This essay outlines focus groups as a relatively new method of research for the com-

munication and organizational researcher. The needs for this type of research, essen-
tial ingredients of a quality focus group session, and the advantages and
disadvantages ofthe method are discussed A theoretical framework is established and
specific instances ofthe application offocus groups in recent organizational research
are given. Finally, suggested methods for analyzing focus group data are presented.

Focus Groups:
A Qualitative Opportunity for Researchers
Peggy Yuhas Byers
Saint Mary's College
James R. Wilcox
Bowling Green State University

'he following scenario is a daily occurrence in many large cities:

ight to twelve people, usually a homogeneous grouping, are seated around
a conference table engaging in discussion facilitated by a moderator they
have never before met. The focus of discussion may be a new product concept
or prototype, an advertisement (message or campaign) or perhaps a service.
Discussion will proceed for one or two hours. Group members are probed
and their responses seem to stimulate discussion as to their perceptions,
attitudes, and purchase intentions. The proceedings are audio (sometimes
video) recorded and usually observed from the other side of a one-way mirror
by representatives ofthe organization which has produced the product, ad,
or service. Later, the content of the discussion (often four to eight, or ten
groups on a single stimulus) will be analyzed and interpreted in the form
of recommendations designed ultimately to reduce the client organization's
risk in decision-making.

Focus groups have been heavily employed in marketing research for

several years as a method of gathering qualitative data. Articles
elaborating descriptions, advantages and disadvantages can be found in
a variety of marketing journals such as Marketing News, Marketing
Times, Journal of Advertising Research, and Advances in Consumer
Research. The focus group method of research has been virtually ignored
by those wishing to study the process of communication in areas other
than marketing. Communication, or communication-related methods
texts, rarely mention focus groups and relatively few articles employing
the method exist in published communications research (Lederman,
1983, 1989).
This article will make the case for the focus group in communication
and organizational research—^briefly reviewing pertinent literature

63
64 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

about the method and its advantages and disadvantages. A theoretical

framework will be discussed as well as appropriate inquiries for its use.
Finally, methods of evaluating the resulting data will be suggested.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The rationale for focus groups should be clear. One common criticism
of much communication research is that it has been too far removed from
the "process" of communication. Exhibiting a bias for scientific rigor in
the last generation, scholars have only recently begun to reassert and
advocate qualitative research possibilities to provide more solid
"grounded theory." Focus groups have the potential of being an excellent
source of qualitative data (Zeller, 1986). As Goldman (1962) suggests,
the focus group offers researchers the opportunity to see "process" in
action. The focus group affords researchers the chance to observe trans-
actions between and among participants, how they respond and react to
each other.
Zeller (1986) states that "when the goals ofthe research are general,
call for qualitative data, require data that is not in the respondent's
top-of-mind, and when there is minimal prior knowledge about a par-
ticular problem and the range of responses likely to emerge, the focus
group may be the appropriate research design" (p. 1). Focus groups have
the ability to provide us with data not obtainable through paper and
pencil self-report measures or observational measures. In areas of study
in which little is known, focus groups may be an appropriate place to
begin.
Focus groups provide the opportunity to obtain data which is not
necessarily germane to any particular group or setting (Morgan &
Spanish, 1984). The focus group "has the potential of providing a
methodology of exploration which allows participants to express their
concerns within a context that is useful to the scientific community"
(Zeller, 1986, p. 3).
Such exploration may expose underlying attitudes, opinions, and
behavior patterns (Pramualratana, Havanon, & Knodel, 1985). Ideally,
a focus group closes the gap between the interviewees' initial perceptions
of a topic and their final reports of what they have seen (Merton, Fiske,
& Kendall, 1956). Morgan and Spanish (1984) suggest that focus groups
are a "unique and independent" source of qualitative data and "can add
to other qualitative or quantitative data collection strategies" (p. 253),
thus making them useful in a variety of areas of exploration.
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 65

