M E T H O D O L O G I C A L I S S UE S I N N U R S I N G R E S E A R C H

Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group

Amanda J. Kenny PhD RNM
Senior Lecturer, Department of Nursing, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

Accepted for publication 5 July 2004

Correspondence: K E N N Y A . J . ( 2 0 0 5 ) Journal of Advanced Nursing 49(4), 414–422

Amanda Kenny, Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group
Department of Nursing, Aim. This paper reports a study that explored whether active engagement and
La Trobe University,
group interaction could be captured in an online environment.
PO Box 199,
Background. Focus groups have become a common means of capitalizing on group
Bendigo,
3550 Victoria, interaction to collect rich responses to questions posed. Whilst their use is well
Australia. established in the repertoire of qualitative researchers, with changing technology
E-mail: a.kenny@latrobe.edu.au there is the opportunity to use a computer program that facilitates online engage-
ment and interaction to bring together a group of people to explore issues, attitudes
and perceptions.
Method. Using a qualitative descriptive method and purposive sampling, 38 Aus-
tralian Enrolled Nurses participated in an online focus group. WebCT
, a program
that facilitates online engagement and interaction, was used to enable participants to
interact from any computer, from any location, at any time.
Findings. The experience of conducting an online focus group was a positive one.
Advantages such as cost savings and convenience for both researcher and partici-
pants were identified. This study demonstrated that participants could be actively
engaged over a 2-month period and that group interaction could be achieved to
collect richly detailed research data.
Conclusion. Whilst online focus groups may not be suitable in every situation,
the potential exists to capitalize on technology to bring together a group of
people separated by distance in an online environment that encourages interactive
discussion.

Keywords: focus groups, online research, nursing, rural

there is the need to consider whether boundaries can be

Introduction
There is a wealth of qualitative studies in the nursing
literature reporting the use of focus groups. Traditionally,
researchers using them bring together a group of people and
capitalize on group interaction, aiming to capture richly
detailed responses to questions posed. Technological
advancement, however, is bringing with it new opportunities.
Using computer technology, the potential for research is
exciting. The concept of bringing together a group of
individuals, separated by distance, to participate in a
stimulating, dynamic, interactive ‘online’ discussion exists.
Whilst there is little doubt that technology will not replace
traditional research data collection, for nurse researchers
pushed, and whether technology can be used to redefine the
way in which knowledge is gained.
This paper reports some of the findings of a study in which
38 Australian Enrolled Nurses participated in an online focus
group. This part of the study explored whether active
engagement and group interaction could be captured in an
online environment.
Background
Focus groups are a well-established means of collecting
research data (Krueger 1994, Sim 1998, Twinn 1998,
Robinson 1999, Lane et al. 2001). Whilst the origins of

414
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


Methodological issues in nursing research
focus group interviews have been located with social scien-
tists of the 1930s (Nyamathi & Shuler 1990, Reed & Roskell
Payton 1997), the surge in use of interactive group interviews
has been attributed to Merton et al. (1956), who used focused
interviews in the 1940s to analyse the impact of patriotic
texts on the purchase of war bonds.
During the 1960s, focus groups were commonly used in
business as a market research tool (Goldman 1962). Krueger
(1995) claimed that during the 1980s they were predomin-
antly used by market researchers to explore consumer
behaviour in the American marketplace. Towards the end
of the 1980s, Morgan (1988) highlighted their use in
qualitative research, and Krueger (1995, p. 524) has stated
that since that time the use of focus groups in social science
research has ‘increased exponentially’.
Literature review
A search of any health-related database yields hundreds of
studies that claim to use focus groups to collect research data.
There has been some consideration of whether these claims
are justified and whether there has been a misuse of focus
groups; however, this has been considered elsewhere (Krueger
1995, Webb & Kevern 2001).
The diversity of current research in nursing that cites focus
groups as a means of collecting data includes the experiences
of caregivers of older people (Lane et al. 2001), exploration
of mental health issues (Moyle et al. 2002, Russell & Potter
2002), terminal care (Hanson et al. 2002), women’s health
(Anderson et al. 2001), HIV (Tross 2001), intensive care
(McCormick & Blackwood 2001), acute medical care
(Mukherjee et al. 2002), health care management (Gibson
& Bamford 2001, Globerman & Bogo 2002), ethical issues
(Rennie & Crosby 2002) and nurse education (Kevern &
Webb 2004).
Defining focus groups
During the last two decades various definitions of focus
groups have been proposed. Merton (1987, p. 565) defined
them as ‘a set of procedures for the collection and analysis
of qualitative data that may help us gain an enlarged
sociological and psychological understanding in whatsoever
sphere of human experience’. Descriptions by Basche
(1987) and Howard et al. (1989) focused on the notion
of small groups discussing topics selected for investigation.
Early literature supporting the use of focus groups high-
lighted the spontaneity and candour that arises from group
dynamics (Goldman 1962, Hansler & Cooper 1986), and
this interaction has become the hallmark of contemporary

