The Researcher’s Facilitating Role in Stimulating a Constructive Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews

Preparing the Online “Venue”

The location of the focus group is important for the convenience and the psychological experience of the participants (Stewart et al., 2007). The “venue” should be accessible and allow the participants to feel safe and comfortable (Gundumogula, 2020, p. 299). This is highly relevant for the online focus-group setting, as it is particularly important to give an introduction to how to log onto and use the online platform at hand, whether it be Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Google Meet, Skype, or other online meeting tools (Willemsen et al., 2023). Such an introduction can make the participants feel that the researchers have thought through the online aspects of the interview and that they will aim to create a predictable and well-functioning online space, which can foster a sense of psychological safety.

Willemsen et al. (2023) suggest that one arranges preconversations to ensure everyone’s participation. In the project described by Neergård and Roald (in review), we personally video called around 200 potential participants via Microsoft Teams, to recruit 57 poeple. This was a time-consuming endeavor, but having such recruitment conversations on the same platform as the interview can function as a “warm-up” for the interview, both technically (Willemsen et al., 2023) and relationally, and thus like an introduction to the online venue. The need for such an introduction might depend on the sample. For instance, in our research (Neergård & Roald, in review), all the participants were affiliated with the same university and were familiar with the platform we used through years of online meetings and lectures. Nevertheless, this short recruitment call might have contributed to laying a foundation for psychological safety in the online focus-group interview. Although the thematic focus of such recruitment conversations is giving information about the research and asking potential participants to join, one can take a friendly, warm, and accepting (Rogers, 1961/2004) attitude, in terms of nonverbal actions such as smiling and nodding (Ivey et al., 1998), which can build trust toward the researcher and make the participant feel comfortable and welcomed into the group.

The researchers should be sure to avoid any disturbance or noise that could interfere with the interview itself (Gundumogula, 2020). This is just as relevant in an online focus-group setting as in a physical venue. In one of the aforementioned online interviews (Neergård & Roald, in review), we experienced, for instance, the inconvenience of a fire drill. We had to evacuate our offices, asking the participants to take a break, and apologizing for not having been aware of the fire drill. The conversation was resumed when the drill was over, but the event undoubtedly disrupted the constructive group climate.

Furthermore, in online interviews, all participants and researchers log on from their own physical spaces. These spaces should be optimal for the interview situation in terms of, for instance, light, and sound (Gundumogula, 2020). Preconversations, as suggested by Willemsen et al. (2023), can be a good opportunity to test the sound and camera function, and the lighting conditions in the room. Being able to see everyone’s face well is important to create the right conditions for a constructive group climate, as we need facial cues to interpret the meaning of people’s utterances. This is extra important in the online setting, since we have fewer cues to use in the communication (Marra et al., 2020).

Researcher Work Tasks

Another aspect of preparation concerns the number of researchers involved in the online focus group. Academic research is often dominated by single-handed focus-group facilitation, but adding a co-facilitator makes it possible to collect observational data while facilitating the discussion between participants (Parker & Tritter, 2006). Communicative cues such as body language and paralanguage can be an important aspect of process facilitation, as they can be used to stimulate interaction. The presence of an additional researcher can therefore contribute to enhancing the constructive group climate. For instance, while one researcher is busy responding to the person who talks, the other can observe a smile on another person’s face that can be explored, by saying: “I noticed that you smiled while X talked, Y, did you think of something you would like to share?”

In a physical focus-group interview, it can be beneficial if one researcher is seated at the opposite side of the circle to the other, so as to observe what the other does not see. In an online encounter, the presence of a second researcher has a different meaning. Here one can see everyone’s faces at the same time, but still, one has fewer nonverbal cues to interpret (Marra et al., 2020). Furthermore, the second researcher can also serve as a technical “assistant” (Willemsen et al., 2023). If the focus-group interview is characterized by technical problems, a constructive group climate will naturally be obstructed, since the flow of the conversation will suffer.

Ground Rules

Formulating and communicating ground rules can accelerate the development of psychological safety, as it creates explicit norms of behavior and thereby predictability in an early phase of the group’s life cycle. In line with Willemsen et al. (2023), we suggest that participants are explicitly encouraged to push the “raise hand” button if they want to share something. Another ground rule can be to turn the cameras on and keep them on during the interview. Keeping cameras on during online meetings has been found to give an experience of increased authenticity and richness among the participants (Olson et al., 2012). However, in a study of psychological safety in online medical education, McLeod and Gupta (2023) found that students felt watched over and judged while keeping their cameras on. Although the interview setting is different to the educational one, this underscores the necessity of communicating a ground rule on the use of cameras in advance, thereby creating predictability and clarity, which can enhance the likelihood of psychological safety in the interview.

