Qualitative Research

http://qrj.sagepub.com/

Learning in focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus

group research
Victoria Wibeck, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren and Gunilla Öberg
Qualitative Research 2007 7: 249
DOI: 10.1177/1468794107076023

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/7/2/249

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/7/2/249.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 16, 2007

What is This?

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 A RT I C L E

Q 249

Learning in focus groups: an analytical

dimension for enhancing focus group research R
Qualitative Research
Copyright © 2007
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi
and Singapore)
vol. 7(2) 249–267
VICTORIA WIBECK, MADELEINE ABRANDT DAHLGREN
Linköping University, Sweden
GUNILLA ÖBERG
University of British Columbia, Canada

A B S T R AC TThe focus group is a research methodology in which a small

group of participants gathers to discuss a specified issue under the
guidance of a moderator. The discussions are tape-recorded, transcribed
and analysed. Notably, the interaction between focus group participants
has seldom been evaluated, analysed or discussed in empirical research.
We argue that considering the focus group in light of current research
into interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial groups would
facilitate the deliberate exploitation of group processes in designing focus
groups, staging data collection and analysing and interpreting data.
When the analytical focus shifts from mere content analysis to an analysis
of what the participants themselves are trying to learn, one can explore
not only what the participants are talking about, but also how they are
trying to understand and conceptualise the issue under discussion.
K E Y W O R D S : co-construction of knowledge, elaboration, focus groups, interaction,
problem-based learning

Introduction
The focus group is a research methodology that has gained popularity in a
growing number of contexts over recent decades (Hydén and Bülow, 2003;
Morgan, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998a). In this method, a small group of partici-
pants gather to discuss a particular issue under the guidance of a moderator,
who preferably plays a detached role. The discussion, which usually lasts
between 60 and 90 minutes, is normally audio- and/or video-taped, and then
transcribed and analysed (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999; Morgan, 1988).
Focus groups are of particular value because of their ability to allow
researchers to study how people engage in collective sense-making; i.e. ‘how
views are constructed, expressed, defended and (sometimes) modified in the
context of discussion and debate with others’ (Wilkinson, 1998a: 186). In

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107076023

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

250 Qualitative Research 7(2)

other words, it is claimed that focus groups enable researchers to study and
understand a particular topic from the perspective of the group participants
themselves. The focus group is a research method based on the dynamics of
communication, language and thought (Marková, 2004). By using group
interaction, the researcher can explore ‘how accounts are articulated, cen-
sured, opposed and changed through social interaction and how this relates to
peer communication and group norms’ (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999: 5). In
other words, focus groups are said to offer an opportunity to observe the ‘co-
construction of meaning in action’ (Wilkinson, 1998b: 338); i.e. they may be
conceptualised as ‘a thinking society in miniature’ (Jovchelovitch, 2001: 2).
Some critical reviews of the focus group as a research method, such as Agar
and MacDonald (1995), Hydén and Bülow (2003), Kitzinger (1994) and
Wilkinson (1998a, 1999), have pointed out that even though the interaction
between focus group participants is considered to be a hallmark of such research,
the interaction itself has seldom been evaluated, analysed or discussed in research
based on empirical material collected through focus groups. Hence, the partic-
ular strength of focus groups, i.e. the interaction between participants, has
rarely been explored in and of itself. To enable researchers to exploit focus
groups to their fullest potential, it is thus necessary to develop methodological
tools that enable researchers specifically to study ‘how accounts are articu-
lated, censured, opposed and changed through social interaction and how this
relates to peer communication and group norms’ (Kitzinger and Barbour,
1999: 5). We argue that this could in part be done by drawing on current
research into interaction in small groups from other research fields, one such
relevant field being interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial
groups.1 Our argument is that some group processes taking place in both focus
and tutorial groups share certain features, even though focus groups are not
learning groups per se. Hence, examining the focus group in light of research
concerning interaction in tutorial groups could facilitate the deliberate
exploitation of group processes when designing focus groups, staging data col-
lection and analysing and interpreting data.
This article draws on research into interaction in PBL tutorials, in analysing
how knowledge is elaborated and co-constructed in focus groups. In addition,
we discuss strategies for focus group design and for data collection and analy-
sis. We illustrate our arguments with examples drawn from recent and ongo-
ing research in the fields of environmental and communication studies.

Tutorial groups and focus groups – parallel features and

differences
In a recent review of what and how students learn in PBL, Hmelo-Silver (2004)
describes the approach as an instructional method in which students learn
through facilitated problem-solving, where the complex problems studied have
no ‘correct’ answers. Within the framework of the course curriculum, students

