Focus Groups

Author(s): David L. Morgan

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996), pp. 129-152
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083427
Accessed: 23/09/2010 01:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1996. 22:129-52
Copyright ? 1996 by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved

FOCUS GROUPS
David L. Morgan
Instituteon Aging, School of Urbanand Public Affairs, PortlandState University,
Portland,Oregon97201

KEYWORDS: qualitative
researchmethods,methodology,
focusgroups,groupinterviews

ABSTRACT
Overthe pastdecade,focus groupsandgroupinterviewshave reemergedas a pop-
ular techniquefor gatheringqualitativedata,both among sociologists and across
a wide rangeof academicand appliedresearchareas. Focus groupsare currently
used as both a self-containedmethod and in combinationwith surveys and other
research methods, most notably individual, in-depth interviews. Comparisons
between focus groups and both surveys and individualinterviews help to show
the specific advantagesand disadvantagesof groupinterviews,concentratingon
the role of the groupin producinginteractionandtherole of the moderatorin guid-
ing this interaction.The advantagesof focus groups can be maximizedthrough
careful attentionto researchdesign issues at both the projectandthe grouplevel.
Importantfuturedirectionsinclude: the developmentof standardsfor reporting
focus group research,more methodologicalresearchon focus groups, more at-
tention to data analysis issues, and more engagement with the concerns of the
researchparticipants.

INTRODUCTION
Althoughsome form of groupinterviewinghas undoubtedlyexisted for as long
as sociologists have been collecting data(e.g. Bogardus1926), the past decade
has produceda remarkablesurge of interestin group interviewsgenerally and
focus groupsin particular.Much of this interestfirstsurfacedin the mid-1980s.
In 1987, RobertMertonpublishedremarksthatcomparedhis pioneeringwork
on "focused interviews" (Merton & Kendall 1946) with marketers'uses of
the focus group, while John Knodel and his collaborators(Knodel et al 1987)
publisheda summaryof theirfocus groupresearchon demographicchanges in
Thailand.The next year producedtwo book-lengthtreatmentsof focus groups
129
0360-0572/96/0815-0129$08.00
130 MORGAN

by social scientists (Krueger 1988/1994, Morgan 1988). This initial burst of

interestwas followed by othertexts (Stewart& Shamdasani1990, Vaughnet al
1996), a reissuing of Mertonet al's originalmanual(Mertonet al 1956/1990),
an edited collection of more advancedmaterial(Morgan 1993a), and at least
two special issues of journals(Carey 1995, Knodel 1995).
The currentlevel of interestin focus groupinterviewsis evidentfromsearches
of Sociological Abstracts, Psychological Abstracts, and the Social Science
Citation Index. All of these sources show a steady growth in research us-
ing focus groups, indicatingthat well over a hundredempiricalarticles using
focus groups appearedin refereedjournalsduring 1994 alone. These searches
also show interestingpatternsin the use of focus groups. In particular,a content
analysis of the materialsfrom Sociological Abstractsrevealed that over 60%
of the empiricalresearchusing focus groupsduringthe past decade combined
them with otherresearchmethods, althoughthe proportionof studies thatrely
solely on focus groupshas been increasingin recent years. Hence, this review
pays attentionto uses of focus groupsboth as a "self-contained"methodand in
combinationwith other methods. Before examiningthe uses of focus groups,
however,I examinehow focus groupsarerelatedto groupinterviewsin general.

FOCUS GROUPSAND GROUPINTERVIEWS

This chapter defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data
throughgroup interactionon a topic determinedby the researcher.This defi-
nition has threeessential components. First, it clearly states that focus groups
are a researchmethod devoted to data collection. Second, it locates the inter-
action in a groupdiscussion as the source of the data. Third,it acknowledges
the researcher'sactive role in creatingthe groupdiscussion for datacollection
purposes.
While this definitionis intentionallyquite broad,each of its three elements
does exclude some projects that have occasionally been called focus groups.
First, focus groups should be distinguishedfrom groups whose primarypur-
pose is something otherthanresearch;alternativepurposesmight be: therapy,
decision making, education, organizing, or behavior change (although focus
groupsthat are primarilyfor datacollection may have some of these outcomes
as well). Second, it is useful to distinguishfocus groupsfrom proceduresthat
utilize multiple participantsbut do not allow interactivediscussions, such as
nominalgroupsand Delphi groups(these techniquesarereviewedin Stewart&
Shamdasani1990). Finally,focus groupsshouldbe distinguishedfrommethods
thatcollect datafrom naturallyoccurringgroupdiscussions where no one acts
as an interviewer. The distinctionhere is not whetherthe group existed prior
to the research,but whetherthe researcher'sinterestsdirectedthe discussion,
 FOCUS GROUPS 131

since focus groups are often conductedwith existing groups (Morgan 1989).
Lying behind this effort to define focus groups is the fundamentalquestion
of whether focus groups should be distinguishedfrom other types of group
interviews. In one camp are those who use an inclusive approachthat treats
most forms of group interviewsas variantson focus groups. In anothercamp,
however,are those who use an exclusive approachthattreatsfocus groupsas a
narrowertechniquenotto be confusedwith othertypes of groupinterviews. One
version of the exclusive approach,which is particularlycommon in marketing
research(Greenbaum1988, 1993, McQuarrie1996), is a statementthat focus
groupsmust meet some specified set of criteria,typically that they consist of
structureddiscussionsamong6 to 10 homogeneousstrangersin a formalsetting.
The problemwith this approachis thatit fails to demonstrateany advantagesof
either limiting the definitionof focus groupsto studies that meet these criteria
or excluding group interviewsthatdeviate from them.
In contrastto such unthinkingreliance on an exclusive definition of focus
groups,Frey& Fontana(1991) havecreateda typologythatlocatesfocus groups
as one among several categories of group interviews. The typology includes
some thatthe presentdefinitionalreadydistinguishesfrom focus groups(nom-
inal and Delphi groups and observationsof naturallyoccurringgroups), and
some (brainstorminggroups and field interviews in naturallyoccurring set-
tings) thatthe currentdefinitionwould treatas variationson focus groups. (See
Khan& Manderson1992 for a similarbutmore anthropologicallybased typol-
ogy). One way to assess the usefulness of a typology such as Frey & Fontana's
is to ask if it can determinewhether a particulargroup interview is or is not
a focus group. According to the dimensions that define their typology, group
interviews are something otherthan focus groups if they: (i) are conductedin
informal settings; (ii) use nondirectiveinterviewing;or (iii) use unstructured
questionformats. Yet applieddemographerssuch as Knodel(1987, 1995) have
held focus groupinterviewsthroughoutthe worldand have concludedthatthey
can be adaptedto a wide variety of settings and culturepractices. Similarly,
social science texts on focus groups (Krueger1993, Morgan 1988, Stewart&
Shamdasani 1990) describe ways to conduct focus groups with more or less
directiveinterviewingstyles and more or less structuredquestionformats,de-
pending on the purposes of the particularproject. It would thus, in actual
practice, be quite difficult to apply Frey & Fontana'stypology to determine
whetherany given group interviewwas or was not a focus group.
In the long run, the question of whether sociologists should use a more
inclusive or exclusive definition of focus groups will depend on which ap-
proachmaximizes both the effective applicationof available techniques and
the innovativedevelopmentof new techniques. Forthe present,this remainsan
132 MORGAN

open question. Consequently,this chapterfollows an inclusive approachthat

treatsfocus groups as a set of centraltendencies, with many useful variations
thatcan be matchedto a varietyof researchpurposes.

CURRENTUSES FOR FOCUS GROUPS

This review necessarily concentrateson the uses of focus groups by sociol-
ogists. Still, it should be obvious that focus groups, like other qualitative
methods, are used across a wide varietyof differentfields. Otherdisciplines in
which focus groups are relatively widespreadinclude communicationstudies
(Albrechtet al 1993, Staley 1990), education (Brotherson& Goldstein 1992,
Flores & Alonzo 1995, Lederman 1990), political science (Delli Carpini &
Williams 1994, Kullberg 1994), and public health (Basch 1987). Outside of
academia,focus groupsarewell knownto be popularin marketing(Goldman&
McDonald 1987, Greenbaum1993), where they have been used for everything
from breakfastcereals (Templeton 1987) to political candidates(Diamond &
Bates 1992). This acceptancein applied marketinghas not, however, carried
over to the academicfield of marketing(McQuarrie1990), althoughtheredoes
seem to be a trendtowardmoremethodologicalresearchin this field (McDonald
1993, Nelson & Frontczak1988).
Given the breadthof possible applicationsof focus groups and group inter-
views, it is hardly surprisingthat they have found uses in many of the spe-
cialty areas that interestsociologists, including: aging (Knodel 1995, Duncan
& Morgan 1994), criminology (Sasson, 1995), medical sociology (Morgan
& Spanish 1985, McKinlay 1993), political sociology (Gamson 1992), social
movements (Cable 1992), and the sociology of work (Bobo et al 1995). In
addition, many applicationsof focus groups do not fit within the neat, tradi-
tional boundariesof sociology's subdisciplines. Forexample, Shively's (1992)
study of how AmericanIndiansand Anglos respondedto cowboy movies used
focus groups within a culturalstudies framework;Jarrett's(1993, 1994) work
on low-income, AfricanAmericanwomen combinedelementsof family sociol-
ogy, inequality,and race and ethnicity;and Pinderhughes'(1993) investigation
of raciallymotivatedviolence mixed elementsof urbansociology, criminology,
and race relations.
Despite this wide-ranginginterest in focus groups, they have found more
currencywithin several specific areas of sociological interest. In particular,
marketing'slegacy of using focus groups to hear from consumershas carried
over into theiruse in the developmentandevaluationof programsrangingfrom
substanceabuse(Lenguaet al 1992) to curricularreform(Hendershott& Wright
1993). Programdevelopmentefforts use focus groupsto learnmore aboutthe
potential targets of these programsin order to reach them more effectively.
 FOCUSGROUPS 133

This use often occurs under the explicit rubricof "social marketing,"which
applies tools such as focus groups to socially valued goals, as in Bryant's
(1990) programto encouragebreastfeeding among low-income women. On
the programevaluationside, focus groups have become an importanttool in
qualitativeevaluationresearch,includingnot only post-programevaluation,but
also needs assessmentand strategicplanning(Krueger1994).
Two specific researchareas where the applied use of focus groups has had
a majorand continuinglink to sociology are family planningand HIV/AIDS.
The applicationof focus groupsto researchon fertilityfirstemergedin the early
1980s (e.g. Folch-Lyonet al 1981). These studies typically sought a betterun-
derstandingof knowledge,attitudes,andpracticeswith regardto contraception
in the ThirdWorld;in particular,advocatesof a social marketingapproachto
contraceptives(Schearer1981) arguedthatfocus groupscould supplementthe
kind of attitudinaldata that surveys produced. Since that time, focus groups
have been an importantsource of data on fertility and family planning pref-
erences aroundthe world, as in the work of Wardet al (1991) in Guatemala,
Honduras,and Zaire, or Knodel et al (1987) in Thailand. This establishedap-
plication in the study of sexual behavioralso led to the use of focus groups in
researchon the spreadof HIV,both in the ThirdWorld(Irwinet al 1991) and
the West (Kline et al 1992, Pollak et al 1990).
An importanttheme thatreappearsin many of these uses of focus groups is
their ability to "give a voice" to marginalizedgroups. For example, in early
HIV/AIDS research(Josephet al 1984), epidemiologistsused focus groups to
gain a better understandingof at-riskgroups with whom they had little prior
experience, such as gay and bisexual men. Focus groups have thus been used
in many appliedsettings where thereis a differencein perspectivebetween the
researchersand those with whom they need to work. Othershave argued,how-
ever, that the value of focus groupsgoes well beyond listening to others, since
they can serve as either a basis for empowering"clients"(Magill 1993, Race
et al 1994) or as a tool in action and participatoryresearch(Hugentobleret al
1992, Padilla 1993). Similarly,feminist researchershave noted the appeal of
focus groupsbecause they allow participantsto exercise a fairdegreeof control
over their own interactions(Nichols-Casebolt& Spakes 1995, Montell 1995).

USES IN COMBINATIONWITH OTHERMETHODS

As noted at the outset of this review, a content analysis of Sociological Ab-
stracts revealed that a majorityof the publishedresearcharticles using focus
groups combined them with other methods. Furtherexaminationof the spe-
cific combinationsof focus groups with other methods showed that the most
frequentpairings were with either in-depth,individualinterviews or surveys.
134 MORGAN

Between these two, the use of focus groups with individualinterviews is the
more straightforward,since both are qualitativetechniques. (This does not,
however, imply that the two methods are interchangeable;the following sec-
tion contains a comparisonof individualand group interviews.) Investigators'
reasons for combining individualand group interviews typically point to the
greaterdepth of the formerand the greaterbreadthof the latter(Crabtreeet al
1993). For example, individualinterview studies have used follow-up group
interviews to check the conclusions from their analyses and to expand the
study populations included in the research (Irwin 1970). This strategy has
the advantageof getting reactionsfrom a relativelywide range of participants
in a relatively short time. In a complementaryfashion, focus group studies
have used follow-up interviewswith individualparticipantsto explore specific
opinions and experiences in more depth, as well as to producenarrativesthat
address the continuityof personal experiences over time (Duncan & Morgan
1994). This strategyhas the advantageof firstidentifyinga rangeof experiences
and perspectives, and then drawingfrom that pool to add more depth where
needed. Thus, dependingon the varied needs that a qualitativestudy has for
breadthand depth, there is little difficulty in combining individualand group
interviews.
While studies that bring togetherfocus groups and surveys are one of the
leading ways of combiningqualitativeand quantitativemethods, such designs
also raise a complex set of issues, since the two methodsproducesuch different
kinds of data. Morgan (1993c) presenteda conceptualframeworkto clarify
these issues by distinguishingfour ways of combining qualitativeand quan-
titative methods in general and focus groups and surveys in particular. The
four ways of combiningthe methods are based on which method received the
primaryattentionand whetherthe secondarymethod served as a preliminary
or follow-up study.
Thus, the firstcombinationcontainsstudiesin which surveysare the primary
method and focus groups serve in a preliminarycapacity. Survey researchers
typically use this design to develop the contentof theirquestionnaires.Because
surveys are inherentlylimited by the questionsthey ask, it is increasinglycom-
mon to use focus groups to provide data on how the respondentsthemselves
talk about the topics of the survey. Although this practicehas long been com-
mon in marketingresearch,systematicpublicationsin this area did not appear
until social scientists renewedtheir interestin focus groups (Fulleret al 1993,
O'Brien 1993, Zeller 1993b). Still, this is an area that is just beginning to
receive attention,andmanyissues areonly now arising,such as the need to find
other means of pursuingfocus group insights that are not amenableto survey
research(Laurie 1992, Laurie& Sullivan 1991). At present,this is easily the
 FOCUS GROUPS 135

most common reasonfor combiningfocus groupsand surveys.

In the second combination,focus groups are the primarymethod while sur-
veys providepreliminaryinputsthatguide theirapplication.Studies following
this researchdesign typically use the broadbut "thin"datafrom surveys to as-
sist in selecting samples for focus groups or topics for detailed analysis. With
regardto sampling, Morgan & Zhao (1993) and O'Connoret al (1992) both
used surveys of medical records to divide a larger population into different
"segments"that they then comparedusing separatesets of focus groups. With
regardto analysis,Morgan(1994) andShively (1992) bothillustratedthe use of
findingsfrom a brief preliminarysurveywith focus groupparticipantsto guide
the more detailed interpretiveanalysis of the datafrom the groupdiscussions.
Comparedto the first combination, studies that use surveys as a secondary
method to assist focus groupresearchare relativelyrare.
The thirdcombinationonce againuses surveysas the primarymethod,butthe
focus groupsnow act as a follow-upthatassists in interpretingthe surveyresults.
One increasingly common use for qualitativefollow-up methods, including
focus groups, is to recontactsurvey respondentsfor illustrativematerialthat
can be quotedin conjunctionwith quantitativefindings. More interestingfrom
a methodologicalperspectiveare efforts to clarify poorly understoodresults,
such as Knodel's (1987) and Wolff et al's (1993) effortsto accountfor fertility
rates and educationlevels in Thailand,Morgan's(1989) investigationsof the
ineffectiveness of social supportamong recent widows, and Harari& Beaty's
(1990) deeper probingof surface similaritiesin the survey responses of black
workersand white managersin South Africa underapartheid.Among the four
combinations,these designs are the second most frequent,but they have yet to
receive any systematicmethodologicalattention.
The final combinationof surveys and focus groupsuses focus groups as the
primarymethodandsurveysas a sourceof follow-updata. One such application
would examine the prevalenceof issues or themes from the focus groups. For
example, Nichols-Casebolt& Spakes(1995:53) followed up theirfocus groups
by locating secondarydatafrom surveysthatshowed policy makers"thescope
of the problemsassociated with the issues identifiedby the participants."An-
otherpossibility would be to surveya large numberof sites to determinewhere
the results from a more limited focus group study might be most immediately
transferable.But studiesthatemploy designs from this fourthcombinationare
easily the rarest of this set. One likely reason that those who conduct focus
groupstudies seldom do smallerfollow-up surveys is their desire to avoid any
implicationthatquantitativedataarenecessaryto "verify"theresultsof the qual-
itativeresearch. In otherwords,the issues thataccompanycombiningmethods
from different"paradigms"(Lincoln & Guba 1985) involve not just technical
136 MORGAN

considerations,butepistemologicalandpoliticalissues as well (Bryman1988).

