This essay outlines focus groups as a relatively new method of research for the com-munication and organizational researcher. The needs for this type of research, essen-tial ingredients of a quality focus group session, and the advantages anddisadvantages ofthe method are discussed A theoretical framework is established andspecific instances ofthe application of focus groups in recent organizational researchare given. Finally, suggested methods for analyzing focus group data are presented.

Focus Groups:A Qualitative Opportunity for ResearchersPeggy Yuhas ByersSaint Mary's CollegeJames R. WilcoxBowling Green State University

'he following scenario is a daily occurrence in many large cities:

ight to twelve people, usually a homogeneous grouping, are seated arounda conference table engaging in discussion facilitated by a moderator theyhave never before met. The focus of discussion may be a new product conceptor prototype, an advertisement (message or campaign) or perhaps a service.Discussion will proceed for one or two hours. Group members are probedand their responses seem to stimulate discussion as to their perceptions,attitudes, and purchase intentions. The proceedings are audio (sometimesvideo) recorded and usually observed from the other side of a one-way mirrorby representatives ofthe organization which has produced the product, ad,or service. Later, the content of the discussion (often four to eight, or tengroups on a single stimulus) will be analyzed and interpreted in the formof recommendations designed ultimately to reduce the client organization'srisk in decision-making.

Focus groups have been heavily employed in marketing research forseveral years as a method of gathering qualitative data. Articleselaborating descriptions, advantages and disadvantages can be found ina variety of marketing journals such as Marketing News, MarketingTimes, Journal of Advertising Research, and Advances in ConsumerResearch. The focus group method of research has been virtually ignoredby those wishing to study the process of communication in areas otherthan marketing. Communication, or communication-related methodstexts, rarely mention focus groups and relatively few articles employingthe method exist in published communications research (Lederman,1983, 1989).

This article will make the case for the focus group in communicationand organizational research—^briefly reviewing pertinent literature

63

64 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

about the method and its advantages and disadvantages. A theoreticalframework will be discussed as well as appropriate inquiries for its use.Finally, methods of evaluating the resulting data will be suggested.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The rationale for focus groups should be clear. One common criticismof much communication research is that it has been too far removed fromthe "process" of communication. Exhibiting a bias for scientific rigor inthe last generation, scholars have only recently begun to reassert andadvocate qualitative research possibilities to provide more solid"grounded theory." Focus groups have the potential of being an excellentsource of qualitative data (Zeller, 1986). As Goldman (1962) suggests,the focus group offers researchers the opportunity to see "process" inaction. The focus group affords researchers the chance to observe trans-actions between and among participants, how they respond and react toeach other.

Zeller (1986) states that "when the goals ofthe research are general,call for qualitative data, require data that is not in the respondent'stop-of-mind, and when there is minimal prior knowledge about a par-ticular problem and the range of responses likely to emerge, the focusgroup may be the appropriate research design" (p. 1). Focus groups havethe ability to provide us with data not obtainable through paper andpencil self-report measures or observational measures. In areas of studyin which little is known, focus groups may be an appropriate place tobegin.

Focus groups provide the opportunity to obtain data which is notnecessarily germane to any particular group or setting (Morgan &Spanish, 1984). The focus group "has the potential of providing amethodology of exploration which allows participants to express theirconcerns within a context that is useful to the scientific community"(Zeller, 1986, p. 3).

Such exploration may expose underlying attitudes, opinions, andbehavior patterns (Pramualratana, Havanon, & Knodel, 1985). Ideally,a focus group closes the gap between the interviewees' initial perceptionsof a topic and their final reports of what they have seen (Merton, Fiske,& Kendall, 1956). Morgan and Spanish (1984) suggest that focus groupsare a "unique and independent" source of qualitative data and "can addto other qualitative or quantitative data collection strategies" (p. 253),thus making them useful in a variety of areas of exploration.

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 65

The Focus Group Method

Descriptions of focus groups can be found throughout the literature(e.g., Calder, 1977; Cox, Higgenbotham, & Burton, 1976; Fern, 1982;Goldman, 1962; Krueger, 1988; Lehman, 1987; Lydecker, 1986; Mertonet al., 1956; Morgan, 1988; Yuhas, 1986; Zeller, 1986). The focus groupgrew out of what Merton, Fiske, and Kendall (1956) referred to as afocused interview," a discussion group that concentrates on a particulartopic or topics, that is facilitated by a trained moderator, and thattypically consists of eight to twelve participants.

Lederman (1989) suggests five fundamental assumptions upon whichthe method rests: (1) that people are a valuable source of information;(2) that people can report on and about themselves, and that they arearticulate enough to verbalize their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors;(3) that the facilitator who "focuses" the interview can help peopleretrieve forgotten information; (4) that the dynamics in the group can beused to generate genuine information, rather than the "group think"phenomenon; and (5) that interviewing a group is better than interview-ing an individual.

The focus group interview can be useful by itself as a "self-contained"method of research or it can be part of an on-going, multi-method studywhen used in conjunction with individual interviews, surveys, experi-ments, or participant observations (Morgan, 1988). The group isfacilitated by a moderator who follows a relatively unstructured inter-view guide (see appendix). The moderator seeks to obtain significantexperiences from the interviewees germane to the topic or topics ofinterest.

Employing Axelrod's (1975) ten essential ingredients for a successfulfocus group, one would have:

1. A Clearly Understood Objective. Is the focus group part of anon-going research project or is it self-contained? Does the research teamhave a clearly defined subject of study?

2. Homogeneity Within the Group. The participants should behomogeneous in relation to the topic under discussion (i.e., all shouldeither have or have not been exposed to the topic of study).

3. (jlood Recruiting. Recruiting should be done to insure homogeneityand a sufficient number of qualified participants.

4. A Relaxed Atmosphere. The moderator should insure confiden-tiality and promote openness.

5. A Moderator Who Listens. The moderator must insure that thediscussion does not stray too far from the point of interest, yet must notrule out things that may seem unrelated.

66 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

6. A Well Prepared Moderator. The moderator typically follows anunstructured interview guide.

7. Free-Flowing Dialogue. The moderator should begin the discus-sion by inviting honest and open dialogue and guiding the discussiononly when necessary.

8. Restrained Group Infiuence. The moderator should refrain fromcontributing to the discussion unless necessary.

9. Skilled Analysis. The data can be analyzed by either a qualitative,or ethnographic summary; or a quantitative systematic coding via con-tent analysis (Morgan, 1988, p. 64).

10. Competent Researchers. The research team should be sure thatall necessary details are controlled.

A successful focus group is one in which a variety of responses aregenerated which are germane to the topic of study. All participants feelfree to express opinions and thoughts regarding the topic(s) at hand.

Advantages of the Focus Group

Based on a review of the literature the method has advantages anddisadvantages. The advantages will be highlighted first.

1. Release of inhibition by participants. A well moderated groupencourages full and open expression of perceptions, experiences, at-titudes, etc.

2. Flexibihty. A focus group is typically more flexible than an in-dividual interview (Wells, 1974). The moderator "works from a list oftopics—^listening, thinking, probing, exploring, framing hunches andideas" (p. 134).

3. Handling contingencies. A focus group is amenable to exploringlinkages which go untouched in a statistical survey (Wells, 1974, p. 134).Moreover, it is possible to explore avenues of importance which may ariseother than those listed on a questionnaire.

4. Time. Eliciting responses from eight to twelve respondents in afocus group lasting one to two hours is more "time effective" thaninterviewing the same number individually.

5. Interpretability of data. Though the data usually contain a widerange of responses (Kover, 1982), identification of issues and the reasonsparticipants hold positions on issues is usually clear upon carefulanalysis. The group often stimulates recall and actuates important butforgotten personal detail.

6. Provision of basic exploratory information. When little is known inadvance of investigation, the focus group may provide a basis for for-mulating research questions and hypothesis (Zeller, 1987).

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 67

Disadvantages of the Focus Group

The focus group method and data do, however, have some disad-vantftges:

1. Cost. A series of four focus groups could easily cost more than$2,500, depending on moderator fee, facility rental, recording andtranscribing, data analysis and interpretation, and participant incen-tives.

2. Subjects' conformity. Social desirability, or respondents' motiva-tion to provide socially acceptable responses to conform to group normsis somewhat greater in a group than in the anonymous process of surveyquestionnaire completion (Crowne & Marlow, 1964).

