DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 297 393 CS 506 291

AUTHOR Byers, Peggy Yuhas; Wilcox, James R.

TITLE Focus Groups: An Alternative Method of Gathering
Qualitative Data in Communication Research.
PUB DATE Nov 88
NOTE 19p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association (74th, New Orleans,
LA, November 3-6, 1988).
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Reports -
Evaluative /Feasibility (142) -- Information Analyses
(070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Communication Research; *Data Collection; Data
Interpretation; Discussion Groups; Interviews;
*Qualitative Research; Research Methodology
IDENTIFIERS *Focus Groups Approach

ABSTRACT
Communication scholars should be skilled in the use
of focus groups in communication research and in interpreting the
data this approach generates. The focus group is a discussion group
that concentrates on a particular topic or topics and typically
consists of eight to 12 participants. The group is facilitated by a
moderator who follows a relatively unstructured interview guide and
plays a key role in the success of the group. Focus groups can
provide: (1) data which is not obtainable through paper and pencil
self-report measures or observational measures; and (2) the
opportunity to obtain data which is not necessarily germane to any
Particular group or setting. This provides qualitative information to
expose underlying attitudes, opinions, and behavior patterns. The
advantages of focus groups are the release of inhibition by the
Participants, the generation of a wide range of responses, and the
creation of a valuable source of exploratory information when little
is known beforehand about the researcher's topic of interest. The
disadvantages are the interviewee's responses toward the interview
situation itself, the concept of social desirability, and biased
results. In three specific applications of focus group methodology
(two doctoral dissertations and an organizational communication
consulting project) and much other communication research, the focus
group orrvaoo to be the "best,' if not the only way, of obtaining the
data to achieve the research objective. (Eighteen references are
appended.) (MS)

XX30000000EX*300(XMX300EMMXXXXXX****300(**X300MXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*XX3900000E
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document. X
)0000000000000E**X*3000000000000000MOOM00000000000000EX3000000000000EXXX
 U S DEPARTMEN7 OF EDUCATION
Office or Educational Research and Improvement
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
leATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC)
:2 This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
C Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu

n'ent do not necessarily represent official
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OERI position or policy
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC/

FOCUS GROUPS: AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD

OF GATHERING QUALITATIVE DATA IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

By:
Peggy Yuhas Byers
Department of Communication & Theatre
Saint Mary's College

and

James R. Wilcox
Department of Interpersonal & Public Communication
Bowling Green State University

Presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference

New Orleans, LA., November, 1988

r
 ABSTRACT

This essay outlines focus groups as a relatively new

method of research for the communication scientist. The
needs for this type of research are discussed as well as
essential ingredients of a quality focus group session.
The advantages and disadvantages, suggested methods for
analyzing focus group data and specific instances of the
application of focus groups in recent communication
research are also discussed.
 FOCUS GROUPS: AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF
GATHERING QUALITATIVE DATA IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

Focus groups have been heavily employed in marketing research for

several years as a method of gathering qualitative data. Articles
elaborating descriptions, advantages and disadvantages can be found in
a variety of marketing journals such as Marketing News, Marketing
Times, Journal of Advertising Research, and Advances in Consumer
Research. Fewer, however, can be found in social science journals.
Clearly, the focus group is no longer the exclusive property of
consumer researchers wishing to test new products or gain response to
advertising campaigns. It has become Ln increasingly widely used
method of academic social science research. Nonetheless, a growing
number of non-marketing research efforts have employed focus group
methodology. In a 1987 unpublished paper, .7 iler has identified some
doctoral dissertations and articles using focus group methodology in a
variety of disciplines, including health administration, family planning,
family relations, transportation and others.
This article will make the case for the focus group in
communication research--suggesting appropriate inquires for its use
and arguing that communication scholars in particular should be skilled
at its use and in interpreting the data it generated. It will also provide
a brief description of the focus group procedure and moderator
qualities, a theoretical framework for their use, some suggested means
of analyzing focus group data, and examples of the their utilization in
recent communication studies.

?2
 2

WHAT EXACTLY IS A FOCUS GROUP?