2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interaction in cyberspace
focus groups in qualitative inquiry (Nyamathi & Shuler
1990).
Focus groups have been consistently discussed as a means
of capitalizing on group interaction to explore attitudes and
perceptions about concepts, products, services or pro-
grammes (Nyamathi & Shuler 1990, Krueger 1994, Asbury
1995). Kitzinger (1994, p. 103) claims that it is the ‘explicit
use of the group interaction’ that distinguishes focus groups
from the broader category of group interviews. Krueger
(1995) suggests that there were initially fears amongst
researchers about ‘respondent contamination’ from group
dynamics, but focus groups have gained academic credibility
as researchers have become more comfortable and capitalized
on the interaction between participants. This interaction has
enabled them to gain an understanding of the thinking,
language and social reality of participants’ experiences
(Morgan & Krueger 1993, Silverman 1993, Kitzinger 1994,
Krueger 1994) by accessing responses that arise from group
dynamics, discussion, interactions and reactions (Stewart &
Shamdasani 1990, Minichiello et al. 1999).
Computers in research
Computer technology permeates every aspect of contempor-
ary living. It is not surprising, therefore, that the capabilities
of technology are being used increasingly in the research
process. Waskul and Douglas (1996, p. 130) suggested that
the Internet ‘…presents conceptual, theoretical and meth-
odological challenges…which represents the seeds of aca-
demic advancement’. For some, however, the use of the
technology is limited to a narrow view of the computer as
‘only a mechanical, clerical tool to aid the researcher in
manipulating the data’ (Saba & McCormick 2000, p. 448).
The use of computers in nursing to assist with some stages
of the research process is well established. Computerized
databases are used to source information, bibliographic
database programs are commonly used to organize refer-
ences, and many qualitative researchers use data analysis
programs. Whilst the use of computers in the direct collection
of research data is not new, it is not a common practice in
nursing research. In particular, there has been limited
consideration of the Internet as a means of data collection
(Im & Chee 2004).
In the broad health-related literature, there are some
references to research studies that report Internet research
data collection. Eysenbach and Wyatt (2002) provide a
useful review of the use of online questionnaires and
electronic one-to-one interviews using e-mail or chat
rooms. They refer to electronic interviews and surveys as
‘emerging scientific research methodologies, pioneered by
415

