Area (2007) 39.

4, 528–535

Thinking critically and creatively

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

about focus groups

Peter E Hopkins
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU
Email: peter.hopkins@ncl.ac.uk

Revised manuscript received 22 June 2007

Focus groups are now widely used by human geographers conducting qualitative
research, and are clearly recognised as an established research method within the
discipline. Despite this, there is a lack of discussion about the various methodological
issues involved in using focus groups. This paper aims to open up discussion by
suggesting that there is a need to think critically and creatively about using focus groups
in human geography. I draw upon my experience of conducting focus groups with
young Muslim men in order to suggest some of the ways in which human geographers
might think critically about using focus groups. Some of the issues discussed include
group size, location, context and timing, sensitivity of topic, the age of research
participants and the positionalities of the researcher.

Key words: focus groups, qualitative research, locality, timing, group composition,
sensitive topics

motivations of researchers using focus groups include

Introduction
During the late 1980s and 1990s, geographers started
to discuss the issues involved in the use of groups as
settings for the collection of qualitative data (see,
for example, Burgess 1996 1999; Burgess et al.
1998a 1999b; Goss 1996a; Holbrook and Jackson
1996; Kong 1998; Longhurst 1996). Scholars writing
about the use of focus groups in human geography
have raised a number of important methodological
issues including, but not limited to: the merits of
using focus groups with only two participants
(Longhurst 1996), the potential for focus groups to
be empowering experiences for research participants
(Goss 1996b; see also Johnson 1996) and the use of
groups of people who know each other compared
with groups comprised of relative strangers (Holbrook
and Jackson 1996).
The reasons why researchers might choose to use
focus groups have been rehearsed on many occasions
in research methods textbooks and guides (e.g.
Barbour and Kitzinger 1999; Hoggart et al. 2002;
Kitchin and Tate 2000; Morgan 1998). Some of the
the fact that, as Longhurst (2003, 120) notes, focus
groups are useful for ‘researchers wishing to orien-
tate themselves to a new field’ and can enhance the
role of the research participants in regulating the
research findings. Alongside this, they are often
thought to work in ways which decrease, reshape or
rework the power of the researcher (Pratt 2002).
Certain qualities of focus groups, often used by the
‘sellers of commodities’, can also be used by social
researchers for ‘very different, radical purposes’
(Johnson 1996, 521). Rather than simply soliciting
opinions about products and merchandise, the use
of radical focus groups opens up the possibility that
the groups might assist the participants to have
cathartic experiences, or they might transform or
challenge their views, opinions and experiences of
society (Chui 2003). Furthermore, focus groups could
also potentially assist in galvanising political action
as participants actively seek to change their social
worlds. Using focus groups can help in facilitating
access to ‘tacit, uncodified and experiential know-
ledge’, as well as the opinions and meanings of the

Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007

ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

participants. The ‘synergy’ offered by being part of a
collective, as well as the opportunity to combine the
use of other methods, can also act as an attraction
(Johnson 1996, 521–3). Undoubtedly, as a result of
the many advantages of using focus groups, they are
now a widely accepted research method employed by
human geographers interested in exploring various
qualitative aspects of people’s everyday engagements
with their social and spatial worlds. This is demon-
strated through the inclusion of chapters about focus
groups in many research methods textbooks in human
geography (Bedford and Burgess 2001; Longhurst
2003; Cameron 2005; Conradson 2005).
Although I have outlined a number of merits in using
focus groups, the literature on focus groups is pro-
blematic, because as Goss suggested over a decade ago:
Unfortunately, the common sense and the preferred
practices of a few researchers have been reified into
rules of thumb, or myths, that specify the ideal form
of the focus group discussion, including: group
composition, that is the number, gender, age, social
status and life experience of participants; the com-
munication skills and personality of the moderator;
the nature of the topic and questions under discussion;
and the timing, setting, seating arrangements and
provision of refreshments. (1996a, 113–14)
Unfortunately, I would argue that this is still the
case today. The practices of very few researchers
have become influential and codified in focus group
literatures in part because, compared with other
research methods, relatively few researchers have
written about focus groups as a research method.
Furthermore, those who have used focus groups rely
on guides written by Morgan (1995 1997 1998),
Krueger (1995 1998a 1998b 1998c), Barbour and
Kitzinger (1999), the special issue of Area published
over 10 years ago now, or the passing on of practice
and experience from researcher to researcher. Along-
side relying on the practices of a few researchers,
it has also been observed that:
in our view, a great deal of focus group work adopts
a formulaic approach which fails to develop the full
potential of this method. In particular, social scientists
are in danger of uncritically adopting market rese-
archers’ models of such research rather than adapting
and expanding them, taking into account our own
purposes and theoretical traditions. (Kitzinger and
Barbour 1999, 1)
Furthermore, focus groups are often criticised for
only offering a shallow insight into a topic, parti-
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
Thinking about focus groups 529
cularly when compared with individual interviews,
although clearly different methods often result in
different forms of data being produced. Personal
information and experiences may also be withheld
from a focus group discussion, and certain person-
alities may take over the discussion (Hollander
2004; Pain and Townshend 2002). Although there is
limited reflection about the critical and creative
ways in which geographers use focus groups, the
dearth of literature is not reflective of practice.
Many geographers use focus groups in diverse,
creative and experimental ways yet choose not to
concentrate their efforts on reflecting upon these
issues extensively in their writing.
I would like to propose that – although focus
groups have now become a mainstream research
method employed by human geographers – there is
a need to develop literatures that are attentive and
considerate to the various ways in which research-
ers might critically and creatively use focus groups
as a qualitative research method. This will involve
moving beyond the reliance on textbook chapters
devoted to focus groups, in order to engage in detail
about the issues, concerns and resources involved
and produced in using focus groups. The reflections
in this paper stem from a qualitative research
project about the life and times of young Muslim
men living in Scotland. This project employed focus
groups and interviews in order to engage young
Muslim men, aged 16 – 25,1 in discussions about
issues related to their multiple senses of identity,
belonging and in/exclusion. Overall, 11 focus groups
were conducted with seven being undertaken in
Glasgow and four in Edinburgh. Drawing upon my
experiences of moderating these 11 focus groups,
I now suggest a number of ways of thinking creatively
and engaging in critical dialogue about the use of
focus groups in human geography.
Thinking critically and creatively . . .
Defining focus groups
Bedford and Burgess provide a definition of a focus
group:
We define focus groups as a one-off meeting of
between four and eight individuals who are brought
together to discuss a particular topic chosen by the
researcher(s) who moderate or structure the dis-
cussion. (2001, 121; my italics)
This definition is particularly useful because it
highlights that a focus group involves a ‘one-off’
530 Hopkins
meeting, reflecting its origins as a tool used by
social and market researchers. Burgess et al. (1988b,
