Content uploaded by David L Morgan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David L Morgan on Mar 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
199
W Chapter 9
Online Focus Groups
David Morgan and Bojana Lobe
As Bill Gates famously noted, “The Internet changes everything,” so it is hardly surprising
that online technologies are having a major impact on social science research. The revolu-
tionary role of information communication technologies has been particularly important
in creating new online options for collecting data. The power of this technology means
that Web surveys, online qualitative interviews, and virtual ethnographies are now joining
more traditional forms of research. Indeed, many of the Web-based applications that are
already inherent to online computer use are appropriate for social science data collec-
tion (e.g., e-mail, instant messengers, blogs, social networking sites, Skype, etc.). As these
examples demonstrate, online research is highly dependent on available technology, and
the continuing evolution of this technology has created opportunities as well as challenges
for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data.
For focus groups, online versions of this method have already been appearing for over
a decade (e.g., Gaiser, 1997). During that time, several different Internet technologies have
been adapted as formats for online focus groups. This fl exible approach to technology
for conducting focus groups online is quite consistent with the overall evolution of tra-
ditional, face-to-face focus groups in the social sciences. In particular, that “traditional”
approach largely evolved from marketing research, based on the earlier work of Merton
and Lazarsfeld, which began over 70 years ago (Morgan, 1997). During the two decades
that social scientists have rediscovered focus groups, this method has proven to be a highly
fl exible and adaptable tool, which can collect data across a wide range of research topics
and cultural settings. One of the clearest messages from that experience is that there is
no “one right way” to do focus groups, and we believe the same is true of online focus
groups. Our emphasis here is thus on clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of dif-
ferent approaches for conducting online focus groups, both in terms of how they compare
to each other and in terms of how each compares to face-to-face focus groups. In other
words, we start with the assumption that each format for online focus groups has some
advantages that would make it more suitable for some purposes, as well as some limita-
tions that would make it less suitable for other purposes.
The layout for the chapter begins with a brief consideration of the more general issues
about using online technologies for social science data collection, followed by a more spe-
cifi c presentation on technologies for online focus groups. The main section of the chap-
ter then discusses the methodological and practical issues involved in conducting focus
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 19909_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 199 9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM
200 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
groups in online environments. The next section examines those issues in more details,
within the context of a research project that used online focus groups. We conclude with a
look at future directions in the emerging approaches to online focus groups.
Online Technologies and Social Science Data Collection
With the increasing expansion of the Internet (Hine, 2005a; Van Selm & Jankowski, 2006),
a great many researchers in the social sciences can fi nd some aspect of their interests on
the Internet. As Mann and Stewart (2000, p. 5) note, social scientists are using the Internet
for research that is concerned not only “with the study of online behavior” but also “with
using computer-based tools and computer-accessible populations to study human behav-
ior in general.” Our goal is to examine online focus groups as a method for collecting data,
rather than a way to study online behavior itself.
For the purposes of this chapter, “online technologies” will refer to information com-
munication technologies that can be accessed through the use of Internet-connected
computers. In this sense, online technologies are also known as “virtual environments” or
“Web-based applications.” Research methods that use online technologies all rely on what
is known as “computer-mediated communication,” where two or more people interact via
a set of hardware- and software-based tools. Within this framework, the more traditional
forms of interviewing are discussed as occurring in a “face-to-face” setting. The obvious
question is: How well do online technologies for data collection compare to their tradi-
tional counterparts? Van Selm and Jankowski (2006, p. 435) distinguish a continuum of
three positions on this issue, where the two end points make claims about either the ability
to use traditional methods with only minimal changes or the need to invent new data col-
lection methods with no direct equivalent in the “off-line” environment. In contrast, the
intermediate stance is to adapt existing technologies in the online environment in ways
that capture the essence of traditional methods, and a number of researchers are already
developing online versions of qualitative interviews in general and focus groups in par-
ticular (O’Connor, Madge, Shaw, & Wellens, 2008).
Following that intermediate path, the main approach to creating online focus groups
has been to adapt the method to existing software, with the assumption that participants
will use the technology to interact in ways that produce useful data. This makes sense,
from a practical perspective, because there are only a limited number of options for modi-
fying online technologies. Even so, the conclusion that online technologies can be used
to capture aspects of traditional, face-to-face methods says little about the desirability of
doing so. On the one hand, we will discuss ways that online technologies make it easier to
do some things that would be diffi cult in a traditional setting. On the other hand, we will
also point out the aspects of traditional focus groups that are harder to accomplish via the
Internet. Hence, the real issue is not so much what it takes to adapt an existing method
for use online, as it is the ways that traditional and online uses of the “same” method are
either similar or different.
Any attempt to compare face-to-face and online focus groups immediately raises
more general questions about how to assess differences between alternative approaches to
focus groups. Unfortunately, the current literature on face-to-face focus groups is not very
useful for this purpose, because it concentrates almost exclusively on matching different
research goals to different ways of conducting face-to-face focus groups (e.g., Morgan &
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20009_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 200 9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM
Online Focus Groups 201
Krueger, 1997). As a result, we lack explicit techniques for assessing differences in either
the nature or the quality of the data produced by either traditional focus groups or their
online counterparts. Our strategy for the rest of this chapter will thus be to assess the more
obvious advantages and disadvantages of conducting focus groups one way rather than
another. Ultimately, researchers who use focus groups will want to know how face-to-face
and online groups differ in the actual data that generate, but that is an issue that goes well
beyond the scope of this chapter.