3. Biased results. An analyst should not generalize from focus groupresults to the larger population from which the respondents were asample, and it is well to remember that the respondents are volunteerswho may be more extroverted, outgoing, and sociable than the "average"individual.

Estabiishing a Theoreticai Framework

Establishing a theoretical framework is necessary in order to supportthe usefulness of any data-gathering technique. To date, Calder (1977)provides the most comprehensive theoretical approach to the focus grouptechnique encompassing its generalizability, objectivity, reliability,validity, the link between theory and method, and an evaluation ofthemethod.

Theoreticai Approaches to Focus Group Research

Calder (1977) distinguishes between exploratory, clinical, andphenomenological approaches to focus group research. He claims thatthe exploratory approach to qualitative research seeks prescientificknowledge. This knowledge is not meant to have scientific status; it ismeant to be a precursor. Calder (1977) states that when focus groups areconducted in anticipation of prompting quantitative scientificknowledge, their purpose is to stimulate researchers to use everydaythoughts and words to operationalize constructs and hypotheses. Whenfocus groups are conducted in anticipation of gaining qualitative ex-ploratory knowledge they facilitate the construct-generation process, theaim of which might be described as grounded theory. The exploratoryapproach may be used when scientific explanation is desired but re-searchers are uncertain about constructs, or when "a scientific explana-tion is at hand and researchers want to compare it with. . . Qay persons']interpretations" (p. 361).

68 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

The clinical, or therapeutic approach, for Calder, cannot be correctlystudied t h rou^ quantitative means. This approach should he used whenresearchers need to explore areas which are not amenable to self-reporttests or direct observations. "Self-reports, the grist of many quantitativetechniques, cannot be taken at face value" (1977, p. 357). He claims thatself-reports are "filtered through a variety of defense mechanisms" andmay not reflect underlying determinants. Calder suggests that focusgroups are useful in a clinical approach to knowledge in that this methodis good at obtaining useful information for clinical, or therapeutic judg-ments.

Calder's third approach, phenomenological, is summed up succinctlyby Axelrod's description of a focus group as "a chance to experience theflesh and blood of a consumer" (Calder, 1977, p. 358). The researcher isattempting to experience a set of actors and describe the experience. Tbisapproach should be used, according to Calder, when the researchers areout of touch with their targeted subjects or the subject groupings arechanging rapidly.

Generalizability

One of the most common questions about the usefulness of focusgroups concerns generalizability. Wells (1974) notes that group inter-views cannot be conducted with large portions of the population and thatinsuring randomness is difficult; he concludes that researchers mustassume whatever is being investigated is so uniformly distributed thatit does not matter much where one "dips" into the population and thatcrude attempts at stratification will pick up important variations.

Calder suggests that for exploratory purposes, the issue ofgeneralizability is not particularly important since the goal is to generateideas for scientific constructs or compare scientific with everyday ex-planations. For the clinical approach, generalizability is more meaning-ful. According to Calder, scientific interpretation is being made and onewould like to know whether it holds true beyond the focus group par-ticipants. Calder suggests that generalizations can be assessed th rou^subsequent research designed to test the clinical interpretation with aquantitative technique.

(jreneraUzabilify for the phenomenological approach, according toCalder, is easily assessed through follow-up quantitative research.Calder warns, however, that "the phenomenological approach is predi-cated on experiencing the experience of [others]. Tliis is best donethrough personal contact. Quantitative surveys, though they permitestimates of generality, are a poor substitute for even vicarious ex-

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 69

perience" (1977, p. 361). Calder further suggests that additional focusgroups may be a better way to establish generalizability. A rule of thumbis to conduct focus groups until the researchers can be reasonably surethat the same information will be repeated. This typically occurs afterthe fourth or fiflh session.

Objectivity, Reiiabiiity, and Vaiidity

Goldman (1962) suggests requirements of good group interviews suchas objectivity, reliability, and validity. He suggests that to promoteobjectivity, or "avoidance of the bias of the interviewer and client [orresearch team]" (p. 66), the moderator should refrain from contributingto the discussion as much as possible and monitor his or her actionscarefully. As the goal of focus group research is to ask "why" rather than"how many," to generate hypotheses rather than assert their repre-sentativeness, the question of reliability becomes less important.

