Focus Group Discussion

A survey tells you how many women in a village used a new clinic. A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) tells you why the others did not.

The workbook describes FGDs as small groups of stakeholders taking part in structured discussions led by a facilitator. They allow in-depth exploration of specific topics and are useful for gathering qualitative insights.

FGDs are particularly good at capturing diverse perspectives, understanding complex issues and exploring nuances in impact. People in a group react to each other. One woman mentions the clinic's timings clash with field work; five others agree; a sixth says the real problem is that the doctor is male. That kind of layered answer rarely comes out of a questionnaire.

In a social impact assessment the discussion should be moderated by the Social Impact Assessor or their field team.

What the workbook says about FGDs:

FGD vs its neighbours:

In the Chapter 8 case studies FGDs always run alongside Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and quantitative surveys:

Illustrative scenario built on the Chapter 8 design.

Project: Sakhi-style mobile women's health clinics in 20 villages of Bahraich. The NPO's self-reported figure is "82% of pregnant women received three or more antenatal check-ups".

The survey. The assessor's team surveys 750 women. 79% report three or more check-ups — close to the NPO's claim.

The FGDs. Twenty FGDs are held: eight with pregnant and recently delivered women, six with ASHA and anganwadi workers, six with mothers-in-law. Sessions run in Awadhi, moderated by the assessor's field team.

What emerges:

• In 7 of 20 groups, women say the "check-up" at the mobile van often meant a weight and BP reading only, with no blood test, because the van's kit ran out.
• Mothers-in-law in 5 groups say they discouraged the third visit because it fell in the harvest weeks.

What the assessor does with it. The survey figure (79%) is not contradicted on count. But the FGDs show the quality of the check-up varied, so the 82% claim cannot be read as full antenatal care. The FGDs validate the count and qualify its meaning.

The report records this under key findings including gaps. It recommends restocking test kits and scheduling around the harvest, and keeps FGD notes and attendance lists in the engagement file as the audit trail.

FGDs appear in Chapter 5 (assessor skills, primary data, data-collection methods), Chapter 7 (qualitative approach) and throughout Chapter 8 (15%, the heaviest chapter), where every case study specifies FGDs, KIIs and surveys with numbers. Expect a method-matching question (small facilitated group → FGD; one-on-one → interview), a question on FGDs validating quantitative data, and case-study recall on the counts.

• An FGD is qualitative. It sits under the qualitative approach in Table 7.1, not the quantitative one.
• FGDs validate quantitative data — the workbook's stated role in 5.11.4.
• The discussion is moderated by the Social Impact Assessor or their field team, not by the NPO's own staff.
• FGD vs KII. An FGD is a group. A Key Informant Interview is one-on-one with an expert or informed individual — a doctor, NGO staff, a panchayat member.
• FGD records are primary evidence and belong in the audit trail and engagement file.
• The workbook spells it both "Focus Group Discussion" and "Focused Group Discussion" (5.11.4). Same method.
• Case-study counts differ. Cases 8.1 and 8.2 use 10 KIIs and 500 surveys; case 8.3 uses 8 KIIs and 750 surveys. All three use 20 FGDs.