Alternative Technologies for Online Focus Groups
By taking Van Selm and Jankowski’s “intermediate” option (2006) and considering ways
to create a match between face-to-face focus groups and online technologies, the fi rst
test is whether these technologies can indeed capture the most essential aspects of tra-
ditional focus groups. This is an easy question to answer, because science researchers
uniformly agree that group interaction is the key distinguishing feature of focus groups
(e.g., Morgan & Krueger, 1997; and O’Connor et al., 2008). For example, Morgan (1997)
defi ned focus groups as a “research technique that collects data through group interaction
on a topic determined by the researcher” (p. 6). Similarly, he stated, “The hallmark of focus
groups is their explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less
accessible without the interaction found in a group” (Morgan, 1997, p. 2; emphasis in the
original). Thus, an online technology meets the defi ning characteristics of a focus group
when it allows a researcher to ask questions that generate meaningful interaction among
the participants.
Drawing on an earlier discussion by O’Connor & Madge (2001, 10.6), we offer the
following list of shared advantages for online groups:
For participants, holding the groups online increases comfort and convenience by:
1. eliminating issues related to arranging transportation (especially among groups
with limited ability to travel);
2. minimizing the need to juggle schedules (especially for groups such as mothers,
caregivers and those who work at home);
3. avoiding concerns about personal appearance.
For researchers, holding the groups online reduces costs and effort by:
1. reducing the need to locate or pay for a place to moderate the group;
2. reducing the complexity of recruiting by using a variety of “many-to-one”
forms of contact;
3. eliminating the need for taping and transcribing by using written interaction.
Shifting to a comparison of the different technologies for online focus groups, the most
important distinction is between “synchronous” and “asynchronous” formats (Jacobson,
1999; Mann & Stewart, 2000). Traditional face-to-face focus groups are inherently syn-
chronous because the participants interact in real time. Similarly, there are several forms
of synchronous online communication that allow real-time responses to other partici-
pants’ comments; examples of online technologies for synchronous focus groups include
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20109_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 201 9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM9/15/2010 3:43:48 PM
202 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
instant messengers and chat rooms. In contrast, online technologies that use asynchro-
nous interaction do not require the participants to be connected to the Internet at the
same time, and thus allow people to respond at their convenience; examples of online
technologies for asynchronous focus groups include discussion forums and e-mail lists.
One way to summarize these distinctions is to say that traditional focus groups require
the participants to meet at the same time and in the same place, while synchronous online
focus groups allow the participants to be in widely separated locations, and asynchronous
online groups do not require meeting at either the same place or the same time.
For our purposes, we will describe instant-messenger sessions as an example of syn-
chronous online focus groups and discussion forums as an example of asynchronous
focus groups. Both these formats for online focus groups begin with a metaphor that
links each technology to interaction in traditional focus groups:
1. An instant-messenger session is like a focus group because the participants react
directly to each other’s statements in the ongoing discussion.
2. A discussion forum is like a focus group because participants can pick up and
pursue various aspects of the overall topic.
Instant-Messenger Sessions as Synchronous Online Focus Groups
The most common use for instant messaging technology (or IM, as it is commonly known)
makes it possible for several users who are on the Internet at the same time to exchange
text messages. The classic format for an IM session is a separate window on each person’s
computer screen, which allows the users to interact by adding their own comments to
the ongoing stream that makes up the session. Figure 9.1 shows a simplifi ed version of
an instant messenger with a hypothetical focus group discussion among women whose
husbands all have early onset Alzheimer’s Disease. The main part of the window contains
the comments with the names for each participant. These comments move up the screen
and out of sight as the conversation proceeds, but a scroll bar makes it easy to review ear-
lier parts of the discussion. On the right side of the fi gure is a list of the participants, and
the bottom of the window contains the fi eld where the current participant can enter and
send text. The fi eld at the bottom is a “typing progress indication” that shows whether one
of the other participants is about to add a comment to the discussion, in which case, the
current participant may want to wait and see that entry before writing and sending his or
her own comment.
To use an IM session for conducting a synchronous focus group, the moderator begins
by contacting each of the participants who has agreed to participate in the discussion.
Once all the participants have joined the focus group, each person in the conversation sees
a window similar to Figure 9.1, with the same stream of text in each window. The next sec-
tion of the group would follow the same schedule as a traditional group, with the modera-
tor using the IM system to share some basic instructions before asking the fi rst question.
To illustrate the nature of conversation in focus groups that use IM, Box 9.1 presents a
longer extract from the hypothetical conversation in Figure 9.1 (see O’Connor & Madge,
2001 for an extract from a real discussion using similar software). As the conversation in
Box 9.1 indicates, most of the comments in IM sessions are rather short. Indeed, examin-
ing a series of extracts from published articles indicates that comments as long as 50 words
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20209_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 202 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
Online Focus Groups 203
Main window, with
comments from all
participants Let’s start by having each of your tell the rest of the
group your husband’s name how old he is now.
