In this paper, we would like to show how our recent work, by expanding on one
of these conduct parameters, has allowed us to gather unique and interesting data.
The Issue of Group Size
One of the earliest, most consistent and most universal characteristics of focus
group research (e.g., Tang & Davis, 1995) has been the parameter concerning the size of
the groups themselves. From the outset, conventional wisdom has dictated that focus
groups should consist ideally of six to eight participants, not counting the researchers or
other facilitators. There are several reasons for the prevalence of this dimension.

631

The Qualitative Report December 2008

The first reason is historical. Focus groups were thought to have originated from
the notion of group therapy. According to Folch-Lyon and Trost (1981), this method can
assist in explaining how and why people behave as they do. Focus groups facilitate an
opportunity for researchers to probe peoples emotional reactions to issues which offer
further understanding of target individuals reactions to issues; therefore assisting in
better understanding the research findings. It is important to remember that the purpose
of the focus group interview is not on consensus building, rather it is on obtaining a range
of opinions from people about issues (Folch-Lyon & Trost). Therapists found that
groups of less than six did not facilitate a critical mass for proper discussion because of
the need for interaction. On the other hand, groups larger than eight tended to be too
intense or otherwise unmanageable. These principles carried over to focus groups.
The second reason is practical. Again, there is also a historical dimension to this
point. Focus groups were first used in marketing work, and in this area, it is important for
potential consumers not only to state their preferences and concerns, but to give fairly
detailed reasons for both, as well. It is worth noting, according to Vaughn, Sinagub, and
Schumm, (1996), when focus group are used for market research they provide insights
into why a person felt as they did compared to traditional sampling, which was
considered too limiting as a method to ascertain the number of individuals who felt a
particular way. Under these circumstances, it was also important to get an ideal balance
of group size. Too few participants might yield a sample that would be too narrow or
restrictive, and too many participants would create a situation where it would be difficult
to get extensive follow-up data. As a result, researchers like Guest, Bunce, and Johnson
(2006) recommend a group size between 6 to 12 participants.
The final reason is ethical. In particular, this reason argues against focus groups
that might be too large. In this case, the researcher is running the risk that any given
participant might feel lost or overwhelmed by the sheer size of the group, or might feel
hesitant to give an answer or opinion that might run counter to the larger group. As
groups get bigger, this risk is magnified. So, for these and other reasons, it has become
common practice to insist that focus groups should consist of six to eight participants.
The Mother of Necessity
Sometimes, we choose to take bold and pioneering moves to extend our research
practices, but, more often, those moves are thrust upon us by virtue of circumstance. The
latter was clearly the case in the inception and development of the town hall focus group.
In our particular case, we were conducting research in an attempt to understand a
troubling problem that kept occurring with professional development for math and
science teachers, particularly in middle schools and high schools. The matter was simply
this; teachers were very reluctant to commit to intensive summer programs. This was the
case even when the programs were designed and implemented by prestigious institutions,
and even when the teacher participants were generously compensated financially. Under
these circumstances, it was clear to us that there were issues involved that we did not
know about, and therefore focus groups would be an ideal way to help find out what was
really going on. With this in mind, we were able to gather a pool of 25 teachers from a
variety of settings and grade levels for our focus groups. We planned to conduct four

Michelle Zuckerman-Parker and Gary Shank

632

groups over two days. The teacher participants were asked to pick which day they wanted
to come in.
As fate and scheduling would have it, all 25 participants wanted to come in on the
same day. Okay, we said, we can deal with that. We can conduct three focus groups with
eight per group, with the extra person going to the focus group of the senior researcher.
Then, due to both personnel and space issues, that number got reduced to two groups of
12 and 13. Well, we decided, these are quite large groups, but if we are careful we should
be okay. Finally, on the day of the focus groups, one of the researchers was involved in a
car wreck on the way to conduct a group. So, now, our carefully created set of four
groups was reduced to one single group. We could not reschedule, because the teachers
literally had no other time to participate. So, rather than randomly excluding some of the
participants and go with one relatively normal sized group, the senior researcher decided
instead to go ahead and try to conduct one large focus group. Fortunately, the site for the
group was quite large, and well equipped to record the responses of everyone. And this is
how the town hall focus group came into being.
In this paper, we are not going to talk very much about the actual findings of the
research. Instead, we are documenting what we have learned about the town hall focus
group, and how we feel others might be able to use this method. Therefore, our findings
in this paper will address issues that affect the efficacy of doing this kind of research.
Using Teams
Our first task was to address the initial conditions of the group. What do you need
to do, to make sure each participant was heard, and could contribute significantly to the
group?
First of all, we encouraged participants to sit together in natural groups. There
were several sorts of grouping strategies that arose. First, and most obvious, teachers
from the same school sat together. We had several groups of two to three teachers who
pulled together in this manner. Then, we had groups of friends. These were teachers who
taught the same subject area, and knew each other from workshops or from
undergraduate or graduate education classes. There were several of these groups. Finally,
we had teachers who were also department chairs or some other form of middle
management, so to speak, and these people knew each other and sat together as well.
This grouping of participants was quite fortuitous because it helped make our
town hall meeting more manageable. In a sense, we had replaced single individuals with
a team of individuals. That is, instead of having a focus group of eight people, we had a
town hall focus group of eight or so teams of two or three people per team. This grouping
worked surprisingly well, because it allowed each person to contribute within the
framework of his or her team. Furthermore, each team seemed to encourage all of its
members to contribute. In our case, we were able to use teams of two or three people to
substitute nicely for individuals.
Here is our first finding about the efficacy of conducting a town hall focus group;
teams of like-minded or similar people can be used as if they were single individuals. The
term town hall is used in reference to its place in the history of the United States of
America. The town hall was a regular gathering of people who met for the purpose of
improving the town as evidenced in the historical account, on the first Tuesday in the