Another ground rule regarding cameras could be to encourage the participants to avoid blurring their backgrounds or using virtual backgrounds to stimulate individuality. Howlett (2022) argues that being given a glimpse into each other’s worlds can stimulate a feeling of contact and connection in online interviews. To at least give an illusion of eye contact, we suggest that every participant makes sure to keep their camera at an angle that makes it possible to look as directly into the camera as possible. Eye contact is a crucial aspect of relation-building communication (Ivey et al., 1998). If, for example, people are only visible as their profile, they may give an impression of not being interested in the other members of the group and thereby create feelings of insecurity and discomfort, impeding psychological safety.

Structure

Like Willemsen et al. (2023), we suggest a duration of around 1.5 hours becaues it can generally be difficult to make a group of people schedule more time for an interview, and not least since the online format can be experienced as more exhausting (Queiroz et al., 2023). To avoid “zoom fatigue” (Queiroz et al., 2023), it is recommended to arrange a short break halfway through the interview (Willemsen et al., 2023). The participants can benefit from a moment away from the screen, as well as from the group, to maintain a high energy level throughout the interview. In addition, this gives the researcher(s) a moment to check whether the interviewing strategy should be changed, or whether to give new prompts and questions.

Communicating clearly about the intended structure, committing to the planned break, and ending the interview on time seem necessary to create predictability, which can alleviate the distress that characterizes the first phase of any group process (McClure, 2005). However, it is important to note that such an information session should not take too long (Morgan, 1997, p. 49), as a comprehensive introduction by the researcher could create an expectation that the researcher will take full control of the process and that the participants will be passive. To stimulate a constructive group climate, this is, in other words, another balancing act for the researcher to be aware of and manage.

Welcoming

A way of making the participants feel welcomed, thereby enhancing the likelihood of psychological safety in the group from the beginning, can be to informally welcome each participant as they enter the online room, by saying “hello,” and the participant’s name, and maybe adding a “how are you?” or some other informal comment or question. In a physical room, participants might spontaneously say hello and talk among themselves in subgroups before a meeting or an interview starts, but this does not happen as easily in online rooms, since a feeling of chaos is likely to arise if several people talk at the same time. This makes the role of the researcher more important: People are not likely to speak spontaneously, unless given the word. However, according to Howlett (2022), an informal and personal atmosphere can be more easily established in online rooms, just because people are situated in different locations, as this provides an obvious topic of informal conversation. One can, for instance, ask where everyone is located, in terms of geography, home office or not, and so on.

Being able to welcome every participant into the room requires that the researcher is present in the room before the participants enter. A side-effect of welcoming each participant into the room is the opportunity to check that everyone’s microphone is working and to ask the participants to turn their cameras on if they have not already done so. However, to create psychological safety for all, it is important to give such a reminder in a friendly manner, to avoid participants feeling that they have done something wrong, which could make them feel uncomfortable and thereby hamper the psychological safety in the group.

In cases where people experience trouble with logging in or do not show up, it can be important to check whether they are “on their way.” In such situations, being two researchers in the online room is a clear advantage, as it makes it possible for one of them to keep an informal conversation going in the group, which can be an important part of creating psychological safety, while the other researcher contacts the missing participants. However, waiting too long for one participant can create a sense of impatience among the other participants, and a feeling of wasting one’s time. If, for this reason, the interview is started before everyone has arrived and a participant arrives after the interview has started, we suggest taking the time to welcome this person into the group and giving a short introduction to what has been said and done so far.

Allowing All Participants to Present Themselves

In addition to the informal welcoming of participants, we suggest letting all participants present themselves briefly. This presentation serves two purposes: First, having some information about all group members, and having heard each and everyone’s voice, is vital as they start relating to each other (Trotzer, 2006, p. 134). Second, taking the time to do this explicitly gives everyone a “voice” and a “space” in the online room, which can make it easier to share one’s ideas and thoughts when discussing the interview topic later on.

Inviting Participants to React to Each Other

From the beginning of the interview, we encourage the researcher(s) to actively invite participants to respond or react to each other during the interview. But since it might create confusion and frustration if several people talk at the same time in an online setting, active facilitation by the researcher is called for. As mentioned above, the use of the “raise hand” button can be communicated as a ground rule, so that the researcher can invite people to talk based on this sign. Having these “ground rules” can make participants feel that someone is taking a process lead and structuring the conversation, which can enhance the feeling of psychological safety.