My Fred is 59.
Marvin just turned 61.
Bob is just 55.
Early onset Alzheimer’s can be a fairly vague phrase, but
I know that you’ve each had an actual diagnosis. How long
Typing field for
Barbara to enter a
comment
Lists all the
participants
Indicates whether one of the other
participants is writing a comment
MOD is typing
SEND
Barbara
Helen
Maxine
MOD
X
Barbara:
Barbara:
Helen
Maxine
MOD
MOD:
Figure 9.1
are almost uncommon. Because these relatively brief comments are being entered in real
time, they often show up on the screen in quick succession. This format is undoubtedly
infl uenced by two elements of the technology. First, the input window for comments is
almost always rather small. Second, because of the constant fl ow of messages from oth-
ers, taking the time to compose a longer comment may well mean that the discussion has
shifted somewhat, so that this contribution will essentially be out of order. Indeed, the
problem of maintaining continuity is quite common in IM sessions, even without longer
comments. This is simulated in Box 9.1 by the entry where Maxine needs to repeat her
question to Barbara.
Overall, this stream of comments shows the typical format for the data from a syn-
chronous online focus group using instant messaging technology. The discussion can
continue for as long as the session is scheduled to last, and all of the text generated during
the session is automatically saved. The data is thus ready for analysis as soon as the group
is completed.
Discussion Forums as Asynchronous Online Focus Groups
The most common use for discussion forums on the Internet is to bring together people
with a common interest, whether that shared interest deals with the same chronic illness, a
mystery novel author, or the merits of the latest computer software. Discussion forums on
these topics allow people to “post” various comments and queries, to which the other par-
ticipants then reply. The asynchronous nature of these postings means that the discussion
can continue for an indefi nite amount of time. In academic circles, discussion forum are
frequently found as a “bulletin boards” within online courses; other common versions of
online discussion forums can be found in blogs and as part of “conferencing” software.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20309_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 203 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
204 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
Box 9.1. Hypothetical instant-messenger discussion about early onset Alzheimer’s
disease.
MOD: Let’s start by having each of you tell the rest of the group your husband’s
name and how old he is now.
Barbara: My Fred is 59.
Helen: Marvin just turned 61.
Maxine: Bob is just 55.
MOD: Early onset Alzheimer’s can be a fairly vague phrase, but I know that you’ve
each had an actual diagnosis. How long ago did you get that diagnosis and
where did you go to get it?
Helen: We got the diagnosis 5 years ago. Our regular doctor suggested the clinic at
[hospital] and they did a whole bunch of tests to confi rm it.
Maxine: We went to the same hospital, but that was all Bob’s idea. He knew he had
a problem.
MOD: How long have you known?
Maxine: Two years.
Barbara: It was either two or three years ago for Fred.
Barbara: And I wish I had gone to [hospital] too, but I took him to [clinic] and they
took forever.
Maxine: What was the problem?
Helen: It only took 2 weeks at [hospital].
Maxine: Barbara, why did it take so long?
Barbara: They couldn’t make up their minds. The doctors just kept running test
after test and debating and debating for six months. I got so frustrated I
yelled at one of them.
Helen: Even the doctors don’t know that much about early onset AD.
Participating in these discussions typically requires that the user offi cially joins the
forum and establishes an online identity, which will be associated with each entry this per-
son posts. Depending on the forum topic, membership may be granted automatically or,
for more sensitive topics, it may require permission from a representative of the current
membership. Some Internet forums have literally hundreds of members, but only a much
smaller subset is likely to be posting during any given time period.
As Box 9.2 illustrates, the interaction in discussion forums comes from the running
responses to previous postings. The most common format involves a “threaded discus-
sion,” where a specifi c original posting generates a sequence of replies, which make up the
“thread” for the interaction around that particular topic. These threads can include a long
series of postings, where all of the replies to an initial posting will carry the subject line.
Another feature that supports the continuity of these discussions is to include “quoted
text” from a previous posting when replying to that posting. This typically takes the form
of a quotation at the start of the entry, to establish a context for the comments that follow,
as illustrated in Box 9.2 by Charlotte’s reply to Jeanette.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20409_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 204 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
Online Focus Groups 205
Box 9.2. Hypothetical discussion forum about early onset Alzheimer’s disease.
MOD at 12:01 PM, March 1, 2009
Subject: Support
One topic that came up earlier is the whole question of support—who gives you
support and who doesn’t, plus who does what. What are your experiences with
getting support?
Jeanette at 1:30 PM, March 1, 2009
Subject: No help from children
We were saying before how hard it is to get support, people just don’t want to
be around someone who has Alzheimer’s, especially someone who has it so
young. But my real problem is our two children. We have a son who lives a long
way away but my daughter is just up the road about 20 miles, and I hardly see
her either.
I know she has 4-year-old boy herself, but I used to see so much of her and my
grandson before Sam started having problems. I think she’s afraid to have little
Tommy see him that way. I guess I could understand that, but she doesn’t phone
or anything.
