Clinical Sociology Review

Volume 7 | Issue 1 Article 24

1-1-1989

Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied

Research
Janet Mancini Billson
Rhode Island College

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr

Recommended Citation
Billson, Janet Mancini (1989) "Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research," Clinical Sociology Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article
24.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr/vol7/iss1/24

This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Clinical Sociology
Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState.
232 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1989

Parent: "Because ." Child: "But why ?" Several rounds of this
often leads the parent to anger: "Stop asking silly questions!" In the same way,
Etzioni's persistent questioning of the "whys" behind human behavior and the
assumptions of logical thinkers and economists might lead some readers to
anger. It is a common fate of children and critical thinkers to "make" people
angry. Actually, such angry people make themselves angry.
It is my opinion that Etzioni has written a very special book.

Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research,

by Richard A. Krueger

Janet Mancini Billson, Ph.D., C.C.S.

Rhode Island College

The term "focus group" has become a household word in recent years, as
researchers study values, attitudes, product preferences, political leanings, and
other reactions to a complex society through controlled, guided, small group
discussions focused on a particular topic. The current popularity of focus groups
in the public and private sectors suggests a recent invention. Yet, focus groups
were promulgated as a viable research technique in the classic sociological
work, The Focused Interview (1956), by Robert K. Merton, Marjorie Fiske,
and Patricia L. Kendall.
As a form of qualitative research, the focus group is a good example of a
sociological method that has been adopted in the corporate world and in applied
settings. The focus group uses standard principles of group dynamics and relies
on orthodox principles of research design to achieve legitimacy and validity.
Conducting focus groups is an ideal opportunity for sociologists to practice their
profession and to make data-driven recommendations for political, social, eco-
nomic, and consumer change.
As Richard Krueger points out in Focus Groups, they are appropriate for
gathering in-depth information from past, current, or potential consumers, pro-
gram participants, voters, organization members, etc. Focus groups tap the
subjective world of respondents (their perceived needs, interests, concerns)
rather than the objective world of measured behavior. Focus groups can also
be used as heuristic devices prior to staging larger-scale quantitative research
projects; they can also be used in concert with quantitative methods, or as a way
of helping explain findings from a survey or poll. Focus groups enable us to see
not only what people think, but how they think.
Uses of the focus group are virtually unlimited. Krueger cites the case of a
movie studio "that has received numerous awards and quintupled profits in five
years [by using] focus groups to test audience reactions to possible endings for
 BOOK REVIEWS 233

new films" (20). He also demonstrates the utility of focus groups in finding out
why farmer's sons and daughters chose to attend small colleges instead of the
large University of Minnesota campus at Minneapolis. I have used the method
to explore how men and women differ in their reactions to different brands of
nail clippers and (on a different occasion) mayoral candidates. Focus groups can
be used to analyze the needs of a potential client or consumer population, or to
find out why a program has failed. In all cases, as Krueger notes, the procedure
"allows professionals to see reality from the client's point of view" (21).
The method is relatively cost-effective in that numbers of respondents are
small (20 recruited for a group of 8 to 10), respondents journey to a central,
local research site, staffing needs are modest (a moderator, administrative assis-
tant, recruiter, transcriber, and report writer—often the moderator fulfills sev-
eral of these roles), and demands on computer time are negligible (except for
report production and graphics). These advantages help to explain the growing
popularity of focus groups throughout the country. On the negative side, focus
groups suffer from the same flaws as other forms of qualitative research: the
small sample size puts generalizability into question; sample selection, however
careful, still presents problems of bias; and the complexity and richness of data
require special interpretive skills. In addition, a focus group must be led by a
professional trained in group dynamics and the mandates of scientific inquiry
lest the discussion wander off track or, worse, be biased by an unwitting leader.
Failure of recruited members to show up for a session is akin to unreturned
questionnaires in survey research (low response rate): one never knows exactly
how they might have responded. In a focus group situation, the interplay of
ideas among participants can be greatly affected by a dominator who is not
controlled by the moderator; similarly, persons who find it difficult to break into
a discussion may not express their views unless the moderator is adept at
bringing quieter participants into the interaction.
These caveats are woven throughout Krueger's detailed, hands-on guide to
contracting for focus groups, moderating them, and reporting the ensuing data.
He shares his experiences in taking clients through the process of creating the
"research question," translating that into a "questioning route" that expresses
a client's central concerns, recruiting a carefully selected sample of participants,
moderating the session(s), and preparing a report that is true to the data as well
as useful to the client. Some of Krueger's charts and appendices, especially the
telephone screening questionnaires and questioning routes, will be of value to
the neophyte.
Krueger's emphasis in this book is on non-profit agencies and organiza-
tions. He states in the preface that "Focus groups can improve the planning and
design of new programs, provide means for evaluating existing programs, and
produce insights for developing marketing strategies" (15). He seldom refers
to such private sector applications as product testing, evaluation of corporate
234 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1989

