Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews

The predominance of focus groups: qualitative “Methodolatry”?

Two important methodological trends became apparent within the market research industry during the 1990s that have continued to the present. First, qualitative designs took a higher share of research budgets at the expense of quantitative methods. Secondly, within qualitative research, focus groups became more frequently used at the expense of the individual depth interview. The European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research reported that by 1997 groups accounted for almost two‐thirds of qualitative research expenditure (Association of Qualitative Research Practitioners, 2001). This trend has continued in favour of focus groups (Greenbaum, 2003).

This has prompted concerns that focus groups have become so synonymous with qualitative market research that they have become the unchallenged choice (Birn et al., 1990; Greenbaum, 1998; Cassell and Symon, 2004), and therefore, may be used inappropriately (Roe, 1988; Robson, 1993; Krueger and Casey, 2000). Could this have reached the level of what Denzin and Lincoln (2003, p. 48) term “methodolatry” or “a preoccupation with selecting and defending methods to the exclusion of the actual substance of the story being told”? Certainly, many of the advantages claimed for focus groups relate to extrinsic issues of process (e.g. quicker, cheaper, observable by clients, easier to analyse), rather than the quality of the research outcome. It is possible that such extrinsic benefits are influencing researchers and their clients towards the use of groups at the expense of the insightfulness of the research findings. This paper addresses this issue by comparing the results of research into a common business issue using both focus groups and individual depth interviews.

Pros and cons of focus groups

A focus group can be defined as “ …a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment upon, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research” (Gibbs, 1997, p. 1). Zikmund (1997) summarised the advantages of such group discussions as “10 Ss”:

1. 1.

   Synergy – the group process generates a wider range of information than would accrue from a comparable number of depth interviews.

2. 2.

   Snowballing – respondent interaction creating a chain of thought and ideas.

3. 3.

   Serendipity – a great idea can drop out of the blue.

4. 4.

   Stimulation – respondent's views are brought out by the group process.

5. 5.

   Security – respondents are more likely to be candid as there will probably be other similar people there, and there is less individual pressure than in a depth interview.

6. 6.

   Spontaneity – because no one individual is required to respond to a question, this encourages a spontaneous response when people have a definite point of view.

7. 7.

   Specialisation – a trained moderator can interview more respondents in a given session.

8. 8.

   Structure – it is easier for the moderator to reintroduce a topic not adequately covered before than in a depth interview.

9. 9.

   Speed – quicker than individual interviews.

10. 10.

    Scrutiny – can be observed by members of the research team.

It is clear that the process of group dynamics, responsible for many of the advantages of focus groups, can be regarded as a double‐edged sword. Participants may feel inhibited in a group situation (Hedges, 1985; Greenbaum, 1998) and social pressures can also cause over‐claiming (Webb, 1995; Greenbaum, 2003). Some respondents publicly agree to the views of others, whilst privately disagreeing (Robson, 1990). Group interaction can produce a consensus view (Bloom, 1989), with potentially limited validity (Griggs, 1987). This is potentially a severe criticism of the focus group methodology, given the implication that consensus may mean a view that nobody disagrees with, but equally that nobody wholly endorses.

Some of the benefits claimed for focus groups may be illusory. For example, the oft‐quoted benefits of time and cost (Crimp and Wright, 1995; Chisnall, 1997) have rarely been systematically tested, and where they have been (Roe, 1988; Crabtree et al., 1993), these attributes were called into question. Focus groups are sometimes justified as a convenient way to get the outlook of a wider number of people (Robson and Foster, 1989). But this could be misleading, if the group processes lead to consensus within the group implying that the unit of analysis is a single unit – the group – rather than the cumulative number of respondents who attended it (Birn et al., 1990; Crabtree et al., 1993; Fern, 2001).

Pros and cons of individual depth interviews

An individual depth interview can be defined as: “ …an unstructured personal interview which uses extensive probing to get a single respondent to talk freely and to express detailed beliefs and feelings on a topic” (Webb, 1995, p. 121). The advantages of this method fall into three broad categories:

1. 1.

   Circumstances of unique applicability, especially those involving sensitive or personal topics (Robson and Foster, 1989).

2. 2.

   Sampling advantages including greater control over respondent selection, and hence, more depth, context and flexibility in the process of inquiry (Cassell and Symon, 2004).

3. 3.

   Preferential outcome, in terms of the depth and comprehensiveness of information that they can yield (Hedges, 1985). Berent (1966) suggested two main reasons for this: firstly the opportunity for the respondent – frequently for the first time – really to analyse the motivations for a particular action. Secondly, and more crucially in Berent's view, is the unusualness of being listened to, which, together with the anonymity afforded, gives the respondent a feeling of empowerment. Webb (1995) listed specific preferential outcomes:

   • •

     it is possible to ascribe the views to individual respondents, allowing for more precise interpretation;

   • •

     it affords the opportunity to build a close rapport and a high degree of trust, thus improving the quality of the data; and

   • •

     it allows for easier expression of non‐conformity.