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 251

work in small groups where they collaboratively decide on what to learn. They
engage independently in the learning process and come together to reflect col-
lectively on what they have learned and on the strategies applied. The teacher
facilitates the learning rather than acting as a knowledge dispenser. Research
into PBL has predominantly focused on students’ knowledge, problem-solving
and self-directed learning skills, but less so on collaboration and motivation.
The major aim of tutorials in PBL groups is to enhance the participants’ learn-
ing; in contrast, the major aim of focus groups is to gather data to be used in
research. Still, even though the major aims of the two methods differ, the meth-
ods share several similar features: i.e. the group, the framing, the ‘problem’, the
tutor/moderator, the dialogue and the process of collective sense-making.
Both techniques are based on small groups that discuss a pre-defined subject
under professional supervision. In PBL, the discussion is framed by the course
curriculum, while in a focus group the discussion is framed by the aim of the
study, which, according to the ethical codex, should be presented to the par-
ticipants prior to the meeting. Both the PBL tutor and the focus group moder-
ator should preferably play detached roles, since the aim of PBL is to focus on
the students’ need to know (Clarke, 2002) and the aim of a focus group is to
explore what is central to the participants regarding a given issue (Morgan,
1998). In other words, tutorial groups and focus groups are both participant-
centred activities. Even though both the tutor and the moderator play
detached roles, they will intervene if the discussions diverge too far from the
stated aim: the PBL tutor usually uses the course curriculum to guide the dis-
cussion, while the researcher directing a focus group has generally prepared
an interview guide for the same purpose. Discussion in both types of groups is
generally initiated and stimulated using some sort of prepared material.
Discussion in a PBL group session is usually stimulated using a scenario,
vignette or the like, which may consist of, for example, images, brief texts, film
sequences and medical cases (Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001), while dis-
cussion in a focus group is sometimes, but not always, initiated using some
kind of stimulus material (e.g. newspaper articles, images, films, product pack-
ages and card games).
In PBL, identification of learning needs is a core issue: students use the
group to discuss and define problems,2 and through these discussions to iden-
tify both their learning needs and prior knowledge. Discussions in the group
are rooted in the course curriculum and are initiated using a vignette. Hence,
discussions are clearly framed, or in other words, ‘focused’. One of the major
strengths of PBL is that students become aware that framed, or focused, group
discussions both stimulate and force participants to verbalize both their learn-
ing needs and prior knowledge. The learning process is speeded up, as the stu-
dents use the identified learning needs to formulate questions, which in turn
are used in their self-directed studies (e.g. Clarke, 2002). The process by which
participants’ learning needs and prior knowledge are identified mirrors the
students’ conceptualization and understanding of the discussed issue.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

252 Qualitative Research 7(2)

Discussion in a focus group is also framed or focused (hence the name), and
participants in such groups also discuss and define problems. As in all focused
or framed discussions, the discussion in a focus group is coloured by a process
of collective sense-making that inevitably encompasses a tacit formulation of
the individual participants’ learning needs and prior knowledge. The interac-
tion between participants in a focused group discussion creates incentives for
initiating learning processes, since participants exchange experiences, ques-
tion each other, challenge each other to develop their arguments and some-
times even modify their opinions and arguments during the course of the
discussion (cf. Billig, 1996; Linell et al., 2001; Myers, 1998; Wibeck et al.,
2004; Wilkinson, 1998a). The participants are made aware of their mutual
interests or their need for further knowledge (Yoshihama, 2002).
There is a pertinent difference between focus groups and tutorial groups,
namely, time. Tutorial groups are supposed to meet repeatedly over several
weeks. Learning is regarded as a long-term process, where students use the
group to discuss and define the problem, identify learning needs on the basis of
prior knowledge and formulate questions. Thereafter, they conduct self-directed
studies, and subsequently discuss the learning topic in the tutorial group (e.g.
Clarke, 2002). The learning process is supported by continuous evaluation.
Thus, there is time for participants to get to know each other, interactively
elaborate on their knowledge and build mutual trust under the supervision of
a tutor. Focus groups, on the other hand, usually meet for between one and
two hours on a single occasion. Although the groups are sometimes drawn
from existing social networks, at times the group members are strangers to
each other. Still, communication and learning can doubtless also take place in
a group that meets only once. Our point is that the learning processes taking
place may be used as a point of departure, thus enabling the in-depth analysis
of the interactive processes in a focus group.
When analysing the empirical material derived from a focus group discus-
sion, the researcher generally categorizes the material, simply stated, in a
process by which the researcher asks ‘What are they talking about?’. Stevens
(1996) has suggested applying the following research questions to the data in
order to focus attention on interaction in the group:
How closely did the group adhere to the issues presented for discussion?
Why, how and when were related issues brought up?
What statements seemed to evoke conflict?
What were the contradictions in the discussion?
What common experiences were expressed?
Were alliances formed among group members?
Was a particular member or viewpoint silenced?
Was a particular view dominant?

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 253

How did the group resolve disagreements?

What topics produced consensus?
Whose interests were being represented in the group?
How were emotions handled? (Stevens, 1996: 172)

We argue that the formulation of learning needs, i.e. when questions begin
to emerge in the group, may be used as an analytical key to how the participants
are trying to understand and conceptualize the issue in question in the focus
group. The formulation of questions could be regarded as an elaboration of
prior knowledge in the group, which in itself constitutes a co-construction of
knowledge and/or an incentive for learning. The formulation of questions may
thus be looked out for by the facilitator as an important feature, one that stim-
ulates the participants to elaborate and clarify their viewpoints in the group. We
argue that focusing on question formulation, asking ‘What are they trying to
learn?’ rather than ‘What are they talking about?’, adds an important data
analysis dimension to the analytical questions proposed by Stevens (1996). In
the following section, we illustrate how the elaboration and co-construction of
knowledge in focus groups can be scrutinized, drawing on research into PBL.

Elaboration of knowledge
The specified subject of a focus group or a tutorial group leads to a problem-
solving process, which implies a systematic inquiry into the subject. In both
focus and tutorial groups, the activation of prior knowledge and the elaboration
of new knowledge are important parts of the interaction process. In PBL
research, it is argued that by elaborating on their knowledge in small-group dis-
cussions, i.e. considering a piece of knowledge in a broader context (Regehr and
Norman, 1996), students learn to construct rich cognitive models of the speci-
fied problem (De Grave et al., 2001; Dolmans et al., 2001; Schmidt, 1993;
Schmidt et al., 1989; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004). In addition, studies show
that students in tutorial groups experience cognitive conflict, which results in
the restructuring of their knowledge base or in conceptual change (Dolmans
et al., 2001). To elaborate new knowledge, group participants need to verbalize
the learning content in collaboration with other group members. The elabora-
tion is a result of interaction in small groups, but the cognitive process takes
place at the individual level, within the thinking of a single person (Visschers-
Pleijers et al., 2004). We argue that the elaboration of new knowledge through
group interaction also takes place in focus groups, as illustrated in the example
below (Example 1). The excerpt is taken from a focus group consisting of civil
servants employed by Swedish county boards. The specified issue was the imple-
mentation and assessment of national quality objectives for improving the envi-
ronment and achieving ecologically sustainable development in Sweden (for
details of the study, see Wibeck et al., 2006). In the excerpt, it is clear that one

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

254 Qualitative Research 7(2)

of the participants (Camilla) is articulating a deeper understanding of the

process by which various issues are prioritised in her county. In other words, the
quotation illustrates how group interaction helps Camilla to elaborate on her
knowledge about different approaches to achieving environmental objectives.

