Talking to People IV: Focus Groups

  • Peter Lunt


Focus groups are used for a wide variety of purposes in academic research, marketing, political campaigning, public deliberation, and policy research. A flexible method, focus groups can be understood as an extension of qualitative interviews in group contexts or as simulations of public discussion and debate. They are powerful tools that tap into processes of public discourse and therefore equally valuable to research and constitute important elements of public consultation and deliberation. The paper discusses the methodological and procedural decisions that face the researcher using focus groups and the skills required of the moderator. The paper also considers whether focus groups conducted in commercial, governmental and policy contexts enable public voices to be heard or constitute a managed show of engagement that enrolls participants in governance.


  1. Albrecht, T. L., Johnson, G. M., & Walther, J. B. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (D. L. Morgan, Ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Aradau, C., Huysmans, J., Neal, A., & Voelkner, N. (Eds.). (2015). Critical security methods: New frameworks for analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bryman, A. (2004). Social science research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2007). Media consumption and public engagement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Featherstone, L. (2018). Talk is cheap: The myth of the focus group. The Guardian.
  7. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1962, trans. 1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into the categories of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen, K. B. (1991). Introduction: The qualitative turn. In K. B. Jensen & N. W. Jankowski (Eds.), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (John W. Kingdon, with new foreword by James A. Thurber). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Knodel, J. (1993). The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1993). The export of meaning: Cross cultural readings of Dallas. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. Livingstone, S. M., & Lunt, P. K. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1993). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 79–98. Online (1996). London: LSE Research Online. Available at:
  18. Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2011). Media regulation: Governance and the interests of citizens and consumers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Lunt, P., Livingstone, S., & Malik, S. (2008). Public understanding of regimes of risk regulation: A report on focus group discussions with citizens and consumers.
  20. Merton, R. K. (1987). The focussed interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 550–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morley, D. (1980). The Nationwide audience: Structure and decoding. British Film Institute Television Monograph No. 11. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Morrison, D. E. (1998). The search for method: Focus groups and the development of mass communication research. Luton: University of Luton Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ofcom. (2016). Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio.
  24. Philo, G. (1993). Getting the message: Audience research in the Glasgow University Media Group. In J. Eldridge (Ed.), Getting the message: News, truth and power (pp. 253–270). London: Routledge (Glasgow University Media Group).Google Scholar
  25. Wring, D. (2007). Focus group follies? Journal of Political Marketing, 5(4), 71–97. Scholar

Further Reading

  1. For an introduction of the focus group method see Bryman (2004), Chapter 16.Google Scholar
  2. A paper that outlines methods and issues in focus group research see Lunt and Livingstone (1993).Google Scholar
  3. For an in-depth analysis of the history of focus group research across the boundary of academic and policy research see Morrison (1998).Google Scholar
  4. For an application of the focus group method in policy research see Ofcom (2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Lunt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Media, Communication and SociologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations