Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Focus groups are widely used in qualitative research. Recently, focus groups that are held online have become increasingly popular despite the objection by some researchers that the Internet is a poor medium for focus group research. The present study was conducted to reveal differences in the characteristics of focus group discussions in the online and face-to-face formats. Participants in 4 online focus groups and 4 face-to-face focus groups discussed their opinions about several health-related Web sites. Statistical analysis of the transcripts suggested that online participants tended to contribute shorter comments and were more likely to say just a few words of agreement. In the online focus groups, participation levels tended to be more uniform; in the face-to-face groups, some participants tended to contribute a disproportionately large number of words, whereas other participants were relatively silent. The results suggest different roles for online and face-to-face focus groups in qualitative research.

Keywords

focus group cyberspace online research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bird, L. (1994, February 4). Focus groups meeting in cyberspace. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Bryk, A. S. , & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K. , Buller, D. B. , & Woodall, D. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Daft, R. L. , & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Gaiser, T. J. (1997). Conducting online focus groups: A methodological discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 135-144.

Greenbaum, T. L. (1997). Internet focus groups: An oxymoron. Marketing News, 31, 35-36.

Hare, A. P. , Blumberg, H. H. , Davies, M. F. , & Kent, M. V. (1992). Small group research: A handbook. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ketrow, S. M. (1999). Nonverbal aspects of group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole, The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 251-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kiesler, S. (1994). Working together apart. Cause/Effect, 17, 8-12.

10.

Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J. , & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 10, 1123-1134.

11.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Landreth, D. (1998). Focus groups on the Net: Some pros and cons of doing qualitative research online. Marketing, 103, 16-17.

13.

Maddox, K. (1998). Virtual panels add real insight for marketers: Online focus group use expanding. Advertising Age, 69, 34-40.

14.

Marney, J. (1990). Computerized focus groups faster, cheaper. Marketing, 95, 13.

15.

Miller, C. (1994). Focus groups where none has been before. Marketing News, 28, 2-14.

16.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M. , Massey, A. P. , & Clapper, D. L. (1998). Online focus groups: Conceptual issues and a research tool. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 713-723.

17.

Murphy, D. A. , Durako, S. , Muenz, L. R. , & Wilson, C. M. (2000). Marijuana use among HIV-positive and high-risk adolescents: A comparison of self-report through audio computer-assisted self-administered interviewing and urinalysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 152, 805-813.

18.

Parks, A. (1997). Online focus groups reshape market research industry. Marketing News, 31, 28.

19.

Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484.

20.

Short, J. , Williams, E. , & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.

21.

Stewart, D. W. , & Shamdasani, P. N. (1998). Focus group research: Exploration and discovery. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog, Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 505-526). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

22.

Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115-142.

23.

Tu, C. H. (2000). Online learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a computer-mediated communication environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23, 27-37.

24.

Turner, C. F. , Ku, L. , Rogers, S. M. , Lindberg, L. D. , Pleck, J. H. , & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873.

25.

Walston, J. T. , & Lissitz, R. W. (2000). Computer-mediated focus groups. Evaluation Review, 24, 457-483.

26.

Walther, J. B. , Anderson, J. F. , & Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.

27.

Warkentin, M. , & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication. Information Systems Journal, 9, 271-289.

28.

Weissman, R. X. (1998). Online or off target? American Demographics, 20, 20-21.

Characteristics of the Discussion in Online and Face-to-Face Focus Groups

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References