Example 13
1 Anne: Do you work with themes, annual themes or something like that?
2 Camilla: What’s that? … No not themes, not thematically but the entire
package.
3 Anne: Yeah, but annual themes. I thought that maybe you decide on a
water year or an (Camilla: Oh, no no) air year or something like
that. I mean there are so many measures that you need to take.
4 Camilla: Yes, yes, but in practice it’s like that but I mean (Anne: Yes) we
haven’t discussed it from the point of view that we would select
themes, but everyone, every department sits and (Anne: Mm) kind of
goes through it, because in some way it deals with the preconditions.
Do we have basic data for starting to protect these biotopes now, or is
that something we are still waiting for? Is there enough money to
make inventories or securements, or air measurements or whatever
(Ben: Um), so that’s mainly what it’s about.
[13 turns omitted]
5 Anne: Um, because you should do so much and it feels completely out of
reach. You are incapable of managing all that (Camilla: Um), but if
you have this much [i.e. fewer themes], well then it feels feasible to
work with them …
6 Camilla: But in practice that is … it becomes some sort of annual theme.
But we maybe, you have thought about it in those terms, and the
rest of us … (inaudible) it’s a bottom-up approach in which you
kind of analyse what we can work with (Ben: Um) and where the
potential resources and preconditions for the work are (Ben: Yes).

In the above example, the issue of annual themes was brought up to illustrate
the need to make priorities. In turn 1, Anne introduces the notion of annual
themes, which appears to be unknown to Camilla (turn 2), who consequently
denies that the group she works in employs the model. At this stage, there
appears to be disagreement between the group members. Camilla gives a tenta-
tive justification, claiming that rather than using a thematic approach, her
group works in an overarching manner, handling environmental objectives in
their entirety (‘the entire package’). Anne persists in proposing that an appro-
priate way to handle the multitude of urgent actions needed is to select annual
themes, by focusing, for example, on water issues one year and on air pollution
the next (turn 3). In turn 4, Camilla starts to shift towards conceding that in
practice part of her group’s work is indeed conducted thematically, although
not explicitly so. Rather, pragmatic considerations, such as data availability and

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 255

economic constraints, have prompted the use of thematic approaches. The

argument that using an annual theme is a useful strategy for prioritising urgent
needs is repeated by Anne in turn 5. This brings about a conceptual change on
the part of Camilla, who in turn 6 admits that in her previous work annual
themes have in practice been applied. She elaborates how the necessity of
employing a bottom-up approach, identifying what should be prioritized since
time and economic resources are insufficient to handle all the environmental
objectives simultaneously (cf. turn 2), essentially leads to what is effectively a
thematic approach. Even though she still positions herself as member of a
working group that employs strategies different from those of the other focus
group participants, she starts to form an alliance with Anne and the others,
based on the common experience of prioritizing multitudes of potential actions.
In sum, Anne’s initial question (turn 1) prompts Camilla to learn more about
the notion of annual themes. Anne takes on a moderating role, posing ques-
tions to keep the discussion going and to learn about the experience of other
group participants. The result is that Camilla elaborates her pre-existing knowl-
edge, as she sets her experience against the other participants’ statements.
The example illustrates how one participant (Anne) helps the moderator stim-
ulate discussion in which another participant (Camilla) reflects on her routine
practice, reformulates it and sees it from a new perspective. The accounts of the
participants’ routines and conceptions of appropriate strategies for attaining
environmental objectives are deepened as the participants elaborate on their
prior knowledge, and expand on and clarify their viewpoints. In this particular
example, one participant initiated the discussion, while at other times the focus
group moderator needed to pose relevant questions to help the participants elab-
orate on their points. We argue that a central quality focus group moderators
need is sensitivity, so they can discern when participants are formulating learn-
ing needs and encourage them to elaborate on their knowledge. In our opinion,
in an atmosphere that encourages participants to elaborate on their knowledge,
a group will generate rich data in which the participants explore the chosen issue
in depth. By posing the analytical question ‘What are they trying to learn?’, the
researcher can scrutinize how the participants are developing certain themes in
the discussion and how they are reflecting on and developing their under-
standing and anchoring of individual experience against the sum total of the
other participants’ arguments, experience and knowledge. In the analysis, the
researcher may explore how the elaboration of individual accounts helps in
forming a web of socially shared knowledge emerging through group discussion.

