Barbour, R. (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: SAGE Publications. 174 pp. ISBN 978-0- 7619-4978-7.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focus groups can be used to gather data for primary analysis or to identify areas of need as a preliminary step in research design. Rosaline Barbour’s Doing Focus Groups should be of interest to those considering the use of focus groups for their action research. This book is one of the eight-volume SAGE Qualitative Research Kit series edited by Uwe Flick, professor of qualitative research in social science and education at the Free University of Berlin. It has eleven chapters and includes a glossary, reference list, author index, and subject index. The book begins with broader conceptual topics (Chapter One is called “Introducing Focus Groups”) and grows more practical in later chapters, which are arranged in the order by which a research project would tend to unfold. The chapters are organized similarly. Each begins with an internal table of contents and a list of learning objectives. At the end of each chapter is a list of key ideas and supplementary readings relevant to that chapter. The book contains a generous number of illustrative examples from published research--often the Barbour’s own work in health research--to help elucidate chapter contents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".