457) use the term ‘once-only group’ to refer to focus
groups and contrast this with ‘in-depth small groups’
which often meet on numerous occasions high-
lighting their connection with practices in training,
educational and therapeutic contexts. This is an
important distinction, and clearly the nature, format
and data collected during a ‘once-only group’ may
vary in important ways compared with ‘in-depth
small groups’ (see also Kneale 2001). Yet, often this
distinction is not made in writings about focus
groups. Cameron (2005, 116), for example, when
discussing focus groups, mentions that ‘you might
see parallels with university tutorial group meetings’.
Although this highlights the ways in which a focus
group involves a group of people discussing a
particular issue facilitated by a moderator, this
comparison is also unhelpful as university tutorial
groups often meet throughout the year and so are
very different from the one-off nature of focus
groups.
In recognising this important difference, there
are clearly various methodological considerations
associated with using one-off or in-depth groups
and relative advantages and disadvantages connected
with each technique. It is clear that, although both
practices are group based, they each have different
histories and potential future trajectories in the dis-
cipline, different philosophical purposes and moti-
vations, and therefore it is likely that the nature
of what Kneale (2001, 137) calls ‘dialogue within
group relationships’ will be different. Kneale (2001,
137), for example, refers to the ‘group history’ that
develops over time with in-depth groups. This is
very different from the one-off nature of the focus
group discussions I had with young Muslim men.
Furthermore, in some cases, focus groups are also
classified alongside individual interviews, based on
assumptions that both of these methods have a lot
in common. For example, when discussing focus
groups, Cameron (2005, 119) clarifies that they are
‘focused interviews’, Cronin (2001, 165) calls them
‘group interviews’ and Longhurst (2003, 118) observes
how interviews and focus groups are both ‘about talk-
ing with people . . . in ways that are self-conscious,
orderly and partially structured’. Although there are
undoubtedly similarities and connections between
interviews and focus groups as qualitative research
methods – and many people choose to use both
methods in research projects – there are also import-
ant differences, both in the nature of the discussion,
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
the ways in which power operates between research
participants and the characteristics of the data
that are produced. The young Muslim men who I
individually interviewed were, like the young men
consulted by Frosh et al. (2002), far more likely to
reveal personal experiences of racism during indi-
vidual interviews than they were in focus group
discussions. Furthermore, Hollander (2004) also
points out that the social context of focus groups
has important influences over issues of disclosure,
social conformity and desirability. Human geographers
could usefully explore the methodological issues
involved in using interviews and focus groups in
conjunction with each other, as well as the possibil-
ities for creative and critical connections with other
qualitative research methods, including partici-
patory research (Pain 2004; Pain and Francis 2003).
This could usefully include reflecting upon the ways
in which social relations and expectations influence
what is, and is not said, in such discussions (Hyams
2004). Having explored the definitional boundaries
of focus groups, I now concentrate on specific
assumptions about focus groups and the ways in
which they can be reworked and revised, or used in
constructive and innovative ways.
The number of participants and the composition
of the group
The number of participants required for a focus
group discussion appears to be a very important
defining characteristic of focus groups according to
the existing literature. Morgan (1997, 2) offers a
general definition, noting that focus groups rely on
‘interaction within the group, based on topics that
are supplied by the researcher who typically takes
the role of a moderator’. Most other definitions
include reference to the actual number of parti-
cipants in the group. Bedford and Burgess (2001,
121) suggest that the group should be ‘a one-off
meeting of between four and eight individuals’, as
does Cronin (2001), whilst Cameron (2005, 116)
states that a focus group involves ‘between six and
ten people’. Others state that ‘approximately ten
volunteers’ are required (Kitchin and Tate 2001, 41).
Longhurst (1996) attempted to form focus groups to
discuss pregnant women’s experiences of public
space in Hamilton, New Zealand. Three of these
focus groups involved two participants, and so
according to the literature, Longhurst (1996, 144)
initially categorised them as ‘failed’ focus groups,
yet later acknowledged the groups as a useful
method for data collection.
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
 Thinking about focus groups 531