Still, the currentpopularityof work from the first combination,where focus
groups aid in developing surveys,demonstratesthe potentialvalue of combin-
ing focus groups with quantitativemethods. It thus seems likely that research
using variouscombinationswith surveyswill continueto be not only one of the
majoruses of focus groupsbut also one of the most practicalways of bringing
togetherqualitativeand quantitativemethods.

HOW FOCUS GROUPSCOMPARETO OTHER

SOCIOLOGICALMETHODS
Despite the increasinglywidespreaduse of focus groups as a method within
sociology and the other social sciences, virtuallyall this work has occurredin
the past ten years. This "newcomer"status has encouragedcomparisonsbe-
tween focus groupsand the varioustraditionalmethods in each of these areas,
butresearchershave offeredtwo very differentreasonsfor comparingmethods.
One reason for comparingfocus groups to more familiar methods has been
to determine whether the two methods produce equivalentdata. According
to this view, focus groups are most useful when they reproducethe results of
the standardmethods in a particularfield. A differentreason for comparing
focus groups to existing methods has been to locate the unique contributions
that each can make to a field of studies. Accordingto this view, focus groups
are most useful when they produce new results that would not be possible
with the standardmethods in a particularfield. There is an obvious paradox
here, as focus groupscannotproduceresults that are simultaneouslythe same
as and different from results of familiartechniques. Unfortunately,the fail-
ure to recognize these divergentgoals has limited the cumulativeknowledge
from studies thatcomparefocus groups to other methods. Nonetheless, these
comparisonsareuseful for summarizingthe strengthsandweaknesses of focus
groups.

COMPARISONSTO SURVEYS
In one of the earliest reports of a major social science application of focus
groups, Folch-Lyonet al (1981) also included a detailed comparisonto a sur-
vey on the same topic. This study investigatedattitudestowardcontraception
in Mexico using two independentresearchteams. One team conducted44 fo-
cus groups with some 300 participants,while the otherdid household surveys
with over 2000 respondents.Overall,the authorshad little difficultyin match-
ing the investigationof their substantivetopics across the two methods; their
results showed an overwhelmingconvergence. As Stycos (1981) pointed out,
 FOCUS GROUPS 137

however,most of Folch-Lyonet al's judgmentsaboutthe convergencebetween

the two methods were based on subjectiveassessmentsof the correspondence
of the findings; fortunately,more recent efforts have used more systematic
comparisons.
Wardet al (1991) comparedsurveyandfocus groupresultsfromthreestudies
on family planningin Guatemala,Honduras,and Zaire. For each of theirthree
studies, they matchedtopic areaswhere methods containedsimilar questions,
and they judged results from the two methodsto be similarwhen "they would
lead to the same conclusions"(p. 272). Based on explicit comparisonsacross a
total of 60 variables,they found thatthe resultsfrom the two methodswere: (i)
highly similarfor 30% of the variables;(ii) similar,but focus groupsprovided
more informationfor 42% of the variables;(iii) similar,but surveys provided
more informationfor 17% ; and (iv) dissimilarfor 12% of the variables. The
biggest difference found between the methods was the ability of the focus
groupsto producemore in-depthinformationon the topic at hand.
In anothersystematic comparisonof survey and focus group results, Saint-
Germainet al (1993) reportedon two studies of the barriersto breast cancer
screeningservices for olderHispanicwomen in the southwesternUnitedStates.
To assess the comparabilityof the results, the authorsrank-ordereda list of
barriersaccordingto how often surveyrespondentshad experiencedeach, and
thenthey comparedthis to a rank-orderof how often each barrierwas mentioned
in the focus groups. Saint-Germainet al's conclusions (1993:363) matched
those of Ward et al: "The findings of the focus group interviews, in most
cases, confirmed the findings of the previous population surveys. In many
cases, the focus group interviewswent beyond the informationobtainedin the
survey,amplifying our understandingof the variousfacets of barriersto breast
cancer screening and specifying more exactly how some of the barrierswork
in practice."
Although each of these studies emphasized the convergenceof the results
from focus groups and surveys, a consistent set of differencesdid occur in all
three studies. First, the survey interviewsetting limited what respondentssaid
about sensitive topics, in comparisonto what they revealed in focus groups.
Second, the differences in response options meant that surveys were better
able to elicit yes/no answers about specific behaviors and experiences, even
thoughthe forced-choice formatof the survey items limited what respondents
could say on general attitude areas, in comparisonto the more open-ended
discussions in the focus groups. Finally,Wardet al explicitly noted that all of
these comparisonsused only the variablesthat occurredin both studies, thus
downplayingthe fact thatthe surveystypically coveredmany more topics than
did the focus groups. There was thus a key tradeoff between the depth that
138 MORGAN

focus groupsprovidedand the breadththatsurveys offered.

COMPARISONSTO INDIVIDUALINTERVIEWS
Fern's (1982) work on the relative productivityof individual interviews and
focus groups was one of the very few methodologicalstudies that involved a
head-to-headcomparisonbetween the two methods. Using an "idea genera-
tion"task, Ferncomparedfocus groupsto an equivalentnumberof aggregated
responses from individualinterviews(i.e. "nominalgroups"). He determined
that each focus group participantproducedonly 60% to 70% as many ideas
as they would have in an individual interview; he also had ratersjudge the
quality of ideas from the two methods, and again an advantageappearedfor
individualinterviews. These resultsclearly argueagainstthe notion that focus
groups have a "synergy"that makes them more productivethan an equivalent
numberof individualinterviews. Instead,the real issue may well be the relative
efficiency of the two methodsfor any given project. Forexample,Fern'sresults
suggest thattwo eight-personfocus groupswould produceas many ideas as 10
individual interviews. As Crabtreeet al (1993) have pointed out, however, a
numberof logistical factors,such as location of the interviews,the mobility of
the participants,the flexibilityof theirschedules, would determinewhich study
would actuallybe easier to accomplish.
The majorissue in studies of individualand group interviewshas not, how-
ever,been the numberof ideas they generate,butthe comparabilityof the results
they produce. Wight (1994) reportedone of the rarestudies on this issue. The
study involved both group and individualinterviewswith the same adolescent
males concerningtheir sexual experiences, and systematic variationin which
of the two types of interviewswas done first. Wightconcludedthatthe greatest
number of discrepanciesoccurredbetween reports of boys who participated
in individualinterviewsfirst and then in focus groups, while boys who started
in group interviewsgave similaraccountsin subsequentindividualinterviews.
Kitzinger (1994a,b) reportedthat the conclusions about the results from her
study on HIV issues validatedthose of Wight's, althoughshe also found that
the difference between individualand group interviewswas limited to hetero-
sexual males. Kitzingerthus arguedagainst a generalizedeffect of groups on
conformity,andshe called for more attentionto how suchprocesses areaffected
by the group'scomposition,the topic, the relationshipof the interviewerto the
group,and the generalcontext of the interview.
Kitzinger(1994b:173) also reachedthemoregeneralconclusionthat,"Differ-
ences betweeninterviewandgroupdatacannotbe classifiedin termsof validity
versus invalidityor honesty versus dishonesty....The groupdatadocumenting
machoor sexual harassingbehaviouris no more 'invalid'thanthatshowing the
 FOCUS GROUPS 139

researchparticipants'relativelyacceptablebehaviourin interviewsettings."It
thus seems a safe conclusion that, if one searches, one is bound to find dif-
ferences in how some intervieweestalk aboutsome topics in individualversus
group interviews. For those cases where we are interestedonly in a specific
social context,this interestwill determinewhich form of datais more valid. In
general,however,the existence of differencesbetweenwhatis said in individual
and groupinterviewsis as much a statementaboutour cultureas our methods,
and this is clearly a researchtopic of interestin its own right.

