Content uploaded by Margaret Ivy Amoakohene
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret Ivy Amoakohene on May 09, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Researching Radio Audiences in an Emerging
Pluralistic Media Environment: A Case for
the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Method
Margaret I. Amoakohene*
Abstract
The central thesis of this article is that the focus group discussion method of the
qualitative research methodology has huge and largely unexploited potentials
for use as a tool for audience research in a new democracy with a newly liberated
media environment. It argues that the use of the method by Paul Lazarsfeld,
Robert Merton and their colleagues at the Bureau of Applied Social Research at
Columbia University to gauge audience responses and reactions to propaganda
and radio broadcasts set the pace for its use in audience research. Through
extensive use in, and adaptations to, different research environments, focus groups
have demonstrated an ability to function as fully-fledged methods of data
collection. The article examines literature on the history, development, and use
of focus groups in many fields of study including media and communication to
show that the method has advantages for audience research in a competitive
media market. Through this perspective, and with reference to a number of studies
carried out by the author in Ghana using this method, it recognises focus group
research as an appropriate method for researching media, especially radio,
audiences and recommends it to media owners.
Résumé
La thèse centrale défendue par cet article est que la méthode d’enquêtes
qualitatives participant de la méthodologie de recherche qualitative comporte
d’énormes avantages et potentiels, et peut être employée comme un outil de
recherche d’audience dans une nouvelle démocratie dotée d’un environnement
de médias nouvellement libérés. Il affirme que l’usage de cette méthode dans la
recherche d’audience a été initié par Paul Lazarsfeld, Robert Merton et leurs
Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004, pp . 25–40
© Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 2004
(ISSN 0258–4913)
*Magaret I. Amoakohene is a Lecturer, School of Communication Studies, University
of Ghana and Doctoral Candidate, Centre for Mass Communication Research,
University of Leicester.
26 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
collègues du Bureau de la recherche sociale appliquée, à l’Université de
Columbia, qui cherchaient à mesurer les réactions de l’audience face à la
propagande et aux émissions radio. Du fait de leur adaptation à divers
environnements de recherche, ces enquêtes qualitatives se sont révélées être de
véritables méthodes de collecte de données. Cet article examine la littérature
relative à l’histoire, au développement et à l’emploi des enquêtes qualitatives
dans divers domaines d’étude, incluant les médias et la communication, et vise à
montrer que cette méthode comporte de nombreux avantages en matière de
recherche d’audience, dans un contexte de marché médiatique très concurrentiel.
Sur la base de cette perspective et d’un certain nombre d’études menées par
l’auteur au Ghana, relativement à cette méthode, cet article conclut en affirmant
que la recherche à travers les enquêtes qualitatives est une méthode fort bien
adaptée à la recherche d’audiences médias, particulièrement d’audiences radio,
et qu’elle est à recommander aux propriétaires de médias.
Mots clés : enquêtes qualitatives, recherche d’audience, radio, environnement
médiatique pluraliste
Introduction
Media pluralism, actualised in Ghana in the mid-1990s, has expanded
the country’s informational environment in ways hitherto unimaginable
in its media history. Though broadcasting commenced in 1935 with the
inauguration of radio (followed by television in 1965), it operated as a
state monopoly until 1992 when Ghana’s fourth republican constitution
provided for a liberalised media environment. This changed the country’s
media landscape by introducing private and commercial radio (and later
television). Despite initial hiccups with Radio Eye, the first private attempt
at radio, the establishment of Joy FM in 1995 broke state monopoly of
the electronic media (Koomson, 1995). Similarly, the maiden telecast of
TV3 programmes on October 1, 1997 broke Ghana Television’s (GTV)
32-year old monopoly (Ansu-Kyeremeh & Karikari, 1998). The number
of FM radio stations licensed to operate in Ghana today, according to a
National Communications Authority (NCA) documentation, stands at
about 200 with representation in all regions and many districts.
Programming and transmission of these radio stations reflect both the
multiplicity of languages spoken in the country and the varied interests
of audiences.
