Instruction and Focus Groups

My internship focuses not only on reference librarianship, but also information literacy and instruction. Accordingly, I’ve been fortunate to sit in on some library instruction classes with Clint. I think that the image of a librarian as a reference resource is pretty well established in our cultural consciousness, at least here at Gettysburg College, but the image of librarian as teacher is perhaps not as prominent. At some colleges and universities, however, librarians are considered part of the faculty. [excerpt

Math and Science Education Focus Groups: Summary

Summarizes the causes of low achievement in math and science and strategies for raising student interest, enhancing teacher quality and professional development, and improving curricula and teaching strategies, as discussed at a November 2004 conference

Findings From a National Survey & Focus Groups on Economic Mobility

Presents findings on Americans' views on the possibility of improving one's economic standing in a downturn, short- and long-term prospects for their own mobility, the elements that drive it, the role of the government, and policies that support mobility

Focus groups of value concepts of producers: National Report Italy

The Organic Revision project was funded by the EU with the aim of supporting the further development of the EU Regulation 2092/91 on organic production. As part of the project focus groups were run in five European countries on value concepts of organic producers and other stakeholders, during 2004-2005. The project aims to provide an overview of values held among organic stakeholders, and of similarities and differences among the various national and private organic standards. In Italy four focus groups were held, a pre-test with AIAB staff, a group of policy makers, a group of established organic producers and a group of newly converted producers. The following conclusions were reached: The general impression is that there are three main values or areas which were considered important by all participants: • food quality and health (safety) • environment health and care • livelihood. Within the first issue, many detailed implications are included, starting from own health, consumers’ health, and so on, arriving to food safety, avoiding residues and link to regional or local territory. In this area, there were no significant differences between groups, perhaps only some personal point of view which could differ from one person to another; but generally speaking, this point was considered fundamental by all participants. It is important to mention that many discussions and ideas were raised by the term “quality” which seems very meaningful depending also on who is related to. Interesting was the idea about the possibility of finding measurable parameters of food quality in order to make it more comprehensible for consumers. More or less the same kind of considerations could be attributed to the value of environment health/care (which sometimes overlaps). In this case, we could say that virtually there was no real difference amongst participants, also in terms of personal values or points of view. The concept that organic farming is fundamental for preserving the environment and land it’s clear for all, and all of them agreed that this value should be strongly communicated to consumers. Regarding the third value, ‘livelihood’, it is possible to affirm that it is a fundamental aspect either in farmers and policy makers. But to say if this has to be considered as a value, rather than a mere practical problem, it is difficult to assess. In our opinion, farmers did not expressed their financial concern as directly linked to organic farming; they were more likely complaining about an actual situation, that could also change in the future. They were not expecting livelihood to be included in the organic farming values. Additional thinking over could be done on other minor areas, for their differences and peculiarities amongst participants. The issues of soil and animal welfare were discussed only by very few participants. The first one, was mentioned only by two cattle farmers in the experienced farmers group, having opposite ideas. The second one was cited only by two persons in two different groups. It seems that these matters are of secondary importance for Italian farmers and stakeholders. Or maybe, they are somehow included in other bigger areas. Also, the area of professional pride was considered quite important by many participants, especially by the experienced group, which mentioned it from the beginning, including it in the associations and in the motives for their conversion to the organic sector. Another aspect that was shared by all of them was the disappointment in finding out that consumers do not recognize their role and their value, so their efforts for doing “the right thing” seem worthless sometimes. Values under the ecological integrity area were yet discussed, but for sure were not considered relevant as others. Somebody focused on biodiversity, someone on energy consumption, but it was more a personal conviction moving these ideas than a typical characteristic. This is also demonstrated by the fact that there was not a clear connection between value importance and group category. Last, but not least, the moral implications in organic farming were indicated by two women from two different producers groups, indicating perhaps that women could be more interested in ethical values also in their professional life

Focus groups of value concepts of producers: National Report Switzerland

The Organic Revision project was funded by the EU with the aim of supporting the further development of the EU Regulation 2092/91 on organic production. As part of the project focus groups were run in five European countries on value concepts of organic producers and other stakeholders, during 2004-2005. The project aims to provide an overview of values held among organic stakeholders, and of similarities and differences among the various national and private organic standards. In Switzerland, three group sessions were held with established organic farmers, two groups with newly converted organic farmers, one group involved experts from BIO SUISSE and one group was conducted with students from Agronomy, Environmental Sciences and Geography faculties of Zurich. The following conclusions were reached: Almost all participants were engaged in organic agriculture based on a certain believe or because they just like organic farming. Not only farmers had strong concerns with regard to the current development. The discussion about the basic values and the over-arching principles of organic agriculture were seen as very positive and a move in the right direction. The health of the ecosystem were in the discussions several times a fundamental value. Fair trading conditions were seen for many participants as a core issue. The producers did see the maintenance of their family farm and the farm succession as major issue. Many farmers were against an industrialisation of agriculture and against a too strong commercialisation of their products. Several farmers and several groups mentioned the problem of the lack of solidarity between farmers. Solidarity should get more importance in the future. Several farmers wished that there will be better cooperation between farmers and market actors as well as a better common strategy with a clear concept. Another issue was a truthful and careful processing, which is also for farmers very relevant. The farmers as well as the experts found that the added value of the production, the ideologic content of the products, and as well as the special intrinsic quality of the products are very important. Furthermore farmers and experts were in favour of “100 % entirely supply and market chains with only organic product, where not only the producers but also the trader and sales staff is convinced of organic agriculture. Many producers found that the communication with costumers, in particular public relation, will be important to survive on a competitive market and must be improved. A secure livelihood, surviving on he market and the strong workload were for many producers a major issues. Another central discussion point was the overregulation and inspection. Not only the producers but all main actors wished that the standard/rules are more comprehensive and the inspection work less bureaucratic. This issue is highly relevant not only for organic farmers. Experts saw a potential for an adaptation of the standards. In particular the health of the Ecosystem and the regionality are seen as key topics