STRENGTHSAND WEAKNESSESOF FOCUS GROUPS

One benefitof comparingfocus groupsto othermethodsis a more sophisticated
understandingof the strengthsand weaknesses of focus groups. For example,
ratherthan just listing exploratoryresearch as a strengthof focus groups, it
is now necessary to note that individual, nominal interviews can be a more
effective technique for idea generation(Fern 1982) and that surveys can be
moreeffective for determiningtheprevalenceof anygiven attitudeorexperience
(Wardet al 1992). Comparisonsto othermethodshavethusled to the conclusion
that the real strengthof focus groups is not simply in exploring what people
have to say, but in providinginsights into the sourcesof complex behaviorsand
motivations(Morgan& Krueger1993).
Morgan & Kruegeralso arguedthat the advantagesof focus groups for in-
vestigating complex behaviorsand motivationswere a direct outcome of the
interactionin focus groups, what has been termed "the group effect" (Carey
1994, Carey& Smith 1994). An emphasison the specific kinds of interactions
that occur in focus groups is also an improvementover vague assertionsthat
"synergy"is one of theirstrengths.Whatmakes the discussion in focus groups
more than the sum of separateindividualinterviewsis the fact thatthe partici-
pants both query each otherand explain themselves to each other. As Morgan
& Krueger(1993) have also emphasized,such interactionoffers valuabledata
on the extent of consensus and diversityamongthe participants.This ability to
observe the extentand natureof interviewees'agreementand disagreementis a
uniquestrengthof focus groups. A furtherstrengthcomes fromthe researcher's
ability to ask the participantsthemselves for comparisonsamong their experi-
ences and views, ratherthan aggregatingindividualdata in orderto speculate
aboutwhetheror why the intervieweesdiffer.
The weaknessesof focus groups,like theirstrengths,arelinkedto the process
of producing focused interactions,raising issues about both the role of the
moderatorin generating the data and the impact of the group itself on the
data. With regardto the role of the moderator,Agar & MacDonald (1995)
used discourseanalysisto comparethe conversationsbetweeninterviewersand
140 MORGAN

intervieweesin a single focus group and a set of individualinterviews. They

concluded that the dynamics of the individualinterviewsput more burdenon
the informantsto explain themselves to the interviewer,while the moderator's
effortsto guide the groupdiscussionhadthe ironicconsequenceof disruptingthe
interactionthatwas the pointofthe group. Saferstein(1995) also used discourse
analysis to make a similar point about moderatorcontrol in a comparisonof
focus groupsandnaturallyoccurringtalkat ajob site. Inparticular,he notedthat
it is the moderator,ratherthanthe ongoing work of the group,that determines
the agendaandformof the discussion. Both of these articlesdirectlyquestioned
the assertion that focus groups mimic a conversationamong the participants,
and each independentlysuggested that a meeting would be a better analogy,
due to the control exercisedby the moderator.
Although the issues that Agar & MacDonald(1995) and Saferstein (1995)
raised are of most concern with more directive styles of moderating,there is
no denying thatthe behaviorof the moderatorhas consequencesfor the nature
of the group interviews. But the issue of interviewereffects is hardlylimited
to focus groups, as is shown in work from both survey research (Fowler &
Mangione 1990) and individual interviewing (Mischler 1986). All of these
issues point to the importanceof understandingthe range of variationthat is
possible acrossdifferentstyles of moderating,a rangediscussedin the following
section.
In terms of weaknesses that are due to the impact of the group on the dis-
cussion itself, Sussman et al (1991) used a design from small group research
and administeredquestionnairesbefore and after focus groups to find out if
the discussions changed the participants'attitudes. They found the predicted
"polarization"effect-attitudes became more extreme after the group discus-
sion. The magnitudeof this effect was small, however,as it accountedfor only
4% of the variancein attitudechange;this may be significantin an analysis of
variance,but it is not likely to skew the results of most focus group research.
Nonetheless, the point is well takenthatwe know little abouthow groupmem-
bersaffect each other,andresearchdesigns fromthe social psychological study
of small groups can offer useful tools for investigatingthis issue.
A final weakness due to the impact of the groupon its participantsconcerns
the rangeof topics thatcan be researchedeffectively in groups. Because group
interactionrequires mutual self-disclosure, it is undeniablethat some topics
will be unacceptablefor discussion among some categoriesof researchpartici-
pants. At present,however,assertionsaboutthis weakness of focus groups are
based more on intuitionthan data, since there are no empiricalinvestigations
of the range of topics or participantsthat either can or cannot be studied with
groupinterviews. In particular,claims that focus groups are inappropriatefor
 FOCUSGROUPS 141

"sensitive topics" seem to ignore the widespreaduse of group interviewingto

study sexual behaviorin all forms. Further,the growing use of focus groups
with cultural minorities and marginalizedgroups suggests that experience is
the best predictorof where focus groups will and will not work. Fortunately,
several of the researcherswho have workedwith sensitive topics and minority
groups have writtenabout their use of focus groups in these settings (Jarrett
1993, 1994, Hoppe et al 1995, Hughes & DuMont 1993, Kitzinger 1994a,b,
Zeller 1993a), and only time will tell how widely these techniques apply to
othertopics and populations.

RESEARCHDESIGNS FOR SOCIOLOGICAL

APPLICATIONSOF FOCUS GROUPS
As the previous sections demonstrate,sociologists and other social scientists
have used focus groups in many ways for many purposes. Yet, if there are
many ways of doing focus groups,then how does a practicingresearchermake
choices between doing focus groups one way versus another? And how does
an outside reviewer determinewhether a focus group project was done in a
properand effective fashion? The emergingconsensus is that these issues can
be resolved throughan emphasison researchdesign in focus groups.
An emphasis on researchdesign has advantagesboth for the field of focus
groupsas a whole andfor individualinvestigators.Forthe field of focus groups,
Morgan(1992a) has arguedthatan emphasison researchdesign wouldgenerate
explicit principlesthatwould replacethe "rulesof thumb"thathaveguidedpast
practice. Thus, ratherthan simply assertingthat focus groups should consist
of structureddiscussions among 6 to 10 homogeneous strangersin a formal
setting, an emphasis on researchdesign would systematicallyinvestigate the
implicationsof conductingmore structuredversus less structureddiscussions,
of using smallerversus largergroups,etc. For the individualinvestigator,such
researchdesign principleswould provide a means for linking the purposes of
the researchand the specific proceduresthat best achieve these purposes. For
example, in his researchon the political consciousness of ordinarycitizens,
Gamson (1992) first noted that his proceduresdepartedfrom the prevailing
rules of thumb when he used loosely moderatedgroups of four to six familiar
acquaintanceswho met at one of the participants'homes; he thenjustifiedeach
of these design decisions by statingwhy it would producedatabettersuited to
his purposes.
In consideringthe set of issues involved in designing focus groupresearch,
it is useful to distinguishbetween decisions that apply to the researchproject
as a whole (i.e. project-leveldesign issues), and those thatapplyto the conduct
142 MORGAN

of a particulargroup (i.e. group-leveldesign issues). While decisions at the

project level specify the kinds of data that the focus groups should produce,
group-leveldesign decisions largely determinehow to conduct the groups in
orderto producesuch data. In particular,many of the group-leveldecisions are
relatedto issues of groupdynamicsthathelp to ensurea productivediscussion.