Descriptions of focus groups can be found throughout the
literature (e.g.: Calder, 1977; Lydecker, 1986; Merton, Fiske and Kendall,
1956; Yuhas, 1986; and Zeller, 1986) The focus group is a discussion
group that concentrates on a particular topic or topics and typically
consists of eight to twelve participants. Focus groups can be formed on
the basis of different criteria to facilitate the in-depth exploration of
views of people with varying characteristics. At the same time, the free
flow of information is facilitated when each group is fairly homogeneous
(Pramualratan, Havanon and Knodel, 1985; Zeller, 1986).
The group is facilitated by a moderator who follows a relatively
unstructured interview guide. The moderator seeks to obtain significant
experiences from the interviewees germane to the topic or topics of

interest. The moderator also seeks to obtain a maximum of

self-revelatory inforrpation of how the topic under review has been
experienced. The topic under review may be a product or service, a
message about a product or service, a concept, or an institution.
The moderator plays a key role in the SUCC.SSS of any focus group.
Goldman (1962) suggests that the most important factor in producing
usable information from a session is the relationship between the
moderator and the participants. Rapport must be established early in the
session and the moderator's language must not be too discrepant from
that of the majority of the participants. One of the most important
functions the moderator serves is to keep the discussion within relevant
limits but not rule out that which is apparently unrelated yet which may
 3

reveal unconscious motives.

The moderator must seek to expose interviewees' "personal
contexts" and "depth responses" (Merton et al., 1956, p. 115). Personal

contexts are of two types: (1) idiosyncratic contexts or highly personal

experiences and attitudes in relation to the topic or topics under
discussion, and (2) role contexts which are common experiences among
persons of similar social status. Depth responses are the interviewees'
affective experiences of the topic or topics under discussion. As Merton
et al. (1956) stated, "it is a central task of the focused interviewer to
learn how the prior experiences and dispositions of the interviewees are
related to their structuring of the stimulus situations" (p. 117).
There are several methods available to the interviewer for
exposing responses and contexts (Merton et al., 1956). Interviewers

may utilize the following methods: (1) identification, by which

interviewees identify themselves with the others in the group based on
their present situatiqn; (2) parallelling of experiences, by which the
interviewees clarify their responses in relation to comparable life
history experiences; and (3) controlled projection, in which the
discussion is moved from the third person to a more personal level, from
a " he did it" to an "I did it" level.
Goldman (1962) also suggests methods of attaining information.
One is asking questions which ask participants to "project." An example
would be to identify a particular type of behavior and ask "What kind of a
person would do this?". Another involves using case methods to explore
personal habits such as describing qualities of a person and asking the
respondents what other qualities this person may possess. A third
 4

method amenable to focus groups, according to Goldman, is deception.

The moderator states something false and probes the reactions of the
participants. The comeptent moderator is adept at using such methods
singly or in combination to probe respondents and gain information
relevant to research objectives.

THE NEED FOR FOCUS GROUPS

A common criticism of much communication research is that it has

gotten too far away from the process of communication. Researchers
are urged to provide more solid "grounded theory." Typically this is
systematically generated from qualitative research, from which may be
generated germane hypotheses. Focus groups have the potential of being
an excellent source of qualitative data (Zeller, 1986), and a "superb
mechanism for generating hypotheses when little is known" (Wells,
1974, p. 133). They are also well suited for providing a basis for the
development of additional research (Cox, 1976, p. 77).
It is often said that if you give a small child a hammer, suddenly
everything needs to be nailed. So has the "law of the hammer" operated
in social science research. One relies on one's well used or favorite
hammers (individual interviews, or survey instruments, or chi squares,
or ANOVA etc.) to generate reliable knowledge. There is always the risk
of becoming overly zealous with one's favorite research method. The

risk is that only certain kinds of inquires will be raised and answered.
Focus groups, as a method of gathering qualitative data, may provide a
new opportunity for communication researchers who are tired of the
well used hammers and provide the scientific community with a means
 5

of gathering information otherwise not obtainable.

Zeller (1986) states that "when the goals of the research are
is not in the
general, call for qualitative data, require data that
respondent's top-of-mind, and when there is minimal prior knowledge
likely to emerge,
about a particular problem and the range of responses
(p. 1). Focus
the focus group may be the appropriate research design"
obtainable
groups have the ability to provide us with data which is not
observational
through paper and pencil self-report measures or
may
measures. In areas of study in which little is known, focus groups
be an appropriate place to begin--a new and appropriate hammer.
is not
Focus groups provide the opportunity to obtain data which
necessarily germane to any particular aroup or setting (Morgan and
Spanish, 1984, p. 258). The focus group "has the potential of providing a
their
methodology of exploration which allows participants to express
concerns within a context that is useful to the scientific community"
(Zeller, 1986, p. 3).,-.
underlying
This provides qualitative information to expose
attitudes, opinions, and bohavior patterns (Pramualratan et al., 1985).
Ideally, the focus group closes the gap between the interviewee's initial
perceptions of a topic and their final reports of what they have seen
(Merton et al., 1956).