The Focus Group Method

Descriptions of focus groups can be found throughout the literature
(e.g., Calder, 1977; Cox, Higgenbotham, & Burton, 1976; Fern, 1982;
Goldman, 1962; Krueger, 1988; Lehman, 1987; Lydecker, 1986; Merton
et al., 1956; Morgan, 1988; Yuhas, 1986; Zeller, 1986). The focus group
grew out of what Merton, Fiske, and Kendall (1956) referred to as a
focused interview," a discussion group that concentrates on a particular
topic or topics, that is facilitated by a trained moderator, and that
typically consists of eight to twelve participants.
Lederman (1989) suggestsfivefundamental assumptions upon which
the method rests: (1) that people are a valuable source of information;
(2) that people can report on and about themselves, and that they are
articulate enough to verbalize their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors;
(3) that the facilitator who "focuses" the interview can help people
retrieve forgotten information; (4) that the dynamics in the group can be
used to generate genuine information, rather than the "group think"
phenomenon; and (5) that interviewing a group is better than interview-
ing an individual.
The focus group interview can be useful by itself as a "self-contained"
method of research or it can be part of an on-going, multi-method study
when used in conjunction with individual interviews, surveys, experi-
ments, or participant observations (Morgan, 1988). The group is
facilitated by a moderator who follows a relatively unstructured inter-
view guide (see appendix). The moderator seeks to obtain significant
experiences from the interviewees germane to the topic or topics of
interest.
Employing Axelrod's (1975) ten essential ingredients for a successful
focus group, one would have:
1. A Clearly Understood Objective. Is the focus group part of an
on-going research project or is it self-contained? Does the research team
have a clearly defined subject of study?
2. Homogeneity Within the Group. The participants should be
homogeneous in relation to the topic under discussion (i.e., all should
either have or have not been exposed to the topic of study).
3. (jlood Recruiting. Recruiting should be done to insure homogeneity
and a sufficient number of qualified participants.
4. A Relaxed Atmosphere. The moderator should insure confiden-
tiality and promote openness.
5. A Moderator Who Listens. The moderator must insure that the
discussion does not stray too far from the point of interest, yet must not
rule out things that may seem unrelated.
66 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

6. A Well Prepared Moderator. The moderator typically follows an

unstructured interview guide.
7. Free-Flowing Dialogue. The moderator should begin the discus-
sion by inviting honest and open dialogue and guiding the discussion
only when necessary.
8. Restrained Group Infiuence. The moderator should refrain from
contributing to the discussion unless necessary.
9. Skilled Analysis. The data can be analyzed by either a qualitative,
or ethnographic summary; or a quantitative systematic coding via con-
tent analysis (Morgan, 1988, p. 64).
10. Competent Researchers. The research team should be sure that
all necessary details are controlled.
A successful focus group is one in which a variety of responses are
generated which are germane to the topic of study. All participants feel
free to express opinions and thoughts regarding the topic(s) at hand.
Advantages of the Focus Group
Based on a review of the literature the method has advantages and
disadvantages. The advantages will be highlighted first.
1. Release of inhibition by participants. A well moderated group
encourages full and open expression of perceptions, experiences, at-
titudes, etc.
2. Flexibihty. A focus group is typically more flexible than an in-
dividual interview (Wells, 1974). The moderator "works from a list of
topics—^listening, thinking, probing, exploring, framing hunches and
ideas" (p. 134).
3. Handling contingencies. A focus group is amenable to exploring
linkages which go untouched in a statistical survey (Wells, 1974, p. 134).
Moreover, it is possible to explore avenues of importance which may arise
other than those listed on a questionnaire.
4. Time. Eliciting responses from eight to twelve respondents in a
focus group lasting one to two hours is more "time effective" than
interviewing the same number individually.
5. Interpretability of data. Though the data usually contain a wide
range of responses (Kover, 1982), identification of issues and the reasons
participants hold positions on issues is usually clear upon careful
analysis. The group often stimulates recall and actuates important but
forgotten personal detail.
6. Provision of basic exploratory information. When little is known in
advance of investigation, the focus group may provide a basis for for-
mulating research questions and hypothesis (Zeller, 1987).
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 67

Disadvantages of the Focus Group

The focus group method and data do, however, have some disad-
vantftges:
1. Cost. A series of four focus groups could easily cost more than
$2,500, depending on moderator fee, facility rental, recording and
transcribing, data analysis and interpretation, and participant incen-
tives.
2. Subjects' conformity. Social desirability, or respondents' motiva-
tion to provide socially acceptable responses to conform to group norms
is somewhat greater in a group than in the anonymous process of survey
questionnaire completion (Crowne & Marlow, 1964).
3. Biased results. An analyst should not generalize from focus group
results to the larger population from which the respondents were a
sample, and it is well to remember that the respondents are volunteers
who may be more extroverted, outgoing, and sociable than the "average"
individual.

