Methods in Tension: Choosing between Interviews and Focus Groups in Sensitive Contexts

Participants in this panel will gain practical insights into how to ethically and methodologically navigate the choice between interviews and focus groups in research with vulnerable populations, while foregrounding participant experiences. In qualitative research, the choice between individual interviews and focus groups has long been central to methodological debates (Barbour, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2015; Morgan, 1996). Both methods are well established and have generated extensive theoretical reflection as well as practical guidance (Roulston, 2010). Yet each carries distinct epistemological, methodological, and ethical implications that must be carefully weighed. For researchers working with vulnerable populations—such as children, migrants, or individuals living with chronic health conditions—these implications become even more pronounced. Methodological decisions are not neutral: they shape the kinds of data that can be collected, the extent to which participants feel safe, and the power dynamics within the research encounter. What might appear as a straightforward choice of method is, in fact, deeply consequential for the knowledge produced and for the lived experiences of those participating in the research. The COVID-19 pandemic has also added an extra dimension to this discussion by accelerating the use of online modes of data collection.

Focus groups are often celebrated for their ability to generate collective meaning through dialogue, to allow participants to validate or challenge each other’s contributions, and to foster a sense of recognition among people with shared experiences (Barbour, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2015; Morgan, 1996). For participants who have experienced marginalization, this dialogical setting can create a sense of solidarity and empowerment that goes beyond the individual encounter. At the same time, focus groups also carry well-documented risks: unequal participation, the disclosure of sensitive information in the presence of peers, and the challenge for moderators to balance openness with ethical safeguards (Dubé et al., 2023). The tension between openness and protection is particularly acute when working with children or individuals who have experienced trauma, where the benefits of shared recognition may be accompanied by significant ethical dilemmas.

By contrast, interviews are frequently described as more suitable for eliciting detailed personal narratives and for creating trust in a one-to-one setting (Roulston, 2010). They may provide safer conditions for discussing sensitive issues without peer scrutiny, allowing participants to speak freely about personal or stigmatized experiences. For example, a child disclosing experiences of sibling abuse, or a chronically ill patient describing intimate aspects of daily life, may feel more comfortable in a private setting than in a group. Yet interviews also lack the interactive dimension of focus groups and place a heavy interpretive burden on the researcher, who must make sense of narratives without the benefit of peer validation or contestation. This dynamic raises important epistemological questions: whose voice is being heard, and how is meaning being constructed in the absence of collective dialogue?

The literature shows that researchers often justify their methodological choices in terms of pragmatics, convenience, or assumptions about vulnerability, rather than through systematic comparisons of data quality or participant experience. Only a limited number of studies have made a direct comparison between interviews and focus groups, and even fewer have asked participants how they themselves experienced these methods (Guest et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2025). This represents a significant blind spot. In studies involving vulnerable populations, participants’ perspectives are essential to evaluating whether a method is appropriate, trustworthy, and ethically sound. Without integrating their voices, methodological debates risk being shaped exclusively by researchers’ assumptions, overlooking the very people whose experiences should be central.

This panel seeks to address this gap by creating a space for dialogue on the pros and cons of interviews and focus groups, when working with vulnerable groups. Bringing together experts with diverse methodological orientations, the panel will highlight how methodological choices are framed, defended, and critiqued in the literature and in practice. The discussion will explicitly integrate the participant perspective, asking how research encounters are experienced by those most affected. By focusing on both researcher arguments and participant voices, the panel will challenge entrenched assumptions and open new avenues for reflexive practice in qualitative inquiry.

Panelists include senior and junior researchers with extensive experience in qualitative research with vulnerable groups, including children, families, and clinical populations. Their combined expertise covers both the conduct of focus groups and interviews and the methodological and ethical debates surrounding their use. The panel will be moderated by a methodologist with expertise in quantitative methods who has a strong interest in qualitative research and regularly engages in qualitative debates. This positioning allows for critical questions to be raised from outside the immediate qualitative tradition, helping to highlight blind spots, broaden the discussion, and test the robustness of assumptions often taken for granted within qualitative research.

The session will unfold in three stages. First, each panelist will present a short position statement (7–8 minutes) reflecting on their rationale for using focus groups or interviews in vulnerable contexts, drawing on concrete examples from their own research. These examples will include online focus groups with children, interviews with families experiencing crises, and a comparative study on interviews and focus groups, with attention to participants’ experiences. Second, panelists will engage in a moderated discussion on the ethical stakes of these methodological choices, including confidentiality, participant comfort, and researcher responsibility. This part of the session will not only review established ethical frameworks but also highlight dilemmas encountered in practice, where no perfect solution exists. Third, the panel will explore how participants’ perspectives can be more systematically incorporated into methodological reflection, including strategies for evaluating participant experience across different modes of data collection. Audience members will be actively invited to contribute reflections from their own contexts, ensuring the session remains dialogical and inclusive.

By the end of the session, participants can expect several outcomes. First, they will gain deeper awareness of the methodological and ethical implications of choosing between interviews and focus groups, especially in sensitive research contexts. Second, they will be better informed about the current gaps in comparative evidence and the urgent need for systematic studies that integrate participant experience. Third, they will take away practical recommendations for incorporating participants’ voices into methodological decision-making, thus making research design more ethically grounded and reflexive. Finally, the panel aims to stimulate a collective research agenda that bridges academic debates with the lived realities of vulnerable participants.

In sum, this panel addresses a pressing methodological dilemma in qualitative research: how to navigate the tensions between interviews and focus groups in sensitive contexts. It will highlight both the benefits and risks of these methods, question the assumptions underlying researchers’ choices, and emphasize the critical importance of participant perspectives. By weaving together theoretical reflection, empirical illustration, and ethical critique, the panel contributes to WCQR’s mission of fostering debate and advancing methodological innovation. It offers participants new insights into how qualitative methods can be chosen, adapted, and justified in ways that are not only epistemologically sound but also ethically responsible and participant-centered.