Though stemming from different reasons and with different degrees
of intensity, changes that have taken place in the Ghanaian media
environment are akin to those observed elsewhere in more developed
democracies. Whereas new media, particularly the Internet, have been
accredited with such changes in the west (Newbold et al., 2001), changes
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 27
in Ghana (and indeed much of Africa) are largely due to the birth of
independent broadcasting with a multiplicity and diversity of traditional/
old media outlets, particularly radio (Karikari, 1994). In both cases,
however, traditional vertical modes of communication operated on the
principle of ‘one-to-many’ appear to have given way to a horizontal
communication environment within which communication is essentially
from ‘many-to-many’ (Newbold et al., 2001, pp. 376–422). Through
audience interactive programmes that incorporate text, fax, email and
phone-in segments, and other discussion programme formats sometimes
with studio audiences, hitherto vertical communication structures have
yielded to audience inputs to expand along more horizontal lines.
As the number of radio stations increase, there has emerged competition
among station executives aimed at capturing sizable portions of the
audience/market in order to secure the needed publicity and advertising
revenue to finance programmes and operations. Competition has dictated
and accelerated change in Ghanaian radio by providing audiences with
choice not only of stations but also of programmes. In response, radio
stations must study their audiences to understand how interactions with
them could affect programme content and programme scheduling. They
must explore and investigate (not assume) audience needs and interests,
likes and dislikes, as well as their expectations so as to tailor programming
and programme content to audience requirements. This might be one
way of heeding Halloran’s (1998) caution that the media should not be
seen as isolated institutions but as one of a set of social institutions which
interacts with other institutions within the wider social system. Audience
research offers useful ways through which interactions between the media
and other social institutions are studied.
Audience researchers have traditionally used the survey, the individual
in-depth interview, and to some extent, the focus group method to
investigate interactions between audiences and the media (Vandebosch,
2000; Downing, 2003) and to collect information about station,
programme and/or content preferences of audiences. Although useful as
a method for audience research, surveys fail to move beyond individuality
and superficiality and thereby fail to provide in-depth analyses of audience
needs. They fail to capture the subtle nuances of audience tastes and tend
to de-emphasise the collective, discursive nature of their interaction with
media programme content. Qualitative research appears more appropriate
for such studies especially in the African context because of its natural
environment of social group bonding, which often dictates the kind of
responses given to stimuli (Obeng-Quaidoo, 1985; Bourgault, 1995). In
28 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
most cases, the preferred qualitative approach is the individual in-depth
interview usually used to discover motives, rationale and motivations for
participation or non-participation in specific media activities (Vandebosch,
2000).
The individual in-depth interview, however, has the tendency to yield
individualistic data without being able to capture the discursive nature of
real-life situations where media audiences actually discuss media content
with relations, friends and acquaintances (Liebes & Katz, 1995). Data
gathered using this approach tend to be “an aggregation of interviews”
(MacDougall & Fudge, 2001: 118) containing individual responses to
the media whereas such responses are more meaningful if they are
collectively generated or groupthink. The interactivity of a group concept
in focus groups appears suited both to the communal life system into
which the African is socialised and to the collective discussion that
characterises audience reactions and responses to media messages. Though
not as extensively used as the survey or the in-depth interview in previous
audience research, the focus group discussion method does contain
possibilities capable of overcoming a lot of the constraints identified in
both the survey and the interview (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996; Hansen et
al., Cottle et al., 1998). Researchers contend that the group interaction in
focus group discussions can yield more and richer information than
individual interviews even when the same participants are used
(MacDougall & Fudge, 2001; Asbury, 1995).
The essence of this paper is to advance arguments in support of the
use of focus groups in audience studies as a method with the capability to
provide detailed research results for decision-making in media/
communication, public relations and market related research. Through a
discussion of the tenets, history, development, uses and strengths of focus
groups, the paper contends that the method has the potential to provide
the required in-depth information to make content, programming, product,
service delivery and audience decisions. It highlights the usefulness of
focus groups for studying group dynamics and enabling researchers
examine the experiential and subjective aspects of phenomena thereby
illuminating the social and cultural contexts that inform these experiences
(Frith, 2000). It uses experiences and lessons from conducting focus
groups in Ghana (though mainly in areas other than the media) to argue
that radio stations would benefit from using focus groups. The method
will enable them do more than gather information on audience experiences
and preferences including total amounts of listening time, and amounts
of time devoted to listening to their preferred programmes (Vandebosch,
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 29
2000). They would also benefit from an understanding of audience
motivations for, and the importance they ascribe to such media activities.
This will help to examine and understand levels of audience gratification
with specific media activities and to assess and collect opinions on
programming and content to improve production and patronage.