Co-construction of knowledge
In our analysis of Example 1, we considered the cognitive process of elabora-
tion as comprising an incentive for learning plus an elaboration process taking
place in the mind of the individual group participant, although the entire
process is triggered and facilitated by other group members. Understanding

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

256 Qualitative Research 7(2)

the interactive processes occurring in the group is further enhanced by focusing

on the co-construction of knowledge (Leseman et al., 2000; Van Boxtel, 2000;
Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004), i.e. the attainment of shared understanding by
means of shared thinking processes in which two or more group members
interact (Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004; cf. Linell et al., 2001). In the case of
focus groups, Linell et al. state the following:
The group is a think-group, in which cognition is going on in the minds of
members, but this happens largely in and through the interaction. Individuals with
some kind of common background stimulate each other to develop thoughts and
arguments. In this process, ideas interpenetrate and often contradict each other. A
stance or viewpoint often contains the seed of a counterpoint; the proposal of an anal-
ogy leads to its partial denial (ranging from ‘yes but …’ to ‘no, not at all, instead …’
replies), followed perhaps by a distinction. (Linell et al., 2001: 253)

In other words, expressing disagreement may also be part of the learning

process, as participants challenge each other, defend their arguments and at
times modify their viewpoints (Myers, 1998). The following example is taken
from a focus group study of the public understanding of genetically modified
food (Wibeck, 2002), and illustrates how participants co-construct knowledge
regarding the specified issue through joint elaboration. The group consists of
three participants belonging to the management team of a large Swedish food
production company. In the extract, they discuss whether or not gene technol-
ogy should be considered as analogous to traditional plant breeding.

Example 2
1 Nina: Do we have the right to do this [i.e. biotechnological intervention]
to nature? (Olivia: Um) Is it God the Father who should help
instead, or could conventional plant breeding produce the same
results, only take more time?
2 Lars: But it is very close. Is the difference so big between plant breeding
and genetic modification?
3 Nina: No it isn’t really. And as regards gene technology, in a fast process
you know what results you’re going to get (Lars: Yeah) but you are
into something that is also holy to touch upon.
4 Lars: But plant breeding is uncertain too, isn’t it?
[5 turns omitted]
5 Nina: We can achieve the same things but it takes more time to do it
with conventional plant breeding … to select those crops (Olivia:
Um) but … they have worked with this plant breeding technology
… for an incredibly long time. And then it has sort of become a
natural part of what we already have, of how we behave as
modern people or in other countries as well. But this is something
that … if you could imagine …
6 Lars: Well it interferes with the innermost building block [of life], isn’t
that the boundary?

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 257

Example 2 (continued)
7 Nina: Yes, yes, you are getting into something too holy.
8 Lars: And that is not done in the same way in plant breeding.
9 Nina: No, it isn’t.
10 Olivia: No, since the technology has become so refined (Lars: Um) it
provides greater opportunities.

In the quotation, the ‘problem’ discussed by the focus group participants is

whether gene technology should be conceived of as an extension of traditional
plant breeding or as something qualitatively ‘new’. The process of elaborating
and co-constructing knowledge concerning how to understand and form one’s
opinion about, for example, genetically modified food is visible in how potential
analogies and distinctions are constructed. Analogies and distinctions are pow-
erful tools for anchoring new knowledge, in which the new phenomenon is
placed in, or distinguished from, a familiar category (Moscovici, 1984).
In turn 1, Nina begins the sequence by asking whether humans have a right
to ‘do this [biotechnological intervention] to nature’. Her question functions to
trigger group discussion of the ethical aspects of biotechnology, to learn more
about arguments either for considering gene technology as an extension of tra-
ditional breeding, or as something qualitatively ‘new’. Nina distinguishes
between gene technology, on the one hand, and God’s work and traditional plant
breeding on the other. By the end of the turn, however, she poses another ques-
tion, opening up the possibility of making either an analogy or a distinction
between gene technology and traditional breeding, as she hints that there is an
analogy as regards results, but a distinction with respect to the time needed for
the two processes. As he overlaps with Nina in turn 2, Lars tries to propose an
analogy: by posing a rhetorical question, he argues that there are no significant
differences between traditional plant breeding and gene technology. In turn 3,
Nina at first agrees with Lars and elaborates the analogy. She states that there is
actually no big difference between traditional plant breeding and genetic modifi-
cation, but thereafter develops a line of reasoning characterized by two distinc-
tions pointing in different directions: gene technology enables the scientist to
foresee the results, but it is also an area that may be conceived of as taboo for
human beings (‘you are into something that is also holy to touch upon’) (turn 3).
Lars then continues his attempt to establish an analogy, by pointing out that tra-
ditional plant breeding is also an uncertain activity. This may be intended as a
counter argument (beginning in ‘but…’) to what Nina just said, since her argu-
ment for a distinction was exactly that traditional breeding is more uncertain
than gene technology is, the results of which can be more exactly anticipated.
Lars then proposes an analogy rather than a distinction in this respect. However,
Lars’ turn (4) may also be interpreted in relation to what was discussed in the
sequence preceding the example, i.e. that gene technology may have unforeseen

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

258 Qualitative Research 7(2)

consequences, and is thus also uncertain. He seeks confirmation of his viewpoint

by ending his turn with ‘isn’t it?’. Nina, however, persists in saying that a dis-
tinction is more proper than an analogy, since the timelines of conventional
breeding and gene technology are different. Furthermore, traditional plant
breeding has been culturally incorporated in people’s mindsets, which is not the
case with gene technology. At this point in the sequence (turn 6), Lars’ argu-
mentation starts shifting towards making a distinction, implying that gene tech-
nology compared to traditional breeding more actively alters the fundamental
conditions of life. This argument is supported by Nina (turn 7), who once again
claims that gene technology implies human interference in something that is far
too holy to legitimately meddle with. In turn 8, Lars explicitly acknowledges that
such interference constitutes a difference between traditional breeding and gene
technology. His interpretation is supported by Nina and Olivia in turns 9–10,
with the result that the distinction between the two techniques becomes more
prominent in the discussion than the analogy does.
In the process of trying out different analogies and distinctions, the partici-
pants jointly construct knowledge regarding how to conceptualize gene technol-
ogy in general. In discussing whether an analogy or a distinction should be
established, the participants are also implicitly discussing how to position them-
selves regarding the issue of genetically modified food. In expressing different
opinions, modifying their viewpoints and agreeing on certain issues, the partici-
pants are jointly exploring different aspects and perspectives regarding the spec-
ified issue. The answer to the question ‘What are the participants trying to
learn?’, could be that they are exploring different ethical justifications for or
against the use of gene technology. They are also trying out arguments for and
against the view that gene technology is ethically equivalent to traditional breed-
ing. In addition, the participants are trying to learn how to position themselves
as company representatives regarding issues related to genetically modified food.
In analysing sequences such as Example 2, the analyst can address how dif-
ferent perspectives interact and how certain perspectives gradually become
dominant in the discussion, while other perspectives withdraw into the back-
ground. Thus, rather than simply coding the sequence according to what the
participants are talking about, the analyst is also able to scrutinize how they
are talking, and how their viewpoints are maintained, reinforced, modified or
rejected in the interaction between the participants. We argue that the impact
of the interaction needs to be taken into account in analysing focus group
data, in order to increase the ability of researchers to reflect on their findings.