Estabiishing a Theoreticai Framework

Establishing a theoretical framework is necessary in order to support
the usefulness of any data-gathering technique. To date, Calder (1977)
provides the most comprehensive theoretical approach to the focus group
technique encompassing its generalizability, objectivity, reliability,
validity, the link between theory and method, and an evaluation ofthe
method.
Theoreticai Approaches to Focus Group Research
Calder (1977) distinguishes between exploratory, clinical, and
phenomenological approaches to focus group research. He claims that
the exploratory approach to qualitative research seeks prescientific
knowledge. This knowledge is not meant to have scientific status; it is
meant to be a precursor. Calder (1977) states that when focus groups are
conducted in anticipation of prompting quantitative scientific
knowledge, their purpose is to stimulate researchers to use everyday
thoughts and words to operationalize constructs and hypotheses. When
focus groups are conducted in anticipation of gaining qualitative ex-
ploratory knowledge they facilitate the construct-generation process, the
aim of which might be described as grounded theory. The exploratory
approach may be used when scientific explanation is desired but re-
searchers are uncertain about constructs, or when "a scientific explana-
tion is at hand and researchers want to compare it with... Qay persons']
interpretations" (p. 361).
68 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

The clinical, or therapeutic approach, for Calder, cannot be correctly

studied t h r o u ^ quantitative means. This approach should he used when
researchers need to explore areas which are not amenable to self-report
tests or direct observations. "Self-reports, the grist of many quantitative
techniques, cannot be taken at face value" (1977, p. 357). He claims that
self-reports are "filtered through a variety of defense mechanisms" and
may not reflect underlying determinants. Calder suggests that focus
groups are useful in a clinical approach to knowledge in that this method
is good at obtaining useful information for clinical, or therapeutic judg-
ments.
Calder's third approach, phenomenological, is summed up succinctly
by Axelrod's description of a focus group as "a chance to experience the
flesh and blood of a consumer" (Calder, 1977, p. 358). The researcher is
attempting to experience a set of actors and describe the experience. Tbis
approach should be used, according to Calder, when the researchers are
out of touch with their targeted subjects or the subject groupings are
changing rapidly.
Generalizability
One of the most common questions about the usefulness of focus
groups concerns generalizability. Wells (1974) notes that group inter-
views cannot be conducted with large portions of the population and that
insuring randomness is difficult; he concludes that researchers must
assume whatever is being investigated is so uniformly distributed that
it does not matter much where one "dips" into the population and that
crude attempts at stratification will pick up important variations.
Calder suggests that for exploratory purposes, the issue of
generalizability is not particularly important since the goal is to generate
ideas for scientific constructs or compare scientific with everyday ex-
planations. For the clinical approach, generalizability is more meaning-
ful. According to Calder, scientific interpretation is being made and one
would like to know whether it holds true beyond the focus group par-
ticipants. Calder suggests that generalizations can be assessed t h r o u ^
subsequent research designed to test the clinical interpretation with a
quantitative technique.
(jreneraUzabilify for the phenomenological approach, according to
Calder, is easily assessed through follow-up quantitative research.
Calder warns, however, that "the phenomenological approach is predi-
cated on experiencing the experience of [others]. Tliis is best done
through personal contact. Quantitative surveys, though they permit
estimates of generality, are a poor substitute for even vicarious ex-
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 69