A.J. Kenny
communication scientists, sociologists and psychologists,
although their use for health-related research is still in its
infancy’ (p. 3).
Im and Chee (2004, p. 35) suggest that ‘nurse researchers
tend to be slow in adopting virtual social space as research
settings’. Only a small number of research studies using
Internet technology have appeared in the nursing literature.
Current examples include Clark (2002), who identified the
benefits of Internet-based questionnaires and reported some
success with online synchronous interviews with older adults
and Im and Chee (2002, 2004), who have used both e-mail
and Internet surveys for cancer research.
Online focus groups
A search of the Internet yields a number of market research
companies that advertise online focus group market research.
In the academic literature some consideration has been given
to online focus groups, but they appear to refer primarily to
e-mail discussions. Murray (1997) explored the use of the
‘virtual focus group’, conducted as private e-mail discussions,
but gave little consideration to group participation, group
dynamics and interaction. In fact, in Murray’s (1997) study
multi-threaded discussions did not emerge, which makes it
difficult to ascertain exactly how the interaction and group
participation, so much the hallmark of focus group research,
was captured. It must be remembered, of course, that the
technology that exists today surpasses that described by
Murray (1997).
My experience with interactive online teaching indicated
that active engagement and group interaction could be
captured in an online environment (Kenny 2002). This
success with online teaching encouraged consideration of
this environment in the collection of research data.
The study
Aim
A study ‘online’ was designed as part of a large qualitative
rural research study. The aim of the ‘online’ study was
twofold. The first was methodological. That is, the study was
designed to assess the capabilities of technology in conduct-
ing an online focus group. This is discussed in this article.
The second aim was to explore the reasons why rural
Australian Enrolled Nurses have chosen to convert to the first
level of the nursing register (Registered Nurse). A descriptive
account of the Enrolled Nurses’ experiences with a conver-
sion programme has been reported elsewhere (Kenny &
Duckett in press).
416
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Design
One of the most important factors to consider with any
Internet research is that issues such as methodology, ethical
considerations and rigour apply equally in the online envi-
ronment. Webb and Kevern (2001) provide a useful discus-
sion of method compatibility with focus groups. Reflecting
these discussions, a qualitative, descriptive approach was
used in this study as the aim was to produce a rich,
descriptive, comprehensive portrayal of group perceptions
(Sandelowski 2000).
The study was designed to use WebCT
, a program that
facilitates the creation of web-based learning environments,
to conduct an online, interactive focus group. WebCT
was
originally developed by the Computer Science Faculty of the
University of British Columbia (Web 2004). Whilst this
software is primarily designed for online teaching, experience
suggested that it could be very easily used for online research.
WebCT
includes ‘tools’ that facilitate online engagement
and interaction. Of particular relevance for online focus
groups are a ‘closed site’, multithreaded discussion board and
a realtime chat facility. Other online education software
contains similar functionality.
Research participants do not require any specific software
other than a web browser such as Internet Explorer
(Microsoft 2004) or Netscape (Netscape Communications
2004). The WebCT
software is loaded on to a central
server, such as a university network. Participants are given
the Universal Resource Locator (URL) address and this can
be accessed from any computer with Internet access virtually
anywhere in the world.
Establishing the research site
Roberts and Woods (2000) suggested that, when considering
the use of computer technology for research, the cost and
time to develop the skills and abilities necessary to use the
technology must be considered. Educational ‘courseware’
such as WebCT
is easy to use. The research site for the
study was established within a very short time and did not
require extensive skills or knowledge of Hyper Text Markup
Language (HTML). The site included information for
participants, an interactive discussion board for focus group
discussions and a private e-mail facility that enabled the
participants to ask any questions about the study.
Participants
Purposive sampling was used and 40 Enrolled Nurses who
were undertaking a conversion programme in a rural

Methodological issues in nursing research
university were invited to attend an information session.
This group represented all of the students enrolled in the
conversion programme and all attended the session. Within
the group there were some potential participants who knew
each other, but most required introductions. The study
aims and approach were explained in detail. From the
discussion that developed, it was evident that the computer
skills existing within the group were diverse. A small
number were experienced computer users, but most des-
cribed themselves as new users. There was a small group
who suggested that they were ‘computer phobic’.
The group were given a demonstration of the use of
WebCT
and shown the research site. The site was very
easy to navigate, with online help facilities, and partici-
pants indicated that they felt comfortable using the
technology within a few minutes. WebCT
has an activity
log facility and it was explained that it was possible to
ascertain the number of times that people logged on and
track their postings. The software has the capabilities to
receive anonymous postings and this process was
explained. Whilst potential participants were unlikely to
find the research topic particularly sensitive, in exploring
the practical application of the technology, I was keen to
offer the option of anonymity. The group was reassured
that, if they chose to post anonymously, their identity
could not be tracked.
The group was given both verbal and written information.
The information sheets included specific details of the study,
‘log on’ directions and individualized password details.
Problems with using open discussion lists for research have
been highlighted (Sandall 1999, Wickham & Stewart 2001).
The major disadvantage is that these sites are freely available
to anybody. In this study, the use of WebCT
avoided this
problem as only those who had been given a password could
access the site.
It was important for participants to be given the option
of anonymity; therefore paper consent forms were not
used. Following the information session participants
were invited to ‘log on’ and read further information
online. They were advised that, with a posting to the
online discussion board, consent would be implied. If they
chose to participate they were asked to respond to the
question, ‘Why did you choose to enrol in the conversion
course?’
Ethical considerations
Approval for the study was gained from a university human
research ethics committee. Issues of consent and confidenti-
ality have been discussed above.