Goldman states that "a source of continual concern to the researcheris the validity problem" (italic his) (p. 67). Focus groups tend to sufferfrom inhibiting factors just as do other methods of qualitative research.Goldman, through his experiences with focus groups, concludes thatdiscrepancies between attitude expression and actual behavior are rela-tively small in a well conducted focus group, implying reasonable validityofthe method.

Lini< Between Theory and iUiethod

Poole and McPhee (1985) suggest the key links between theory andmethod are modes of inquiry, hypothetico-deductive, modeling andgroimded; and modes of explanation, causal, conventional, and dialecti-cal. Together, these modes form nine templates, or ranges of researchoptions (p. 104). Each template contains different assumptions andstandards of inference or proof The templates provide a general scheme"or research methods and "can be used to guide selection of techniquesind evaluation of previous technical choices," as well as "suggest howthe results of applying techniques should be interpreted" (p. 110).

The focus group method suggested here fits neatly into template 6: agrounded mode of inquiry and a conventional mode of explanation. Themethod-theory link suggests that the focus group method provides abasis from which researchers can then develop theory. It is a "bottom-up"approach with researchers "developing concepts, hypotheses, andtheoretical propositions from direct experiences with the data" (Poole &McPhee, 1985, p. 108). Conventional explanations "presume the inde-pendence of researcher and the subjects of research" (Poole & McPhee,

70 The Joumai of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

Mode of Inquiry

Hypothetlco-Deductlvo Modeling Grounded

1

4

7

2

5

8

3

6

9

Causal

Conventional

Dialectical

Mode of Explanation

Figure 1Modes of Inquiry and Explanation

1985, p. 105) but a "template 6 approach" assumes the world is a "socialproduct" where the subjects actively regulate their behavior and seeksto explain why subjects react in a particular manner. When this type ofexplanation is sought, the focus group method is useful.

In template 6 research, the investigator uses qualitative techniquesto uncover conventions and how they are used. Validity rests primarilyon the strength ofthe researcher's insight and techniques of discovery.This cell brings the researcher "into the most intimate contact" witii thesubject.

Evaluation of the Method

Focus groups have received little empirical scrutiny in both marketingliterature and other disciphnes. Fern (1982) empirically examined fourcommon assumptions of the focus group method: (1) ITiat group inter-views produce more useful results than do individual interviews, (2) thatthe most productive size of a group is eight, (3) that moderators sig-nificantly improve group discussion, and (4) that group participantsshould not be acquaintances. The independent variables used were (1)group type (real group versus individual interviews); (2) moderator(moderated or unmoderated); (3) group size (one, four or eight members);and (4) acquaintanceship (participants knew or did not know each other).The dependent variables were (1) the number of different or unique ideasrelevant to the discussion topic, and (2) the judged quality ofthe ideasbased on originality, feasibility, effectiveness, importance, and unique-ness.

Fern (1982) concluded that individual interviews have the potentialto generate more ideas than focus groups, that eight-member groups

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 71

generated significantly more ideas than four-member groups, and thata minimal difference existed between moderated and unmoderatedgroups. The effect of acquaintanceship was not clearly determined.

One must remember that these studies were done on a rather smallsample and that the findings were not conclusive. The results may wellbe dependent on the skills ofthe interviewer or moderator. Further, theresults do not challenge (but rather support) the assumption that some-thing of value may be gained from listening to interactions and inter-pretative talk. Questions regarding the most effective method for suchinterpretation remain open.

Lederman (in press) assessed the method as a technique for datacollection. She suggests that the method may be easily misused and isnot suitable to many types of data collection; however, its value lies inits ability to generate thick, qualitative data, and to generate h)T)othesesfor future exploration.

APPROPRiATE iNQUiRiESFOR THE FOCUS GROUP METHOD

Focus groups may be valuable to those exploring new territory inwhich little is known beforehand, or to gain unique insight into existingbeliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. Besides being a valuable tool formarketing, the focus group method has also been suggested and used fora variety of other purposes in the organizational setting. For example,the method may be appropriate for assessing employees' beliefs andattitudes toward policies and procedures in the work place. This sectionwill describe avenues of inquiry using the focus group method in recentresearch efforts. Each application will show how a particular kind ofquestion may be approached by the focus group method. The followingsix questions are particularly amenable to the method and provideresearchers with a framework for assessing the appropriateness ofthemethod-problem relationship.