Alicia at 5:19 PM, March 1, 2009
Subject: Reply to: No help from children
I think it is a real problem when you don’t get help from children, especially if they
live close.
But every time we talk about family I keep wondering if I’m the only one who
doesn’t have children. I think that is a very different situation.
Charlotte at 10:05 PM, March 1, 2009
Subject: Reply to: No help from children
> Jeanette wrote:
> We keep saying how hard it is to get support, people just don’t want to be
around someone who has Alzheimer’s. But my real problem is our two children.
We have a son who lives a
My problem is just the opposite. Is there such a thing as TOO MUCH support?
Our son lives all the way in New York City, but he calls every two or three days to
tell us about the latest thing he read in the paper or saw on TV. And it’s almost
always about the kind of AD you get at 85 instead of early onset.
We’ve got caller ID on our phone and last night I saw it was him and just let it
ring.
Now I feel real guilty.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20509_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 205 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
206 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
To use a discussion forum for an online focus group, the research team invites a set
of participants to join a new forum, where the ability to post and reply is limited to those
specifi c participants. The data collection typically begins with the moderator posting a
question that serves as the starting point for the comments and replies that make up the
discussion. Moderators also have the option of specifying a time limit for a discussion
topic, such as noting that this question will be closed for further comments after a given
number of days. The data from the discussion forum postings are automatically available
as text at any time.
Choosing Between Synchronous and Asynchronous Formats
for Online Focus Groups
The choice of a synchronous or an asynchronous format for an online focus group project
depends on several factors. The most important issue is the same as any other choice of
a research design: Which method is a better fi t to the goals of the project? For example,
the interaction in synchronous focus groups comes closest to the exchange of remarks in
traditional focus groups, but will the relatively brief comments in these sessions be suf-
fi cient for a project’s purposes? Similarly, the longer, more refl ective passages in discussion
forums may be desirable, but the discontinuous nature of these discussions may provide
too little follow-up on key points.
There are also practical issues to consider, for both the research team and the par-
ticipants, when choosing between synchronous and asynchronous focus groups. For
the research team, each synchronous group has the advantage of taking only a short a
short period of time; however, if too few participants show up, then that group has to be
replaced with further recruitment efforts. By comparison, asynchronous groups have a
disadvantage due to the longer time that it takes to gather data from each session; how-
ever, a concentrated recruitment effort can make it possible to conduct more than one
group at the same time. For the participants, it is important to consider whether they will
be able to meet the synchronous format’s requirement that they all participate at the same
time. Alternatively, there is question of whether enough of the participants are willing
to continue contributing throughout the longer time that an asynchronous focus group
requires.
Given these competing advantages and disadvantages between synchronous and asyn-
chronous online focus groups, this chapter will concentrate on examining the differences
between the two, rather than engaging in a contest to determine whether one is better than
the other. We will pursue this strategy by comparing both synchronous and asynchronous
groups to face-to-face focus groups, in order to show how each of these formats matches
or differs from traditional practices. Our overall goal is thus to help researchers make well-
informed choices about when to use either synchronous or asynchronous online focus
groups.
Comparing Traditional and Online Focus Groups: Recruitment Processes
This section begins a three-part comparison of traditional, face-to-face focus groups with
both synchronous and asynchronous focus groups. In this fi rst section, we consider the
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20609_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 206 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
Online Focus Groups 207
recruitment process, which is crucial for actually holding focus groups. Next, we examine
a series of research design issues, including group composition, group size, and ethical
considerations. We conclude by comparing the nature of moderating in these three for-
mats for focus groups.
Successful recruitment is a crucial issue in focus groups, because it may be not be
possible to conduct the group if there are too few participants. Recruitment thus requires
serious attention, even though it may seem like a mundane or clerical issue. In this case,
there are a number of noteworthy differences between the recruitment process for face-
to-face versus online groups, but few differences between synchronous and asynchro-
nous groups. Comparing synchronous and asynchronous groups, the biggest difference
is the additional work that synchronous groups may need to fi nd participants who are all
available at the same time (which can, in this case, also include attention to time zones).
Beyond that, the recruitment differences between synchronous and asynchronous groups
are relatively minor, so the comments in this section will concentrate on the comparison
between traditional focus groups and online groups in general. Table 9.1 compares tra-
ditional, synchronous, and asynchronous focus groups for each of the recruitment issues
that follow.
Locating the Participants
The fi rst step in recruitment is to locate potential participants. For face-to-face focus
groups, the most likely ways are to use existing lists, advertisements, and snowball
Table 9.1 Comparison of recruitment issues for different types of focus groups
Face-to-face groups* Synchronous groups Asynchronous groups
Locating participants Use existing lists,
advertisements, and
snowball sampling
Use existing lists,
advertisements, and
snowball sampling
through Internet sites
Use existing lists,
advertisements, and
snowball sampling
through Internet sites
Contacting
participants
Contact participants
by telephone, mail, or
e-mail
Contact participants
via e-mail or Web sites
Contact participants via
e-mail or Web sites
Screening participants Typically direct
contact; limited
assessment of accuracy
at session
Can be done with
online questionnaire,
but no opportunity to
assess accuracy
Can be done with online
questionnaire, but no
opportunity to assess
accuracy
Sampling issues Can use a variety of
recruitment sources
Wider variety of
recruitment sources,
but digital divide issues
Wider variety of
recruitment sources, but
digital divide issues
Suffi cient participants Diffi cult to replace
participants at the last
minute
Participants do not all
have to start at exactly
the same time
Easier to contact
alternate participants at
the last minute
* For detailed coverage of recruitment options in traditional focus groups, see Morgan, 1998.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20709_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 207 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
208 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
sampling. By comparison, online recruiting creates more options in each of these areas.
