Perspectives on reporting non-verbal interactions from the contemporary research focus group
Evidence and practice    

Perspectives on reporting non-verbal interactions from the contemporary research focus group

Iseult Wilson Senior lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Nicola Daniels Lecturer, University of Derby, Derby, England
Patricia Gillen Lecturer, Ulster University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Karen Casson Lecturer, University of Ulster, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Why you should read this article:
  • To gain insight into the different types of focus groups and group interviews available as a result of technological advances

  • To consider which terms to use when referring to interviews with three or more people

  • To encourage the analysis of interactions between participants in qualitative research

Background The main defining attribute that delineates focus groups from other methods of collecting data is that data are generated through participants communicating with each other rather than solely with the group moderator. The way in which interactions take place across group interviews and focus groups varies, yet both are referred to as focus groups, resulting in a broad umbrella term for its numerous manifestations.

Aim To reflect on how focus groups are adopted and reported, including the use of the term ‘focus group’.

Discussion The authors recognise that the term ‘focus group’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘group interview’ but argue that this practice must be challenged. They suggest using terms that indicate the type of space and synchronicity of the focus group, prefixed with ‘in-person’ or ‘conventional’ to identify traditional focus groups. They also suggest separating virtual group interviews into ‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’, based on whether the participants and researchers can engage with each other in real time.

Conclusion There is a need for qualitative researchers to reach a consensus about the nature of focus groups and group interviews, as well as where their differences and similarities lie.

Implications for practice The authors hope to encourage nurse researchers to think about these issues when labelling, planning, analysing and reporting studies involving focus groups.

Nurse Researcher. 30, 2, 19-23. doi: 10.7748/nr.2022.e1828


Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared


To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in


Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now