perience" (1977, p. 361). Calder further suggests that additional focus

groups may be a better way to establish generalizability. A rule of thumb
is to conduct focus groups until the researchers can be reasonably sure
that the same information will be repeated. This typically occurs after
the fourth or fiflh session.
Objectivity, Reiiabiiity, and Vaiidity
Goldman (1962) suggests requirements of good group interviews such
as objectivity, reliability, and validity. He suggests that to promote
objectivity, or "avoidance of the bias of the interviewer and client [or
research team]" (p. 66), the moderator should refrain from contributing
to the discussion as much as possible and monitor his or her actions
carefully. As the goal of focus group research is to ask "why" rather than
"how many," to generate hypotheses rather than assert their repre-
sentativeness, the question of reliability becomes less important.
Goldman states that "a source of continual concern to the researcher
is the validity problem" (italic his) (p. 67). Focus groups tend to suffer
from inhibiting factors just as do other methods of qualitative research.
Goldman, through his experiences with focus groups, concludes that
discrepancies between attitude expression and actual behavior are rela-
tively small in a well conducted focus group, implying reasonable validity
ofthe method.
Lini< Between Theory and iUiethod
Poole and McPhee (1985) suggest the key links between theory and
method are modes of inquiry, hypothetico-deductive, modeling and
groimded; and modes of explanation, causal, conventional, and dialecti-
cal. Together, these modes form nine templates, or ranges of research
options (p. 104). Each template contains different assumptions and
standards of inference or proof The templates provide a general scheme
"or research methods and "can be used to guide selection of techniques
ind evaluation of previous technical choices," as well as "suggest how
the results of applying techniques should be interpreted" (p. 110).
The focus group method suggested here fits neatly into template 6: a
grounded mode of inquiry and a conventional mode of explanation. The
method-theory link suggests that the focus group method provides a
basis from which researchers can then develop theory. It is a "bottom-up"
approach with researchers "developing concepts, hypotheses, and
theoretical propositions from direct experiences with the data" (Poole &
McPhee, 1985, p. 108). Conventional explanations "presume the inde-
pendence of researcher and the subjects of research" (Poole & McPhee,
70 The Joumai of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

Mode of Inquiry

Hypothetlco-
Deductlvo Modeling Grounded

1 2 3 Causal

4 5 6 Conventional Mode of Explanation

7 8 9 Dialectical

Figure 1
Modes of Inquiry and Explanation

1985, p. 105) but a "template 6 approach" assumes the world is a "social

product" where the subjects actively regulate their behavior and seeks
to explain why subjects react in a particular manner. When this type of
explanation is sought, the focus group method is useful.
In template 6 research, the investigator uses qualitative techniques
to uncover conventions and how they are used. Validity rests primarily
on the strength ofthe researcher's insight and techniques of discovery.
This cell brings the researcher "into the most intimate contact" witii the
subject.
Evaluation of the Method
Focus groups have received little empirical scrutiny in both marketing
literature and other disciphnes. Fern (1982) empirically examined four
common assumptions of the focus group method: (1) ITiat group inter-
views produce more useful results than do individual interviews, (2) that
the most productive size of a group is eight, (3) that moderators sig-
nificantly improve group discussion, and (4) that group participants
should not be acquaintances. The independent variables used were (1)
group type (real group versus individual interviews); (2) moderator
(moderated or unmoderated); (3) group size (one, four or eight members);
and (4) acquaintanceship (participants knew or did not know each other).
The dependent variables were (1) the number of different or unique ideas
relevant to the discussion topic, and (2) the judged quality ofthe ideas
based on originality, feasibility, effectiveness, importance, and unique-
ness.
Fern (1982) concluded that individual interviews have the potential
to generate more ideas than focus groups, that eight-member groups
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 71

generated significantly more ideas than four-member groups, and that

a minimal difference existed between moderated and unmoderated
groups. The effect of acquaintanceship was not clearly determined.
One must remember that these studies were done on a rather small
sample and that the findings were not conclusive. The results may well
be dependent on the skills ofthe interviewer or moderator. Further, the
results do not challenge (but rather support) the assumption that some-
thing of value may be gained from listening to interactions and inter-
pretative talk. Questions regarding the most effective method for such
interpretation remain open.
Lederman (in press) assessed the method as a technique for data
collection. She suggests that the method may be easily misused and is
not suitable to many types of data collection; however, its value lies in
its ability to generate thick, qualitative data, and to generate h)T)otheses
for future exploration.

APPROPRiATE iNQUiRiES
FOR THE FOCUS GROUP METHOD
Focus groups may be valuable to those exploring new territory in
which little is known beforehand, or to gain unique insight into existing
beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. Besides being a valuable tool for
marketing, the focus group method has also been suggested and used for
a variety of other purposes in the organizational setting. For example,
the method may be appropriate for assessing employees' beliefs and
attitudes toward policies and procedures in the work place. This section
will describe avenues of inquiry using the focus group method in recent
research efforts. Each application will show how a particular kind of
question may be approached by the focus group method. The following
six questions are particularly amenable to the method and provide
researchers with a framework for assessing the appropriateness ofthe
method-problem relationship.
1. How do people interpret and respond to messages or message
campaigns? Lehman (1987) attempted an evaluation of the various
anti-smoking campaigns ofthe prior generation, asking specifically the
questions "how do people process and respond to anti-smoking mes-
sages?" He recruited volunteer groups of confirmed smokers, ex-
smokers, non-smokers, and non-smoking family members of smokers.
Issues explored in these groups included enumeration and elaboration
of anti-smoking messages and sources. Respondents discussed Hie dis-
tinction between those which have made or might make a difference in
72 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