Central tenets of the focus group discussion method
Focus group discussions are variously referred to as ‘focus group
interviews’, ‘group interviews’, ‘group depth interviews’, ‘group
discussions’, ‘focused interviews’, or ‘focus groups’ (Merton, 1987; Frith,
2000). They are focused discussions involving a small number of
participants talking about topics of special importance to the investigation
under the direction of a moderator or facilitator. The focus group literature
provides abundant information and useful “advice on process issues such
as designing interview guides and structuring and moderating groups”
(Kidd & Parshall, 2000: 295). For instance, they are said to be typically
composed of between six and 12 members, plus a moderator, and that a
popular size for focus groups is eight people because groups below six or
above 10 or 12 are usually difficult to manage (Bernard, 1995). According
to Broom and Dozier (1990: 147), “. . . the moderator guides the group
discussion to elicit qualitative data on knowledge, opinions and behaviour
of participants regarding the focus topic.”
Like all qualitative research, focus groups are based on the critical
perspective — the belief that social reality is derived and formed from
people’s interaction with their environment. Priest (1996: 4) puts focus
groups in the category of interpretive methods because they “make use
of (rather than try to eliminate entirely) the thoughts, feelings, and
reactions of the researcher.” Focus groups are “based on the assumption
that people are an important source of information about themselves and
the issues that affect their lives and that they can articulate their thoughts
and feelings” (Winslow et al., 2002, p.566). They “rely on the dynamic
of the group interactions to stimulate the thinking and thus the verbal
contributions of the participants, and to provide the researcher with rich,
detailed perspectives that could not be obtained through other
methodological strategies” (Asbury, 1995: 415).
In focus group discussions, “a small group of people engage in
collective discussion of a topic pre-selected by the researcher. The aim
of the group discussion is to gain insight into the personal experiences,
beliefs, attitudes and feelings that underlie behaviour” (Frith, 2000: 276).
Researchers, therefore, constantly probe participants through open-ended
30 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
discussions that the focus group environment creates. This aims at
obtaining a wealth of information and gaining deep understanding of
respondents’ motives and motivations for given actions. The richness of
information generated through focus groups in terms of both quantity
and quality of information and understanding would otherwise be lost
through other less interactive methods of data collection.
Although earlier prescriptions of how to conduct focus groups
advocated for participants previously unknown to each other (Merton,
1987; Bernard, 1995; Lunt & Livingstone, 1996), many contemporary
studies that utilise the FGD technique have used pre-existing groups.
These are considered more natural and germane to the interactional
dynamics of the group (Kitzinger, 1994; Lunt & Livingstone, 1996).
Examples include Philo’s (1996) media and mental distress study,
Kitzinger’s (1993) understanding AIDS study, and Liebes and Katz’ (1995)
cross-cultural Dallas study. These considerations, perhaps, explain
Barbour’s (1999: S19) definition of the focus group as “either a naturally
occurring or researcher selected group convened for the purpose of
discussing a specific research topic.” What this means is that focus group
discussions can take place either among groups assembled by researchers
in synch with their research needs or among already existing groups
depending on the purposes of the research and its objectives.
Decisions with regard to the number of groups required for a given
study are made based on its specific requirements. The literature shows
wide variations in numbers of groups used in different studies conducted
to research various issues. This author has used groups ranging from
eight to 21 in various focus group studies conducted in Ghana with
participants per group of between six and ten people. The key is to be
able to determine the level at which saturation is reached and beyond
which no new ideas emerge. In spite of wide variations in the sizes and
numbers of groups per research, however, a group size of between six
and eight participants and a number of eight to ten groups for a study
could yield useful data to produce valid and reliable findings. Ultimately,
however, the total number of group sessions for a given study would
depend on the number of variables to be considered and resources
available for the research. In order to aid comparisons, more than one
group session should be conducted in various locations and with different
samples of the population reflecting different group characteristics.
While some studies cover a few geographical areas, others span an
entire country or a substantial part of it. A study by Knodel et al. (1984),
for instance, covered the whole of Thailand while one by Nkwi (1992)
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 31
covered both the Francophone and Anglophone parts of Cameroon.
Conversely, in two recent studies this author conducted in Ghana using
focus groups, one study covered four out of the ten regions of the country,
while the other focused on four districts of the same region. These
variations in geographical areas covered in focus group research are
usually based on the objectives of the study. In all cases using focus
groups, selection of participants is done very carefully, often spreading
recruitment over a wider geographical area and spelling out detailed
criteria for selection to meet all required variables, attributes or dimensions
under study.
