Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Monilähdekeskusteluryhmä – Monitoimijainen kvalitatiivinen tiedonkeruu× | Nominaaliryhmätekniikka× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala≠ | Kyselytutkimuksen metodologia | Laadulliset menetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1980s–1990s | 1971 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Developed from focus group methodology; formalized in applied social research (Krueger, Morgan, and colleagues) | André L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven |
| Tyyppi≠ | Qualitative data collection technique | Qualitative research method |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (5th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1483365244 | Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466–492. link ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | multi-stakeholder focus group, multiple-source focus group, cross-source focus group, MSFG | NGT, structured group process, nominal group process, priority-setting group method |
| Liittyvät≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | The multi-source focus group method extends the standard focus group design by deliberately recruiting participants from two or more distinct stakeholder groups — for example, clinicians and patients, teachers and students, or managers and frontline staff. Separate sessions are held for each source group using a shared discussion protocol, and the resulting data are analyzed both within each group and across groups to reveal convergences, tensions, and perspectives that no single-source design could uncover. | The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a structured group facilitation method designed to generate and prioritise ideas, problems, or solutions while ensuring equal participation from all members. Developed by Delbecq and Van de Ven in 1971, it combines silent individual idea generation with structured group discussion and systematic voting to produce a ranked list of priorities. Unlike unstructured focus groups, NGT prevents dominant voices from suppressing quieter participants, making it especially valuable for needs assessment, program planning, and stakeholder priority-setting in applied research and policy contexts. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|