On the Internet, the concept of using “an existing list” can be expanded to include e-mail
lists, members of online forums and discussion boards, contacts through Facebook and
MySpace friendship groups, and so on. For online “advertising,” it may be possible to
use sources such as blogs and Web sites for topics that are relevant to the topic. Using a
snowball process to locate potential participants can also benefi t from the online environ-
ment, because the range for online sources listed above multiplies the number of initial
contacts that are available for starting a snowball search. Another important element of
this difference between traditional and online recruitment is the basic requirement that
participants in traditional focus groups must all be drawn from local sources, so that they
can convene at the same place.
In addition, the advantages of using online resources to locate participants can be
especially important in projects that involve categories of participants who are diffi cult to
locate (Schensul, LeCompte, Trotter, Cromley, & Singer, 1999; Tates et al., 2009). Put sim-
ply, having the entire Internet to search makes it substantially easier to locate participants
who match very specialized criteria for purposive sampling. Note, however, that sources
with such carefully defi ned membership may be especially likely to limit contact with their
members. Even so, it may still be possible to get authorization through the person who is
in charge of that source—especially for academic research with university approval.
Contacting and Screening the Participants
At the next stage in the recruitment process, as Table 9.1 indicates, online resources also
provide advantages for moving beyond, locating potential participants to contacting them,
and inviting them to join the focus groups. For traditional focus group, these recruitment
contacts typically rely on telephone calls, mailing, and, when possible, e-mail. In contrast,
e-mail would be the entry level of contact for online recruiting. In essence, the resources
available from the earlier use of online sources frequently translate into low-effort solu-
tions for contacting potential participants. This reduction in effort is likely to be matched
by a reduction in recruitment costs. For example, face-to-face focus groups require, at a
minimum, that each participant receive instructions about how to reach the meeting site,
and this often involves a mailing.
For many focus group projects, contacts with participants also involve a screening
process to ensure they meet the purposive sampling criteria. In traditional focus groups,
this kind of screening is often accomplished by brief telephone surveys. For online groups,
this step can be modifi ed to screen participants through an e-mail or Web-based ques-
tionnaire. More specifi cally, the earlier online contact with each potential participant can
include a link to a Web survey that screens for the purposively specifi ed inclusion criteria
and also collects relevant background information.
One issue that is frequently raised with regard to online screening is that it can be
hard to verify the actual identity of the participants—as symbolized by the well-known
cartoon with a conversation between two dogs, where the one sitting in front of a com-
puter says, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” This diffi culty in confi rming
screening criteria on the Internet can be overstated, however, because face-to-face groups
may have just as much diffi culty confi rming the crucial, topic-related aspects of screen-
ing. For example, it is unlikely that either traditional or online groups can conclusively
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20809_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 208 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
Online Focus Groups 209
determine that participants meet criteria related to health, marital status, past experience
of life events, etc. Still, face-to-face groups do provide confi rmation on some basic screen-
ing characteristics such as age, race, and gender.
Sampling Issues
One of the key elements in any purposive sampling process is to avoid bias in the fi nal set
of participants who are selected. While it is almost never possible to achieve meaningful
representativeness in the small samples associated with qualitative research, it is just as
important to make sure that the sample accurately meets the purposive criteria (Morgan,
2008). For example, imagine a study of men as single parents, where the researchers recruit
from a school district that has an accurate list of such men. Further, suppose that research-
ers do not recognize that this is a relatively high-income school system; that could lead
the researchers to discuss their results as if they applied to single fathers in general, with-
out recognizing or stating the limitation that their results might not apply to all income
groups. For both face-to-face and online focus groups, the screening process is one way to
handle this problem, especially with the collection of relevant background information.
When that kind of detailed screening is not possible, traditional focus groups have an
advantage through meeting the participants, which makes it easier to detect more obvious
discrepancies in the sample composition.
This type of bias can occur whenever the recruitment source is skewed in ways that the
researcher either does not or cannot recognize. Unless the researcher is very familiar with the
sample source, it can be very diffi cult to detect all the possible ways that it might be skewed
in ways that would affect the research topic. Whenever the membership in source is skewed
in some relevant way, simply following the purposive sampling criteria within this source
can produce a set of research participants who meet the technical defi nition of those criteria,
but not the broader intent behind those criteria. One recommended strategy for reducing
potential bias is to recruit the sample from several different sources (Morgan, 1997). The
idea is that using any one source for the sample may have produced a limited range of par-
ticipants, but selecting the sample from several sources is likely to counteract this problem.
Once again, this strategy applies to both face-to-face groups and online groups, but the
online recruitment process has the advantage of providing more recruitment sources.
