Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth

Tom Moore, Kim McKee, Pauline Joy McLoughlin

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    1 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    This paper considers the use of online focus groups as a method for conducting qualitative research in geography. Researchers have increasingly utilised online focus groups involving live, synchronous chat room interactions. However, to date there has been little insight and a lack of discussion as to the applicability of online focus groups in geography and the wider social sciences. Reflecting on a study of young people’s housing opportunities and financial welfare in the UK, this paper considers the advantages and limitations of online qualitative methods. We argue that online methods offer significant advantages, especially in longer-term studies crossing time and space, but that their design and implementation raises methodological challenges, with implications for the depth and insight of the knowledge produced. Their use for research in geography therefore requires reflexivity and adjustment, including attention to the positionality of the researcher, the nature and level of participant involvement, and adjustment to the loss of non-verbal cues and interactions found in conventional qualitative research. This paper advances knowledge on the opportunities and challenges to online methodologies, and highlights how creative use of web-based technology can support geographers conducting qualitative research.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)17-28
    JournalPeople, Place and Policy
    Volume9
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 23 Apr 2015

    Keywords

    • Housing
    • Young people
    • Online research
    • Twitter
    • Qualitative methods
    • Focus Groups

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this