History, development and use of focus groups
“Focus group methods evolved out of research methods designed by Paul
Lazarsfeld, Robert Merton, and colleagues at the Bureau of Applied Social
Research at Columbia University to gauge audience responses to
propaganda and radio broadcasts during World War II” (Kidd & Parshall,
2000: 295). It is significant that the focus group method was first
developed and used in media audience and communication research
principally to guide interpretation of data to radio audience research at
the University of Columbia and to research on film audiences (Kidd &
Parshall, 2000; Stycos, 1981; Obeng-Quaidoo, 1987). Hansen et al.
(1998), on their part, indicate that Merton’s work with Patricia Kendall
(Merton & Kendall, 1946) and that with Kendall and Fiske (Merton,
Fiske & Kendall, 1956: 258) “are reckoned to mark the birth of the method
for the study of media audiences and communication processes.” Since
1922, the United States has used focus groups for communications
research, propaganda analysis, public opinion research, and research in
broadcasting and marketing (Obeng-Quaidoo, 1987; Merton, 1987; Kidd
& Parshall, 2000).
Despite this early history, the functional utility of focus groups became
noticeable only from the 1960s. Since the 1980s, the method has become
increasingly popular not only in market research but also in research in
both the social and health sciences with “an unabated stream of
publications” (Kidd & Parshall, 2000: 293). During its journey of over
half a century, focus groups have experienced several modifications,
adaptations and streamlining (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996) to pass the litmus
test of a bona fide research method in the social sciences. “In recent
years, focus group methods have become increasingly popular as either
an adjunctive or primary data collection approach in the social and health
sciences and in evaluation research” (Kidd & Parshall, 2000: 293). This
32 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
popularity has been attributed to the rise in ‘reception studies’ as distinct
from the traditional “effects studies” in media research (Hansen et al.,
1998). Lunt and Livingstone (1996), and Hansen et al. (1998) see the
rekindled interest in focus groups as both a rejection of the quantitative
methodology and a move towards the qualitative. The latter provides
“insightful findings and ecologically valid, interpretative techniques”
(Lunt and Livingstone, 1996: 79) not only in media and communication
research but also in other areas of social science research.
For examining the dynamics of what experiential knowledge and frames of
interpretation audiences bring to bear in their use of media content, what role
media use has in the everyday life of audiences, or how audiences use the media
as a resource in their everyday lives, it is necessary to turn to more qualitative
methods, which allow us to observe in a more “natural” setting than that of the
survey or the laboratory experiment how audiences relate to media (both as
technologies and as content) (Hansen et al., 1998: 257).
There is extensive use of focus groups in the social sciences, widely
used in both basic and applied research (Bernard, 1995) in most areas
including media studies. Social scientists have for many decades used it
to collect qualitative data for several purposes (Folch-Lyon & Trost, 1981;
Morgan & Spanish, 1984; Stycos, 1981). These include generating
constructs, developing models, generating data for the development of
products, and for evaluating new programmes and products (Winslow et
al., 2002). Winslow et al. (2002: 566) report that throughout the 1990s
focus groups were used to “gather in-depth views and opinions of
homogeneous groups of people for social science research,” including
its use in shaping political campaigns in the western world. In the field of
social communications, focus groups have had a long history of usage as
tools for both media and market research for purposes of marketing
(Calder, 1977; Folch-Lyon & Trost, 1981), business studies (Blackburn
& Stokes, 2000; Buttner, 2001) and advertising (Wang, 1997).
Since Merton’s (1946 & 1956) works with his colleagues marking the
beginning of focus groups in communication research to study media
audiences and communication processes (Bernard, 1995; Lunt &
Livingstone, 1996; Hansen et al., 1998), there have been many other
examples. Morley (1980) conducted 29 focus groups in his study of the
audience for the news and current affairs programme Nationwide. Corner,
Richardson, and Fenton (1990) used focus groups to explore respondents’
reactions to messages on nuclear power while Schlesinger et al. (1992)
used it to study perceptions and reactions of women viewing violence on
television. To study audience understanding of AIDS, Kitzinger (1993)
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 33
conducted 52 focus groups while Philo (1996) used the method to study
media and mental distress. Liebes and Katz (1995), on their part,
conducted 66 focus groups to explore different patterns of audience
involvement with the American soap Dallas among different cultural
groups.