This issue may have special relevance recruiting online focus groups, due to what is
known as the “digital divide” in access to and use of the Internet (Norris, 2001). Because
Internet users are skewed toward younger people, males, and those in the middle and
upper ends of the income distribution, online recruitment sources are almost inherently
unrepresentative of the population as a whole. In response, advocates of online focus
groups point out that this overall lack of representativeness may not be an issue, as long
as the purposively selected participants meet the criteria for a particular research project.
Although it might be possible to claim that this lack of representativeness is not an issue,
so long as the participants in an online sample do indeed meet the purposive criteria
for a particular research project, this argument still does not address the potential prob-
lems associated with selecting a sample from a biased source of participants. For example,
the relatively rare set of older, low-income women who can be located online may dif-
fer in unknown ways from the much larger number of potential participants who meet
these criteria but do not use the Internet. It is important to note, however, that in various
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 20909_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 209 9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM9/15/2010 3:43:49 PM
210 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
versions of this same, general bias problem will arise any time a set of focus group partici-
pants are recruited from some preexisting list, which is skewed in ways that are unknown
to the researchers. Of course, these concerns do not apply to any study that directly targets
Internet users as part of the research topic.
Ensuring Suffi cient Participants
One fi nal topic under the broad heading of recruitment is making sure that enough of the
people who promise to participate in each focus group actually do so. In traditional focus
groups, this problem is known as preventing “no-shows,” and the same fundamental prob-
lem can occur with online groups. Some of the classic means for minimizing this problem
are emphasizing the importance of participating, recontacting and reminding participants
shortly before the group, and maintaining a list of “alternates” who can be substituted when
a participant gives notice that they cannot attend. Another classic strategy for motivating
participants to attend focus groups is to offer “incentives” and especially monetary pay-
ments, and this is an area where face-to-face groups have an advantage because these kinds
of rewards are harder to guarantee over the Internet. In contrast, any strategy that involves
recontacting those who have agreed to participate will favor online groups, due to the ease
of using prior connections. In addition, the possibility of rapid communication online may
well make it easier to bring in alternate participants on relatively short notice. Interestingly,
this last aspect of recruitment is one area where there is a difference between synchronous
and asynchronous groups, because instant messaging requires all of the participants to
be connected at the same time but discussion forums do not. This provides at least some
extra time to replace nonparticipants in asynchronous focus groups. In general, however,
the strongest way to ensure that there are enough participants is to over-recruit beyond the
minimal number of participants who are necessary, and there is no reason to believe that
this would differ between face-to-face and online groups.
Overall, the recruitment process creates several clear differences between traditional
face-to-face focus groups and either synchronous or asynchronous online groups, and the
majority of these differences favor the options for online recruitment. Still, it is important
for researchers to consider how their specifi c research project might be affected by using
participants who are drawn solely exclusively as Internet users, as illustrated by the poten-
tial issues associated with the digital divide.
Comparing Traditional and Online Focus Groups: Research Design Issues
As suggested earlier, the research design for any social science project needs to begin with
an emphasis on meeting the goals for the project, but it must also take into account the
more practical concerns of both the research team and the research participants. This sec-
tion covers those issues with regard to a broad number of topics that the literature on tra-
ditional, face-to-face groups has examined in some depth: using less structured or more
structured approaches to the discussion, determining the group composition, choosing
the number of participants for the group, and dealing with ethical issues. Table 9.2 com-
pares traditional, synchronous, and asynchronous focus groups on each of the following
design issues.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21009_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 210 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
Online Focus Groups 211
Matching Group Goals to Group Structure
One of the classic design choices in face-to-face focus groups is whether to use a less struc-
tured or a more structured approach. Less structured groups emphasize a wide-ranging
conversation among the participants, where the moderator avoids an active role in direct-
ing the discussion; in addition, less structured groups typically use a smaller number of
broad questions. In contrast, more structured groups emphasize a carefully controlled
discussion, where the moderator actively directs the group to keep them on topic; in addi-
tion, more structured groups typically use a larger number of tightly focused questions.
These two different formats for moderating and asking questions are associated with
two different goals for focus groups where less structured groups use open, participant-
oriented discussions to match the goals of exploratory research, while more structured
groups use relatively controlled, researcher-oriented discussions to match the goal of pur-
suing depth and detail.