2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interaction in cyberspace
Data analysis
The full account of the group discussion was printed for
analysis. Webb and Kevern (2001) proposed that the vast
majority of focus group research appears to use thematic
analysis, as described by Kitzinger and Barbour (1999). This
method was deemed appropriate for this study. The printed
discussion was read and reread and coded for recurring
regularities. Major themes were extracted and the quotations
chosen were broadly reflective of group responses.
Findings
Of the 40 Enrolled Nurses at the information session, 38
participated in the study. Over a period of 2 months, 263
postings were made, only seven of which were anonymous.
The site attracted a high level of activity, with over 2000
‘hits’ in 2 months. Using the activity log, it was possible to
establish that one participant made 16 postings, with the
lowest number from one participant being four. The majority
logged on each day, with some checking the site more
frequently, and all logged on at least twice each week.
Practical considerations
The experience of conducting an online focus group indicated
the potential of the technology to enhance the research
process, and many advantages emerged.
Location and cost
The economic cost of conducting focus groups has been
highlighted (Reiskin 1992). Traditional focus groups gener-
ally involve the cost of a location, audiotape or videotape
production and transcribing of data. Asbury (1995) high-
lights the need to ensure that the environment for the focus
group is comfortable and accessible to participants to max-
imize the quality of the data collected. Traditional focus
groups may be difficult to organize, particularly when groups
are separated by distance (Krueger 1994). Difficulties in
recruiting people to focus groups because of time commit-
ments (Grbich 1999) and family responsibilities (Lane et al.
2001) have been identified.
In this online study, the environment offered the oppor-
tunity to participate in the discussion at any time, from any
location. Interestingly, many of the postings were made late
at night and at weekends.
Time length and absenteeism
With online focus groups, there is a need to maintain a
research site that is open for a period of time. Whilst this may
417

A.J. Kenny
vary with the nature of the topic and the participants, in this
study the site was maintained for 8 weeks. There were some
advantages in conducting a focus group over this length of
time.
Generally no more than four or five questions are posed in
any focus group (Carey 1995) and this can be a limitation in
traditional groups (Robinson 1999). This study began with
only one question. Murray’s (1997) experience with e-mail
discussion suggests that questions should be introduced as the
discussion progresses, and if all questions are introduced at
the start of the discussion then little interaction occurs.
The 8-week time-frame enabled a broader range of
questions to be asked, with questions being refined and
introduced as the discussion developed. For the researcher,
the time length provided the opportunity to refine guiding
questions as increased understanding of the topic developed.
Rather than questions being posed only by the researcher,
participants also posted questions for others to respond to.
Group dynamics and interaction flourished and multi-
threaded discussions emerged.
It could be argued that maintaining a research site for this
length of time may be problematic, particularly where loss of
participants may occur through unexpected life events.
Reiskin (1992) discussed the need in traditional focus groups
to follow up participants to reduce the problem of absentee-
ism. In this study, however, losing participants because of the
reasonably long time-frame did not emerge as a problem.
During the 8-week period there was consistency in use of the
site, with participation evenly spread over the 2 months. All
participants who were initially involved were still accessing
the site at the end of the study.
Group size and facilitation
There has been some debate in the literature about the ideal
size for a focus group (Morgan 1988, Stewart & Shamdasani
1990). Krueger (1994) argued that six is an effective size for
complex topics. It is suggested that larger groups are harder
to audiotape and transcribe (Reiskin 1992), and there is a risk
that small selective group formation may occur (Krueger
1994). The online environment provided the opportunity to
manage a single group of 38 participants.
Whilst conducting traditional focus groups involves a
moderator (Reed & Roskell Payton 1997) or facilitator
(Asbury 1995) and a co-facilitator to take notes of participant
dynamics (Asbury 1995), the online group proved easy to
facilitate and only one person was needed.
Data collection
The online environment provided a comfortable, non-threa-
tening medium that encouraged richly detailed responses.
418
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Vast amounts of data were collected. Although Robinson
(1999) argued that ensuring equal participation in traditional
focus groups is a challenge, this online focus group provided
the opportunity for quieter members to form considered re-
sponses.
The concept of ‘social loafing’ has been identified as an
issue with traditional focus groups (Latane et al. 1979,
Morgan 1988, Asbury 1995), in that some people may not
contribute. It is hard to ascertain whether non-participation is
because people agree or disagree with the statements made.
With this online study, there was a high degree of participa-
tion, again perhaps because of the safer environment.
Carey (1995 p. 489) discussed the effect of what is
described as ‘group rethink’ on traditional focus groups.
This is a ‘synergistic bandwagon effect’ where group mem-
bers are influenced by other strong opinions within the group.
In this online study this did not appear to be a major
problem, and there was considerable diversity in the
responses posted. Participants generally expressed their views
in a great deal of detail.
In traditional focus groups, Nyamathi and Shuler (1990, p.
1285) suggested that a degree of ‘social posturing’ occurs.
That is, participants may be forced to be compliant with
group opinion. Whilst dominance of the discussion by
individual participants has been identified in face-to-face
groups (Reed & Roskell Payton 1997, Jackson 1998,
Robinson 1999), it was not a problem in this study.
Interestingly, Nyamathi and Shuler (1990) believed that
the role of the ‘moderator’ in a focus group is to control
discussion. With this study, participants made it very clear
when a member was dominating and ‘control’ came from
within the group. The group quickly censored any insensitive
or inappropriate comments.
One ethical dilemma that has been identified when
conducting traditional focus groups is that it may be difficult
for a participant to leave or withdraw. In fact, the coercion
and pressure placed on participants in traditional focus
groups has been highlighted in the literature as something to
be capitalized on (Drayton et al. 1989). This coercion and
pressure has serious implications for ethical research practices
and in this online study the ability simply to ‘log off’ at any
stage provided greater protection.
Analysis process
From a researcher perspective, major advantages of an online
focus group emerged during the analysis process. The ardu-
ous and costly task of transcription is a major disadvantage in
any qualitative research (Sandelowski 1994). It has been
argued that transcription of focus group data is particularly
difficult, tedious and time-consuming (Krueger 1995).