PROJECT-LEVEL
DESIGN ISSUES
Standardization
As a project-leveldesign issue, standardizationaddressesthe extent to which
the identicalquestionsandproceduresareused in every group. At one extreme
would be an emphasis on "emergence"that lets the questions and procedures
shift fromgroupto groupin orderto takeadvantageof whathas been learnedin
previousgroups. At the otherextreme,a projectcould begin by determininga
fixed set of questions and proceduresthatwould apply throughout.Of course,
standardizationis actually a matterof degree, and even standardizeddesigns
allow minor variationsthataccommodatethe unique aspects of each group, in
orderto avoid what Mertonet al (1990) called the fallacy of adheringto fixed
questions.
Althoughnothinglike a census of focus groupdesigns amongsociologists ex-
ists, it is quiteclearthatthe majorityof these researchprojectshaveused a fixed
researchdesign that relied on a consistent set of predeterminedquestions and
procedures.This tendencytowardstandardizedresearchdesigns has not gone
unexamined.Orosz (1994) has arguedthatthis aspect of focus groupsis incon-
sistentwith many of the key tenets of qualitativeresearch,while Brotherson&
Goldstein (1992) made the case for pursuingstandardizationwithin an emer-
gent researchdesign. Accordingto the presentargumentfor makingdecisions
accordingto researchdesign principles, whetherto standardizethe questions
and proceduresin a focus groupprojectshould not be based on past tradition,
withineitherthe more standardizedpracticesof focus groupresearchersor the
less standardizedapproachfavoredby practitionersof other qualitativemeth-
ods. Instead,it should be based on a conscious assessment of the advantages
and disadvantagesof standardizationwith regardto the goals of a particular
project.
The great advantageof standardization,and its most common justification,
is the high level of comparabilitythat it producesacross groups. This compa-
rabilityis particularlyvaluablewhen the goal of the researchis to comparethe
responsesof differentcategoriesof participants(see the discussion of segmen-
tation in the next section). As Knodel (1993) pointed out, standardizationhas
the particularadvantageof facilitatingthe analysisof focus groupsby allowing
 FOCUSGROUPS 143

for direct comparisonsof the discussions from group to group. The obvious
disadvantageof standardizationis that one must live with whateverquestions
andprocedureswere chosen priorto enteringthe field, which would be inimical
to many trulyexploratoryapplicationsof focus groups.
Morgan(1993c) has describedtwo types of designs thatcombine the advan-
tages of morestandardizedandmoreemergentdesigns (see Morgan1992bfor a
partialapplicationof these procedures).The firstsuchdesign breaksthe project
into phasesthatmove fromless standardizedto morestandardizedgroups. This
has the advantageof allowing the early groups in the project to take a more
exploratoryapproach,which then serves as the basis for developing a later set
of standardizedquestionsandproceduresgroundedin the datathemselves. The
second compromisedesign organizesthe questionsin each groupaccordingto
a "funnel"patternthat begins with a fixed set of core questions and then pro-
ceeds to a variableset of specific issues. This has the advantageof maintaining
comparabilityacross groups for the first part of each discussion but allowing
the later section of each groupto vary accordingto the emergentneeds of the
research.
Sampling
Focus groupresearchrevealsits historicalassociationwith marketingresearch
by usingthe term"segmentation"to capturesamplingstrategiesthatconsciously
vary the compositionof groups. This use of segmentationto creategroupsthat
consist of particularcategories of participantsis a longstandingpractice, as
illustratedby Folch-Lyonet al's (1981) study on family planning,where they
composed groups that were as homogeneous as possible by sex, age, marital
status,contraceptiveuse, socioeconomicstatus,andgeographicallocation. The
most obvious kinds of segmentationcapturesomethingaboutthe researchtopic
itself. For example, if gender differences were of interest, then one might
conduct separate groups of men and women, or an evaluation study might
segment the groups into more frequentand less frequentusers of the program
in question.
Segmentation offers two basic advantages. First, it builds a comparative
dimension into the entire research project, including the data analysis. For
example,Folch-Lyonet al (1981) analyzedtheirdataaccordingto the categories
describedabove and found the most wide-rangingdifferencesbetween groups
of men and women, with some additionaldifferencesbetween groups in rural
and urbanareas. Second, segmentationfacilitates discussions by making the
participantsmore similar to each other. For example, even if the behaviorof
men and women does not differ greatly on a given topic, discussion still may
flow more smoothly in groups that are homogeneous ratherthan mixed with
regardto sex. The same logic applies to dividing groups accordingto the age,
144 MORGAN

race, or social class of the participants,although the value of segmenting to

facilitatea free-flowingdiscussion obviously dependson the researchtopic.
The obvious disadvantageof segmentationis that it can greatly multiply
the numberof groups. As Knodel (1993) pointed out, it is seldom wise to
runjust one group per segment, since what one learns about that segment is
confounded with the group dynamics of that unique set of participants. As
Knodel also noted, however,using multiplesegmentationcriteriacan produce
acceptabledesigns that have only one group "percell" in the overall design,
as long as there are multiple groups in each separatesegment (e.g. there may
be several groups of women, several ruralgroups, and several groups of older
participants,butonly one groupof older,ruralwomen). Even so, using multiple
segmentationcriteriacan easily lead to projectsthat involve large numbersof
focus groups, like the 44 groupsconductedby Folch-Lyonet al (1981).
Numberof Groups
The most common rule of thumb is that most projects consist of four to six
focus groups. The typical justificationfor this range is that the data become
"saturated"and little new informationemerges after the first few groups, so
moderatorscan predictwhatparticipantswill say even beforethey say it (Zeller
1993b). Morgan(1992a) has suggested that diversityin eitherthe participants
or the rangeof topics to be coveredwill increasethe numberof groupsnecessary
to achieve saturation.For example, Kitzingerwished to hear about views on
AIDS from a wide rangeof differentpopulationsandthusconducted52 groups,
while Gamson (1992) wantedeach of his groupsto give theiropinions on four
different political issues and thus conducted 37 groups in order to produce
enough discussion on each topic.
As the previous section noted, using multiple segments will increase the
number of groups needed, which is a special case of diversity in the study
population. Projectsthatuse a lower level of standardizationwill also typically
need moregroups,since this producesmorevariationin the topics thatareraised
group to group. The connection between the numberof groups and issues of
standardizationand segmentationraises the question of how differentaspects
of researchdesign for focus groups intersect-a topic addressedat the end of
this section.

GROUP-LEVELDESIGN ISSUES
Level of ModeratorInvolvement
The presenceof a moderatoris one of the most strikingfeaturesof focus groups.
Groupsin which the moderatorexercises a higherdegree of controlare termed
"morestructured,"and Morgan (1992a) has called attentionto two senses in
 FOCUSGROUPS 145

which a group can be more structured. First, it can be more structuredwith

regard to asking questions, so that the moderatorcontrols what topics are
discussed (e.g. directing attentionaway from what are deemed less impor-
tant issues). Second, it can be more structuredwith regardto managinggroup
dynamics, so that the moderatorcontrolsthe way that the participantsinteract
(e.g. trying to get everyone to participateequally in the discussion). Both of
these aspectsof moderatorinvolvementcan be elements of the researchdesign.
Withregardto the moderator'sinvolvementin askingquestions,a less struc-
tured discussion means that the group can pursue its own interests, while a
more structuredapproachmeans that the moderatorimposes the researcher's
interests,as embodied in the questions thatguide the discussion. A key factor
that makes groups more or less structuredis simply the numberof questions.
Thus, if the average focus group lasts 90 minutes, and the moderatorhas the
responsibilityfor covering a great many questions during that time, then the
moderatorwill be heavily involved in controllingthe group's discussion. Un-
fortunately,there is currentlylittle consensus about what constitutes a more
structuredor less structuredapproachto questioning. For example, Lederman
(1990:123) characterizeda guide thatcontainedfive broadquestions as "quite
structured,"while Byers & Wilcox (1991:65) termeda guide with 17 specific
questions "relativelyunstructured."
One possible cause for this confusion is the failure to distinguish between
structurethatcontrolsquestioningand structurethatcontrols groupdynamics.
In managing group dynamics, a less structuredapproachallows participants
to talk as much or as little as they please, while a more structuredapproach
means that the moderatorwill encouragethose who might otherwisesay little
and limit those who might otherwisedominatethe discussion. Although most
marketingapproachesto focus groups (e.g. Greenbaum1993) have typically
advocated a more structuredcontrol of group dynamics, many social science
approacheshave explicitly favored a less directive style of interviewing(e.g.
Krueger 1994, Merton et al 1990). Morgan's (1988) instructionsfor how to
conduct"self-managed"groups,in which the moderatordoes not even sit at the
same table as the participants,probablyrepresentthe extremein social science
advocacy of less structuredapproachesto groupdynamics.
In general,marketingresearchers,more thansocial science researchers,pre-
fer research designs with high levels of moderatorinvolvement that impose
more structurewith regardto both asking questions and managing group dy-
namics. Morgan(1988) has suggestedthatthis reflectsa differencebetweenthe
marketinggoal of answeringquestions from an audienceof paying customers
and the social science goal of generatingnew knowledge for an audience of
peer reviewers. To the extent that this broad generalizationdoes hold, it is a
146 MORGAN