Commentary on analysis of focus groups: optical sector

In the two focus groups that examined the potential for the product design in the optical glasses market, there was quick agreement on the general aspects of wearing glasses, which gave an early indication that group processes may have been tending towards consensus. This included an eagerness for respondents to add to the discussion, and it seemed that reaching early consensus was part of the group “forming” process that gave a useful breadth of views quickly. This supported the views of Burns (1989), Albrecht et al. (1993), Holstein and Gubrium (1995) and Greenbaum (2003) who all suggested that group dynamics provide valuable breadth by multi‐vocality.

The “norming” process quickly became evident in both groups, manifested by a drive for group agreement. An early comment that the products appeared somewhat cheap and plastic‐like caught hold and permeated across the range of issues. Thus the process became a circular set of assumptions: products look cheap and plastic, leading to a perception of a far‐eastern source, leading to the assumption that the glasses were a disposable item, leading to their perceived application as a secondary rather than a primary optical device, leading to the assumption that they must be cheap.

Whilst the view of cheapness permeated group consensus, this view was not always maintained when individual respondents were probed. For example, personal interest in specific models did not diminish when the actual price was revealed to be significantly higher than the group estimation. Respondents claimed that they had few initial problems getting used to wearing optical glasses for the first time as they were pleased with significantly improved sight. This was probed because it was dissonant with their earlier view that respondents had generally resisted the need for glasses when it first became apparent. Despite additional probing, no further data was forthcoming, leaving a question mark over this issue. The experience supported the observation of Fern (2001) that groups can conspire to skirt around real issues, even to the extent of obscuring their existence.

The group findings indicated that multiple pairs of glasses are built up as the eyesight deteriorates; the prescription changes and new glasses are acquired, yet the old glasses are rarely discarded. Respondents positioned this as mere convenience to have older pairs available for secondary use, despite outdated prescriptions. When considered, there was general agreement that this may not be sensible behaviour in terms of longer‐term eye health. Secondary use covers lower‐profile occasions, such as bedtime reading, with main pairs being used for more significant, public occasions. This multiple pair usage was, therefore, interpreted as a requirement to maintain an optical safety net, out of a fear of being placed in a situation where they simply cannot cope because they do not have access to glasses. This conclusion was significant in relation to any marketing strategy aiming at secondary usage, which would need to acknowledge the existence of these motivations.

Commentary on analysis of individual depth interviews: optical sector

It was established in the individual interviews that the need for glasses, when finally accepted, still remained unwelcome. Probing revealed that initial resistance occurred because acceptance would be a public admission of getting older, and an acknowledgement of mortality. Thus, the reported pleasure at the improved eyesight becomes in reality an attempt to put a positive rationalisation on an otherwise unwelcome prospect.

Complex issues such as the influence of appearance, style and suitability of a frame in the buying process were investigated by projective techniques. The manner of the response indicated that this questioning was probing areas about which there had been no previous conscious thought. This lends confirmation to the utility of projective techniques in enhancing the depth of responses (Gordon and Langmaid, 1988; Krueger, 1998). One interpretation of responses is that the “look” is a dominant purchase motivator because it was strongly linked with the issue of impending mortality. To ameliorate an otherwise depressing scenario, the psyche seeks the best “look” to put the maximum positive perspective on the fait accompli of needing glasses and getting older. The depth of this data supports the view that an advantage of individual interviews is the ability to get at nuances and subtleties of meaning (Tull and Hawkins, 1993; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003).

Thus the reaction given to the product range was positive because the product addressed a practical need within glasses wearing, but not emphatically so because the product did not feed a psychological need to look good. The initial reaction to the new products was not a quick judgement, and showed consideration of the applicability of the concept to personal requirements, rather than just as a concept per se. For example, the issue of cheapness was considered, but did not dominate. This process was useful in highlighting the issue of “saliency” (Gibbs, 1997). Improved ease of portability was solving a problem that did not exist for some respondents, who were happy with their current arrangements.

Commentary on analysis of focus groups: sunglasses sector

The analysis of the group discussions on the potential application of the new products in the sunglasses market was interesting on two counts. First, opposing camps of opinion concerning the product emerged, one for and one against the utility value of the design. Gordon and Langmaid (1988) have noted this feature of focus groups, and comment that it is a strength of the technique to highlight differences, and to allow the researcher to assess a range of attitudes. In both groups, the anti‐respondents prevailed, and it was interesting to observe the resolution of tension by passivity on the part of the pro lobby. In order to improve group harmony, the negative lobby was prepared to offer modified views, which itself questions how strongly the negative views were held.

The second interesting aspect was the power of Italian origin of the design. When this fact was revealed towards the end of the discussions, it provided a shock to the negative view‐holders, who had argued against the product on grounds of taste and style which are strong perceived characteristics of Italian products. This gave support to the pro lobby, with the result that the group ultimately converged around a more positive view. Demonstrating the power of convergence of opinions in a group situation, this suggests that the final opinion given was more a consensus group decision rather than a reflection of the variety of individual responses within the group. This conclusion supports the views of Bloom (1989) and Krueger and Casey (2000) who expressed concern that groups exhibit a tendency to converge around a norm which obscures the spread of opinion within the group.