Stimulating Differing Ideas and Opinions

We suggest explicitly stating that the interview is intended as a group endeavor and saying that interaction among the participants is welcomed, even if the session is likely to be of short duration. A way of stimulating a constructive group climate is to explicitly encourage a wide range of differing ideas or opinions. If the group members feel psychologically safe enough to express their thoughts and opinions, the consequences of social pressures, such as polarization (Abrams et al., 1990), may be mitigated. However, the researchers must show that they are genuinely interested in whatever opinions the participants may have. The researcher can ask, for instance: “So far, several of you seem to agree that . . . and this is interesting! We would, however, also be very interested in other perspectives on this. Do any of you regard this differently?” It is of great importance that the researchers respond to any expression or utterance with interest and acceptance, rather than with judgment and evaluation, to enhance psychological safety. Otherwise, they would communicate an incongruent message: Saying that they are interested in a diversity of perspectives, but showing that some perspectives are better or more interesting than others. Genuineness and congruence are imperative for building trusting and accepting relationships (Rogers, 1961/2004) which are, in turn, considered crucial for the development of psychological safety.

Another way of encouraging differing opinions is to invite all the participants to take a few minutes to write down their initial reflections regarding the theme of the interview and then to ask them to share these reflections, one by one (Morgan, 1997, p. 49). Writing down their reflections makes it more likely that the participants will commit to sharing their initial thoughts and ideas (Morgan, 1997, p. 50). In our experience from the interviews in Neergård and Roald (in review), people frequently referred to their written reflections by saying, for instance “I wrote that . . .” In addition to stimulating differing opinions, this also provides the researchers with a reservoir of thoughts and reflections that can help them in the further facilitation of the conversation. The researcher could, for example, say: “Like you said in the beginning, X . . .,” which could make people feel that their voice is of interest, thereby making them feel appreciated, which might create a feeling of psychological safety in the group.

Reducing Power Differences

The researcher can play an important role in “smoothing out” potential power differences among the participants. In the study described by Neergård and Roald (in review), professors and students were part of the same focus-group interviews. Starting the interviews with a brief individual reflection, as shown above, can contribute to reducing power asymmetry in the focus-group interview. It can reinforce the experience that everyone’s voice is of equal interest to the researcher, which might, again, create a feeling of psychological safety. When following up with a “round” in which the participants share their initial thoughts on the topic, one by one, who the researcher asks to start sharing their thoughts can be of importance. For instance, in a group like that described by Neergård and Roald (in review), one can start with the student instead of the professor, to show that every perspective is equally relevant. Feeling free to share whatever perspective one brings to the table without fear of negative evaluation can, again, contribute to psychological safety in the group (Edmondson, 2019).

Process Interventions

Since group dynamics can have an impact on the group climate that ensues in any group, and thus also in online focus groups, we consider it desirable that the researchers make use of their process consultation skills (Schein, 2009). To stimulate a constructive group climate, they can take advantage of verbal and nonverbal cues that arise in the interaction among the group members. As mentioned above, nonverbal communication is not as rich in the online encounter as in face-to-face meetings, since one is generally left with only a tile in which the face and the torso are most often displayed at the expense of the rest of the body. This makes it even more important to be aware of the few cues one has and to use them to stimulate a constructive group climate.

As in offline focus-group interviews, these cues can, for instance, be related to paralanguage, such as tone of voice or the accentuation of words, which the researchers can address by saying, for instance: “I noticed that you emphasised the words ‘sick and tired’ when you spoke, X, would you like to elaborate on what that means?.” They can also make use of metaphors or allegories that are used by participants, by saying, for example: “X, you just used the metaphor of a huge wave coming towards you while describing the workload. Does this make sense to anyone else?” In other words, by being extra cognisant of communicative cues among the participants, the researchers can help stimulate a constructive group climate in the online focus-group interview.

Reviewing

At the end of the interview, the researchers should reserve some time for joint review of the participants’ experiences of the interview, as this might create an extra opportunity to look back on what has, or has not, been said, and why, and to add something or to modify or correct utterances (Vansina, 2005). Reviewing is not the same as evaluating: It is about gaining a deeper understanding of what has happened and learning from it. To create a psychologically safe environment, judgments and evaluations should be suspended by all, while experiences are shared, explored, compared, and enriched.