The initial focus group consisting of males and females took place in the living room of a house. The husband of one of the participants in the focus group permitted the using of their home for the survey. The basis for the selection of this location is the convenience and comfort for the participants. The relaxed environment in the house was not disturbed by the members of the house, even though they were present.
The next focus groups were a group of all women. The meeting place was chosen in the university campus. The basis of this location choice was its central location that was convenient both for the participants and the researcher. The working of the group dynamics was fine, where the main unifier was the tattoos.
The last focus group was a group consisting of all males. The meeting place of this was selected to be the meeting room on a college. Some difficulties, however, was encountered while surveying this group. There was intimation from one volunteer regarding his unavailability. Another volunteer bunked without prior intimation. A replacement was found by the personal contact of a participant who agreed to participate in the survey. Eventually, the survey began when enough participants attending the focus group.
The link of the questionnaire had distribution via e-mail to the university courses’ instructors. The sharing of the link was done by the instructors with the students. The choice was a specific class by drawing students from a range of colleges affiliated to the university. It has a basic requirement of junior standing that provides the student population of the university’s subset. It had the assumption that the highest level students have greater likelihood of having tattoos compared to the mandatory class, which has a greater likelihood of drawing students with a status of freshmen. The separate link and the survey link have been volunteering focus groups that had the promotion with respect to the usage of standardized prompt. There was offer from the researcher for speaking to the classes and instructors in discussing the research purpose. Both volunteer and survey links meant for the focus groups were prepared with the utilization of online and secure survey software. There was separation of the links making it impossible for the connection of the survey responses to the individuals volunteering the focus group. The respondents of the survey were not beneficiaries of any compensation for their survey responses. A consent page, which is informed, indicated the agreement required in volunteering for the participation were required for completion before the progression of the remaining survey.
The direction of the survey was not only towards individuals having tattoos. The social media prevalence was also meant to be obtained as with the social media’s privacy and publicness amongst the students of the colleges. The research, however, could not receive sufficient responses that can be usable quantitatively to be analyzed. However, validity remains with regards to the qualitative responses and the individuals that had comparison with the evaluated data from the focus groups.