smoking behavior, information avoidance or information seeking be-

havior about smoking consequences, described social pressure attempts
(both intended and received) and their effects, strong and mild fear
appeals and finally, for those who had stopped successfully, a detailed
recall of significant communicative events which preceded and then
followed the decision. What resulted was rich data regarding the
phenomenon that would not have been possible from survey instruments
and was likely richer because of the stimulation and recall opportunity
provided by homogeneous participants.
2. How might people resist organizational change? Second, an on-
going organizational intervention (Wilcox, 1988) involves use of focus
groups as a way of identifying both the core values that comprise the
"corporate culture" and the structural barriers that exist which impede
their acceptance at all levels of the organization. Additionally, focus
groups are being used in this project to determine for each major division
critical components of its intra-organizational image. To date, twenty-
four "internal" focus groups have been conducted with corporate
managers to determine perceptions of organizational goals relevant to
"customer focus" and the barriers (both structural and functional) to this
end. Data is interpreted and used in a diagnostic way to assist organiza-
tional change.
Boden (1989) used the focus group method when investigating tbe
possibility of adopting a new benefit package. He states that "initially,
the focus groups were to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
current program; later in tbe process, they were used to test the proposed
flexible approach" (p. 12). He suggests that focus groups be used when
researchers desire to get input from employees about both existing
programs and future possibilities.
3. How can service be improved? The previously mentioned organiza-
tional intervention also involved an effort by the manager of the
organization's largest division to determine how well that division was
meeting the needs and expectations of other divisions within the or-
ganization. Four focus groups were assembled, consisting in each case
of respondents from other divisions. The interpreted results provided a
basis for some procedural cbanges in adapting more effectively and
responsibly to organizational needs. Another example of current re-
search in the organizational setting includes conducting focus groups
with residents in both apartments and houses (Barnett, 1989) to assess
resident satisfaction.
4. How will people respond to new technologies? The second author
was recently involved in a series of focus groups conducted for a client
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 73

interested in marketing a terminal. The terminal could be used to tap

into a videotext data base and at the same time serve as the basis of a
home computer system around which a line of peripherals could be
added. A series of eight focus groups resulted in a recommendation not
to market the product. Respondents seemed to fall into two groups—^they
either saw the terminal as too "computer-like" resulting in apprehension,
or they were already reasonably sophisticated and saw the terminal as
too "toy-like" and not an appropriate nucleus for a personal computer
system. Feelings expressed in the group were seen as sufficiently intense
to warrant the recommendation.
5. How effective are current company training/evaluation methods?
The focus group method could also be used when evaluating company
training and evaluation procedures. O'Donnell (1988) used the focus
group method as a means of evaluating current training procedures.
Statistical testing showed significant improvement in the intended
direction upon completion of a training program. Using focus groups as
a follow-up, "it was clear that the training did not improve job-related
performance, nor were participants able to use much of the presented
material in their day-to-day work" (p. 71). O'Donnell (1988) suggests that
the focus group method is appropriate for "needs assessment, training
evaluation, or as a technique for probing the intricacies of a problem" (p.
71). The author was not suggesting that the statistical tests were wrong,
but that other information not obtainable in a paper/pencil survey was
found to be highly relevant and useful.
6. What issues should serve as a basis for survey questionnaire
development? The technique could also be used to re-validate surveys
and questionnaires which may be outdated, and to develop new surveys
and questionnaires. Another use for focus groups could be to assist in
"triangulation" (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Campbell and Fiske (1959)
suggest that in order to fully understand a topic of interest, researchers
should use more than one method of study. Focus groups may provide a
more human perspective to a purely quantitative study thereby il-
luminating important variables that might otherwise be missed.

SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATA

Three authors provide useful methods of analyzing focus group data,
Berelson (1956), Lederman (1989, in press), and Krueger (1988). For
simplicity's sake, this section will be organized by author since each
author suggests a type of content analysis that deals specifically with
74 The Journal of Business Communication 28:1: Winter 1991

qualitative research and may be particularly useful for analyzing focus

group data.
Berelson (1956) refers to a qualitative content analysis as a "pre-quan-
titative," or a "qualitative" content analysis. He states that this is a
process for "discovering and/or formulating appropriate categories for
subsequent quantification... [It] is the process of inducting hypotheses
which yield generalized categories for systematic analysis" (p. 115). It
looks for the frequency of certain types of statements and the incidence
of "general categories."
Berelson (1956) states that qualitative content analysis is "quasi-
quantitative." He states that this qualitative analysis contains quantita-
tive statements in "rough form." "Instead of saying, for example, that
73% of the content fits a given category, they say that the category is
'strongly emphasized' or that the content'tends in this direction'" (p. 118).
He suggests that content analysis may be useful (1) to describe the
characteristics ofthe content itself; (2) to make valid inferences from the
nature ofthe content to characteristics ofthe producers ofthe content;
and (3) to interpret the content so as to reveal something about the nature
of its audience or its effects.
A quahtative content-analysis approach may be particularly useful
when one's research is exploratory. In a qualitative content analysis the
researcher is not forced to fit utterances into rigid categories; rather,
categories are formed based on the utterances which should yield more
germane conclusions. Also, as suggested by Kassarjian (1977), rigid
quantitative categories may not be relevant when the "subjects' language
and mode of expression is crucial to the investigation" (p. 11). Berelson
states that when sample size is small and extreme precision is not
essential, this type of analysis is most beneficial. Precision may or may
not be necessary depending on the research problem. In those instances
where extreme precision is essential, when specific categories must be
examined, and the research is not necessarily exploratory, a quantitative
content analysis may be in order.
Lederman (1989) also provides some useful techniques for analyzing
focus group data. She suggests that to make verbatim transcripts from
the tape recordings is standard procedure but notes that verbatim
transcripts are not always possible or necessary. In those instances,
transcript summaries based on the recordings are useful. Lederman
(1983) devised a coding scheme for interpreting focus group data. She
suggests "I (individual/idiosyncratic), C (consensus), and A (areas of
agreement/disagreement)" (p. 235). An "F statement would contain
those that are only mentioned once or the thoughts of one individual, "C"
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 75

statements contain those that represent agreement amongthe members,

and "A" statements contain those which either agree or disagree with
the specific topic under discussion.
Krueger (1988) suggests that the focus group researcher consider five
factors:
1. Consider the words. The researcher should consider both the actual
words used by participants and the meanings of those words.
2. Consider the context The researcher should examine the context
by identifying the "triggering stimulus" for a comment and then inter-
preting the comment in l i ^ t ofthe context or stimulus.
3. Consider the internal consistency. Participants often change or
reverse their positions. The researcher should note when there is a shift
in opinion which is relevant to the purpose of study.
4. Consider the specificity of responses. Researchers should give more
w e i ^ t to responses that are specific and concrete rather than those that
are vague and ambiguous.
5. Find the big ideas. Big ideas emerge from "an accumulation of
evidence—^the words used, the body language, the intensity of com-
ments—rather than from isolated comments" (Krueger, 1988, p. 116). In
other words, the researcher should not get caught up in counting the
number of times something is said; rather, look for patterns.
Whichever type of analysis is employed, focus group data and result-
ing categories should be submitted to another researcher for validation
(Kassarjian, 1977; Krueger, 1988). Cross-validation will enhance the
objectivity and reliability ofthe research.

CONCLUSION
Two points will summarize our position. First, in these projects (and
many worthwhile similar ones) the focus group appears te be the "best,"
if not the only, way of obtaining data te achieve the research objective.
In many of the research examples presented, the findings are not
regarded as definitive, only provocative and suggestive of further re-
search inquiry.
The main contention here is that focus groups may be a new and
appropriate teol for certain research questions. The authors recommend
this method as a way of gaining in-depth information when little is
known and suggest that the communication scholar is an excellent choice
te both moderate the focus group and interpret its data.
76 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

NOTE

Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Speech Communication

Association conference in November, 1988.