Methodological issues in nursing research
Although such strategies as abridged transcripts that contain
only the most important information or ‘real time transcripts
of fast typists with laptop computers who sit in on the focus
group’ (Krueger 1995, p. 527) have been suggested, tran-
scripts should be a faithful account of what was said.
Nuances and detail can be lost when abridged versions of
data are used for analysis. Sandelowski (1994) proposed that
a faithful, complete account of what was said enables a more
complete audit trail that contributes to the overall credibility
of the study.
In this online focus group there was no need to transcribe
any data, as they were automatically stored in WebCT
. The
complete transcript was available at all times, and therefore
participants had the opportunity to reflect on what they had
written and could post additional information or clarify
points that they had made.
Asbury (1995) stressed the importance of reflecting the
group interaction in the analysis and reporting of the
research. In a traditional focus group raised voices, disagree-
ment, body language and other non-verbal interaction are
often ignored and not reported. Carey (1995) claimed that
many researchers over rely on transcripts without incorpor-
ating the non-verbal sequential nature of interaction.
It may be suggested that the online medium does not support
interaction that can be easily analysed and reported. However,
whilst Carey (1995) warned that with a traditional focus group
accurate representation of participants’ experiences and non-
verbal interaction can be lost during transcription, the partic-
ipants in this online study conveyed a great deal of ‘non-verbal’
information in the use of their keyboards. Capital letters were
used to signify strong points and punctuation marks were used
to add emphasis. Participants articulated strong views and
opinions. Because of the multi-threaded discussion that
occurred, sequencing was easily identified and was maintained
throughout the analysis process.
One important consideration when analysing focus groups
is to reflect the group’s perspective. Although Nyamathi and
Shuler (1990, p. 1284) argued that focus groups have ‘high
face validity, because of the credibility of comments from
participants’, the number of focus groups held influences the
overall findings. In this study, overall group consensus or
disagreement was easy to identify, as only one group was
being analysed rather than several.
In any qualitative study consideration must be given to
rigour (Grbich 1999). This question has been considered in
focus group research and several papers provide useful guides
that are applicable to the online environment (McDaniel &
Bach 1996, Kidd & Parshall 2000, Webb & Kevern 2001). In
this study, credibility or confidence in the data was enhanced
by the fact that all data were retained in written format and

2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interaction in cyberspace
were available to be accessed at all times. Credibility or
confidence in the data from a researcher perspective was
gained through prolonged engagement and persistent ob-
servation (Polit & Hungler 1997). For participants, face
validity (Grbich 1999) was enhanced as all of the data
remained online and they could read their responses to
confirm that their meanings were captured. To ensure that
the analysis process resulted in an accurate reflection of
participants’ meanings, an experienced researcher who was
not involved in the study reviewed the original data and
analysis and confirmed the conclusions drawn (Grbich 1999).
Limitations of online focus groups
Whilst it is argued that online focus groups are a viable and
practical choice for qualitative data collection, there are
obvious limitations. With any research design consideration
must be given to the question being explored. In this online
study the question was relatively straightforward and,
although the participants were given the option of anonym-
ity, the majority chose to post with their identity being
known. In some studies, such as that conducted by Madriz
(1999) with socially marginalized participants, it may be
more appropriate to use a face-to-face group in which
interaction can occur in a comfortable, natural environment.
Computer access by participants may be a limiting factor
with online focus groups, but this is decreasing. In the past, it
has been suggested that Internet users tend to be ‘white, middle
class and male’ (Wickham & Stewart 2001, p. 29). However,
Internet access is becoming much more available in public
libraries, schools and community facilities. For some users,
there is the cost of connection via an Internet Service Provider
and call costs, but greater service access is reducing these
charges. In some rural areas, inadequate telecommunication
services increase Internet ‘drop out rates’ but again, with
developing technology, this problem is reducing (Kenny 2000).
The high participation rate in this study may be attributed to
the fact that participants were university students and may
have been more comfortable with computer technology.
Although it could be argued that participants with poor
computer skills may find online participation difficult, the
interface provided in WebCT
is clear and easy to navigate.
Whilst WebCT
was chosen as the package for this study,
there are others that provide a similar ‘user friendly’
interface. In the present study, conducting the group over a
period of 8 weeks enabled everyone to become accustomed to
the process.
It has been suggested that people enjoy being involved in a
focus group (Sim 1998). In this online study, participants
were asked to reflect on their use of the technology, and they
419