Strategies for analysing and supporting elaboration and

co-construction of knowledge in focus groups
ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATA
One criticism of focus group research is that methods for capturing interaction
in the analysis are lacking (Agar and MacDonald, 1995; Hydén and Bülow,

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 259

2003; Kitzinger, 1994; Wilkinson, 1998a). Despite the fact that ‘the hallmark
of focus groups is the explicit use of group interaction …’ (Morgan, 1988: 12, ital-
ics in original), the exploitation of this interaction phenomenon during analy-
sis is often limited to the immediate context of the particular focus group
session. More often than not, reports based on focus group studies present quo-
tations from one individual at a time, giving the impression that individual
viewpoints can be isolated from the context in which they were expressed, i.e.
the interaction between the group participants.
Over the past few years, however, several papers have called for the considera-
tion of interactive factors when analysing focus group discussions. For example,
some scholars have called for the analysis of ‘sensitive moments’ in the interac-
tion between participants (Kitzinger and Farquhar, 1999), or for the use of con-
versation analysis to explore how participants interact, linguistically, at the
micro level (e.g. Collins and Marková, 2004; Myers and Macnaghten, 1999).
To explore how participants elaborate and co-construct knowledge regarding
a certain topic, combining different types of analyses may be fruitful. Such analy-
ses could include ‘dialogical discourse analysis’ (Marková et al., 2006; Wibeck,
2004), which aims to investigate under which contextual conditions, and with
what rhetorical force and dialogical consequences, ideas and thoughts are con-
structed and used (Marková et al., 2006). Dialogical discourse analysis focuses
on the interaction between different thoughts, ideas and arguments in the dis-
cursive web. For example, the interplay between analogies and distinctions (see
Example 2), or the use of prototypical examples or metaphors may be analysed.
The interaction of different voices/perspectives in a discussion is another poten-
tial analytical focus. At the content level, recurrent themes and clusters of
themes can be analysed, as well as how the themes are interrelated.

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
To encourage the elaboration and co-construction of knowledge among focus
group participants, we argue that a researcher may employ certain strategies.
In preparing for the study, special attention should be paid to the selection of
participants. Homogeneous focus groups are often recommended (e.g. Jarrett,
1993), since participants who share certain experiences and opinions are
probably more willing to exchange ideas and thoughts in a focus group.
However, heterogeneity among participants can also be illuminating
(Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999). Drawing from the experiences from PBL, it is
important not to strive for consensus and shared group norms when selecting
focus group participants. Kitzinger (1994: 113) argues that ‘[t]he difference
between participants … allows one to observe not only how people theorize
their own point of view but how they do so in relation to other perspectives
and how they put their own ideas “to work”’. Our conclusion is that even if a
focus group is homogeneous in many respects, in planning the study attention
should be directed to strategies for encouraging a ‘spirit of contradiction’
(Billig, 1996), so that arguments and counter-arguments will be elaborated on

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

260 Qualitative Research 7(2)

and co-constructed by the participants (for examples of such strategies, see the
following sections).
In addition, group size may be crucial for the outcome of the discussion.
Since the intention of the focus group method is similar to that of tutorial
groups, i.e. to maximize interaction between participants, roughly the same
reasoning regarding group size determination may be employed in both cases.
In discussing group size in PBL, Wilkerson (1996) refers to a study by Hare
(1962) that proposes five as the optimal number of participants to promote
small group discussion. Smaller groups imply that each participant needs to
play a prominent role, while in larger groups the opportunities to speak are
more limited. Wilkerson (1996) holds that in most PBL programmes, the pre-
ferred maximum number of participants is eight, but that groups may well be
smaller. Empirical studies have demonstrated that students participating in
smaller groups report having more opportunities for participation and that the
discussions are more focused than in larger groups. In addition, in larger
groups one or two students may take over the tutor/moderator role at the
expense of interaction between participants (Wilkerson, 1996).
In sum, to encourage the elaboration and co-construction of knowledge in
focus groups, a certain amount of homogeneity among group members is
desirable, while for the sake of active discussion, some heterogeneity should
also be sought. An atmosphere that supports a range of perspectives is desir-
able, and such an atmosphere presupposes a relatively small group.

INTERVIEW GUIDE AND STIMULUS MATERIAL

One important part of preparing for a focus group study is to compose an inter-
view guide. Depending on the level of structure of the focus group, the inter-
view guide will assume different forms (see, for example, Krueger, 1998). At
times, there is also a need for stimulus material, which may consist of, for
example, an image, text or product introducing the specified issue to the par-
ticipants (Kitzinger, 1994). Participant elaboration and co-construction of
knowledge are encouraged by well-designed interview guides and stimulus
material. In composing the group questions and possibly in compiling the stim-
ulus material, it is important to bear in mind that this material should encour-
age participants to explore a range of perspectives. To support the elaboration
and co-construction of knowledge in PBL, Dolmans et al. (2001: 886) empha-
size the importance of ‘develop[ing] problems to be discussed in the group which
link up well with students’ prior knowledge and contain sufficient cues to stim-
ulate the discussion’. In focus group research, Krueger (1998) advises that the
interview guide should contain open-ended questions, i.e. questions that stim-
ulate discussion without directing it too much. Probing questions may be
included in the interview guide, to make participants reflect on links to their
own prior knowledge and to other participants’ contributions. Probes may also
be used to help the participants challenge each other and elaborate their
accounts – in other words, to promote a ‘spirit of contradiction’ (Billig, 1996).