Table 1 Focus groups: location and numbers

Focus group Date No. of participants Location

1 6 March 2002 12 Community Centre

2 19 June 2002 6 School
3 17 July 2002 4 Community Centre
4 24 July 2002 3 Community Centre
5 5 September 2002 3 Community Centre
6 3 October 2002 11 School
7 10 October 2002 8 School
8 14 November 2002 6 School
9 4 February 2003 5 School
10 3 April 2003 6 School
11 30 April 2003 3 Mosque

From my experience of using focus groups, the have different strengths and weaknesses from research
number of participants is important, but only along- with groups of comparative strangers. (Holbrook and
side a range of other issues, such as the age and Jackson 1996, 141)
composition of the participants, the location of the
The research project with young Muslim men
focus group meeting and the sensitivity of the topic
involved 11 focus groups where, in most cases, the
being discussed. Table 1 sets out the number of
participants in each group already knew each other.
participants and locations of the 11 focus groups
My priority in recruiting participants was that they
in this research project. The focus groups involved
were all young Muslim men, and not that they did
between three and 12 participants, and generally,
not know each other. Also, given the nature of the
the focus groups with fewer young men ran smoothly
topic and my experiences of moderating 11 focus
with everyone having a chance to voice their opinions
groups, it might be that participants would have
on matters of importance to them. With the larger
been less willing to speak about personal issues
groups, there were points where the tape-recordings
concerning their Muslim identities when they did
were unclear because of the number of young men
not know the other focus group members, whereas,
speaking at the one time due to their anger and frus-
when participants already knew each other, dis-
tration with the inequalities they experience. There
cussion was often more interactive and others felt
is a need then to consider the many possible influ-
easier about disagreeing with particular points or
ences on group dynamics rather than concentrating
issues raised. It would also have been difficult to
on the numbers that should be included in each
recruit an appropriate sample of young Muslim men
group. Clearly, all of these issues contextualise the
had the main criteria been that they should not know
focus groups and have a bearing on the researchers’
each other, and regardless of sample population, it
interpretations.
may well be impossible to avoid people knowing
In terms of group composition, ‘a standard argu-
each other anyway. Again, however, further discussion
ment within focus group methodology is that group
about the relative merits of different forms of group
members should be homogeneous in respect of the
composition – and the critical and creative ways in
relevant selection criteria, but unknown to each
which we might engage with these issues – may
other’ (Tonkiss 2004, 201). This idea may be built
help human geographers to shed light on the
on principles of survey logic and makes assump-
various methodological issues involved in using
tions about the dynamics of focus group interactions
focus groups.
as well as the people that participants know. As
Tonkiss (2004) notes, there are many examples of
researchers using focus groups where the participants Location, timing and context
Much of the existing research about focus groups
know each other already. In this regard, Holbrook
tends to concentrate on issues such as: the number
and Jackson note that
of participants in the discussion (as mentioned
focus groups with people who already know each above), the influence and role of the moderator
other and share a sense of common social identity (Fallon and Brown 2002; Krueger 1998a) as well as

Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007

ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
532 Hopkins
the possibility of linking focus groups with other
research methods (Kitchin and Tate 2000; Linhorst
2002; Mitchell 1999). Although these issues are all
significant to thinking through the use of focus
groups, there is also a need to concentrate on the
broader geographical setting of the discussion, the
particular timing of focus groups in terms of local,
national and global events and circumstances as
well as the social context of the particular dis-
cussion. These issues all can, and often do, have an
important influence on the nature of the focus group
interaction and discussion.
Focus group location is an important consider-
ation when conducting research with people where
access has involved a series of negotiations with
gatekeepers. All of the 11 focus groups conducted
with young Muslim men relied on gaining access
through an adult gatekeeper, be this a teacher,
youth worker, religious leader or office worker. On
initial reflection, the focus groups in the schools are
likely to be policed most severely, and were con-
ducted within the atmosphere and rules of the
school as a social setting. Unlike the community
centre, the young people in the school have less
spatial, verbal and behavioural freedom. I was sur-
prised, however, by the freedom that the young
people were given in the school focus groups, and
five of the focus groups involved me being with
the young men, without the presence of a teacher
or other authority figure. Three focus groups even
involved me meeting one of the focus group partici-
pants at the school gate, and being accompanied by
them to the room where the focus group took place.
Only during one focus group did the teacher remain
in the room, sitting in the corner of the room mark-
ing classwork, and periodically listening in on the
focus group conversation. So, the location of a
focus group discussion is important; however, we
should be cautious about making hasty assumptions
about preferred locations. A number of factors, such
as the presence of other authority figures, the age of
the young people (and the freedom afforded to them
in the school) as well as the ethos of the school can
all influence the nature of the discussion.
Alongside location, group size and many of the
other issues raised above, the particular timing of
focus groups can be crucial in influencing the range
and intensity of discussions. This not only includes
the time of day or week during which a focus group
is conducted but also the ways in which particular
geopolitical events or other circumstances influence
the focus group discussion. Looking to my research
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
with young Muslim men, all focus groups were
conducted in the period following the events of
11 September 2001 in New York. Also, on the
evening of 19 March 2003, British and American
troops waged the first attacks in Iraq. This continued
for some time, as did large public demonstrations in
Scotland’s main cities. On 1 May 2003 there were
Scottish Parliamentary elections, where many Mus-
lims planned to vote strategically in order to prevent
the repeated success of the Labour Party. The final
focus group discussion of this project took place the
day before these elections and so the broader location
and timing of the focus group situation worked to
influence the nature and intensity of the discussion.
These are just some of the events that have had a
direct impact upon the focus group discussions in
this research project. The influence of these events
may have been to increase the intensity of the dis-
cussions, and in some cases they may have worked
to bring out the anger of the participants about
world affairs, politics and racism. Alternatively,
these events may have worked to exclude some of
the young men who may have withdrawn from a
more active role in focus group discussion. So, the
wider context is both an ever present resource, but
also a potential problem of compatibility between
groups over time.
Sensitivity of topic
The level of sensitivity of the topic under con-
sideration, coupled with the size and timing of the
group discussion, is also an important issue when
using focus groups. Holbrook and Jackson (1996)
conducted focus groups about consumption and
identity, and so it is likely that such research may
have benefited from larger group sizes due to the
subject matter under discussion. Longhurst (1996)
had very small focus groups, and this could be
interpreted as one of the successes of her research
because the topic under consideration was sensitive
and personal for many of the participants, focusing
as it did on their experiences of using public spaces
whilst pregnant. Since the project on which I am
drawing upon is about the geographies, identities
and everyday lives of young Muslim men living in
Scotland, there was already sensitivity in subject
choice that has to be respected. Many of the young
men experienced racism on an everyday basis and
this has heightened in intensity since the events of
11 September 2001. Including the influence of
world affairs and events, it is clear that this research
project required a tactful approach.
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