nice illustrationof the general principle that researchdesigns should follow

from researchgoals. This conclusion-that approachesto moderatingshould
be linked to researchgoals-is stronglysupportedby one of the few instances
of systematicresearchthatevaluatesdifferencesin moderatorstyle (McDonald
1993). Further,it implies thatargumentsaboutwhethermoderatorsshould use
a more or less structuredapproachare meaningless unless one specifies the
goals of the research.
GroupSize
The numberof participantswho are invited to a focus group is one element
of the researchdesign that is clearly under the researcher'scontrol. Morgan
(1992a) reviewedthe bases for determininggroupsize, concludingthatsmaller
groups were more appropriatewith emotionally chargedtopics that generated
high levels of participantinvolvement,while largergroupsworkedbetterwith
more neutraltopics that generatedlower levels of involvement. On the one
hand, a smaller group gives each participantmore time to discuss her or his
views and experiences on topics in which they all are highly involved. On
the other hand, a largergroup contains a wider range of potential responses
on topics where each participanthas a low level of involvement. In addition,
small groups make it easier for moderatorsto manage the active discussions
thatoften accompanyhigh levels of involvementandemotionaltopics, whereas
large groups are easier to manage when each participanthas a lower level of
involvementin the topic.
This last point once again raises an issue that involves the intersectionof
two different design principles: group size and moderatorinvolvement. Al-
though it is generallythe case that design dimensionscannot be consideredin
isolation from each other,currentknowledge abouthow design issues impinge
on each other is limited to a few obvious considerations. In addition to the
linkage between groupsize and moderatorinvolvement,earlierportionsof this
section noted connections between standardizationand sample segmentation,
and between the numberof groups and both standardizationand segmenta-
tion. There is thus an increasing but still limited stock of knowledge about
how design issues go together. This limitation is understandable,given that
most of the explicit investigations of research design in focus groups have
come from social scientists and consequently reflect only a decade or so of
activity.

DATAQUALITYCONCERNS
The basic goal in specifyingresearchdesignsfor focus groupsis to ensure
thattheresearchprocedures deliverthedesireddata.Despitethebestresearch
 FOCUSGROUPS 147

designs, however,things can still go wrong due to poor planningor the inap-
propriateimplementationof otherwise optimal designs. Krueger(1993) and
Morgan(1995) havebothnotedthatdataqualitydependson a numberof factors,
includingwhetherthe researcherlocates enough participants,selects appropri-
ate samples, chooses relevantquestions,has a qualifiedmoderator(s),and uses
an effective analysis strategy.
Standardsfor reportingon researchproceduresare one practicalstep to im-
prove the quality of focus group research. At present, the reportingof focus
group proceduresis a haphazardaffairat best. Based on the studies reviewed
for this chapter,the following is one effort to develop such standards. First,
to learnthe overarchingcontext for the research,readersshould know whether
a standardizedset of questions and proceduresappliedthroughoutthe project.
Then,most basically,readersshouldknow the numberof groupsconductedand
the size range of these groups. There should also be informationon the group
composition,includingrelevantbackgrounddataon the participants.In partic-
ular,when groups are divided into differentsample segments, there should be
informationon the basis for this sampling strategyand the numberof groups
per segment. Regardlessof whetherthe study used segmentation,it is impor-
tant to reportthe sources for locating participantsand otherinformationabout
recruitmentprocedures. In terms of the interview itself, thoroughsummaries
of the question contentare needed;surprisingly,manycurrentpublicationssay
very little about the questions thatwere asked. Similarly,most currentreports
say little aboutmoderating,and useful informationwould include concretede-
scriptionsof the degree of structurethatthe moderator(s)imposed, how many
moderatorswere used, and whattheirtrainingand qualificationswere. Finally,
ethical issues need to be discussed, and, althoughthe field as a whole has been
slow to addressethical concerns in focus group research,there now is at least
one discussion of this topic (Smith 1995).
This kind of informationwould aid not only reviewersin judging the quality
of the research design and proceduresbut also other researchersin adapting
these practicesinto futurework. Forboth of these purposes,it would be highly
desirable for research reports to go beyond merely presentingfactual infor-
mation to includingjustificationsfor the more crucial design decisions. This
process of making public the basis for our decisions about why to do focus
groups one way and not anotheris a vital step in the growthof our field.

FUTUREDIRECTIONSFOR FOCUS GROUPS

The steady increase in the use of focus groups over the past decade clearly
demonstratesthatsociologists andothersocial scientistshavefoundthemto be a
useful andpracticalmethodfor gatheringqualitativedata. The leadingrole that
148 MORGAN

sociologists have played in this field has been most evident in methodological
researchon focus groups, which has given sociologists a major influence on
both their currentuses and futuredirections. In terms of futuredirections, a
groupof social science researchersparticipatedin focus groups,fundedin part
by the American Sociological Association, that led to a statementon "Future
Directions for Focus Groups"(Morgan 1993b). Not surprisingly,several of
the specific topics consideredtherehave been echoed here, such as the need to
set standardsfor focus groups and the need to furtherdefine the strengthsand
weaknesses of the method.
The major theme raised in the focus group discussions on futuredirection
was the need to do moreresearchon focus groupsas a method,andseveralof the
studiesreviewedhereprovideconcreteexamplesof how to accomplishthis. For
example, both Agar & MacDonald(1995) and Saferstein(1995) demonstrate
the value of discourse analysis for investigatinginteractionsbetween moder-
ators and participants. Sociologists who have experimentedwith discourse
analysis (e.g. Gamson 1992) have concludedthatthe time andexpense spent in
producingsuch datahave little value for substantiveanalyses of what was said
in groups. Yet, methodologicalanalyses of how things are said in focus groups
may well be a more profitableuse of these tools. Another potentially useful
technique from anotherfield is Sussman et al's (1991) applicationof proce-
duresfrom small groupresearch.As Morgan& Krueger(1993) note, however,
it is importantnot to confuse the standarddecision-makingparadigmin small
groupsresearchwith the datagatheringgoals of focus groups. One particularly
promising aspect of the Sussman et al proceduresis the post-groupquestion-
naire, and otherfocus groupresearchers(Pies 1993, Swenson et al 1992) have
used this techniqueto investigatenot only the impactthatthe discussion had on
the participants,butalso theirfeelings aboutthe discussion,includingthe extent
to which they were able to sharetheirtrueopinionson the topics they discussed.
One final promisingtechniquefor methodologicalresearchon focus groups is
McDonald's (1993) use of an archiveof focus group transcriptsto investigate
how differencesin projectgoals were linked to differencesin moderatorstyle.
Unfortunately,qualitativeresearchershave been slower in archivingtheirwork
thantheir quantitativecounterparts;still, the opportunityto comparethe qual-
itativeproceduresof multiple investigatorsacross multipletopics would be an
exciting opportunitythat should not be limited to focus groups.
Data analysis is anothertopic for future work on focus groups. To date,
most discussions of how to analyze focus groupshave occurredwithin broader
discussionsof the method(e.g. Knodel 1993), andonly one articleis specifically
dedicatedto analysis of issues (Bertrandet al 1992). Although it is true that
many of the analyticissues in focus groupsare the same as in otherqualitative
 FOCUSGROUPS 149

methods, it is also true that focus groups raise some unique issues, such as
the ongoing debate about the circumstancesunder which the unit of analysis
should be the groups, the participants,or the participants'utterances(Carey
& Smith 1994, Gamson 1992, Morgan 1995). In addition,focus groups offer
some special opportunitiesfor the applicationof computertechnologies in the
analysis of qualitativedata (Javidiet al 1991).
Beyond such strictlymethodologicalconcerns,thereare also promisingnew
uses for focus groups. The most notableof these involves researcherswho are
more actively engaged with the participantsand their concerns. In an earlier
section, this was summarizedas an increasinginterestin focus groups among
those who pursuegoals such as empowermentor approachessuch as action and
participatoryresearch. Underlyingmany of these efforts is a desire to break
down the division between using groups as a means for gatheringdata and
as a means for educating, mobilizing, or interveningwith participants. This
matches a widespreadconcern in the social sciences about the artificialityof
the division between researchersand those who are researched. This issue is
especially relevantfor focus groups, since they have been widely touted (e.g.
Morgan & Krueger 1993) as a means for helping to bridge the gap between
those in authorityand the people they control.
One questionaboutfocus groupsthathas remainedunasked,however,is why
they have reemergedwith such popularityat this particulartime. One segment
of our futurework on focus groups should thus go beyond practicalconcerns
with the methoditself to ask abouttheirplace withinthe historyof sociology-
especially since this is the discipline that is self-consciously chargedwith the
study of humansin groups. Partof the presentpopularityof focus groups may
indeed be due to their unique advantagesfor addressingsuch contemporary
issues as empowermentand diversity. Whetherthis is true or not, it is clear
that focus groups are both being shapedby the directionsthat our discipline is
taking and playing a role in shapingthose directions.
Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,
may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.
1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: arpr@class.org