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W. (1965). In C. Sellitz, M., Jahoda, & S.W. Cook (Eds.), Research
m^ethods in social relations. New York: Rineholt and Winston.
Axelrod, M. (1975). 10 essentials for good qualitative research. Marketing
News, 8,10-11.
Barnett, J.A. (1989). Focusing on residents. Journal of Property Management,
54, 31-32.
Berelson, B. (1956). Content analysis in communication research. Illinois: The
Free Press.
Boden, W.C. (1989). Flexible benefits: One compan3f's view. Compensation and
Benefits Review, 21, 11-16.
Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing
research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 353-364.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, (2), 81-
105.
Cox, K.K., Higgenbotham, J.B. & Burton, J. (1976). Applications of focus group
interviews in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40, 77-80.
Crowne, D., & Marlow, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John Wiley
and Son.
Fern, E.F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of
group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and
qasitity. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1-13.
Goldman, A.E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26,
61-68.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer researcb. Journal of
Consumer Research, 4, 8-17.
Kover, A.J. (1982). Point of view: The legitimacy of qualitative research.
Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 49-50.
Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lederman, L.C. (1983). High communication apprehensives talk about com-
munication apprehension and its effects on their behavior. Communication
Quarterly, 31, 233-237.
Lederman, L.C. (1988). When you want to know what they think, ask them:
Three studies using the focus group interview technique. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.
Focus Groups • Byers/Wilcox 77

Lederman, L.C. (1989). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group

interview as a technique for data collection. Paper presented at the meeting
ofthe Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lederman, L.C. (in press). An assessment ofthe focus group interview method
as a technique for data collection in applied communication research.
Communication Education.
Lehman, K.L. (1987). A study of the anti-smoking campaign. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
Lydecker, T.H. (1986, March). Focus group dynamics. Association Manage-
ment, 73-78.
Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1956). The focused interview. Illinois:
Free Press.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Morgan, D.L. & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: Anew tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 253-270.
O'Donnell, J.M. (1988). Focus groups: A habit-forming evaluation technique.
Training and Development Journal, 42, 71-73.
Poole, M.S., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Methodology in interpersonal research.
In M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communica-
tion (pp. 100-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Pramualratana, A., Havanon, N., & Knodel, J. (1985). Exploring the normative
basis for age of marriage in Thailand: An example from focus group re-
search. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 203-210.
Reynolds, F.D., & Johnson, D.K. (1978). Validity of focus group findings.
Journal ofAdvertising Research, 21-24.
Wells, W.D. (1974). Group interviewing. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook of
marketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilcox, J.R. (1988). Professional focus group moderator. Bowling Green State
University, OH.
Yuhas, P.L. (1986). Romantic marital jealousy: An exploratory analysis. Un-
published doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green
State University, Ohio.
Zeller, R.A. (1986). The focus group: Sociological applications. Unpublished
manuscript. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green
State University, Ohio.
78 The Joumai of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

APPENDIX

Sample Interviewer's Guide

Orientation to focus group procedure, research observers, tape recorder, and
topic of interest.
1. How important is sexual fidelity in marriage today?
2. How common is jealousy in marriage today?
Compared with a generation ago?
Compared with 10 years ago?
3. What might the absence of jealousy suggest?
4. How is jealousy expressed in marriage?
By whom is it expressed?
5. Are husbands or wives or neither more likely to express it?
6. How would you describe the experience of marital jealousy?
7. How do spouses let their mates know when or where jealousy is
experienced?
Are there male/female differences?
8. Were you to tell your spouse of jealous feelings, how would you do it?
What results would you expect?
What results would you get?
9. How might your spouse express jealous feelings to you?
What do you think would be expected?
How would you respond?
10. Is communication about jealousy private and exclusive or are other
parties drawn in?
Who?
How?
11. What is a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage?
12. What is not a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage?
13. Is jealousy in males restricted because it is not "manly" to be jealous?
14. Does jealousy express more ofa love for self (I am so wonderful how
can siie even look at another) rather than a love for other?
15. At what point in a potentially jealous situation does a partner's talking
with Joe/Suzie in the corner turn from a "friendly chat" into a
potential threat?
16. Do partners ever "warn" each other of behaviors that they fmd
jealousy provoking or threatening ("Now don't you talk to Joe/Suzie
too long tonight!")?
How?
What reaction does that get?
17. Do partners ever intentionally provoke jealousy in each other?
How?
Why?
Thank you for your participation. If there are no further questions or
comments the session is over.

Accepted by PVL, 10/2/89