Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews

Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews Purpose – The aim of this research was to consider whether focus groups have justifiably become a more frequently used qualitative market research technique because of a superior research outcome. Although focus groups have extrinsic advantages such as speed and cost, there is evidence that individual depth interviews have intrinsic advantages relating to the quality of the research outcome. Design/methodology/approach – A parallel research study was undertaken examining a single business issue using both focus groups and individual interviews. Results of both processes were analysed for relevance to the business issue. Follow up individual interviews with participants of the focus groups were undertaken to assess the validity of the data collected, and to investigate the nature of the processes in the groups. Findings – Group processes appear to have had considerable influence on the consensus view expressed in focus groups, which may not be representative of respondents' individual views. Both the groups and the interviews identified the principle issues relating to buyer motivations and processes, target markets and branding. The groups were unable to match the depth and detail generated by individual interviews and to uncover subtleties in attitudes. The interviews offered less breadth of data and contextual information. Practical implications – Whilst groups may be less expensive and faster in data collection, individual interviews demonstrated a superior ability to inform marketing strategy by uncovering important underlying issues. Originality/value – The findings indicate that groups do not justify their predominance as a market research method in preference to interviews on the grounds of quality of outcomes alone. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal Emerald Publishing

Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/methodology-or-methodolatry-an-evaluation-of-focus-groups-and-depth-TE0XNCEaT0
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1352-2752
DOI
10.1108/13522750610640530
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this research was to consider whether focus groups have justifiably become a more frequently used qualitative market research technique because of a superior research outcome. Although focus groups have extrinsic advantages such as speed and cost, there is evidence that individual depth interviews have intrinsic advantages relating to the quality of the research outcome. Design/methodology/approach – A parallel research study was undertaken examining a single business issue using both focus groups and individual interviews. Results of both processes were analysed for relevance to the business issue. Follow up individual interviews with participants of the focus groups were undertaken to assess the validity of the data collected, and to investigate the nature of the processes in the groups. Findings – Group processes appear to have had considerable influence on the consensus view expressed in focus groups, which may not be representative of respondents' individual views. Both the groups and the interviews identified the principle issues relating to buyer motivations and processes, target markets and branding. The groups were unable to match the depth and detail generated by individual interviews and to uncover subtleties in attitudes. The interviews offered less breadth of data and contextual information. Practical implications – Whilst groups may be less expensive and faster in data collection, individual interviews demonstrated a superior ability to inform marketing strategy by uncovering important underlying issues. Originality/value – The findings indicate that groups do not justify their predominance as a market research method in preference to interviews on the grounds of quality of outcomes alone.

Journal

Qualitative Market Research: An International JournalEmerald Publishing

Published: Jan 1, 2006

Keywords: Focus groups; Interviews; Market research

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off