The literature also shows extensive use of focus groups in health
research (Frith, 2000; MacDougall & Fudge, 2001). Its use in the area of
health includes primary health care, attitudes, practices and utilization
patterns (Borkan et al., 2000), family-planning and contraceptive use
(Folch-Lyon, 1981), sexuality, reproductive and sexual health knowledge
and sexual behaviour (Frith, 2000; Robinson, 1999); lesbianism and
violence (Corteen, 2002); sexuality, STDs and HIV/AIDS (Benkert, 2002;
Frith & Kitzinger, 2001); dyslexia (Dale & Taylor, 2001); stress
(McCallum et al., 2002; Majumdar & Ladak, 1998); and violence against
women (Poorman, 2002).
Focus group research in Ghana: Experiences and lessons
Over the last couple of decades, focus groups have been used in Ghana to
research various topics ranging from market concerns including social
marketing and health to media and communication issues for both
academic purposes and for industry. Although the use of the method in
Ghana does not compare with its use elsewhere, various organisations
including those in manufacturing, commerce, media, non-governmental
and social services have used focus groups to research and to interact
with their audiences. They have used the method to establish how and
what specific messages of products and services communicate to
audiences and consumers, and to gauge public reception and perception
of those messages. Though the majority of these studies are health-related,
there are many others that are in the domain of media and market research.
These studies have proved extremely useful in that sponsors/organisations
have been able to assess the effectiveness of their communications in
order to map out ways of adapting to audience/client needs.
Recommendations from the studies have equally been useful providing
sponsors ways of strategising for the future in order to take advantage of
prevailing conditions and to have an edge over competition.
In the area of health and related research, which appears to dominate
the focus group literature in Ghana, there have been a number of sponsored
studies whose reports are privately held. Published works in this area,
however, include one by DeRose et al. (2002) who used focus groups to
examine fertility, reproduction and power relations among young
Ghanaian men and women. Asenso-Okyere et al. (1998) investigated the
34 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
impact of cost-sharing policies introduced in Ghana in 1985 by the
Government of the PNDC on people’s health care seeking behaviour using
focus group discussions of cohorts of the Ghanaian population. Studying
the period between 1985 and 1992, the authors combined focus groups
with in-depth interviews conducted with health workers and selected
opinion leaders in three districts of Ghana to obtain a broader perspective
of any such impact. Obeng-Quaidoo (1987) reports of twelve focus groups
conducted in four cities in Ghana to find out people’s perceptions of
family planning and their contraceptive use.
In the specific area of communication research, the dearth of published
works using focus groups in Ghana shows in the fact that only one recently
published article was found for the present study. Kwansah-Aidoo (2002)
conducted 12 focus groups and 120 in-depth interviews to investigate
Ghanaian media coverage of the environment and how that affected
educated urban dwellers’ awareness of environmental issues. In spite of
this shortcoming, there are numerous unpublished reports of studies that
have used the focus group research method mainly in the field of market
research to examine communication strategies. The author of this article
has over the last 15 years undertaken many commissioned studies for
industry using focus groups. Many of these studies have aimed to develop,
pre-test and post-test large numbers of advertising concepts and messages
while others have sought to research product concepts and their
acceptability to intended targets. Some other studies have focused on
product images; consumer/public perceptions of and reactions to various
products/services and their communications; as well as audience reactions
to and evaluation of specific radio and television programmes to enable
their fine-tuning.
In a recent study to assess participants’ responses to the messages of a
service provider, we conducted seventeen focus groups composed of
between eight and ten participants each in four out of Ghana’s ten regions
each of which had peculiar realities and difficulties vis-à-vis the provision
of that particular service and its communication patterns.
Recommendations from this study resulted in the translation of
communication content or messages into all major languages of the
catchment areas. Other studies conducted for some other service delivery
organisations resulted in the use of pictures and symbols in communication
to offset problems of illiteracy (and in one case, hearing impairment),
which was endemic in those areas studied. In a radio-specific study to
assess audience reactions to and evaluations of some programme series
of a local-language community radio station, we conducted 21 focus
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 35
groups in four districts of a region in Ghana which constituted the coverage
area of the station. In this particular case, a major recommendation resulted
in a significant change in programme content: adapting the language of
transmission to suit everyday usage rather than the formal “dictionary-
based” language, which tended to be misunderstood by the youth, and
poorly understood by many others. The findings of another focus group
research engineered the streamlining of a radio station’s programming to
be in sync with audience expectations thus resulting in programme-time
changes.