At the start of a focus group in Glasgow (5 September
2002), I was aggressively challenged by Talib,2 who
suggested that I was a representative of the govern-
ment. He queried why I was doing the research,
conjectured that I had links with the British National
Party, questioned my religiosity and asked who was
funding the research. I attempted to confirm to Talib
that my research was funded by the University of
Edinburgh and that I was doing the research for
anti-racist purposes, while acknowledging that it is
impossible to control how others use my findings.
This particular incident, and others during the pro-
cess of doing this research, required a diplomatic
approach. It may also be the case that the small size
of this focus group, as well as the timing, worked in
a range of different ways to heighten or decrease
the initial tension experienced. So, alongside issues
relating to size, timing and location, geographers using
focus groups could usefully engage in discussions
about the different ways in which the particular topic
being discussed work to heighten the significance or
lessen the influence of the many different factors
affecting the dynamics of the group discussion.
Age of participants and positionalities of the
researcher and researched
Combined with matters relating to group size, timing
and location, as well as the sensitivity of the topic,
are issues concerning the age of the participants. All
of the focus group participants in this research were
aged 16 or over; however, one focus group did
include a young man who was 15, and his parents
signed a consent form allowing him to opt-in to the
research, and the school had agreed to his partici-
pation. Issues of informed consent are particularly
important in conducting research with young people
(Hill 2005), although, irrespective of their age, I re-
quested that all research participants sign a consent
form. This is a ‘useful way of giving them a sense
of control, individuality, autonomy and privacy’ and
gives them the opportunity ‘to learn how to make
safe choices and to read the document [information
leaflet and consent form] carefully’ (Valentine 1999,
144). I also stressed to all research participants that
they may opt out of the research at any point, and
may choose to answer some questions and withdraw
from participating in others.
My experiences from doing this research have led
me to suggest that when doing research with children
and young people, it may well be appropriate to con-
duct focus groups with fewer participants, especially
when the subject matter is potentially controversial
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
Thinking about focus groups 533
and/or sensitive. The focus groups in this project
with fewer participants generally ran smoothly and
all of the young people had their say. However, the
larger focus groups often involved the exclusion of
some of the young people, despite my persistent
efforts to moderate the discussion in such a way that
would assist them in voicing their opinions. These
focus groups also included periods where I was
unable to hear what was being said when transcrib-
ing the tape recordings because of the number of
young people speaking at any one time. This issue
is probably a combination of the number and age of
participants, topic under discussion and timing of
the group; however, when the number of participants
is reduced, such problems appear to be minimised.
So, there is an issue here about the ways in which
more time and resources might usefully be utilised
with smaller groups for better quality outcomes.
Many of the factors that may affect the dynamics
of focus group interactions can also be influenced
by the various positionalities of researcher and
researched, the ways in which researchers choose
to represent themselves and the interpretations
made by focus group participants of the social class
background, race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability and
other identities of the researcher and their fellow
focus group participants. This may be a particularly
important issue depending on the sensitivity of the
topic being discussed. For example, when doing
research with young Muslim men there were points
where assumptions were made about my positio-
nalities and this was often a topic of conversation.
Some young men equated my whiteness with Chris-
tianity, assuming that the Bible was ‘my book’,
some were interested in placing me as being from
Glasgow, others queried what school I attended and
many were interested in my motivations for doing
the research. Critical engagement with the various
influences on focus group discussions, including the
age of participants and the positionalities of researcher
and researched may help to improve the validity
and reliability of the data collected, the overall rigour
of a research project and the ways in which focus
group data are analysed.
Conclusions
In conclusion, I have proposed in this paper that
there is a need to open up the discussion about the
use of focus groups as a qualitative research method
in human geography. Apart from the special issue
of Area published over 10 years ago, occasional
534 Hopkins
chapters in research methods texts and passing
reference to the use of focus groups in various
research papers, there is a lack of critical reflection
about the use of focus groups within the discipline.
This omission appears particularly striking given that
other research methods, such as interviews (Elwood
and Martin 2000; Mullings 1999), ethnography
(Herbert 2000; Parr 2001) and participatory research
(Kesby 2007; Pain 2004), have received much
critical attention. Furthermore, in a series of recent
reviews of qualitative methods in human geography
(Crang 2002 2003 2005), despite the observation
that ‘the use of focus groups has boomed’ (Crang 2002,
650), only passing references are made to their
employment as research methods within the discip-
line. Geographers do use focus groups in a range of
creative, engaging and innovate ways – evidenced
from conversations with colleagues – however, these
issues are not reflected in geographical writing, and
so I have used this paper to suggest that it is surely
time to start to develop a literature about the critical
and creative ways in which human geographers use
focus groups when doing qualitative research.
Using the experience of conducting focus groups
with young Muslim men in Scotland, I have high-
lighted a number of areas on which we might focus
this critical reflection. Within the social science liter-
ature on focus groups (e.g. Barbour and Kitzinger
1999; Krueger 1994; Morgan 1997), as well as in
some of the earlier work in human geography,
much attention is given to the micro-geographies of
the focus group interactions: the role of the moder-
ator, the phrasing of questions and the interaction
between the group members, including the moderator.
All of these issues are important and geographers
could make interesting contributions to these debates.
However, in this paper, I have also suggested that
human geographers are ideally placed to contribute
to critical reflection on the complex ways in which
locality, context and time influence focus group
interactions. This may include analysing the ways in
which particular locations, places and times of day
– local landscapes – influence focus group discussion,
but also the ways in which issues, concerns and
events at different scales and macro-geographies –
global, transnational, national – influence focus
group discussions and interactions. Consideration of
the multiple influences on the nature, context and
setting of focus groups, as well as the finer points of
the focus group discussion, will hopefully contribute
to their continued employment by human geographers
as a qualitative method.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Rachel Pain, Gordon Walker and four
anonymous referees for their constructive comments and
helpful observations on an earlier draft of this paper.
Notes
1 All young people aged under 16 who participated in the
research did so after parental consent (and the informed
consent) of the young person had been obtained.
2 In order to protect the confidentiality of the research parti-
cipants, all names used are pseudonyms.
References
Barbour R S and Kitzinger J 1999 Developing focus group
research: politics, theory and practice Sage, London
Bedford T and Burgess J 2001 The focus group experience in
Limb M and Dwyer C eds Qualitative methodologies for
geographers: issues and debates Arnold, New York 121–35
Burgess J 1996 Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a
project for the Commission Forest Unit Area 28 130–5
Burgess J 1999 The genesis of in-depth discussion groups: a
response to Liz Bondi Professional Geographer 51 458–60
Burgess J, Limb M and Harrison C 1988a Exploring environ-
mental values through the medium of small groups 1: theory
and practice Environment and Planning A 20 309–26
Burgess J, Limb M and Harrison C 1988b exploring environ-
mental values through the medium of small groups 2:
illustrations of a group at work Environment and Planning
A 20 456–76
Cameron J 2005 Focussing on the focus group in Hay I ed
Qualitative research methods in human geography Oxford
University Press, New York 83–101
Chui L F 2003 Transformational potential of focus group
practice in participatory action research Action Research
1 165–83
Conradson D 2005 Focus groups in Flowerdew R and
Martin D eds Methods in human geography: a guide for
students doing a research project Pearson Education,
Harlow 128–43
Crang M 2002 Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy?
Progress in Human Geography 26 647–55
Crang M 2003 Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see?
Progress in Human Geography 27 494–504
Crang M 2005 Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside
the text? Progress in Human Geography 29 225–33
Cronin A 2001 Focus groups in Gilbert N ed Researching
social life Sage, London 164–77
Elwood S and Martin D G 2000 ‘Placing’ interviews: locations
and scales of power in qualitative research Professional
Geographer 52 649–57
Fallon G and Brown R B 2002 Focusing on focus group: lessons
from a research project involving a Bangladeshi community
Qualitative Research 2 195–208
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.