LiteratureCited

Agar M, MacDonaldJ. 1995. Focus groupsand ing theory and practice in health education.
ethnography.Hum. Organ.54:78-86 Health Educ. Q. 14:411-48
Albrecht TL, Johnson GM, WaltherJB. 1993. BertrandJE, BrownJE, WardVM. 1992. Tech-
Understandingcommunicationprocesses in niques for analyzingfocus group data. Eval.
focus groups. See Morgan 1993a, pp. 51-64 Rev. 16:198-209
Basch CE. 1987. Focus group interview: an Bobo L, ZubrinskyCL, JohnsonJH, OliverML.
underutilizedresearchtechniquefor improv- 1995. Work orientation,job discrimination,
150 MORGAN
andethnicity:a focus groupperspective.Res.
Sociol. Work5:45-55
Bogardus ES. 1926. The group interview. J.
Appl. Sociol. 10:372-82
BrothersonMJ, Goldstein BL. 1992. Quality
design of focus groups in early childhood
special education research. J. Early Interv.
16:334-42
Bryant CA. 1990. The use of focus groups
in programdevelopment.Natl. Assoc. Pract.
Anthropol.Bull. 39:1-4
BrymanA. 1988. Qualityand Quantityin Social
Research.London: Unwin Hyman
Byers PY, Wilcox JR. 1991. Focus groups:
a qualitative opportunityfor researchers.J.
Bus. Comm.28:63-78
Cable ES. 1992. Women'ssocial movementin-
volvement: the role of structuralavailabil-
ity in recruitmentandparticipationprocesses.
Sociol. Q. 33:35-50
Carey MA. 1994. The group effect in focus
groups: planning, implementing and inter-
preting focus group research.In Critical Is-
sues in Qualitative Research Methods, ed.
J Morse, pp. 225-41. ThousandOaks, CA:
Sage
Carey, MA. 1995. Issues and applications of
focus groups. Qual. Health Res. 5:413-530
(Special issue)
CareyMA, SmithM. 1994. Capturingthe group
effect in focus groups: a special concern in
analysis. Qual. Health Res. 4:123-27
Crabtree BF, Yanoshik MK, Miller WL,
O'Connor PJ. 1993. Selecting individualor
group interviews. See Morgan 1993a, pp.
137-49
Delli Carpini MX, Williams B. 1994. The
method is the message: focus groups as a
method of social, psychological, and politi-
cal inquiry.Res. Micropolit.4:57-85
Diamond E, Bates S. 1992. The Spot: The Rise
of Political Advertisingon Television.Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press. 3rd ed.
DuncanMT,MorganDL. 1994. Sharingthe car-
ing: family caregivers' views of their rela-
tionshipswith nursinghome staff.TheGeron-
tologist 34:235-44
FernEF. 1982. The use of focus groupsfor idea
generation:the effects of groupsize, acquin-
tanceship, and moderatoron response quan-
tity and quality.J. Mark.Res. 19:1-13
Flores JG, Alonso CG. 1995. Using focus
groups in educational research. Eval. Rev.
19:84-101
Folch-Lyon E, de la MacorraL, SchearerSB.
1981. Focus group and survey research on
family planningin Mexico. Stud.Fam. Plan.
12:409-32
Fowler FJ, Mangione TW. 1990. Standardized
Survey Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Frey JH, FontanaA. 1991. The groupinterview
in social research.Soc. Sci. J. 28:175-87. See
also Morgan 1993a, pp. 20-34
Fuller TD, Edwards JN, VorakitphokatornS,
SermsriS. 1993. Using focus groupsto adapt
surveyinstrumentsto new populations:expe-
rience from a developing country.See Mor-
gan 1993a, pp. 89-104
Gamson WA. 1992. Talking Politics. Cam-
bridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
GoldmanAE, McDonald SS. 1987. The Group
Depth Interview: Principles and Practice.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall
Greenbaum TL. 1988/1993. The Practical
Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Re-
search. Lexington,MA: Lexington. Rev. ed.
Harari0, Beaty D. 1990. On the folly of re-
lying solely on a questionnairemethodology
in cross-culturalresearch.J. Manage. Issues
2:267-81
HendershottA, Wright S. 1993. Student focus
groups and curricularreview. Teach.Sociol.
21:154-59
Hoppe MJ, Wells EA, MorrisonDM, Gillmore
MR, WilsdonA. 1995. Using focus groupsto
discuss sensitive topics with children. Eval.
Rev. 19:102-14
Hugentobler MK, Israel BA, Schurman SJ.
1992. An action researchapproachto work-
place health: integrating methods. Health
Educ. Q. 19:55-76
Hughes D, DuMont K. 1993. Using focus
groups to facilitate culturally anchored re-
search.Am. J. CommunityPsychol. 21:775-
806
IrwinJ. 1970. TheFelon. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:
PrenticeHall
Irwin K, BertrandJ, MibandumbaN, Mbuyi
K, MuremeriC, et al. 1991. Knowledge, at-
titudes and beliefs about HIV infection and
AIDS among healthy factory workers and
their wives, Kinshasa, Zaire. Soc. Sci. Med.
32:917-30
Jarrett RL. 1993. Focus group interviewing
with low-income, minoritypopulations:a re-
search experience. See Morgan 1993a, pp.
184-201
JarrettRL. 1994.Livingpoor: familylife among
single parent, African-American women.
Soc. Probl. 41:30-49
Javidi M, Long LW, Vasu ML, Ivy DK.
1991. Enhancing focus group validity with
computer-assistedtechnology in social sci-
ence research.Soc. Sci. Comput.Rev.9:231-
45
JosephJG, EmmonsCA, KesslerRC, Wortman
CB, O'Brien K, et al. 1984. Coping with the