Traditional face-to-face groups use the preliminary instructions to establish the degree
of structure by describing the expected roles that the moderator and the participants will
play. In less structured groups, the instructions emphasize that the participants will pursue
their own conversation for each question, rather than waiting for more directions from
the moderators. In more structured groups, the instructions emphasize that the modera-
tor will help the participants stay “on topic” and move the group through the questions in
an orderly fashion. This initial statement is reinforced through the nature of the interview
Table 9.2 Comparison of research design issues for different types of focus groups
Face-to-face groups Synchronous groups Asynchronous groups
Less-structured groups Straightforward Best option for this
type of focus group
Straightforward
More-structured
groups
Straightforward Diffi cult for this type
of focus group
Require moderator to
use careful control
Questioning strategies Well-developed set of
options
Little information Little information
Group composition Depends on local
availability
Wider range of
options through
Internet
Wider range of options
through Internet
Using segmentation Straightforward, but
can be limited to local
availability
Straightforward, and
easier to locate specifi c
types of participants
Straightforward, and
easier to locate specifi c
types of participants
Choosing group size 4–6 preferred for high
engagement and 8–12
for low engagement
Preferred size range
of 3–5
Little information of
preferred size range
Data confi dentiality Participants will
hear each other’s
information
Participants will
hear each other’s
information; data can
be hacked
Participants will
hear each other’s
information; data can
be hacked
Identity confi dentiality Moderately strong Data can be hacked Data can be hacked
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21109_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 211 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
212 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
questions, where the fi rst question is especially important. In less structured groups, the
fi rst question is designed to encourage an open-ended discussion of a relatively broad
topic. In contrast, the fi rst question in more structured groups is designed to produce an
orderly discussion of a relatively specifi c topic.
Despite the centrality of design decisions about the degree of structure for face-to-face
focus groups, this subject has received very little attention in the literature about online
focus groups. Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate about issues surrounding the degree
of structure in online groups, as well as how these issues might differ between synchronous
and asynchronous formats. The fi rst consideration is how the relevant instructions could be
communicated in online groups. The obvious equivalent is for the moderator to paste the
same content into the participants’ screens. Unfortunately, 5 min of informal, oral instruc-
tions can easily amount to several hundred words, which could fi ll several screens with text.
One tempting solution for dealing with this much text in an online setting is to e-mail the
instructions, as part of the basic information to participants prior to the group. That way, a
description of factors related to the degree of structure could be included within the longer
set of instructions. Sending out this kind of “homework” is frowned on in traditional focus
groups, because there is no way to tell which participants actually pay attention to it. Even
so, some version of this approach might be adaptable for online groups.
For synchronous groups, handling the starting instructions is just one of several poten-
tial issues related to the degree of structure. In this case, the size of the comments window
in IM sessions limits the ability to paste in a detailed set of instructions, because reading
them requires participants to scroll through several pages. Overcoming this limitation
may indeed call for sending out the full set of instructions prior to the group, and then
starting the session with a shorter, bulleted set of instructions that would reinforce the key
points. With regard to the broader question of using either less structured or more struc-
tured approaches in synchronous groups, the rapid give and take in this format defi nitely
seems to favor research designs that call for less structure. In particular, that type of online
interaction makes it harder to perform the tasks that the moderator’s role requires in a
more structured group, that is, leading the participants through a series of predetermined
questions, while carefully allocating the amount of time devoted to each question. Note,
however, that these suggestions for research design decisions about structure in synchro-
nous groups should be evaluated within the context of any given project. For example, if
the research involved participants who were quite familiar with a well-defi ned topic, then
there is every reason to believe that the discussions in such groups could produce the kind
of depth and detail that is usually associated with a more structured approach.
For asynchronous groups, the longer time period available can be well suited for both
less structured and more structured designs. From the beginning, the use of more detailed
instructions to establish the degree of structure are less problematic, because this material
can be posted at the starting point for a discussion board (although there is no guarantee
that all the participants will read that material). The primary things that the modera-
tor needs to establish at this point are the number of questions and the amount of time
devoted to each, along with an explanation for the reasons behind those decisions. For
less structured groups, the introduction might establish that the discussion would last for
eight days, with two days apiece for each of four questions, along with an explanation that
the goal is to generate a wide-ranging discussion for each question. Alternatively, more
structured asynchronous groups might involve one day apiece for each of eight questions,
where the goal is to discuss each topic in as much depth and detail as possible.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21209_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 212 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
Online Focus Groups 213
We will cover one fi nal subject under the heading of group structure, and this is the
nature of the questions that make up the interview itself (for a book-length discussion
about asking questions in face-to-face groups, see Krueger, 1998). Although this design
issue would ordinarily receive its own separate section, there is very little literature about
the how to write questions for either synchronous or asynchronous groups. This is a seri-
ous omission for two reasons. First, the nature of the questions as well as their precise
content is just as essential for online groups as it is for face-to-face groups. For example,
as noted earlier in this section, the nature of the fi rst question is often important for
establishing a less structured or more structured format for the rest of the discussion,
and this concern should be just as relevant in online groups as it is in face-to-face groups.
The second reason for concern is that online focus groups are likely to present a series
of issues that are different from the existing literature on strategies for asking questions
in face-to-face groups. For example, creating either a less structured or a more struc-
tured asynchronous online group would benefi t from knowing the kinds of questions that
encourage either longer, refl ective postings or shorter, more targeted comments. Thus,
whether it is a matter of what can be learned from questioning strategies in face-to-face
groups or the adaptation of those strategies in online groups, there is clearly a need for
more explicit attention to the nature of the questions in online focus groups.
Determining the Group Composition
In essence, decisions about the group composition for focus groups are another form of
purposive sampling. Like any form of purposive sampling, the researchers need to devote
considerable care in determining who will be an effective source of the data. Focus groups
pose an additional challenge in decisions about group composition, because they require
attention to both how well the participants match the research topic and also how likely
they are to generate a good group dynamic during the discussion. These considerations
make choices group composition a central element in the design process, because these
choices frequently have impact on the quality of the data.