services, or the testing of political waters—all of which are common uses of the
focus group method. For this reason, the book is limited in its usefulness. Many
of the time frames for conducting the groups and preparing reports, for example,
would be unacceptable in the private sector. Relationships with clients, fee
structures, and the nature of reports also vary according to type of client.
Because Krueger is writing primarily from his own experience, the book is
filled with examples from rural and agricultural settings. His suggestions are
undoubtedly helpful to a moderator attempting to work with clients and partici-
pants of this type, particularly in such nonprofessional settings as bars, restau-
rants, homes, and hotel rooms. (Although the author insists that care be taken
to locate a "neutral" setting, I would argue that a bar is never neutral.) How-
ever, for private sector, urban settings in which focus groups are conducted in
more sophisticated, controlled facilities, the book falls short. A folksy writing
style and too many agricultural extension examples may make it hard for the
private sector moderator to relate well to Krueger's explication of strategies for
client contact or group facilitation.
Another weakness of this text has to do with methodological purity. After
nicely defending the legitimacy of focus groups as a qualitative methodology,
Krueger appears to fall into the trap of trying to quantify through the back door:
asking participants to stop and rate the importance of several predetermined
issues on a "list," rather than asking open-ended questions that allow partici-
pants to identify issues important to them. This technique is acceptable for
stimulating discussion only after participants have had an opportunity to define
for themselves the most salient issues.
Krueger's attention to the construction of interview questions is laudable.
However, I question his assertion that questioning routes should include five or
six questions, and certainly no more than ten. In my experience, clients are
usually looking for feedback on a variety of concerns; ten to fifteen major
questions with appropriate probes can effectively guide a group through two
hours of intensive discussion. His point is well taken, however, that an inexperi-
enced moderator may carry a heavy arsenal of questions, but little tolerance for
pauses or promising sidetracks. Further, Krueger argues that the moderator
should memorize the questioning route. While I agree that this would be ideal,
if the moderator is dealing with more than four or five very simple questions,
there is more danger that the questions will be asked in a biased fashion or in a
slightly different way from group to group. (Often the same questions are asked
of several groups, each with unique qualities.) I find that 5 by 8 cards held in
my lap can be used as prompts and allow me to concentrate wholly on the line
of discussion; I can be thinking of spontaneous probes rather than trying to
remember the exact wording of the next question. This is, perhaps, best left to
the comfort level and style of each moderator as long as questions remain
"true."
 BOOK REVIEWS 235

Krueger's stand toward logistics seems somewhat outdated. He suggests

that an assistant moderator should take notes and operate a visible tape recorder
(he considers the use of hidden tape recorders unnecessarily secretive). In my
opinion, the use of nonintrusive recording devices is standard in focus group
research and is far superior and less disruptive than conspicuous note-taking of
equipment sitting mid-table. Sociological practice ethics require that partici-
pants be notified at the beginning of the session that they are being recorded
and/or being observed by clients and research assistants through one-way mir-
rors (also standard industry practice). If they understand that this is to ensure
accuracy of data analysis and that anonymity will be preserved in all cases,
participants can relax into a natural and informal discussion of the topic at hand.
When specially-designed focus group rooms are not available, tape-recording
equipment should be duplicated so that note-taking is not essential.
Finally, the text is annoyingly repetitive—a fault that could be corrected in
a later edition. The bibliography, however, which is current and draws from a
variety of settings, is both pragmatic and of scholarly interest to sociological
practitioners.
It will be interesting to observe in the next decade whether the focus group
method will become recognized as more than a fad of the 1980s. It may take its
rightful place as a superb example of qualitative sociological methodology that,
properly used, can yield valid, reliable, and meaningful social data. Training
workshops sponsored by the Sociological Practice Association will play a sig-
nificant part in the professionalization of focus group methodology.

Integrating Sex and Marital Therapy: A Clinical Guide, edited by Gerald

R. Weeks and Larry Hof. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1987. 225+ pp.

H. Hugh Floyd
University of New Orleans

"Eclectic approach" is a label frequently used by clinicians and/or academics

to refer to their work. Such a claim is often represented by a disjunctive set of
ideas and/or actions that are ineffective and ineffective at best, or confusing and
counter-productive at worst. Weeks and Hof have produced a text that does not
fall victim to the "eclectic flaw." Integrating Sex and Marital Therapy is an
excellent set of readings which reflect a systemic approach, integrating the
multi-dimensionality of sexual problems that couples experience. The book has
two major divisions. Part I focuses on conceptualizing sexual problems from a
systems perspective; it is subdivided into theoretical issues and practical applica-
tions. Part II deals with special problems the clinician might encounter.
The issues to be considered in evaluating the marital relationships of clients