threatof AIDS: an approachto psychosocial
assessment.Am. Psychol. 39:1297-302
Khan ME, MandersonL. 1992. Focus groups
in tropical diseases research. Health Policy
Plan. 7:56-66
KitzingerJ. 1994a. The methodology of focus
groups: the importance of interaction be-
tween research participants.Sociol. Health
Illn. 16:103-21
Kitzinger J. 1994b. Focus groups: method
or madness. In Challenge and Innovation:
MethodologicalAdvancesin Social Research
on HIV/AIDS,ed. M Boulton, pp. 159-75.
New York:Taylor& Francis
Kline A, Kline E, Oken E. 1992. Minority
womenandsexual choice in the age of AIDS.
Soc. Sci. Med. 34:447-57
Knodel J. 1993. The design and analysis of fo-
cus group studies: a practicalapproach.See
Morgan1993a, pp. 35-50
KnodelJ. 1995. Focus groupresearchon the liv-
ing arrangementsof elderly in Asia. J. Cross-
Cult. Gerontol. 10:1-162 (Special issue)
Knodel J, ChamratrithirongA, Debavalya N.
1987. Thailand's ReproductiveRevolution:
Rapid FertilityDecline in a Third-World Set-
ting. Madison, WI: Univ. Wisc. Press
Krueger RA. 1993. Quality control in focus
groupresearch.See Morgan1993a,pp.65-85
Krueger RA. 1988/1994. Focus Groups: A
Practical GuideforApplied Research.Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2nd ed.
KullbergJS. 1994. The ideological rootsof elite
political conflict in post-Soviet Russia. Eur
Asia Stud. 46:929-53
Laurie H. 1992. Multiple methods in the study
of household resource allocation. In Mixing
Methods: Qualitative and QuantitativeRe-
search, ed. J Brannen, pp. 145-68. Brook-
field, VT: Avebury
LaurieH, Sullivan0. 1991. Combiningqualita-
tive and quantitativedata in the longitudinal
study of household allocations. Sociol. Rev.
39:113-30
LedermanLC. 1990. Assessing educationalef-
fectiveness: the focus group interview as a
techniquefor datacollection. Commun.Educ.
39:117-27
Lengua LJ, Roosa MW, Schupak-NeubergE,
Michaels ML, Berg CN, WeschlerLF. 1992.
Using focus groupsto guide the development
of a parentingprogramfor difficult-to-reach,
high-riskfamilies. Fam. Relat. 41:163-68
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. 1985. Naturalistic In-
quiry.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
Magill RS. 1993. Focus groups, programeval-
uation, and the poor. J. Sociol. Soc. Welfare
20:103-14
McDonaldWJ. 1993. Focus groupresearchdy-
FOCUS GROUPS 151
namics and reporting:an examinationof re-
search objectives and moderatorinfluences.
J. Acad. Mark.Sci. 21:161-68
McKinlay JB. 1993. The promotion of health
throughplannedsociopolitical change: chal-
lenges for researchand policy. Soc. Sci. Med.
36:109-17
McQuarrieEF. 1990. Review of: Morgan, Fo-
cus Groupsas QualitativeResearch,and Mc-
Cracken,The Long Interview.J. Mark Res.
13:114-17
McQuarrie EF. 1996. The Market Research
Toolbox.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
MertonRK. 1987. Thefocused interviewandfo-
cus groups: continuitiesand discontinuities.
Public Opin. Q. 51:550-66
MertonRK, Fiske M, Kendall PL. 1956/1990.
The Focused Interview New York: Free
Press. 2nd ed.
MertonRK, KendallPL. 1946. The focused in-
terview.Am. J. Sociol. 51:541-57
Mischler EG. 1986. Research Interviewing:
ContextandNarrative.Cambridge,MA: Har-
vardUniv. Press
Montell FB. 1995. Focus group interviews: a
new feminist method. Presented at Annu.
Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., Washington,DC
MorganDL. 1988. Focus Groupsas Qualitative
Research.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
MorganDL. 1989. Adjustingto widowhood: do
social networksreally makeit easier? Geron-
tologist 29:101-7
MorganDL. 1992a. Designing focus group re-
search. In Toolsfor Primary Care Research,
ed. M Stewart,et al, pp. 177-93. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
MorganDL. 1992b. Doctor caregiverrelation-
ships: an explorationusing focus groups. In
Doing QualitativeResearchin PrimaryCare:
MultipleStrategies,ed. B Crabtree,W Miller,
pp. 205-30. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
MorganDL. 1993a. Succes.ful Focus Groups:
Advancing the State of the Art. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
MorganDL. 1993b. Futuredirectionsfor focus
groups.See Morgan 1993a, pp. 225-44
MorganDL. 1993c. Focus groups and surveys.
Presentedat Annu.Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc.,
Pittsburg,PA
MorganDL. 1994. Seekingdiagnosisfor afam-
ily member with Alzheimer's disease. Pre-
sented at Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc.,
Los Angeles, CA
MorganDL. 1995. Why things (sometimes) go
wrong in focus groups. Qual. Health Res.
5:516-22
MorganDL, KruegerRA. 1993. Whento use fo-
cus groups and why. See Morgan 1993a, pp.
3-19
152 MORGAN
Morgan DL, Spanish MT. 1985. Social in-
teraction and the cognitive organisationof
health-relevantbehavior.Sociol. Health Ill-
ness 7:401-22
Morgan DL, Zhao PZ. 1993. The doctor-
caregiverrelationship:managingthe care of
family members with Alzheimer's disease.
Qual. Health Res. 3:133-64
Nelson JE, FrontczakNT. 1988. How acquain-
tanceship and analyst can influence focus
group results.J. Advert. 17:41-48
Nichols-CaseboltA, Spakes P. 1995. Policy re-
search and the voices of women. Soc. Work
Res. 19:49-55
O'Brien KJ. 1993. Improvingsurvey question-
naires through focus groups. See Morgan
1993a, pp. 105-17
O'ConnorPJ,CrabtreeBF,AbourizkNN. 1992.
Longitudinal study of a diabetes education
and care intervention. J. Am. Board Fam.
Practice 5:381-87
OroszJF.1994. Theuse offocus groupsin health
care service delivery: understandingand im-
provingthe healthcare experience.Presented
at Qual. HealthRes. Conf., Hershey,PA
Padilla R. 1993. Using dialogical methods in
group interviews. See Morgan 1993a, pp.
153-66
Pies C. 1993. Controversiesin context: ethics,
values,andpolicies concerningNORPLANT
PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Berkeley
PinderhughesH. 1993. The anatomyof racially
motivatedviolence in New YorkCity: a case
study of youth in southern Brooklyn. Soc.
Probl. 40:478-92
Pollak M, PaichelerG, PierretJ. 1992. AIDS: a
problemfor sociological research.Curr.So-
ciol/La Sociol. Contemp.40:1-134
Race KE,HotchDF, PackerT.1994. Rehabilita-
tion programevaluation:use of focus groups
to empowerclients. Eval. Rev. 18:730-40
SafersteinB. 1995. Focusingopinions: conver-
sation, authority,and the (re)constructionof
knowledge.Presentedat Annu.Meet. Am. So-
ciol. Assoc., Washington,DC
Saint-GermainMA, Bassford TL, MontanoG.
1993. Surveys and focus groups in health
researchwith older Hispanic women. Qual.
Health Res. 3:341-67
Sasson T. 1995. CrimeTalk:How CitizensCon-
structa Social Problem.Hawthorne,NY: Al-
dine
SchearerSB. 1981. The value of focus groupre-
searchfor social action programs.Stud.Fam.
Plan. 12:407-8
Shively JE. 1992. Cowboys and Indians: per-
ceptions of Westernfilms among American
IndiansandAnglos. Am.Sociol. Rev.57:725-
34
Smith MW. 1995. Ethics in focus groups: a few
concerns. Qual. Health Res. 5:478-86
Staley CS. 1990. Focus group research: the
communication practitioner as marketing
specialist.InAppliedCommunicationTheory
and Research, ed. D O'Hair, G Kreps, pp.
185-201. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. 1990. Focus
Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Stycos JM. 1981. A critiqueof focus groupand
survey research: the machismo case. Stud.
Fam.Plan. 12:450-56
SussmanS, BurtonD, Dent CW,Stacy AW,Flay
BR. 1991. Use of focus groupsin developing
an adolescenttobaccouse cessationprogram:
collective normeffects. J. Appl.Soc. Psychol.
21:1772-82
Swenson JD, Griswold WF, Kleiber PB.
1992. Focus groups: method of in-
quiry/intervention. Small Groups Res.
23:459-74
TempletonJF. 1987. Focus Groups: A Guide
for Marketingand AdvertisingProfessionals.
Chicago: Probus
VaughnS, ShummJS, Sinagub S. 1996. Focus
GroupInterviewsin Educationand Psychol-
ogy. ThousandOaks. CA: Sage
WardVM, BertrandJT, Brown LF. 1991. The
comparabilityof focus group and survey re-
sults. Eval. Rev. 15:266-83
Wight D. 1994. Boys' thoughts and talk about
sex in a working class locality of Glasgow.
Sociol. Rev.42:702-37
Wolff B, Knodel J, Sittitrai W. 1993. Focus
groups and surveys as complementary re-
searchmethods: a case example. See Morgan
1993a,pp. 118-36
Zeller RA. 1993a.Focus groupresearchon sen-
sitive topics: setting the agenda without set-
ting the agenda.See Morgan1993a, pp. 167-
83
Zeller RA. 1993b. Combining qualitative and
quantitativetechniquesto develop culturally
sensitive measures.In MethodologicalIssues
in AIDS BehavioralResearch,ed. D Ostrow,
R Kessler,pp. 95-116. New York:Plenum