Consumer behaviour in this market was felt to be more a function of positive personal self‐perceptions (the desire to look your best) rather than functionality (the need to protect your eyes or see more in sunlight). Actual usage of sunglasses was rationalised by functionality, but there was little other than the vaguest generalities to support this view. The look of the glasses was felt to be the key motivation. The anti‐lobby created a climate of criticism of cheapness, which seemed to permeate the group decision‐making, particularly in the early stages. However, when questioned individually, respondents indicated acceptance of a significantly higher price than the group had agreed upon if they felt a particular model suited them. This indicates that the group discussion had effectively hidden a spectrum of views on this topic by moving quickly to a consensus, which as Hedges (1985) and Fern (2001) noted can condition responses artificially.

Commentary on analysis of individual depth interviews: sunglasses sector

In the individual interviews, probing whether the look was really the only significant discriminator between alternative products revealed that the functional performance of sunglasses did play a significant, if secondary, role. This supports the comments of Gibbs (1997) who argues that the interviewer needs to challenge respondents' views in order to draw out deeper shades of meaning. Functionality, in terms of the ability of a pair of sunglasses to protect the eyes from exposure to the sun, was observed to be an important, although secondary, part of the buying process. This led to the revelation of a hitherto unsuspected potential benefit for the product range. The new products can perhaps promote eye health because their ease of portability made them more likely to be to hand when the occasion warrants, and therefore, more likely to be used. The intricacy of the logic within these conclusions supported the view that individual depth interviews provide a real depth and clarity of data (Robson and Foster, 1989; Cassell and Symon, 2004).

Potential and pitfalls of using focus groups and individual interviews

In summary, this research investigated the relative potential of focus groups and individual interviews to fulfil a number of research requirements. The results are shown in the Table I.

Both methods demonstrated their potential to identify the key motivations and processes at work amongst buyer groups. They also proved equally capable of identifying target markets for the proposed products. They differed in their ability to identify the spread of opinions as the individual interview revealed some views unexpressed in the groups. The groups provided a consensus view that allows conclusions to be drawn more easily from the research, but with the potential pitfall that these may be invalid if the group effect has over‐ridden key issues. Whilst the interviews offered more depth and clarity in the data collected, the groups provided more breadth and contextual information. However, the interviews allowed the researcher to perceive more attitudinal subtleties in relation to buyer behaviour.

This research revealed two particular pitfalls in using focus groups as a qualitative research method:

1. 1.

   Whilst focus groups were able accurately to identify the principal issues, they were unable to match the depth and detail relating to those issues that individual interviews were able to provide. It is felt that this level of data could be critical to the definition of an effective marketing strategy. For example, it would have appeared valid to conclude from the focus group research alone that a potential strategy would be to aim the optical glasses at first time glass wearers. The ready‐made reading glasses appeared to fit with a consumer characteristic of easing their way into the market with this type of product. However, only the individual depth interviews revealed the deep‐rooted nature of consumer resistance to becoming glass wearers, and also the intensity of this resistance due to its connection with the wearer's own mortality. It could be argued, therefore, that a strategy aimed at first time glass wearers would have a considerable amount of antipathy to overcome, and would therefore, be less likely to succeed.

2. 2.

   The group processes can act to obscure the identification of the range of beliefs, attitudes and motivations, due to group pressures which lead to a consensus view. Such pressures were indicated by the convergence of opinion around a general negative perception of cheapness, which was subsequently revealed to be at odds with the views of individual respondents. The same pressures were also observed in the sunglasses focus groups where a split of opinion was resolved by apparently passive acceptance on the part of one side, whilst in reality, private disagreement appeared to be maintained.

Individual depth interviews are structurally free from group pressures, and they demonstrated in this comparative study the ability to get under the surface and expose important attitudinal data. The research did, however, expose a relative weakness of individual depth interviews in that they were unable to provide the rich contextual information on consumers' relationships with the products themselves which was apparent in the focus group findings. An example of this was the insight focus groups gave on the power of Italian provenance in the sunglasses focus groups, which is such that it was even able to cause respondents to doubt their own taste and judgement. It was felt that group processes acted positively here to extract this level of information, in the manner suggested by Albrecht et al. (1993).

The final conclusion is, therefore, that each of the qualitative research methods examined was able to demonstrate particular strengths and weaknesses. Individual depth interviews would appear to be more appropriate for research situations where there is a specific, well‐defined issue to investigate which calls for a detailed understanding of consumer perspectives, whereas focus groups are perhaps more applicable to wide‐ranging exploratory research. Individual depth interviews demonstrated a superior ability to get at the important underlying issues that can shape effective marketing strategy. As many marketing‐related research designs require this level of inquiry, this study, therefore, concludes that the individual depth interview method merits serious consideration as a potentially superior alternative technique to the more popular focus groups.