The optimal constellation of focus groups is a prime concern of scholarship within qualitative methodology. Most focus group experts discourage strong heterogeneity among participants, as status differentials are considered a hazard for the social interaction that is the driving force of the method. This paper sets out to engage empirically with this widespread wariness. It does so by drawing on a focus group study involving Danish climate scientists, climate journalists and members of the public in both single-actor and mixed groups. To develop a refined appreciation of the power dynamics within the fifteen focus groups, they were examined with a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative analysis showed no obvious relationship between background characteristics and the number and length of speaking turns. Further, the assessment of the participants’ discursive positioning in the discussions also lends credence to the unpredictability of the power dynamics within the groups. For example, the members of the public in the mixed groups often managed to position themselves as equals to the professionals and sometimes even imposed their opinions on the group. Taken together, the results counter the common caution against high heterogeneity in focus groups. This inquiry concludes by highlighting key aspects to carefully consider when designing and executing highly heterogeneous focus groups, aiming to inspire others to mix people from different walks of life when the research question calls for it.
Peter Nicolaisen (Mon,) studied this question.