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 261

In PBL, student discussions take as their points of departure real-life scenar-

ios from which the students generate questions to be explored. Such scenarios
are analogous to the stimulus material or opening questions used by the focus
group moderator to stimulate discussion. In the literature regarding effective
scenario design it is noted that ‘complexity is an important feature of scenarios’
(Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001: 278). The scenarios should not be too
‘directing’, but contain enough clues to prompt the students to elaborate their
discussions (Dolmans et al., 2001). It has been noted that ‘more ill-structured,
complex tasks provoked extended elaboration among group members and were
associated with conceptual learning’ (Wilkerson, 1996: 26). However, as
Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg (2001) point out, complexity is not the only fea-
ture that explains the effectiveness of scenarios. They found that ‘scenarios that
were provocative or evoked emotional involvement, for instance, by containing a
certain opinion or some kind of contrast or tension, were powerful triggers’
(Abrandt Dahlgren and Öberg, 2001: 278, italics in original).
We conclude that to encourage interaction and provide incentives for col-
laborative learning among focus group participants, interview questions and
stimulus material should be complex and open-ended, while incorporating ele-
ments that are provocative or cause emotional responses.

MODERATING THE GROUP

Focus group researchers tend to assume that focus group participants instinc-
tively constitute themselves and act as members of a small group. However, as
Hydén and Bülow (2003) point out, there are at least three different perspec-
tives according to which a group may be understood: 1) as an aggregation of
individuals sharing some common experiences or social features, 2) as a small
group in which the members share values, norms, roles and goals, or 3) as a
focused gathering (Goffman, 1961) in which participants share a temporary
situation with a common focus. Hydén and Bülow (2003) argue that focus
group participants face two particular problems in interacting as members of
a group, rather than as individuals, namely, how to establish a common com-
municative ground, and how to add their contributions to and expand that
common ground. In other words, to provide good incentives for interaction,
focus group participants need to form a small group, with a common ground,
in which knowledge can be elaborated and co-constructed. We argue that the
role of the moderator is crucial in this process. The same is the case in prob-
lem-based learning, in which students use the tutorial group as a small group
in which collaborative learning is undertaken.
A review of studies of the role of the facilitator in problem-based learning has
demonstrated that many facilitators walk a tightrope between being ‘directive’
(i.e. leading the students towards discussing issues that the facilitator conceives
of as central) and being a ‘voiceless participant’ (i.e. not engaging in the dis-
cussion at all, but being verbally silent and displaying a lack of involvement
through non-verbal signals) (Savin-Baden, 2003). When the facilitator

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

262 Qualitative Research 7(2)

assumes a ‘directive’ role, students can become dependent on him or her, while
a ‘voiceless’ facilitator risks ending up facilitating a group of students who –
particularly if they are new to PBL – find that ‘the lack of direction is duplici-
tous because they feel it is the facilitator’s way of avoiding a declaration of their
own agenda and concerns’ (Savin-Baden, 2003: 50). Likewise, focus group
moderators face the challenge of striking a balance between guiding the group
and not imposing a pre-determined agenda on the discussion. On the one hand,
a strictly structured focus group may result in the researcher’s agenda being
reproduced by the focus group participants, while issues that could have been
more central to the participants themselves risk being overlooked. If, on the
other hand, the moderator provides insufficient information regarding the
framing of the focus group session (i.e. how the discussion should be conducted
and what the aim of the study is), participants tend to be uncertain as to what
is expected of them. They may thus put most of their effort into trying to deter-
mine what kinds of contributions they are supposed to make, rather than actu-
ally elaborating on and co-constructing knowledge.
In the focus groups we have conducted and supervised, the moderator has
generally assumed a detached position vis-a-vis the group. We have noticed that,
depending on how the focus group activities were introduced to the participants
and on how they interpreted the introduction, the discussions took different
forms. The elaboration and co-construction of knowledge were supported by a
clear introduction, and the participants demonstrated understanding and accep-
tance of the framing of the focus group session. At times, however, even though
roughly the same type of introduction was given by the moderator, participants
displayed uncertainty regarding the practical aspects of the methodology as well
as whether the research team would really benefit from their contributions. In
such situations participants devoted considerable time to determining what to
discuss; they sometimes turned to the moderator for support, either explicitly
asking for questions to be posed or implicitly through non-verbal signals such as
turning to and looking at the moderator. Our conclusion is that since the inter-
pretative frames and the previous experience of the participants may differ, it is
crucial to ensure that the preconditions for focus group participation are clear to
all participants before the discussion starts. However, once this common ground
is established, little moderator intervention may be needed.
In problem-based learning, the tutor is described as ‘a guide, a facilitator, a
monitor and a catalyst … [who] … allows students to focus and direct discus-
sion while listening carefully to determine when intervention … is needed to
refocus the discussion, challenge thinking, or subtly raise additional points to
be considered’ (Wilkinson, 1998a: 304). Intuition is central to successful facil-
itation of both tutorial (Savin-Baden, 2003) and focus groups. Rather than
being a traditional interviewer, the focus group moderator, like the PBL tutor,
should guide and facilitate the discussion. To stimulate discussion, the moder-
ator should pay attention to the ‘dominant voices’ in the group (Smithson,
2000). At times one or several participants may dominate the discussion,

