This study offers an examination of data richness (i.e., topic-related data, topic unrelated data, researcher ratings of data richness, word count, and linguistic characteristics of data richness) trade-offs between face-to-face (FTF), online text-only and online audiovisual focus group mediums. Two focus group sessions were held for each type of medium. Data were analyzed using systematic content analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Findings showed that although online audiovisual focus groups show potential for producing data similar in richness to FTF focus groups, researchers should carefully consider the potential distractions that manifested in this study as a result of the medium itself, likely due to its novelty as a group communication medium. Online text-only groups did not facilitate rich data, as operationalized in this study, and also had a lower amount of data related to the topic of the groups due to more socializing and off-topic discussion. As the first study to empirically examine the potential of data from focus groups facilitated via webcam (online audiovisual), it concludes, the technology offers similar data richness to FTF focus groups.
ArcherJ. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In WegnerD. M.VallacherR. (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 183–204). London, England: Oxford University Press.
2.
AshworthP. (2003). The origins of qualitative psychology. In SmithJ. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 4–25). London, England: Sage.
3.
BirnbaumM. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 803–832.
4.
BreakwellG. M. (2006). Interviewing. In BreakwellG. M.HammondS.Fife-SchawC.SmithJ. A. (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 367–390). London, England: Sage.
5.
BrüggenE.WillemsP. (2009). A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi. International Journal of Market Research, 51, 363–381.
6.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory. In SmithJ. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81–110). London, England: Sage.
7.
CoyleA. (2007). Introduction to qualitative psychological research. In LyonsE.CoyleA. (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 9–30). London, England: Sage.
8.
DeyI. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, England: Routledge.
9.
DijkstraW.van der VeenL.van der ZouwenJ. (1985). A field experiment on interviewer–respondent interaction. In BennerM.BrownJ.CanterD. (Eds.), The research interview:Uses and approaches (pp. 37–63). London, England: Academic Press.
10.
DubrovskyV. J.KieslerS.SethnaB. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
11.
DugglebyW. (2005). What about focus group interaction data?Qualitative Health Research, 15, 832–840.
12.
EdmundsH. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Chicago, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group.
13.
EtzioniA. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
GallowayK. L. (2011). Focus groups in the virtual world: Implications for the future of evaluation. In MathisonS. (Ed.), Really new directions in evaluation: Young evaluators’ perspectives. New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 131, pp. 47–51). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
15.
GunawardenaC. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147–166.
16.
HarrisJ.HuntingtonA. (2001). Emotions as analytic tools: Qualitative research, feelings, and psychotherapeutic insight. In GilbertK. (Ed.), The emotional nature of qualitative research (pp.129–145). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
17.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
18.
HiltzS. R.JohnsonK.TuroffM. (2006). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerised conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252.
19.
JoinsonA. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.
20.
KirkJ.MillerM. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, 16, 103–121.
22.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
LambertS. D.LoiselleC. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 228–237.
24.
LeCompteM. D.GoetzJ. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52, 31–60.
25.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557–584.
26.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
MartlewM. (1983). The development of writing: Communication and cognition. In CoulmasF.EhlichK. (Eds.), Writing in focus: Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs (pp. 257–276). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
28.
McGuireT. W.KieslerS.SiegelJ. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52, 917–930.
29.
MorseJ. M.BarrettM.MayanM.OlsonK.SpiersJ. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1, 13–22.
30.
OgdenJ.CornwellD. (2010). The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32, 1059–1071.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.FrancisM. E. (2007). LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and word count. Austin, TX: LIWC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.liwc.net
33.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiederhofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual review of psychology, 54, 547–577.
34.
PopperK. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic.
35.
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. (1999). Validity [Def. 1]. New York, NY: Random House.
36.
ReidD. J.ReidF. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups: An in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 131–162.
RhodesS. D.BowieD. A.HergenratherK. C. (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the World Wide Web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 68–73.
39.
SandelowskiM. (2001). Real qualitative researchers don’t count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 230–240.
40.
SchneiderS.KerwinJ.FrechtlingJ.VivariB. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 31–42.
41.
SechrestL.SidaniS. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?Evaluation and program planning, 18, 77–87.
42.
StenbackaC. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, 551–555.
43.
StewartK.WilliamsM. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5, 395–416.
44.
TatesK.ZwaanswijkM.OttenR.van DulmenS.HoogerbruggeP.KampsW.BensingJ. (2009). Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: Examples from pediatric oncology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 15. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-15
45.
TurneyL.PockneeC. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4, 32–43.
46.
UnderhillC.OlmstedM. (2003). An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 506–512.
WerryC. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay online text-only. In HerringS. C. (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 47–61), Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
52.
WhittemoreR.ChaseS. K.MandleC. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.
53.
WimmerR.DominickJ. (2013). Mass media research. Cengage Learning.