ESTABLISHING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Establishing a theoretical framework is necessary in order to

support the usefulness of any data-gathering technique. The concepts of
scientific versus everyday knowledge, objectivity, gsneralizability,

8
 6

reliability, and validity should be addressed.

Focus groups have been described as "soft" and "sexy" research
Now, according to
with little validity compared to quantitative studies.
Lydecker (1986), focus groups "boast their own label - qualitative
information that
research - and are widely respected for bringing out
Calder (1977) has
might be missed by a statistical study' (p. 74).
provided perhaps one of the most comprehensive reviews of this aspect
desire for scientific and
of focus groups and differentiates between the
of science he states
everyday knowledge. Discussing the philosophy
that:

The world of everyday thought is separate from

scientific discourse. it is composed of the terms and
ordinary language that people use to give meaning to the
world in their everyday lives. As such, its function is
a ialogous to that of science. It allows one to interpret
the real world by use of simplified ideas. The only
difference is that scientific constructs are supposed to
be more powitrful and to be subject to more rigorous and
critical verification than are everyday ideas. (p. 354)

which most
Calder is stating that scientific constructs upon
only
current research is based are abstracted forms and represent
limited aspects of real-world objects and behaviors. In quantitative
research scientific knowledge seeks to use numbers to test scientific
desire for everyday
constructs and causal hypotheses, whereas the the
knowledge seeks to describe the numerical patterns. Calder sees the
distinction between scientific and everyday knowledge in qualitative
research as ambiguous.
 7

According to Zeller's interpretation (1986) the ambiguity of the

distinction is based on the confusion between first degree and second
degree constructs. The former are "low abstraction" constructs which
construct reality form the actor's perspective, and the latter which
construct reality from the scientist's perspective.
Calder distinguishes between exploratory, clinical, and

phenomenological approaches to focus group research. He claims that

the exploratory approach to qualitative research seeks prescientific
knowledge. This knowledge is not meant to have scientific status, it is
meant to be its precursor. He states that when focus groups are
conducted in anticipation of prompting quantitative scientific
knowledge, their purpose is to stimulate the thinking of the

researchers. They are using everyday thoughts and words to

operationalize second-degree constructs and hypotheses. When focus

groups are conducted in anticipation of gaining qualitative exploratory

knowledge they q PE) facilitating the construct-generation process.
Calder states that the aim of exploratory research might well be
described as grounded theory. Calder suggests that the exploratory
approach be used "when scientific explanation is desired but

researchers are uncertain about second-degree constructs, or when a

scientific explanation is at hand and researchers want to compare it
with ...[lay persons'] interpretations" (1977, p. 361).
The clinical, or therapeutic approach, for Calder, cannot be
correctly studied through quantitative means. He suggests that this
approach be used when researchers need to invoke scientific constructs
which are not amenable to self-report or direct inference. He states

10
 9

group participants. Calder suggests that generalizations can be

assessed through subsequent research designed to test the clinical
interpretation with a quantitative technique.
Generalizability for the phenomeno:ogical approach, according to
Calder, is more easily assessed through follow-up quantitative
research. Calder warns, however, that "the phenomenological approach
is predicated on experiencing the experience of [others]. This is best
done through personal contact. Quantitative surveys, though they permit
estimates of generality, are a poor substitute for even vicarious
experience" (1977, p. 361) and continues to suggest that additional
focus groups may be a better way to establish generalizability. A rule
of thumb is to conduct focus groups until the researchers can be
reasonably sure that the same information will be repeated. This
typically occurs after the fourth or fifth session.
Goldman (1962) suggests requirements of good group interviews
such as objectivity,. reliability, and validity. He suggests that to

promote objectivity, or "avoidance of the bias of the interviewer and

client [or research team] "(p. 66), the moderator should refrain from
contributing to the discussion as much as possible and monitor his/her
actions carefully. He also suggests that the identity of the client or
research team be disguised. As the goal of focus group research is to
ask "why" rather than "how many," to generate hypotheses rather than
assert their representativeness, the question of reliability becomes
unimportant.
Goldman states that "a source of continual concern to the
researcher is the validity problem (italics his)" (p. 67). Focus groups

11
 10

tend to suffer from inhibiting factors just as do other methods of

qualitative research. Goldman, through his experiences with focus
groups, concludes that discrepancies between attitude expression and
actual behavior are decreased, implying reasonable validity of the
method.

