The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS

The authors focus their analysis in this article on online focus groups (FGs), in an attempt to describe how the setting shapes the conversational features of the discussion and influences data construction. Starting from a review of current dominant viewpoints, they compare face-to-face discussion...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Guendalina Graffigna, A. C. Bosio
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2006-09-01
Series:International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500307
id doaj-34130f05335f4f5ea5e1bf48ba450879
record_format Article
spelling doaj-34130f05335f4f5ea5e1bf48ba4508792020-11-25T03:48:36ZengSAGE PublishingInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods1609-40692006-09-01510.1177/16094069060050030710.1177_160940690600500307The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDSGuendalina GraffignaA. C. BosioThe authors focus their analysis in this article on online focus groups (FGs), in an attempt to describe how the setting shapes the conversational features of the discussion and influences data construction. Starting from a review of current dominant viewpoints, they compare face-to-face discussion groups with different formats of online FGs about AIDS, from a discourse analysis perspective. They conducted 2 face-to-face FGs, 2 chats, 2 forums, and 2 forums+plus+chat involving 64 participants aged 18 to 25 and living in Italy. Their findings seem not only to confirm the hypothesis of a general difference between a face-to-face discussion setting and an Internet-mediated one but also reveal differences among the forms of online FG, in terms of both the thematic articulation of discourse and the conversational and relational characteristics of group exchange, suggesting that exchanges on HIV/AIDS are characterized by the setting. This characterization seems to be important for situating the choice of tool, according to research objectives, and for better defining the technical aspects of the research project.https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500307
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Guendalina Graffigna
A. C. Bosio
spellingShingle Guendalina Graffigna
A. C. Bosio
The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
author_facet Guendalina Graffigna
A. C. Bosio
author_sort Guendalina Graffigna
title The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
title_short The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
title_full The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
title_fullStr The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
title_full_unstemmed The Influence of Setting on Findings Produced in Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison between Face-to-Face and Online Discussion Groups about HIV/AIDS
title_sort influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative health research: a comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about hiv/aids
publisher SAGE Publishing
series International Journal of Qualitative Methods
issn 1609-4069
publishDate 2006-09-01
description The authors focus their analysis in this article on online focus groups (FGs), in an attempt to describe how the setting shapes the conversational features of the discussion and influences data construction. Starting from a review of current dominant viewpoints, they compare face-to-face discussion groups with different formats of online FGs about AIDS, from a discourse analysis perspective. They conducted 2 face-to-face FGs, 2 chats, 2 forums, and 2 forums+plus+chat involving 64 participants aged 18 to 25 and living in Italy. Their findings seem not only to confirm the hypothesis of a general difference between a face-to-face discussion setting and an Internet-mediated one but also reveal differences among the forms of online FG, in terms of both the thematic articulation of discourse and the conversational and relational characteristics of group exchange, suggesting that exchanges on HIV/AIDS are characterized by the setting. This characterization seems to be important for situating the choice of tool, according to research objectives, and for better defining the technical aspects of the research project.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500307
work_keys_str_mv AT guendalinagraffigna theinfluenceofsettingonfindingsproducedinqualitativehealthresearchacomparisonbetweenfacetofaceandonlinediscussiongroupsabouthivaids
AT acbosio theinfluenceofsettingonfindingsproducedinqualitativehealthresearchacomparisonbetweenfacetofaceandonlinediscussiongroupsabouthivaids
AT guendalinagraffigna influenceofsettingonfindingsproducedinqualitativehealthresearchacomparisonbetweenfacetofaceandonlinediscussiongroupsabouthivaids
AT acbosio influenceofsettingonfindingsproducedinqualitativehealthresearchacomparisonbetweenfacetofaceandonlinediscussiongroupsabouthivaids
_version_ 1724498191509880832