Despite the fact that recommendations from some of these studies have
been both insightful and useful to patrons and audiences or targets, most
of the studies have been sponsored and paid for by business, commercial
concerns and organisations in the health sector. Consequently, as Downing
(2003: 633) observed, their findings are “strictly reserved for contracted
firms” and are thus unavailable to the public. These organisations dictate
the design and budget of the studies as well as control the publication of
research findings.
Strengths of focus group research
Hansen et al. (1998: 258) proffer two reasons why focus groups are
preferable in studying the dynamics of audience-media relationships. First,
focus groups are “more cost-efficient than individual interviews – a wider
range of people can be interviewed within the same limitations of time,
resources, and research money.” Secondly, “groups allow the researcher
to observe how audiences make sense of media through conversation
and interaction with each other”. In the opinion of Lunt and Livingstone
(1996:93): “The group acts as a context that challenges, asks for
elaboration, and demands examples of claims that people make.” Cutlip
et al. (1994: 331) believe “the major strength of focus groups is the open,
spontaneous, and detailed discussions they generate, even among people
who did not know each other before the session began.” Similarly, Priest
(1996:66) sees group interaction as the strongest point of focus groups:
. . . the real advantage of a focus group is that the researcher can gather data on
participants’ interaction with one another. A richer picture of how information is
processed and conclusions are drawn can be constructed in comparison to what
can be understood from the narrower data produced in an interview situation.
Participants may say things to one another that they would not bring up in a one-
on-one conversation, such as arguments they consider persuasive and associations
they make in response to others’ comments. They may also more easily forget that
the researcher is present, so their conversations and reactions more closely
approximate normal conditions.
36 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
Focus groups have the advantage of cultural appropriateness, which
allows them to adapt to peculiar environmental conditions in the context
within which research is carried out (Vissandjée et al., 2002; Williams,
1999). The method provides a more naturalistic approach to research by
using the narratives and oral traditions of different cultures (Russon, 1995).
It is therefore suited to African cultural, traditional, and environmental
circumstances including its informal, open and group bonded nature,
strong narrative and oral traditions. The richness of Africa’s local
languages (including those of Ghana), the continent’s communal audience
listening and viewing nature with a concomitant richness of audience
interaction and discourse evident in participation in radio phone-in
programmes make the method particularly preferable. The ability to use
local languages in conducting focus groups enables participants to express
themselves adequately and researchers to understand and capture
participants’ beliefs, values, communication and ways of interaction,
among others. The rich nuances and subtleties of these languages allow
researchers into the deeper meanings of participants’ words and
expressions sometimes impossible to capture in a second language like
English or French.
Focus groups are usually neither constrained by limitations of access,
and resource constraints of the participant observation, nor the rather
more time-consuming and individualized approach of the one-to-one
interview. There are enormous advantages in focus groups’ ability to
collect data from people within groups that are, in general, difficult to
reach. These groups include people who are disadvantaged such as
minorities and illiterates, or people who are disenfranchised (Barbour,
1999). Esposito (2001: 569) argues that focus groups are an excellent
way of identifying the needs of populations that are under researched
and they also “allow participants a voice in the planning, implementation,
and evaluation of interventions.” Frith (2000) outlines three key
advantages of the method. Firstly, it is useful for exploratory research
into under-researched topics and for speedy policy analysis. Secondly, it
enables researchers to learn the language and vocabulary typically used
by respondents to talk about phenomena under investigation. Finally, it
provides conditions under which people feel comfortable discussing issues
including some that are personal and sensitive like sex and sexual
experiences about which people would usually be bashful. Fontana and
Frey (1994: 36) summed up the advantages of focus groups as “being
inexpensive, data rich, flexible, stimulating to respondents, recall aiding
and cumulative and elaborative.”