ADVANTAGES OF THE FOCUS GROUP

As does any method of research, the focus group has its

advantages and its disadvantages. One advantage is the release of
inhibition by the participants; the standards created by group interaction
based on interviewer's guidance calls for full and open expression of
intimate experiences and sentiments similar to those of an Alcoholics
Anonymous meeting.
A second advantage of focus group data is that it usually contains a
wide range of responses. The range of responses are particularly useful
in exploratory resewch. The focus group may stimulate recall and
activate important and forgotten personal details about the topic or
topics of interest within the interviewees. Thus, focus groups allow
respondents to expand on their views and "capitalize on the value of
group dynamics, encouraging participants to react to and build on one
another's ideas" (Lydecker, 1986, p. 74). Allport (1965) stated simply

that if we want to know how people felt, what they experienced, what
they remembered, what their emotions and motives were like and the
reasons for acting as they did--why not just ask them?
A third advantage of the focus group method which had already
been discussed is that of being a valuable source of exploratory
 11

information when little is known beforehand about tr,9 researcher's topic

of interest. It can provide a point from which o begin formulating
hypotheses and research questions for subsequent quantification and/or
exploration.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE FOCUS GROUP

One disadvantage of the focus group is that of interviewee's
responses toward the interview situation itself (Merton et al., 1956).
Controversies may emerge; and the more outspoken members of the group
may try to lead the group while those less articulate and less outspoken
follow. This is generally prompted more by the interplay of personalities
than by the topic or topics under discussion. Also, respondents may
introduce matters totally irreevant to the topic of interest (Merton et
al., 1956). It is the moderator's duty to control these types of patterns
within the group.
A second disadvantage which haunts quantitative methods as well
as qualitative methods of research is the concept of social desirability.
Crowne and Marlow (1964) suggest that self-report test scores are
influenced by non-test relevant response determinants. They suggest
that participants sometimes report what they believe are socially
acceptable, or socially desirable answers. Although Crowne and
Marlow's research deals with self-report statistical studies, the
concept of social desirability may also be applied to focus group
responses. Participants in the focus group may provide answers which
they believe are socially acceptable so as not to appear abnormal or
deviant from the other group members.

13
 12

Focus groups may also be fiery costly. Professional moderator's

fees may run anywhere from $100.00 to $300.00 per session, light
refreshments should be served at each session, and participants are
compensated for their time by money or gifts. Therefore, a series of

four focus group sessions may easily cost $2,500.00 or more.

A final disadvantage of the focus group method is that of biased
results. It is possible that those people who are extroverted and

outgoing are more likely to participate in focus group sessions than

those who are communication apprehensives. It is possible then that

participants represent only a particular segment of society which

diminishes the generalizability of the results despite the randomness of
the sample. As suggested earlier, generalizability may or may not be of
concern depending on the type of information sought. It is something,
however, which the researcher should keep in mind when examining the
results and applying them to the larger population.
-
SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATA

There are a variety of methods one may employ for analyzing focus
group data. One procedure described by Berelson (1956) deals
specifically with qualitative research and may be particularly useful for
analyzing focus group data. This procedure, according to Berelson, is

termed "pre-quantitative," or "qualitative" content analysis. He stated

that this is a process for "discovering and/or formulating appropriate
categories for subsequent quantification... [It] is the process of inducting
hypotheses which yield generalized categories for systematic analysis"
(p. 115). It looks for the frequency of certain types of statements and
 13

the incidence of "general categories."

Berelson (1956) stated that qualitative content analysis is

"quasi-quantitative." He stated that this qualitative analysis contains

quantitative statements in "rough form." "Instead of saying, for example,
that 73% of the content fits a given category, they say that the category
is 'strongly emphasized' or that the content 'tends in this direction'" (p.
118). He suggests that content analysis may be useful 1) to describe
the characteristics of the content itself; 2) to make valid inferences
from the nature of the content to characteristics of the producers of the
content; and 3) to interpret the content so as to reveal something about
the nature of its audience or its effects.
A qualitative content analysis approach may be particularly useful
when one's research is exploratory. Berelson states that when sample
size is small and extreme precision is not essential, this type of
analysis is most beneficial.
In those instances where extreme precision is essential, when
specific categories must be examined, and the research is not

necessarily exploratory, a quantitative content analysis may be in order.

Whichever type of analysis is employed, it is suggested that the
focus group data and resulting categories be submitted to another
researcher for validation (Kassarjian, 1977).