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 263

silencing other voices. This may partly be dealt with by making a group homo-
geneous with respect to age, education, sex, etc.; however, dominant voices
may still monopolize the discussion, even in homogeneous groups. Smithson
(2000) suggests that the moderator in such instances should turn directly to
the silenced participants to encourage them to speak. An alternative approach
may be to use non-verbal signals, such as glances and bodily postures, to nom-
inate a silent participant as a potential speaker. In addition, it is crucial to be
aware of ‘normative discourses’, i.e. ‘“normal” or “standard” views, which are
not necessarily explicitly stated in the group, but are assumed by the partici-
pants to be held by the other group members’ (Smithson, 2000: 112). We
argue that it is important that the moderator, even at the beginning of the ses-
sion, help create an atmosphere of trust, in which participants believe that
their contributions are important, and that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’
to be assessed by the researchers.

Conclusions
Citing examples transcribed from focus group discussions, we have discussed
how knowledge is elaborated and co-constructed in focus groups. We argue
that when the analytical focus shifts from mere content analysis to an analysis
of what focus group participants are trying to learn, it is possible to explore not
only what the participants are talking about, but also how they are trying to
understand and conceptualize the issue in question. Thus, researchers may
capture and take advantage of the interaction itself in the focus group when
analysing the data, rather than treating interaction as merely a tool for effi-
cient data collection. To support the interactive elaboration and co-construc-
tion of knowledge, we argue that focus group researchers may benefit from
studies of how small groups are used as arenas for sense-making and learning
in PBL. Strategies for selecting group participants, formulating interview
guides and stimulus material and moderating the groups may be informed by
strategies used to support student learning in tutorial groups. Our intention
has been to start bringing together the research traditions of PBL and focus
groups. It is our conviction that the more the researchers from the two fields
learn from each other, the more synergies – but also differences – will be found.
Such discussion will add to the reflexivity of focus group research as well as
research in PBL.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

This article was made possible by a grant from the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency for the research programme ‘Assessment of environmental
goal achievement under uncertainty’ (no. I-37–03). The authors wish to
thank Madelaine Johansson for productive discussion and assistance in data
collection.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

264 Qualitative Research 7(2)

NOTES

1. For an introduction to PBL, see e.g. Margetson (1993), Barrows (1988) and Savin-
Baden (2000).
2. In PBL, ‘problem’ is used in the positive sense of a challenge, issue, etc. (see, for
example, Russell, 1999).
3. The focus groups were conducted in Swedish, but for the purposes of this article the
quotations have been translated into English.

REFERENCES

Abrandt Dahlgren, M. and Öberg, G. (2001) ‘Questioning to Learn and Learning to

Question: Structure and Function of Problem-Based Learning Scenarios in Environ-
mental Science Education’, Higher Education 41(3): 263–82.
Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995) ‘Focus Groups and Ethnography’, Human
Organization 54(1): 78–86.
Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,
Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Barrows, H. (1988) The Tutorial Process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine.
Billig, M. (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2nd
Edition). London: Sage.
Clarke, S. (2002) ‘Developing Quality Participation in Tutorial’, in A. Goody, J. Herrington
and M. Northcote (eds) Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth,
Australia. URL (consulted 21 February 2006): http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications
Collins, S. and Marková, I. (2004) ‘Les énoncés collaboratifs: nouvelle méthode dans
l’étude des données issues des “focus groups”’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 291–98.
De Grave, W., Dolmans, D. and Van der Vleuten, C. (2001) ‘Student Perceptions About
the Occurrence of Critical Incidents in Tutorial Groups’, Medical Teacher 23(1): 49–54.
Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C. and Wijnen, W. (2001) ‘Solving
Problems with Group Work in Problem-Based Learning: Hold On to the Philosophy’,
Medical Education 35: 884–9.
Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis,
IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Hare, P. (1962) Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004) ‘Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?’,
Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 235–66.
Hydén, L. and Bülow, P. (2003) ‘Who’s Talking: Drawing Conclusions From Focus
Groups. Some Methodological Considerations’, International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 6(4): 305–21.
Jarrett, R. (1993) ‘Focus Group Interviewing with Low-Income Minority Populations:
A Research Experience’, in D. Morgan (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the
State of the Art, pp. 184 –201. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2001) ‘Contextualising Focus Groups: Understanding Groups and
Cultures’, Paper prepared for the fifth meeting of the group ‘Conversation et lan-
gage’, Laboratoire Européen de Psychologie Sociale, Paris.
Kitzinger, J. (1994) ‘The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction
Between Research Participants’, Sociology of Health and Illness 16(1): 103–21.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 265