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 37
Conclusion
Focus groups as tools of audience research have the inherent quality and
ability of enabling researchers take advantage of group dynamics and
interactions to yield rich original data to streamline content and
programming. Radio stations in competitive markets (such as Ghana)
need to research using methods that transcend the superficiality of the
survey (Hansen et al., 1998) in order to answer questions relating to the
why and how of audience-media relationships. Focus groups do provide
that opportunity. They have the capacity to probe deeper into audience
motivations, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour in more natural and realistic
settings that match normal human group dynamics (Morley, 1980; Folch-
Lyon, 1981; Frith, 2000). Using focus groups in audience research
replicates the normal ways through which audiences attend and respond
to the media, and discuss media content with others in their immediate
environment. The method thus has the potential to deliver to station
managers what audiences require with regard to their radio listening
experiences.
The extreme popularity of phone-in programmes and the responses
they evoke from listeners show the enthusiasm of listeners to get involved
as active rather than passive audiences. This provides pointers to a hidden
and untapped potential of the focus group to research radio audiences in
the booming electronic media market in Ghana. Focus groups
demonstrated their ability to research audiences since the days when a
“group of people listened to a recorded radio programme that was
supposed to raise public morale prior to America’s entry into World War
II” (Bernard, 1995: 225). Through experience of their use in Ghana,
although relatively minimal, one can vouch for their usefulness in
communication-media-audience research. It is time to exploit fully their
unique potential to study the interface between audiences and the media,
particularly radio, in a liberalised pluralistic electronic media environment
such as Ghana.
References
Ansu-Kyeremeh, K., & Karikari, K. (1998) Media Ghana: Ghanaian media
overview, practitioners and institutions. Legon, Ghana: School of
Communication Studies Press.
Asbury, J. (1995) Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research,
5(4), 414–420.
Asenso-Okyere, W. K., Anum, A., Osei-Akoto, I., Adukonu, A. (1998) Cost
recovery in Ghana: are there any changes in health care seeking behaviour?
38 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
Health Policy and Planning, 13(2), 181–188.
Barbour, R. S. (1999) The use of focus groups to define patient needs. Journal
of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 28(4), S19–S22.
Benkert, H. (2002) Liberating insights from a cross-cultural sexuality study about
women. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(8), 1197– 1207.
Bernard, H. Russell (1995) Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: Altamiria Press.
Blackburn, R., & Stokes, D. (2000) Breaking down the barriers: using focus
groups to research small and medium enterprises. International Small Business
Journal, 19(1)(73), 44–67.
Borkan, J. M., Morad, M., & Shvarts, S. (2000) Universal health care: The views
of Negev Bedouin Arabs on health services. Health Policy and Planning,
15(2), 207–216.
Bourgault, Louise M. (1995) Mass media in sub-Saharan Africa. Bloomington,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Broom, Glen M. & Dozier, David M. (1990) Using research in public relations:
Applications to program management. Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bittner, E. H. (2001) Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: an
application of a relational frame. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 253–
270.
Calder, B. J. (1977) Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 353–364.
Corner, J., Richardson, K., & Fenton, N. (1990) Nuclear reactions: Form and
response in public issue television. London: John Libbey.
Corteen, K. (2002) Lesbian safety talk: Problematizing definitions and
experiences of violence, sexuality and space. Sexualities, 5(3), 259–280.
Cutlip, Scott M., Center, Allen H., & Broom, Glen M. (1994) Effective public
relations (7th Edition). Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice Hall International,
Inc.
Dale, M., & Taylor, B. (2001) How adult learners make sense of their dyslexia.
Disability and Society, 16(7), 997–1008.
DeRose, L. F., Dodoo, F. N. A., & Patil, V. (2002) Fertility desires and perceptions
of power in reproductive conflict in Ghana. Gender and Society, 16(1), 53–
73.
Downing, J. D. H. (2003) Audiences and readers of alternative media: The absent
lure of the virtually unknown. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 625–645.
Esposito, Noreen (2001) From meaning to meaning: The influence of translation
techniques on non-English focus group research. Qualitative Health Research,
11(4), 568–579.
Folch-Lyon, E. (1981) Focus group and survey research on family planning in
Mexico. Studies in family planning, 12 (12), 409–432.
Folch-Lyon, E. & John F. Trost (1981) Conducting focus group sessions. Studies
in Family Planning, 12(12), 443–449.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994) Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K.
Amoakohene: Researching Radio Audiences 39
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361–
376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frith, Hannah (2000) Focusing on sex: Using focus groups in sex research.
Sexualities, 3(3), 275–297.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001) Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing
a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11(2),
209–232.
Halloran, J.D. (1998) Mass communication research: Asking the right questions.