1. How do people interpret and respond to messages or messagecampaigns? Lehman (1987) attempted an evaluation of the variousanti-smoking campaigns ofthe prior generation, asking specifically thequestions "how do people process and respond to anti-smoking mes-sages?" He recruited volunteer groups of confirmed smokers, ex-smokers, non-smokers, and non-smoking family members of smokers.Issues explored in these groups included enumeration and elaborationof anti-smoking messages and sources. Respondents discussed Hie dis-tinction between those which have made or might make a difference in

72 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

smoking behavior, information avoidance or information seeking be-havior about smoking consequences, described social pressure attempts(both intended and received) and their effects, strong and mild fearappeals and finally, for those who had stopped successfully, a detailedrecall of significant communicative events which preceded and thenfollowed the decision. What resulted was rich data regarding thephenomenon that would not have been possible from survey instrumentsand was likely richer because of the stimulation and recall opportunityprovided by homogeneous participants.

2. How might people resist organizational change? Second, an on-going organizational intervention (Wilcox, 1988) involves use of focusgroups as a way of identifying both the core values that comprise the"corporate culture" and the structural barriers that exist which impedetheir acceptance at all levels of the organization. Additionally, focusgroups are being used in this project to determine for each major divisioncritical components of its intra-organizational image. To date, twenty-four "internal" focus groups have been conducted with corporatemanagers to determine perceptions of organizational goals relevant to"customer focus" and the barriers (both structural and functional) to thisend. Data is interpreted and used in a diagnostic way to assist organiza-tional change.

Boden (1989) used the focus group method when investigating tbepossibility of adopting a new benefit package. He states that "initially,the focus groups were to identify the strengths and weaknesses of thecurrent program; later in tbe process, they were used to test the proposedflexible approach" (p. 12). He suggests that focus groups be used whenresearchers desire to get input from employees about both existingprograms and future possibilities.

3. How can service be improved? The previously mentioned organiza-tional intervention also involved an effort by the manager of theorganization's largest division to determine how well that division wasmeeting the needs and expectations of other divisions within the or-ganization. Four focus groups were assembled, consisting in each caseof respondents from other divisions. The interpreted results provided abasis for some procedural cbanges in adapting more effectively andresponsibly to organizational needs. Another example of current re-search in the organizational setting includes conducting focus groupswith residents in both apartments and houses (Barnett, 1989) to assessresident satisfaction.

4. How will people respond to new technologies? The second authorwas recently involved in a series of focus groups conducted for a client

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 73

interested in marketing a terminal. The terminal could be used to tapinto a videotext data base and at the same time serve as the basis of ahome computer system around which a line of peripherals could beadded. A series of eight focus groups resulted in a recommendation notto market the product. Respondents seemed to fall into two groups—^theyeither saw the terminal as too "computer-like" resulting in apprehension,or they were already reasonably sophisticated and saw the terminal astoo "toy-like" and not an appropriate nucleus for a personal computersystem. Feelings expressed in the group were seen as sufficiently intenseto warrant the recommendation.

5. How effective are current company training/evaluation methods?The focus group method could also be used when evaluating companytraining and evaluation procedures. O'Donnell (1988) used the focusgroup method as a means of evaluating current training procedures.Statistical testing showed significant improvement in the intendeddirection upon completion of a training program. Using focus groups asa follow-up, "it was clear that the training did not improve job-relatedperformance, nor were participants able to use much of the presentedmaterial in their day-to-day work" (p. 71). O'Donnell (1988) suggests thatthe focus group method is appropriate for "needs assessment, trainingevaluation, or as a technique for probing the intricacies of a problem" (p.71). The author was not suggesting that the statistical tests were wrong,but that other information not obtainable in a paper/pencil survey wasfound to be highly relevant and useful.

6. What issues should serve as a basis for survey questionnairedevelopment? The technique could also be used to re-validate surveysand questionnaires which may be outdated, and to develop new surveysand questionnaires. Another use for focus groups could be to assist in"triangulation" (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Campbell and Fiske (1959)suggest that in order to fully understand a topic of interest, researchersshould use more than one method of study. Focus groups may provide amore human perspective to a purely quantitative study thereby il-luminating important variables that might otherwise be missed.

SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATA

Three authors provide useful methods of analyzing focus group data,Berelson (1956), Lederman (1989, in press), and Krueger (1988). Forsimplicity's sake, this section will be organized by author since eachauthor suggests a type of content analysis that deals specifically with

74 The Journal of Business Communication 28:1: Winter 1991

qualitative research and may be particularly useful for analyzing focusgroup data.

Berelson (1956) refers to a qualitative content analysis as a "pre-quan-titative," or a "qualitative" content analysis. He states that this is aprocess for "discovering and/or formulating appropriate categories forsubsequent quantification... [It] is the process of inducting hypotheseswhich yield generalized categories for systematic analysis" (p. 115). Itlooks for the frequency of certain types of statements and the incidenceof "general categories."

Berelson (1956) states that qualitative content analysis is "quasi-quantitative." He states that this qualitative analysis contains quantita-tive statements in "rough form." "Instead of saying, for example, that73% 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 thecharacteristics ofthe content itself; (2) to make valid inferences from thenature ofthe content to characteristics ofthe producers ofthe content;and (3) to interpret the content so as to reveal something about the natureof its audience or its effects.

A quahtative content-analysis approach may be particularly usefulwhen one's research is exploratory. In a qualitative content analysis theresearcher is not forced to fit utterances into rigid categories; rather,categories are formed based on the utterances which should yield moregermane conclusions. Also, as suggested by Kassarjian (1977), rigidquantitative categories may not be relevant when the "subjects' languageand mode of expression is crucial to the investigation" (p. 11). Berelsonstates that when sample size is small and extreme precision is notessential, this type of analysis is most beneficial. Precision may or maynot be necessary depending on the research problem. In those instanceswhere extreme precision is essential, when specific categories must beexamined, and the research is not necessarily exploratory, a quantitativecontent analysis may be in order.

Lederman (1989) also provides some useful techniques for analyzingfocus group data. She suggests that to make verbatim transcripts fromthe tape recordings is standard procedure but notes that verbatimtranscripts are not always possible or necessary. In those instances,transcript summaries based on the recordings are useful. Lederman(1983) devised a coding scheme for interpreting focus group data. Shesuggests "I (individual/idiosyncratic), C (consensus), and A (areas ofagreement/disagreement)" (p. 235). An "F statement would containthose that are only mentioned once or the thoughts of one individual, "C"

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 75

statements contain those that represent agreement amongthe members,and "A" statements contain those which either agree or disagree withthe specific topic under discussion.

Krueger (1988) suggests that the focus group researcher consider fivefactors:

1. Consider the words. The researcher should consider both the actualwords used by participants and the meanings of those words.

2. Consider the context The researcher should examine the contextby identifying the "triggering stimulus" for a comment and then inter-preting the comment in l i ^ t ofthe context or stimulus.

3. Consider the internal consistency. Participants often change orreverse their positions. The researcher should note when there is a shiftin opinion which is relevant to the purpose of study.

4. Consider the specificity of responses. Researchers should give morewei^ t to responses that are specific and concrete rather than those thatare vague and ambiguous.

5. Find the big ideas. Big ideas emerge from "an accumulation ofevidence— t̂he words used, the body language, the intensity of com-ments—rather than from isolated comments" (Krueger, 1988, p. 116). Inother words, the researcher should not get caught up in counting thenumber of times something is said; rather, look for patterns.

Whichever type of analysis is employed, focus group data and result-ing categories should be submitted to another researcher for validation(Kassarjian, 1977; Krueger, 1988). Cross-validation will enhance theobjectivity and reliability ofthe research.

CONCLUSION

Two points will summarize our position. First, in these projects (andmany worthwhile similar ones) the focus group appears te be the "best,"if not the only, way of obtaining data te achieve the research objective.In many of the research examples presented, the findings are notregarded as definitive, only provocative and suggestive of further re-search inquiry.

The main contention here is that focus groups may be a new andappropriate teol for certain research questions. The authors recommendthis method as a way of gaining in-depth information when little isknown and suggest that the communication scholar is an excellent choicete both moderate the focus group and interpret its data.

76 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

NOTE

Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Speech CommunicationAssociation conference in November, 1988.

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W. (1965). In C. Sellitz, M., Jahoda, & S.W. Cook (Eds.), Researchm^ethods in social relations. New York: Rineholt and Winston.

Axelrod, M. (1975). 10 essentials for good qualitative research. MarketingNews, 8,10-11.