CONTINGENT VALUATION FOCUS GROUPS: INSIGHTS FROM ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES

Despite the many important uses (and potential abuses) of focus groups in survey design, the CV literature presents few guidelines to aid moderators in their interaction with focus group participants. This paper draws on the theory and practice of ethnographic interviewing to introduce general guidelines that can improve focus groups as an aid to CV research. The proposed guidelines illustrate types of questions that should reduce speculation and moderator-introduced bias in focus group responses, and improve the correspondence between focus group responses and actual behavior. The paper illustrates these ethnographic guidelines through a CV application concerning watershed resources.Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

FOCUS GROUPS AS A USEFUL APPROACH TO AGRIBUSINESS RESEARCH

As the agricultural economics profession increasingly strives to find relevant and useful approaches for addressing a broad array of research questions, particularly in terms of agribusiness research, there will be a growing need to adopt a wide set of research methods and methodologies. Historical research strategies typically emphasized by agricultural economists have focused primarily on surveys, archival/secondary data and econometrics. However, these approaches are, at times, limited in their applicability and scope relative to some of the research questions that have the greatest priority for agribusiness researchers and their clientele. Some of the research methods now being more widely used by agribusiness-oriented agricultural economists are more qualitative, as is already evident with a growing acceptance of case studies within the profession. This paper discusses an additional qualitative approach that has substantial potential for agribusiness research focus groups.Agribusiness, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

Focus groups of value concepts of producers: National Report UK

The Organic Revision project was funded by the EU with the aim of supporting the further development of the EU Regulation 2092/91 on organic production. As part of the project focus groups were run in five European countries on value concepts of organic producers and other stakeholders, during 2004-2005. The project aims to provide an overview of values held among organic stakeholders, and of similarities and differences among the various national and private organic standards. In the UK, three focus groups with producers were carried out, one in England and two in Wales. Two of these groups were with established producers and one group were newly converted producers. A further focus group was held with researchers and professionals from Organic Centre Wales. Overall, this survey showed that in 2004/05 the UK organic sector was characterised by slowed down growth in both retail sales and conversion, a heavy reliance on multiple retailers as the main outlets with negative impact on farm gate prices, a higher supply than demand in some livestock markets. On the other hand there appears to be a growing interest in direct sales and local food and efforts to diversify into different sales channels. Few studies have investigated the values of organic producers in the UK, but several have looked at the motivation to convert. There are indications that motives for organic producers have changed to some degree. In the first surveys improvements to husbandry were mentioned by the majority of producers, in later studies the environment and financial considerations appear more important, but the reasons for this change are not fully understood, but external circumstances have also changed. It also appears that organic producers are not homogenous in relation to their attitudes with factors such as farm type and marketing channel, explaining some of the observed differences

Report From Focus Groups With Mainers About the Dirigo Health Plan

Measures the public's views and understanding of the Dirigo Health Reform Act, which was established to provide affordable health care for every Maine citizen and a new process for containing costs and improving healthcare quality

Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups

With fast changing technologies and related human interaction issues, there is an increased need for timely evaluation of systems with distributed users in varying contexts (Pace, 2004). This has led to the increased use of questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups in commercial usability and academic research contexts. Questionnaires are usually paper based or delivered online and consist of a set of questions which all participants are asked to complete. Once the questionnaire has been created, it can be delivered to a large number of participants with little effort. However, a large number of participants also means a large amount of data needing to be coded and analysed. Interviews, on the other hand, are usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. They require a large amount of the investigator’s time during the interviews and also for transcribing and coding the data. Focus groups usually consist of one investigator and a number of participants in any one session. Although the views of any one participant cannot be probed to same degree as in an interview, the discussions that are facilitated within the groups often result in useful data in a shorter space of time than that required by one-to-one interviews. All too often, however, researchers eager to identify usability problems quickly throw together a questionnaire, interview or focus group that, when analysed, produces very little of interest. What is often lacking is an understanding of how the research method design fits with the research questions (Creswell, 2003) and how to appropriately utilise these different approaches for specific HCI needs. The methods described in this chapter can be useful when used alone but are most useful when used together with other methods. Creswell (2003) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different quantitative and qualitative methods and howthey can be mixed and matched for overall better quality research. Depending on what we are investigating, sometimes it is useful to start with a questionnaire and then, for example, follow up some specific points with an experiment, or a series of interviews, in order to fully explore some aspect of the phenomenon under study. This chapter describes how to choose between and design questionnaires, interviews and focus group studies and using two examples illustrates the advantages of combining a number of approaches when conducting HCI research