Bulletin board methodology emerged at the end of the 1990s and is becoming the most frequently used qualitative study technique. This interactive approach groups a community of participants in a private or public online forum for a duration that varies from several days to several months. Discoveries, exchanges of view, personal opinions and group reactions are all part of the power and interest of the internet in this era of social media. This article presents the principles of bulletin board development, and specifics to aid understanding of this tool within social networks and to help organisations adapt to a paradigm shift in marketing in which consumer-respondents are co-creators of meaning and knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BilgramV., BremA., & VoigtK.-I. (2008) User-centric innovations in new product development, systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online tools.International Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 3, pp. 419–458.
2.
BrüggenE., & WillemsP. (2009) A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi.International Journal of Market Research, 51, 3, pp. 363–381.
3.
BrüggenE., WetzelsM., de RuyterK., & SchillewaertN. (2011) Individual differences in motivation to participate in online panels.International Journal of Market Research, 53, 3, pp. 369–390.
4.
BurgoonJ.K., BonitoJ.A., BengtssonB., RamjrezJ.A., DunbarN.E., & MiczoN. (1999) Testing the interactivity model: communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work.Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 3, pp. 33–56.
5.
CasteleynJ., MottartA., & RuttenK. (2009) How to use Facebook in your market research.International Journal of Market Research, 51, 4, pp. 439–447.
6.
ChengC.C., KrumwiedeD., & SheuC. (2009) Online audio group discussions: a comparison with face-to-face methods, International Journal of Market Research, 51, 2, pp. 219–241.
7.
CookeM., & BuckleyN. (2008) Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research.International Journal of Market Research, 50, 2, pp. 267–292.
8.
CookeM., WatkinsN., & MoyC. (2009) A hybrid online and offline approach to market measurement studies.International Journal of Market Research, 51, 1, pp. 29–48.
9.
CovaB., & CovaV. (2002) Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing.European Journal of Marketing, 36, 5/6, pp. 595–620.
10.
DanetB. (1998) Text as mask: gender, play and performance on the internet, in JonesS.G. (ed.) Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-mediated Communication and Community.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 129–158.
11.
EnkelE., KauschC., & GassmannO. (2005) Managing the risk of customer integration.European Management Journal, 23, 2, pp. 203–213.
HancockJ.T., Thom-SantelliJ., & RitchieT. (2004) Deception and design: the impact of communication technologies on lying behavior.Proceedings, Conference on Computer Human Interaction, 6, pp. 130–136.
15.
HardeyM. (2009) The social context of online market research: an introduction to the sociability of social media.International Journal of Market Research, 51, 4, pp. 562–564.
16.
KitzingerJ. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interactions between research participants.Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 1, pp. 103–121.
17.
KleinE.E., ClarkC.C., & HerskovitzP.J. (2003) Philosophical dimensions of anonymity in group support systems: ethical implications of social psychological consequences.Computers in Human Behavior, 19, pp. 355–382.
18.
KleinE.E., TellefsenT., & HerskovitzP.J. (2007) The use of group support systems in focus groups: information technology meets qualitative research.Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 5, pp. 2113–2132.
19.
KozinetsR.V. (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities.Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, pp. 61–72.
20.
KozinetsR.V., HemetsbergerA., & SchauH.J. (2008) The wisdom of consumer crowds: collective innovation in the age of networked marketing.Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 4, pp. 339–354.
21.
LewinK. (1948) Resolving Social Conflict. Selected Papers on Group Dynamics.New York: Harper & Row.
22.
LuschR.F., & VargoS.L. (2006) Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements.Marketing Theory, 6, 3, pp. 281–288.
23.
MarkhamA. (2004) Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research, in SilvermanD. (ed.) Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice.London: Sage, pp. 95–124.
24.
MarkhamA. (2005) The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography, in Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research.New York: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 793–820.
25.
Montoya-WeissM.M., MasseyA.P., & QapperD.L. (1998) On-line focus groups: conceptual issues and a research tool.European Journal of Marketing, 32, 7/8, pp. 713–723.
26.
MorganD.L. (1998) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27.
MorganS.J., & SymonG. (2004) Electronic interviews in organizational research, in CassellC., & SymonG. (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 23–33.
28.
MorrisonED., RobertsJ.H., & MidgleyD.F. (2004) The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status.Research Policy, 33, pp. 351–362.
29.
ParmentierG., & RollandS. (2009) Consumers in virtual worlds: identity building and consuming experience in Second Life.Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 24, 3, pp. 43–56.
30.
PotterJ. (2004) Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk, in SilvermanD. (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
PoynterR. (2010) The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research.Chichester, UK: Wiley.
32.
PulestonJ. (2011) Improving online surveys?International Journal of Market Research, 53, 4, pp. 557–560.
33.
ReidD.J., & ReidF.J.M. (2007) Online focus groups: an in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussion, in BrymanA. (ed.) Qualitative Research, Volume 2: Quality Issues in Qualitative Research.Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 233–263.
34.
RezabekR. (2000) Online focus groups: electronic discussions for research.Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, 1, pp. 395–416.
35.
SchmidtM. (2010) Quantification of transcripts from depth interviews, open-ended responses and focus groups.International Journal of Market Research, 52, 4, pp. 483–508.
36.
SchollN., MuldersS., & DrentR. (2002) On-line qualitative market research: interviewing the world at a fingertip.Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5, 3, pp. 210–223.
37.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
38.
TseA.C.B. (1999) Conducting electronic focus group discussions among Chinese respondents.Journal of the Market Research Society, 41, 4, pp. 407–415.
39.
TuckelP., LeppoE., & KaplanB. (1992) Focus groups under scrutiny. Why people go and how it affects their attitudes towards participation.Marketing Research, 4, 2, pp. 12–18.
40.
TurkleS. (1995) Life on the Screen Identity in the Age of the Internet.New York: Simon & Schuster.
41.
UnderhillC., & OlmstedM.G. (2003) An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups.Social Science Computer Review, 21, pp. 506–512.
42.
Van Der HeideB., D'AngeloJ.D., & SchumakerE.M. (2012) The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook.Journal of Communication, 62, 1, pp. 98–116.
43.
Van DolenW.M., DabholkarP.A., & de RuyterK. (2007) Satisfaction with online commercial group chat: the influence of perceived technology attributes, chat group characteristics, and advisor communication style.Journal of Retailing, 83, 3, pp. 339–358.
44.
VargoS.L., & LuschR.F. (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.Journal of Marketing, 68, 1, pp. 1–17.
45.
VicenteP., & ReisE. (2012) Coverage error in internet surveys: can fixed phones fix it?International Journal of Market Research, 54, 3, pp. 323–345.
46.
Von HippelE. (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts.Management Science, 32, 7, pp. 791–806.
47.
Von HippelE., & Von KroghG. (2003) Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: issues for organization science.Organization Science, 14, 2, pp. 209–233.
WiertzC., & de RuyterK. (2007) Beyond the call of duty: why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities.Organization Studies, 28, 3, pp. 347–376.
50.
WilliamsM., & RobsonK. (2004) Reengineering focus group methodology for the online environment, in Johns, M.D., Chen, S.-L. & Hall, J. (eds) Online Social Research: Methods, Issues and Ethics.New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 25-45.