633

The Qualitative Report December 2008

March each year, residents gather at a town hall, or school auditorium or church
basement to vote on the matters of import affecting the town in the coming twelve
months (Bryan, 2003).
Intra Team Work
As the focus group got underway, participants were surprisingly comfortable in
their ad hoc teams. We were able to use this comfort to help build a picture of how each
particular team might address matters in a unique way. We found three areas of
uniqueness. First of all, some of the teams had unique training. That is, they were in a
team because they were people with specialized interests and teaching areas. Their
responses reflected this unique status more than was found in other teams. Even so, these
teams still had enough common experiences to link them to the other participants. As a
matter of fact, we tended to emphasize common perspectives across teams.
The second kind of unique team was the most obvious; teachers from a single
setting, or school. The important task here is to differentiate findings that are genuine
issues of group dynamics, and to set aside local gossip or rumors, or feuds, or what have
you.
The final kind of unique team were those people with unique extracurricular
experiences. By this, we mean teachers who had attended specialized training programs,
or who had participated in special science projects, or the like. These experiences were
quite helpful to us, particularly in gauging activities and experiences that were positive
examples of professional development.
Inter Team Work
As interesting as the comments and findings within specialized teams were, the
data that were most useful to us were the findings that tended to cut across all teams. As
these major areas began to take shape, we made sure that each team got to address each
of these major finding areas. Interestingly enough, as this process unfolded, there tended
to be areas of consensus that was reached across groups. We suspect that this consensus
building was enhanced by the fact that we paid attention to each team as a unique entity,
and thereby minimized competition across teams.
The Roll Call
Most focus groups generally go on for 60 to 90 minutes. In our case, the town hall
went on for almost two hours. In fact, had we not broken for lunch, it might have gone on
longer. We suspect that the fact that people tended to respond in the comfort of their
teams made the process less stressful for them, and so lowered the burden on participants.
To make sure each voice was heard, we conducted two roll calls. In the first roll
call, each teacher identified himself/herself and said a bit about teaching and professional
development. At the very end, we had the final roll call. In this case, we went from
person to person and asked them to say something relevant that had not been brought up
as yet. All the teachers responded to this last exercise with a great deal of thoughtfulness
and creativity.

Michelle Zuckerman-Parker and Gary Shank

634

What We Found
This article is not about our findings per se, but it would be unfair not to reveal at
least some of them. Our major findings were these; first, teachers do not want generic
professional development. The more specialized, the better. Secondly, teachers want
professional developers to either deliver the new ideas and let the teachers take care of
the teaching, or else develop a set of comprehensive and professional teaching tools that
can be put to use right away in the classroom. Our final major finding was that the main
crisis in professional development was a crisis of trust and communication. Teachers
want a say in development topics and in how those topics are delivered.
Halcomb, Gholizadeh, Digiacomo, Phillips, and Davidson (2007) report that the
less sensitive the topic, the larger the group could be. Additionally, their findings suggest,
groups within groups allows members to share their insights despite the overall size of
the group.
Conclusions
We want to conclude this short article about method by making a number of
succinct points:

It is possible to conduct large-scale focus groups under the right conditions.

One important condition is the presence of teams. If possible, allow the
participants to create their own teams. If that is not feasible, then create teams
ahead of time.
Team members should have at least one salient point in common. That is, teams
should not be created at random.
It is a good idea to limit total teams to the standard six to eight range for
individuals we find in ordinary focus groups.
Allow each group member to speak as an individual at least twice; in the very
beginning and the very end.

By following these simple guidelines, we feel that there are circumstances and
situations where the town hall focus group might be the ideal data collection strategy. We
acknowledge that in our case it was an accident of circumstance that formed our huge
group in the first place, but we are quite satisfied that this turned out to be a happy
accident for us. And who knows, it might be a happy accident for the field of qualitative
research at large, as well.
References
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2002). Focus groups in social
research (American Politics and Political Economy Series). London: Sage.
Bryan, F. M. (2003). Real democracy: The New England town meeting and how it works.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

635

The Qualitative Report December 2008

Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size,
acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 19(1), 1-13.
Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. London: Sage.
Folch-Lyon, E., & Trost, J. F. (1981). Conducting focus group sessions. Studies in
Family Planning, 12(12), 443-449.
Freeman, T. (2006). Best practice in focus group research: Making sense of different
views. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 491-497.
Grim, B. J., Harmon, A. H., & Gromis, J. C. (2006). Focused group interviews as an
innovative quanti-qualitative methodology (QQM): Integrating quantitative
elements into a qualitative methodology. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 516-537.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., Digiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007).
Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with
culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16,
1000-1011.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum.
Morgan, D. L. (2004). Focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: Sage.
Tang, K. C., & Davis, A. (1995). Critical factors in the determination of focus group size.
Family Practice, 12(4), 474-475.
Vaughn, S., Sinagub, J. M., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). Focus group interviews in
education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Vicsek, L. (2007). A scheme for analyzing the results of focus groups. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(4), 20-34.

Author Note
Correspondences concerning this article should be addressed to Gary Shank,
410C Canevin Hall, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282; E-mail:
shank@duq.edu
Copyright 2008: Michelle Zuckerman-Parker,
Southeastern University

Gary

Shank,

and

Nova

Article Citation
Zuckerman-Parker, M., & Shank, G. (2008). The town hall focus group: A new format
for qualitative research methods. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 630-635.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/zuckerman-parker.pdf