A.J. Kenny
What is already known about this topic
• Focus groups are a common means of collecting qual-
itative research data.
• Computers are frequently used in the research process,
particularly for the review of literature, compiling bib-
liographic databases and data analysis.
• Whilst the use of computers to collect research data is
not new, an extensive review of the nursing literature
has failed to find any study that has used a ‘closed
research site’ to conduct an online focus group.
What this paper adds
• Practical considerations of conducting an online focus
group include location, cost, time length, group size,
facilitation, data collection and data analysis.
• Conducting an online focus group can be a worthwhile
and positive experience, with participants engaging at
times that suit them and from any location.
• Whilst there are some limitations in using online focus
groups, there are many advantages for both participants
and researchers and the concept is worthy of consid-
eration for appropriate studies.
all suggested that it became quite addictive, expressed
enjoyment and satisfaction, and viewed their participation
as an achievement. This is supported by the fact that they all
continued with the study until its completion.
There is a chat facility within WebCT
that has the
capability of conducting synchronous sessions in real time,
with all participants being online simultaneously. Although I
tried this during this study, I did not succeed. Managing to
get everybody online at a specific time and communicating in
a reasonably structured way proved impossible to achieve.
To use the technology effectively, researchers need to
develop some skills in constructing research sites; however,
this is very simple to learn and does not require knowledge of
HTML script, JAVA script or computer programming. There
is obviously a cost involved in the purchase of the software;
however, once loaded it can be accessed from anywhere,
giving a great deal of flexibility.
Potential of online focus groups
Whilst an online focus group may not be appropriate in all
situations, there is the potential to use the technology in
specific situations. The value of focus groups in gaining an
understanding of complex, embarrassing or sensitive topics
420
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
has been highlighted (Reiskin 1992, Kitzinger 1994, Krueger
1994, Kitzinger & Barbour 1999). It is argued that in-depth
responses may be easier to obtain about sensitive topics when
participants are in groups. However, confidentiality has also
been highlighted as a major limitation of traditional focus
groups, with participants’ fearing retribution or the reporting
of information back to authorities (Kitzinger 1995, Happell
1996, Burrows & Kendall 1997, Parsons & Greenwood
2000).
One major advantage that emerged within this study was
the potential for anonymity. Although there were only seven
anonymous postings, the option to do this gave protection ‘to
those who chose to do it’. Although the topic discussed did
not appear to be particularly sensitive, the anonymous
postings were controversial and provocative. The discussion
was focused on the reasons why Enrolled Nurses have chosen
to convert to level one of the Register, and the anonymous
postings primarily related to lack of support from employers
and strained relationships between level one and level two
nurses. Clearly, participants valued the option of anonymity
and chose to use this rather than make the statements with
their identity known.
White and Thomson (1995) explored the potential for
anonymized focus groups in their study of physicians’
attitudes to social and sexual contact between physicians
and patients. They reported positively on their use of a
telephone conferencing system to conduct an anonymized
focus group. White and Thomson were aware of the identity
of participants and they highlighted the risk of recognizing
voices.
With online focus groups using WebCT
, the potential
exists for completely anonymous participation. In order to set
up passwords for access, identity is generally known; how-
ever, it is possible to set passwords using a generic number
system. Information can be given to prospective participants
with an anonymized password. If they choose to ‘log on’,
consent can be given onscreen and is assumed when partic-
ipants make a posting. The small number of anonymous
postings in this study suggested that the topic was not
perceived as particularly sensitive. However, the potential for
anonymity is something that might be capitalized on by
others exploring sensitive topics.
Conclusion
Whilst there is no suggestion that online focus groups are
appropriate in every situation, advancements in technology
do offer the opportunity to capitalize on group interaction
with people separated by distance. The experience described
in this article was positive, and the challenge now is for