Frosh S, Phoenix A and Pattman R 2002 Young masculinities
Palgrave, New York
Goss J D 1996a Introduction to focus groups Area 28 113–
14
Goss J D 1996b Focus groups as alternative research practice:
experiences with transmigrants in Indonesia Area 28
115–23
Herbert S 2000 For ethnography Progress in Human Geo-
graphy 24 550–68
Hill M 2005 Ethical considerations in researching children’s
experiences in Greene S and Hogan D eds Researching
children’s experience: approaches and methods Sage,
London 61–86
Hoggart K, Lees L and Davies A 2002 Researching human
geography Oxford University Press, New York
Holbrook B and Jackson P 1996 Shopping around: focus
group research in North London Area 28 136–52
Hollander J 2004 The social context of focus groups Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography 33 602–37
Hyams M 2004 Hearing girls’ silences: thoughts on the poli-
tics and practices of a feminist method of group discussion
Gender, Place & Culture 11 105–19
Johnson A 1996 ‘It’s good to talk’: the focus group and the
sociological imagination The Sociological Review 44
517–36
Kesby M 2007 Spatialising participatory approaches: the
contribution of geography to a mature debate Environment
and Planning A doi: 10.1068/a38326
Kitchin R and Tate N J 2000 Conducting research into human
geography: theory, methodology and practice Prentice
Hall, Harlow
Kitzinger J and Barbour 1999 Introduction: the challenge
and promise of focus groups in Barbour R and Kitzinger J
eds Developing focus group research: politics, theory and
practice Sage, London 1–20
Kneale J 2001 Working with groups in Limb M and Dwyer C
eds Qualitative methods for geographers: issues and
debates Arnold, New York 136–52
Kong L 1998 Refocusing on qualitative methods: problems
and prospects for research in a specific Asian setting Area
30 79–82
Krueger R A 1994 Focus groups: a practical guide for applied
research Sage, London
Krueger R A 1995 The future of focus groups Qualitative
Health Research 5 524–30
Krueger R A 1998 Moderating focus groups Sage, London
Area Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 528–535, 2007
ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.
Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007
Thinking about focus groups 535
Krueger R A 1998 Developing questions for focus groups
Sage, London
Krueger R A 1998 Analysing and reporting focus group
results Sage, London
Linhorst D M 2002 A review of the use and potential of focus
groups in social work research Qualitative Social Work 1
208–28
Longhurst R 1996 Refocusing groups: pregnant women’s
geographical experiences of Hamilton, New Zealand/
Aotearoa Area 28 143–9
Longhurst R 2003 Semi-structured interviews and focus
groups in Clifford N J and Valentine G eds Key methods
in geography Sage, London 117–32
Mitchell L 1999 Combining focus groups and interviews:
telling how it is; telling how it feels in Barbour R S and
Kitzinger J eds Developing focus group research: politics,
theory and practice Sage, London 36–46
Morgan D L 1995 Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus
groups Qualitative Health Research 5 516–23
Morgan D L 1997 Focus group as qualitative research Sage,
London
Morgan D L 1998 The focus group guidebook Sage, London
Mullings B 1999 Insider or outsider, both or neither: some
dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting Geo-
forum 30 337–50
Pain R 2004 Social geography: participatory research
Progress in Human Geography 28 652–63
Pain R and Francis P 2003 Reflections on participatory
research Area 35 46–54
Pain R and Townshend T 2002 A safer city centre for all?
Senses of ‘community safety’ in Newcastle upon Tyne
Geoforum 33 105–19
Parr H 2001 Feeling, reading, and making bodies in space
Geographical Review 91 158–67
Pratt G 2002 Studying immigrants in focus groups in Moss P
ed Feminist geography in practice: research and methods
Blackwell, Oxford 214–29
Skop E 2006 The methodological potential of focus groups
in population geography Population, Space and Place 12
113–24
Tonkiss F 2004 Using focus groups in Seale C ed Researching
society and culture Sage, London 193–206
Valentine G 1999 Being seen and heard? The ethical com-
plexities of working with children and young people at
home and at school Ethics, Place and Environment 2
141–55