Barnett, J.A. (1989). Focusing on residents. Journal of Property Management,54, 31-32.

Berelson, B. (1956). Content analysis in communication research. Illinois: TheFree Press.

Boden, W.C. (1989). Flexible benefits: One compan3f's view. Compensation andBenefits Review, 21, 11-16.

Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketingresearch. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 353-364.

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validationby the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, (2), 81-105.

Cox, K.K., Higgenbotham, J.B. & Burton, J. (1976). Applications of focus groupinterviews in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40, 77-80.

Crowne, D., & Marlow, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John Wileyand Son.

Fern, E.F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects ofgroup size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity andqasitity. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1-13.

Goldman, A.E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26,61-68.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer researcb. Journal ofConsumer Research, 4, 8-17.

Kover, A.J. (1982). Point of view: The legitimacy of qualitative research.Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 49-50.

Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lederman, L.C. (1983). High communication apprehensives talk about com-munication apprehension and its effects on their behavior. CommunicationQuarterly, 31, 233-237.

Lederman, L.C. (1988). When you want to know what they think, ask them:Three studies using the focus group interview technique. Paper presented atthe meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.

Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 77

Lederman, L.C. (1989). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus groupinterview as a technique for data collection. Paper presented at the meetingofthe Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Lederman, L.C. (in press). An assessment ofthe focus group interview methodas a technique for data collection in applied communication research.Communication Education.

Lehman, K.L. (1987). A study of the anti-smoking campaign. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

Lydecker, T.H. (1986, March). Focus group dynamics. Association Manage-ment, 73-78.

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

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Beverly Hills: SagePublications, Inc.

Morgan, D.L. & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: Anew tool for qualitativeresearch. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 253-270.

O'Donnell, J.M. (1988). Focus groups: A habit-forming evaluation technique.Training and Development Journal, 42, 71-73.

Poole, M.S., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Methodology in interpersonal research.In M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communica-tion (pp. 100-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pramualratana, A., Havanon, N., & Knodel, J. (1985). Exploring the normativebasis for age of marriage in Thailand: An example from focus group re-search. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 203-210.

Reynolds, F.D., & Johnson, D.K. (1978). Validity of focus group findings.Journal of Advertising Research, 21-24.

Wells, W.D. (1974). Group interviewing. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook ofmarketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilcox, J.R. (1988). Professional focus group moderator. Bowling Green StateUniversity, OH.

Yuhas, P.L. (1986). Romantic marital jealousy: An exploratory analysis. Un-published doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling GreenState University, Ohio.

Zeller, R.A. (1986). The focus group: Sociological applications. Unpublishedmanuscript. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling GreenState University, Ohio.

78 The Joumai of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

APPENDIX

Sample Interviewer's Guide

Orientation to focus group procedure, research observers, tape recorder, andtopic of interest.

1. How important is sexual fidelity in marriage today?2. How common is jealousy in marriage today?

Compared with a generation ago?Compared with 10 years ago?

3. What might the absence of jealousy suggest?4. How is jealousy expressed in marriage?

By whom is it expressed?5. Are husbands or wives or neither more likely to express it?6. How would you describe the experience of marital jealousy?7. How do spouses let their mates know when or where jealousy is

experienced?Are there male/female differences?

8. Were you to tell your spouse of jealous feelings, how would you do it?What results would you expect?What results would you get?

9. How might your spouse express jealous feelings to you?What do you think would be expected?How would you respond?

10. Is communication about jealousy private and exclusive or are otherparties drawn in?

Who?How?

11. What is a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage?12. What is not a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage?13. Is jealousy in males restricted because it is not "manly" to be jealous?14. Does jealousy express more ofa love for self (I am so wonderful how

can siie even look at another) rather than a love for other?15. At what point in a potentially jealous situation does a partner's talking

with Joe/Suzie in the corner turn from a "friendly chat" into apotential threat?

16. Do partners ever "warn" each other of behaviors that they fmdjealousy provoking or threatening ("Now don't you talk to Joe/Suzietoo long tonight!")?

How?What reaction does that get?

17. Do partners ever intentionally provoke jealousy in each other?How?Why?

Thank you for your participation. If there are no further questions orcomments the session is over.

Accepted by PVL, 10/2/89