Methodological issues in nursing research
researchers to take the concept and explore the potential for
other research studies. The ability to conduct a study that
traverses international boundaries, but remains relatively cost
efficient, is something that should prove exciting to many
researchers. In this online study, the topic was not partic-
ularly sensitive, but the method did allow anonymity and
exploration of sensitive topics. Computer technology is
rapidly expanding and there is a need to consider the way
in which this can be used to enhance knowledge acquisition.
The challenge is to explore the concept further and question
whether the Web really does offer a new frontier for nursing
research.
References
Anderson R., Barbara A., Weisman C., Scholle S., Binko J., Schneider
T., Freund K. & Gwinner V. (2001) A qualitative analysis of
women’s satisfaction with primary care from a panel of focus
groups in the National Centers of Excellence in Women’s Health.
Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based Medicine 10(7),
637–647.
Asbury J. (1995) Overview of focus group research. Qualitative
Health Research 5(4), 414–420.
Basche C. (1987) Focus groups interview: an underutilized research
technique for improving theory and practice in health education.
Health education quarterly 14, 411–448.
Burrows D. & Kendall S. (1997) Focus groups: what are they and
how can they be used in nursing and health care research. Social
Sciences in Health 3(4), 244–253.
Carey M. (1995) Comment: concerns in the analysis of focus group
data. Qualitative Health Research 5(4), 487–495.
Clark D. (2002) Older adults living through and with their com-
puters. CIN: Computers Informatics Nursing 20(3), 117–124.
Drayton J., Fahad G. & Tynan A. (1989) The focus group: a con-
troversial technique. Graduate Management Research Winter, 34–
51.
Eysenbach G. & Wyatt J. (2002) Using the Internet for surveys
and health research. Journal of Medical Internet Research 4(2),
13–17.
Gibson F. & Bamford O. (2001) Focus group interviews to examine
the role and development of the clinical nurse specialist. Journal of
Nursing Management 9(6), 331–342.
Globerman J. & Bogo M. (2002) The impact of hospital restructuring
on social work field education. Health and Social Work 27(1), 7–16.
Goldman A. (1962) The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing
26(3), 605–609.
Grbich D. (1999) Qualitative Research in Health: An Introduction.
Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.
Hansler D. & Cooper C. (1986) Focus groups: new dimensions in
feasibility study. Fund raising management 12, 78–82.
Hanson L., Henderson M. & Menon M. (2002) As individual as
death itself: a focus group study of terminal care in nursing homes.
Journal of Palliative Medicine 5(1), 117–125.
Happell B. (1996) Focus group interview as a tool for psychiatric
nursing research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Mental
Health 5, 40–44.

2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interaction in cyberspace
Howard E., Hubelbank J. & Moore P. (1989) Employer eva-
luation of graduates: use of the focus group. Nurse Educator
14, 38–41.
Im E.-O. & Chee W. (2002) Issues in protection of human subjects in
Internet research. Nursing Research 51(4), 266–269.
Im E-O. & Chee W. (2004) Issues in internet survey research among
cancer patients. Cancer Nursing 27(1), 34–44.
Jackson P. (1998) Focus group interviews as a methodology. Nurse
Researcher 6(1), 72–84.
Kenny A. (2000) Untangling the Web … barriers and benefits for
nurse education … an Australian perspective. Nurse Education
Today 20(5), 381–388.
Kenny A. (2002) Online learning: enhancing nurse education?
Journal of Advanced Nursing 38(2), 127–135.
Kenny A. & Duckett S. (2005) An online study of Australian enrolled
nurse conversion. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49, 423–431.
Kevern J. & Webb C. (2004) Mature women’s experiences of
preregistration nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing
45(3), 297–306.
Kidd P.S. & Parshall M.B. (2000) Getting the focus and the group:
enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative
Health Research 10(3), 293–308.
Kitzinger J. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance
of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health
& Illness 16(1), 103–121.
Kitzinger J. (1995) Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal
311, 299–302.
Kitzinger J. & Barbour R. (1999) Introduction: the challenge and
promise of focus groups. In Developing Focus Group Research.
Politics, Theory and Practice (Kitzinger J. & Barbour R., eds),
Sage, London, pp. 1–21.
Krueger R. (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Krueger R. (1995) The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health
Research 5(4), 524–530.
Lane P., McKenna H., Ryan A.A. & Fleming P. (2001) Focus group
methodology. Nurse Researcher 8(3), 45–59.
Latane B., Williams K. & Harris S. (1979) Many hands make light
work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 37, 822–832.
Madriz I. (1999) Using focus groups with lower socioeconomic status
Latina women. Qualitative Inquiry 4, 114–128.
McCormick J. & Blackwood B. (2001) Nursing the ARDS patient in
the prone position: the experience of qualified ICU nurses.
Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 17(6), 331–340.
McDaniel R. & Bach C. (1996) Focus group research: the question
of scientific rigor. Rehabilitation Nursing Research 5(2),
53–59.
Merton R. (1987) The focused interview and focus groups: con-
tinuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 550–
556.
Merton R., Kendall P. & Fiske P. (1956) The Focussed Interview.
Free Press, Glencoe.
Microsoft (2004) Internet Explorer. http://www.microsoft.com,
Accessed June 1.
Minichiello V., Sullivan G., Greenwood K. & Axford R. (1999)
Handbook for Research Methods in Health Sciences. Addison
Wesley, Sydney.
421

