This article discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of computer-mediated (CM) focus groups. The study describes technological and practical considerations the authors learned from conducting such groups and reports on a comparison of the reactions of CM and face-to-face (FTF) participants in focus groups discussing academic dishonesty. The results suggest that the CM environment, in comparison to FTF, may lessen members' concern about what the moderator thinks of them and discourage participants from withholding embarrassing information. The article concludes with a list of suggestions for this technique and a discussion of the potential advantages and limitations associated with CM focus groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aquilino, William S.1992. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly58:210-240.
2.
Baker, Robert P., Norman M. Bradburn, and R. A. Johnson. 1994. Computer-assisted personal interviewing: An experimental evaluation. Paper presented at the Survey Research Methods sections at the Joint Statistical Meetings.
3.
Beals, Diane E.1992. Computer networks as a new data base. Journal of Educational Computing Research8 (3): 327-345.
4.
Bertrand, Jane T., J. E. Brown, and V. M. Ward.1992. Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Evaluation Review16 (2): 198-209.
5.
Bradburn, Norman, Martin Frankel, and Robert Baker. 1991. A comparison of computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) with paper-and-pencil (PAPI) interviews in the national longitudinal study of youth. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Researchers, Phoenix, AZ.
6.
Buttram, Joan L.1990. Focus groups: A starting point for needs assessment. Evaluation Practice11:202-212.
7.
Connolly, Terry, Leonard M. Jessup, and J. S. Valacich. 1990. Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Institute of Management Science36:689-703.
8.
Couper, M. P., and W. L. Nicholls. 1998. The history and development of computer assisted survey information collection. In Computer-assisted survey information collection, edited by M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C.Z.F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. Nicholls, II, and J. O'Reilly. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Creason, Paul J.1991. Focus groups as an evaluation tool. Paper presented at the Asilomar Research Conference.
10.
DeSanctis, G., and R. B. Gallupe. 1987. A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science33:589-609.
11.
Dubrovsky, V. J., S. Kiesler, and B. N. Sethna. 1991. The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction6:119-146.
12.
Duffy, Barbara P.1993. Focus groups: An important research technique for internal evaluation units. Evaluation Practice14 (2): 133-139.
13.
Finegan, Joan E., and Natalie J. Allen. 1994. Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent?Computers in Human Behavior10 (4): 483-496.
14.
Flores, Javier G.1995. Using focus groups in educational research. Evaluation Review19:84-101.
15.
Greenbaum, T. L.1993. The handbook for focus group research. New York: Lexington.
16.
Huber, G.1994. Group decision support systems as aids in the use of structured group management techniques. In Decision support and executive information systems, edited by P. Gray. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Kiesler, Sara, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist19 (10): 1123-1134.
18.
Kiesler, Sara, and Lea S. Sproull. 1986. Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly50:402-413.
19.
Kramer, R. M.1993. Cooperation and organizational identification. In Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research, edited by J. K. Murnighan. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Krueger, Richard A.1998. Analyzing & reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Lederman, Linda. 1990. Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as a technique for data collection. Communication Education38:117-127.
22.
Morgan, David L.1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Morgan, David L.1998. Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Nicholls, W. L., and R. M. Groves. 1986. The status of computer-assisted telephone interviewing: Part 1, introduction and impact on cost and timeliness of survey data. Journal of Official Statistics2:93-115.
25.
O' Brian, Terry, and Valerie Dugdale. 1978. Questionnaire administration by computer. Journal of the Market Research Society20:228-237.
26.
Olaniran, B. A.1994. Group performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication media. Management Communication Quarterly7 (3): 256-281.
27.
Richman, Wendy, Sara Kiesler, Suzanne Weisband, and Fritz Drasgow. 1999. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology84:754-775.
28.
Rosenfeld, Paul, S. Booth-Kewley, and J. E. Edwards. 1993. Computer-administered surveys in organizational settings. American Behavioral Scientist36:485-511.
29.
Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie. 1976. The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
30.
Skinner, Harvey A., and Barbara A. Allen. 1983. Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug and tobacco use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology51:267-275.
31.
Sproull, Lee S.1986. Using electronic mail for data collection in organization research. Academy of Management Journal29:159-168.
32.
Sproull, Lee S., and Sara Kiesler. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science32:1492-1512.
33.
Synodinos, Nicholaos E., and Jerry B. Brennan. 1988. Computer interactive interviewing in survey research. Psychology & Marketing5:117-137.
34.
Thach, Liz. 1995. Using electronic mail to conduct survey research. Educational Technology35 (2): 27-31.
35.
Walther, Joseph B.1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research19 (1): 52-90.
36.
Walther, Joseph B.1993. Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication57:381-398.
37.
Walther, Joseph B.1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23 (1): 3-43.
38.
Walther, Joseph B., J. F. Anderson, and D. Park. 1994. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research21:460-487.
39.
Ward, Victoria M., Jane T. Bertrand, and Lisanne F. Brown. 1991. The comparability of focus group and survey results. Evaluation Review15 (2): 266-283.
40.
Waterton, Jennifer J., and John C. Duffy. 1984. A comparison of computer interviewing techniques and traditional methods in the collection of self-report alcohol consumption data in a field survey. International Statistical Review52:173-182.
41.
Webster, Jane, and Deborah Compeau. 1996. Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers28 (4): 567-576.
42.
Weeks, M. F.1992. Computer-assisted survey information collection: A review of CASIC methods and their implication for survey operations. Journal of Official Statistics8 (4): 445-465.
43.
Weisband, Suzanne P.1992. Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes53:352-380.
44.
Weisband, Suzanne P., Sherry K. Schneider, and Terry Connolly. 1995. Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal38 (4): 1124-1151.
45.
Wright, Debra L., William S. Aquilino, and Andrew J. Supple. 1998. A comparison of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires in a survey on smoking, alcohol, and drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly61:331-353.
46.
Yates, B. T., J. L. Wagner, and L. M. Suprenant. 1997. Recall of health-risky behaviors for the prior 2 or 4 weeks via computerized versus printed questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior13 (1): 83-110.