APPLICATIONS OF THE FOCUS GROUP METHOD IN

COMMUNICATION STUDIES

This section will describe three specific applications of focus

group methodology in recent communication research efforts. Two are

doctoral dissertations; one is an organizational communication

15
 14

consulting project.
In the first application, Yuhas (1986) was interested in romantic
marital jealousy and discovered the lack of any appropriate measures of
romantic jealousy in marriage. As a consequence, she arranged for four
focus groups of 38 respondents divided according to sex and length of
marriage. Issues probed in the groups included participant
conceptualization of jealousy, how it was customarily communicated
about, the causes of jealousy, and the constructive and destructive
methods marital partners use in dealing with marital jeaiousy. Several

categories for further exploration emerged within the aiscussions such

as the relationship between marital jealousy and masculinity; the
conceptual confusion among marital jealousy, envy and anger; the
relationship between the length of marriage and occurrence of romantic
jealousy; the point at which a rival becomes a threat; and preventive
measures spouses engage in to thwart it. The discussions were
submitted to a qtAlitative content analysis and the emergent themes
were incorporated into an initial scale for future verification.
In the second instance, Lehman (1987) attempted an evaluation of
the various anti-smoking campaigns of the prior generation, asking
specifically the questions "how do people process and respond to
anti-smoking messages?". He conducted groups of confirmed smokers,
ex-smokers, non-smokers, and non-smoking family members of smokers.
He was also interested in insight as to whether the dissonance, social
judgment, or cognitive processing models offered better explanations of
resistance to persuasion phenomena in the specific smoking case.
Lehman concluded that the latter model "fit" his findings and detailed

16
 15

some intriguing conclusions regarding fear appeals and physician

credibility.
Finally, an on-going organizational intervention by the junior
author involves use of focus groups as a way of both identifying those
core values that comprise the "corporate culture" and those structural
barriers that exist which impede their acceptance at all levels of the
organization. Additionally, focus groups are being used in this project to
determine for each major division critical components of its intra
organizational image.
Two points will summarize our position. First, in these projects
(and many worthwhile similar ones) the focus group appears to be the
"best," if not the only way of obtaining the data to achieve the research
objective. In none of the three cases were the findings regarded as
definitive, only provocative and suggestive of further research inquiry
(of course, this observation fits most research endeavors).
Second, the kinds of skills required by the moderator are the kinds
of skills taught in communication classes in colleges and universities
across the nation. The communication scholar should not only welcome
the opportunity for additional research methods, he or she should be
especially well equipped to moderate and or evaluate the focus group.

17
 REFERENCES

(1965). In C. Sellitz, M., Jahoda, & S. W. Cook (Eds.),

AI !port, G. W.
Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Rineholt and
Winston.

Berelson, B. (1956). Content Analysis in Communication Research,

Illinois: The Free Press.

Calder, B. J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative

marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research. 14 353-364.

Cox, K. K., Higgenbotham, J. B., & Burton, J. (1976). Applications of

focus group interviews in marketing. Journal of Marketing, EL,
77-80.

Crowne, D. & Marlow, D. (1964). The Approval Motive. New York: John
Wiley and Son.

Goldman, A. E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing,

a., 61-68.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research.
Journal of Corgumer Research. 4.,. . 8-17.

Kover, A. J. (1982). Point of view: The legitimacy of qualitative

research. Journal of Advertising Research, 2.2.,. 49-50.

Lehman, K. L. (1987). A study of the anti-smoking campaign.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Greeen State
Univaraity, °ilk,.
Lydecker, T. H. (1986). Focus group dynamics. Association Management,
March, 73-78.

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1956). The Focused Interview.
Illinois: The Free Press

18
Morgan, D. L. & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for
qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology. a, 253-270.

Pramualratana, A., Havanon, N., & Knodel, J. (1985). Exploring the

normative basis for age of marriage in Thailand: An example from
focus group research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 4 1,
203 -210.

Reynolds, F. D. & Johnson, D. K. (1978). Validity of focus group findings.

Journal of Advertisina Research. 21-24.

Wells, W. D. (1974). Group Interviewing. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook of

Marketing Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Yuhas, P. L. (1986). Romantic marital jealousy: An exploratory

analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Greeen State
University, Ohio.

Zeller, R. A. (1987) 1.ocus group bibliography. Unpublished manuscript,

Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

Zeller, R. A. (1986). The focus group: Sociological applications,

Unpublished manuscript, Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

19