A.J. Kenny
Morgan D. (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage,
Newbury Park.
Morgan D. & Krueger R. (1993) When to use focus groups and why.
In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing The State of the Art
(D. Morgan, ed.) Sage, Newbury Park, pp. 3–20.
Moyle W., Edwards H. & Clinton M. (2002) Living with loss:
dementia and the family caregiver. Australian Journal of Advanced
Nursing 19(3), 25–31.
Mukherjee S., Sloper P. & Turnbull A. (2002) An insight into the
experiences of parents with inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 37(4), 355–363.
Murray P.J. (1997) Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research 7(4), 542–549.
Netscape Communications (2004) Netscape. http://www.net-
scape.com Accessed June 1.
Nyamathi A. & Shuler P. (1990) Focus group interview: a research
technique for informed nursing practice. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 15, 1281–1288.
Parsons M. & Greenwood J. (2000) A guide to the use of focus
groups in health care research: part 1. Contemporary Nurse 9(2),
169–180.
Polit D. & Hungler B. (1997) Essentials of Nursing Research:
Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Reed J. & Roskell Payton V. (1997) Focus groups: issues of analysis
and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26, 765–771.
Reiskin H. (1992) Focus groups: a useful technique for research and
practice in nursing. Applied nursing research 5, 197–201.
Rennie S. & Crosby J. (2002) Ethics. Students’ perceptions of whistle
blowing: implications for self-regulation. A questionnaire and
focus group survey. Medical Education 36(2), 173–179.
Roberts P. & Woods L. (2000) Alternative methods of gathering and
handling data: maximising the use of modern technology. Nurse
Researcher 8(2), 84–95.
Robinson N. (1999) The use of focus group methodology with
selected examples from sexual health research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 29(4), 905–913.
422
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422
13652648, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x by Universitat Jaume I, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Russell G. & Potter L. (2002) Mental health issues in primary
healthcare. Journal of Clinical Nursing 11(1), 118–125.
Saba V. & McCormick K. (2000) Essentials of Computers for Nur-
ses: Informatics for the New Millennium, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill,
New York.
Sandall J. (1999) Midwifery and reproductive health research mail-
base list. New Zealand College of Midwives Journal 21, 34.
Sandelowski M. (1994) Notes on transcription. Research in Nursing
and Health 17, 311–314.
Sandelowski M. (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative descrip-
tion? Research in Nursing and Health 23, 334–340.
Silverman J. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for
Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. Sage, Newbury Park.
Sim J. (1998) Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised
by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28(2), 345–352.
Stewart D. & Shamdasani P. (1990) Focus Groups Theory and
Practice. Sage, Newbury Park.
Tross S. (2001) Women at heterosexual risk for HIV in inner city
New York: reaching the hard to reach. Aids and Behaviour 5(2),
131–139.
Twinn S. (1998) An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as
a method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations
in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28(3), 654–
661.
Waskul D. & Douglas M. (1996) Considering the electronic parti-
cipant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of online
research. Information Society 12, 129–139.
Web C.T. (2004). http://www.webct.com Accessed June 1.
Webb C. & Kevern J. (2001) Focus groups as a research method: a
critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 33(6), 798–805.
White G. & Thomson A. (1995) Anonymized focus groups as a
research tool for health professionals. Qualitative Health Research
5(2), 256–261.
Wickham S. & Stewart S. (2001) Web research – the final frontier?
MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 11(1), 28–31.