In Anders Hansen et al., Mass communication research methods (pp. 9–34).
New York: Palgrave.
Hansen, A., S. Cottle, R. Negrine, & C. Newbold (1998) Mass communication
research methods. New York: Palgrave.
Karikari, K. (Ed.) (1994). Independent broadcasting in Ghana: Implications
and challenges. Legon, Ghana: Ghana Universities Press.
Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. K. (2000) Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing
analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3),
293–308.
Kitzinger, J. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of
interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16,
103–121.
Kitzinger, J. (1993) Understanding AIDS: Researching audience perceptions of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome. In Glasgow University Media Group
(J. Eldridge, Ed.), Getting the message: News, truth and power (pp. 271–
304). London: Routledge.
Knodel, J, Havanon, N., & Pramualrana, A. (1984). Fertility transition in Thailand:
A qualitative analysis. Population and Development Review, 10, 297–315.
Koomson, A. B. (Ed.) (1995) Prospects for Private Broadcasting in Ghana.
Accra: Gold-Type Press Ltd.
Kwansah-Aidoo, K. (2002) The beauty of ‘short’ stories: Noting the significance
of anecdotal analysis in African communication research. In Anthony V.
Stavros (Ed), Advances in communications and media research, Vol. 1. New
York: Nova Science Publishers.
Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1995) Patterns of involvement in television fiction: A
comparative analysis. In O. Boyd-Barrett & C. Newbold (Eds.), Approaches
to media: A reader. London: Arnold, pp. 531–535.
Lunt, P. and Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and
communications research. Journal of communication, 46(2), 79–98.
MacDougall, C. & Fudge, E. (2001). Planning and recruiting the sample for
focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 11(1),
117–126.
Majumdar, B., & Ladak, S. (1998). Management of family and workplace stress
experienced by women of colour from various cultural backgrounds. Canadian
Journal of Public Health, 89(1), 48–52.
McCallum, D.M., Arnold, S.E., & Bolland, J.M. (2002). Low-income African-
40 Africa Media Review, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
American women talk about stress. Journal of Social Distress and the
Homeless, 11(3), 249–263.
Merton, R.K. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups: Continuities and
discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 550–566.
Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P.L. (1956). The focused interview: a manual
of problems and procedures. Glencoe Illinois: The Free Press.
Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal
of Sociology, 51, 541–557.
Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253–270.
Morley, Dave (1980). The nationwide audience. London: British Film Institute.
Newbold, C., Boyd-Barrett, O., & Van den Bulck, H. (Eds.) (2001). The media
book. London: Arnold.
Nkwi, P. (1992). Population Action Program for the improvement of quality of
life in rural communities. Report. Yaoundé: World Bank, African Population
Advisory Council.
Obeng-Quaidoo, I. (1985). Culture and communication methodologies in Africa:
A proposal for change. Gazette 36: 109-120.
Obeng-Quaidoo, I. (1987). New development-oriented models of communication
research for Africa: The case for focus group research. Communicatio Socialis
Yearbook VI: 115–125.
Philo, G. (Ed.) (1996). Media and mental distress. London: Longman.
Poorman, P. B. (2002). Perceptions of thriving by women who have experienced
abuse or status-related oppression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(1),
51–62.
Priest, S. H. (1996). Doing media research: An introduction. London: SAGE.
Robinson, N. (1999). The use of focus group methodology with selected examples
from sexual health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(4), 905–913.
Russon, C. (1995) The influence of culture on evaluation. Evaluation Journal of
Australasia, 7(1), 44–49.
Schlesinger, P., Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Weaver, C. (1992) Women viewing
violence. London: British Film Institute.
Stycos, M. J. (1981) A critique of focus group and survey research: The machismo
case. Studies in Family Planning, 12(12), 450–456.
Vandebosch, Heidi (2000) Research note: A captive audience? The media use of
prisoners. European Journal of Communication, 15(4), 529–544.
Wang, J. (1997) Through the looking glass of foreign ads in China. Asian Journal
of Communication, 7(1), 19–42.
Williams, R. D. (1999) Use of focus groups with rural women of lower socio-
economic status. Applied Nursing Research, 12(1), 45–50.
Winslow, Wendy W., Honein, Gladys & Elzubeir, Margaret A. (2002) Seeking
Emirati women’s voices: The use of focus groups with an Arab population.
Qualitative Health Research 12(4), 566–575.
