Search results

How do researchers capture children's and adolescents’ cultures and peer interactions? Ethnography, as argued by several sociologists including Corsaro (1996), is indeed a valuable method for understanding everyday life. However, what about issues that are sensitive? What about issues that are salient in the lives of children and adolescents, yet are not talked about in settings generally accessible to researchers such as schools, youth groups, community centers, and extracurricular programs? Family issues such as divorce, for example, might be highly salient in a child's life, yet not talked about during school lunch in front of an adult researcher. Children talk with their friends and peers about divorce, share stories and experiences with divorce, and interpret the meanings of divorce in groups.

This paper and accompanying film demonstrate the techniques of using scenarios, breaching expectations, and using naturalistic groups as being especially appropriate for conducting qualitative marketing research in China.

This study is used to investigate the social construction of brands in China and to demonstrate how to create naturalistic group interviews in China, and why it is beneficial to do so. A film footage of the various groups discussing the scenarios presented to them is presented so the viewer can observe the interactions between the group members.

In this paper, it is argued that only certain qualitative methods are appropriate in a Chinese context, due to various aspects of Chinese culture which de‐emphasize expressing one's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values openly. In the accompanying film, it is demonstrated how: presenting Chinese consumers with scenarios that they can relate to stimulates meaningful discussion; breaching people's expecations is what allows people to articulate underlying meaning systems; and conducting interviews in existing, naturally formed social groups, all lead to naturalistic discussions.

As marketing and consumer research becomes more global, the field of qualitative research needs to take a critical approach to the effectiveness of varying methodologies in varying cultural contexts. A first step in this direction is taken by outlining how and why particular qualitative methods are effective in China. Naturalistic group interviews can also be used in a wide variety of countries and cultural contexts when the construct of interest is the social dynamics of a consumption activity.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of communicative interaction on meaning construction in three focus group interviews.

Within the framework of cultural‐historical activity theory, Bakhtin's perspectives of communicative interaction was applied to three interview cases on commercial aerospace supply chains.

These interactions are found to self‐organise without the control of any single actor. However, interventions by interviewees or the researcher affect the outcome when they create disturbances that go beyond the resilience of the established perspectives of the focus group community. The researcher's intervention or guidance is helpful in opening up reality perspectives of the community.

Focus group interviews may be difficult to control by the researcher. The potential for gathering rich data may, however, out‐weigh that.

The paper illustrates how focus group interviews enhance the richness of data collection compared to other interview methods.

This paper seeks to highlight the current confusion in the terminology for group research, identify the geographic, historical and scientific sources of this confusion and suggest a reduction in the number of terms used to two, thereby offering a definition on which researchers from different cultural backgrounds and scientific traditions may be able to agree.

A review of the academic and practitioner literature on qualitative group research in academic, social and market research indicates that various terms for groups are used interchangeably and are often assumed to have the same meaning. These terms include; Focus Group, Group Discussion, Group Interview, Group, Focus Group Interview, Focus Group Discussion, Qualitative Group Discussion and Nominal Group Interview.

The contribution of this paper is that it offers a resolution of this issue and so allows researchers from across geographic borders, different scientific traditions and from both academic and practitioner backgrounds to talk to one another in a common language.

This issue of differences in terminology for groups has largely been ignored by researchers and this paper hopes to bring some clarity and understanding of the key differences between focus group interviews and focus group discussions.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a challenging, yet opportunistic, environment in which to conduct transformative service research (TSR) and assess research methodology. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and gain important new insights of a group interviewing method with vulnerable people and their support group, adapted and transferred online during COVID-19.

This research examines the experiences of 35 participants (nine family groups composed of parents and young people), involved in a research project that explores a sensitive topic, youth alcohol consumption and family communication, that was moved online during lockdown. Researcher reflections on running group interviews face-to-face prior to COVID- 19 and online during lockdown are included in the data.

Thematic analysis of participant interviews and researcher reflections reveals four key benefits and three limitations of online group interviews with vulnerable people and their support group. The benefits include being comfortable, non-intrusive and safe; engaging and convenient; online communication ease and easy set-up. The limitations relate to lack of non-verbal communication, poor set-up, and privacy and access issues.

The global environment is uncertain and being able to implement effective qualitative research online is essential for TSR and service research in the future. This paper provides a step by step procedure for an innovative online group interviewing technique that can be used by TSR and qualitative service researchers.

Conducting research during a pandemic has provided unprecedented insights into qualitative research approaches and methodology. This paper contributes to literature on service and TSR methodology by providing a framework for researchers to investigate vulnerable groups online in an effective, safe and non-intrusive way. The framework also has the potential to be applied to other service contexts.

Project INISS was established on July 1st 1978 with a grant from the Department of Health and Social Security, and completed its work in October 1980. The aim of the project was to evaluate a number of small‐scale experimental innovations for the improvement of information services in social services departments. Three interviewing techniques were used: one to one, group and telephone interviews. This article describes these methods and offers guidelines for their suitability in particular situations.

This chapter introduces the approaches and methods employed in a four-country research project that resulted in the 2017 report The People in the Pictures: Vital perspectives on Save the Children’s image making. It presents and explores the ethical issues that emerged throughout the process of the research, particularly in relation to photo elicitation – the use of images (still and moving) within both interviews and focus groups. Interviews and focus groups took place in the UK, Jordan, Bangladesh, and Niger with a total of 202 research participants. The research involved sharing Save the Children content (fundraising materials, published reports, online news features, TV adverts, and short films) with research participants. Research participants included those featured in some of these visual communication materials (referred to as contributors), and other individuals within their communities (referred to as non-contributors). The following principles and decisions informed the research design: safe and ethical practice; inclusive, engaging and accessible approaches; the participation of children; prioritising first-hand accounts; no photography or filming; and the preparation of location- and language-specific resources for each interview and focus group. The main ethical issues to emerge during the design of the research related to predicting (and responding) to any potential negative impacts of the research on participants, particularly contributors, but also children. The researchers also experienced some unexpected ethical encounters, including visual materials causing some concern or distress. Additionally, assuring research participants’ anonymity led to the necessity of extra care when publishing the report and the use of images within that.

The aim of this research was to consider whether focus groups have justifiably become a more frequently used qualitative market research technique because of a superior research outcome. Although focus groups have extrinsic advantages such as speed and cost, there is evidence that individual depth interviews have intrinsic advantages relating to the quality of the research outcome.

A parallel research study was undertaken examining a single business issue using both focus groups and individual interviews. Results of both processes were analysed for relevance to the business issue. Follow up individual interviews with participants of the focus groups were undertaken to assess the validity of the data collected, and to investigate the nature of the processes in the groups.

Group processes appear to have had considerable influence on the consensus view expressed in focus groups, which may not be representative of respondents' individual views. Both the groups and the interviews identified the principle issues relating to buyer motivations and processes, target markets and branding. The groups were unable to match the depth and detail generated by individual interviews and to uncover subtleties in attitudes. The interviews offered less breadth of data and contextual information.

Whilst groups may be less expensive and faster in data collection, individual interviews demonstrated a superior ability to inform marketing strategy by uncovering important underlying issues.

The findings indicate that groups do not justify their predominance as a market research method in preference to interviews on the grounds of quality of outcomes alone.