Kitzinger, J. and Barbour, R. (1999) ‘Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus
Groups’, in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,
Theory and Practice, pp. 1 –20. London: Sage.
Kitzinger, J. and Farquhar, C. (1999) ‘The Analytical Potential of “Sensitive Moments”
in Focus Group Discussions’, in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus
Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, pp. 156 –72. London: Sage.
Krueger, R. (1998) Developing Questions for Focus Groups. Focus group kit, no. 3.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leseman, P., Rollenberg, L. and Gebhart, E. (2000) ‘Co-construction in Kindergartners’
Free Play: Effects on Social, Individual and Didactic Factors’, in H. Cowie and G. Van
der Aalsvoort (eds) Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of
Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Linell, P., Wibeck, V., Adelswärd, V. and Bakshi, A. (2001) ‘Arguing in Conversation
as a Case of Distributed Cognition: Discussing Biotechnology in Focus Groups’, in
E. Németh (ed.) Cognition in Language Use: Selected Papers from the 7th International
Pragmatics Conference, Vol. I, pp. 243–55. Amsterdam: International Pragmatics
Association.
Margetson, D. (1993) ‘Understanding Problem-Based Learning’, Educational Philosophy
and Theory 25(1): 40–57.
Marková, I. (2004) ‘Langage et communication en psychologie sociale: dialoguer dans
les “focus groups”’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 231–36.
Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2006) Dialogue in Focus
Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox.
Morgan, D. (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. (1996) ‘Focus Groups’, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129–52.
Morgan, D. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook (Focus Group Kit, no. 1). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moscovici, S. (1984) ‘The Phenomenon of Social Representations’, in R. Farr and
S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3 –69. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Myers, G. (1998) ‘Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups’,
Language in Society 27(1): 85–111.
Myers, G. and Macnaghten, P. (1999) ‘Can Focus Groups be Analysed as Talk?’, in
R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and
Practice, pp. 173 –85. London: Sage.
Regehr, G. and Norman, G. (1996) ‘Issues in Cognitive Psychology: Implications for
Professional Education’, Academic Medicine 71(9): 988–1001.
Russell, K. (1999) ‘The Problem of the Problem and Perplexity’, in proceedings of PBL:
A Way Forward. The 1999 PBL conference, University of Quebec, 7–10 July,
Montreal, Canada.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories.
Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M. (2003) Facilitating Problem-Based Learning: Illuminating Perspectives.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Schmidt, H. (1993) ‘Foundations of Problem-Based Learning: Some Exploratory
Notes’, Medical Education 27: 422–32.
Schmidt, H., De Volder, M., De Grave, W., Moust, J. and Patel, V. (1989) ‘Exploratory
Models in the Processing of Science Texts: The Role of Prior Knowledge Activation
Through Small-Group Discussion’, Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 610–19.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

266 Qualitative Research 7(2)

Smithson, J. (2000) ‘Using and Analysing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities’,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2): 103–19.
Stevens, P.E. (1996) ‘Focus Groups: Collecting Aggregate-Level Data to Understand
Community Health Phenomena’, Public Health Nursing 13(3): 170–6.
van Boxtel, C. (2000) Collaborative Concept Learning: Collaborative Learning Tasks, Student
Interaction, and the Learning of Physics Concepts. Enschede, Netherlands: PrintPartners
Ipskamp.
Visschers-Pleijers, A., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I. and Van Der Vleuten, C. (2004)
‘Exploration of a Method to Analyze Group Interactions in Problem-based Learning’,
Medical Teacher 26(5): 471–8.
Wibeck, V. (2002) ’Genmat i focus. Analyser av fokusgruppssamtal om genförändrade
livsmedel’ [‘Genetically modified food in focus: analyses of focus group discussions’],
PhD dissertation, Linköping University (Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, 260).
Linköping, Sweden: The Tema Institute.
Wibeck, V. (2004) ‘Exploring Focus Groups: Analysing Focus Group Data About
Genetically Modified Food’, in K. Aijmer (ed.) Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding
and Misunderstanding in Dialogue. Selected Papers from the 8th IADA Conference,
Göteborg 2001, pp. 287 –98. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Wibeck, V., Adelswärd, V. and Linell, P. (2004) ‘Comprendre la complexité: Les focus
groups comme espace de pensée et d’argumentation sur les aliments génétiquement
modifiés’, Bulletin de Psychologie 57: 253–61.
Wibeck, V., Johansson, M., Larsson, A. and Öberg, G. (2006) ‘“Communicative Aspects
of Environmental Management by Objectives”: Examples from the Swedish Context’,
Environmental Management 37: 461–469.
Wilkerson, L. (1996) ‘Tutors and Small Groups in Problem-Based Learning: Lessons
from the Literature’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 68: 23–32.
Wilkinson, S. (1998a) ‘Focus Group Methodology: A Review’, International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 1(3): 181–203.
Wilkinson, S. (1998b) ‘Focus Groups in Health Research: Exploring the Meanings of
Health and Illness’, Journal of Health Psychology 3(3): 329–48.
Wilkinson, S. (1999) ‘Focus Groups: A Feminist Method’, Psychology of Women
Quarterly 23(2): 221–44.
Yoshihama, M. (2002) ‘Breaking the Web of Abuse and Silence: Voices of Battered
Women in Japan’, Social Work 47(4): 389–400.

V I C T O R I A W I B E C K is an assistant professor in Environmental Science, with a PhD

in Communication Science (Linköping University, Sweden). She is currently involved in
research projects on communicative barriers in environmental management and on
public perceptions of genetically modified food. One of her major research interests is
the development of focus group methodology.
Address: Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Water and
Environmental Studies, Linköping University, SE-601 74 Norrköping, Sweden. [email:
vicwi@tema.liu.se]

M A D E L E I N E A B R A N D T D A H L G R E N is Professor of Education at Linköping

University, Sweden. Her field of research is Higher Education. Her publications include
a variety of books and articles, particularly on student-centred educational design,
problem-based learning in different academic contexts, cross-cultural learning in a
web-based environment. A recent research focus is students’ transition from higher
education to working life.

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

 Wibeck et al.: Learning in focus groups 267

Address: Department of Behavioural Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83

Linköping, Sweden. [email: madab@ibv.liu.se]

G U N I L L A Ö B E R G is Professor and Director of the Institute for Resources, Environment

and Sustainability (IRES) at University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada and was pre-
viously Director of the Centre for Climate, Science and Policy Research at LiU, Sweden.
Öberg has chaired and participated in a number of interdisciplinary educational, devel-
opmental and research projects which, among other things, have involved the use of
problem-based learning (PBL) and focus group interviews.
Address: Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, The University of
British Columbia, Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory, 429–2202 Main Mall,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 124. [email: goberg@ires.ubc.ca]

Downloaded from qrj.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014