In face-to-face groups, there are a series of recommendations for thinking about how
the group composition will affect the group dynamics:
1. At a minimum, the group dynamics require that the participants will feel
comfortable talking to each other about this topic.
2. The group dynamics will be even better when all the participants are interested
in sharing their own thoughts about the topic.
3. The best group dynamics occur when the participants are not only interested
in sharing their own thoughts but also in hearing what others have to say about
the topic.
Just as in face-to-face groups, choices about group composition are also likely to infl uence
the group dynamics in online groups. In all three cases, design decisions about group
composition are tied to a pair of goals that represent the needs of both the participants
and the researchers (Morgan, 1996). For the participants, this should make it easier for
them to understand and respond to each other’s perspectives on the topic, which pro-
duces a more comfortable fl ow of interaction. For the researchers, the role that group
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21309_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 213 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
214 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
composition plays in increasing the quality of the interaction is also likely to increase the
quality of the data from those discussions.
When the participants represent a mix of potentially different perspectives on the topic,
the research design for face-to-face groups often calls for “segmenting” the groups to pro-
duce homogeneous sets of participants, rather than mixing different kinds of participants
within any one group (Morgan, 1997). Note, however, that segmentation of the group com-
position in face-to-face groups increases the demands associated with both locating spe-
cifi c categories of participants, as well as ensuring that enough members of each category
can meet together at the same time for their specifi c group. Hence, separating focus group
sessions into specialized types of participants gives online groups a distinct advantage, both
searching for specialized categories of participants and in bringing them together.
The most common way to encourage this kind of interaction is to use research
designs that create homogeneity within the groups—where the most important element
of “homogeneity” revolves around the participants’ relationship to the research topic, but
where other criteria such as background characteristics may play a secondary role. When
the participants represent a mix of potentially different perspectives on the topic, face-to-
face groups have a strong tendency toward “segmenting” the groups so that each group
has a homogeneous set of participants, rather than mixing different kinds of participants
within the same group (Morgan, 1997). It is worth recalling, however, that searching for
categories of participants for segmented group composition can lead to substantially
more recruitment effort, where such a search for specialized types of participants would
favor online focus groups.
Although the overall logic of creating homogeneous groups meets the need to create
workable group dynamics for face-to-face groups, the nature of the interaction in online
groups is different enough to call some of those assumptions into question. For exam-
ple, in a synchronous group with a small number of participants (3–5), short and rapidly
rotating exchanges in a format like an IM session could make it easier to conduct a mixed
group—unless the topic is politically or emotionally charged. Alternatively, the interaction
in an asynchronous focus group often involves not only a longer time period but also a
larger number of participants, which could accommodate the development and compari-
son of different points of view on the topic. There certainly is no guarantee that either of
these strategies would work, but they point to the larger opportunity for exploring options
regarding group composition, rather than simply following the reliance on homogeneity
in face-to-face focus groups. In addition, the lessons that online groups may teach us about
group composition may show us ways to adapt similar strategies for face-to-face groups.
Choosing the Group Size
In face-to-face focus groups, the classic advice is to use smaller groups (4–6 people) when
the participants are highly engaged in a topic, and larger groups (8–10 people) when the
participants have less personal involvement with the topic. For example, when partici-
pants share an intense personal experience, a smaller group will allow each of them to say
a fair amount about their experiences and feelings. For a topic with less personal meaning
to the participants, a larger group creates the possibility for a sequential pattern of interac-
tion, starting with comments by several individuals who have some awareness of the topic,
which can stimulate a number of more wide-ranging responses from the rest of the group,
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21409_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 214 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
Online Focus Groups 215
which will thus produce the desired degree of interaction. This same advice about the size
of groups and participants’ level of engagement with the topic can also be expressed in a
reverse, by emphasizing the potential burden on participants in groups that have an inap-
propriate size. Thus, a small group where the participants are less engaged with the topic
will place a burden on each to keep the conversation going, while a large group where the
participants are highly engaged will produce a burden to restrain their remarks so that
everyone has a chance to contribute.
For online focus groups, this approach to determining group size is a poorer fi t for
synchronous than for asynchronous groups. In particular, the relative rapid and short
exchanges in Internet messengers are likely to create problems for larger groups, regard-
less of the participants’ level of engagement with the topic. We will cover this in much
more detail in the later presentation of our empirical example, where group size (ranging
from 3–5) was the primary independent variable for comparing synchronous groups. For
now, suffi ce it to say that synchronous groups with smaller size are almost always more
orderly groups. Once again, however, this generalization should be considered with the
context of a specifi c research project. For example, one situation that might make larger
sizes more workable for synchronous groups would be topics where the participants have
levels of engagement that are high enough to increase the likelihood that they will follow
instructions that emphasize letting everyone take turns in an orderly fashion.
For asynchronous groups, there is a better match with face-to-face groups, where a
smaller number of participants who have a high level of engagement will generate a steady
fl ow of postings and replies on a discussion board, while a larger group with a lower level of
engagement is likely to generate enough initial postings to start an active discussion. Equiva-
lently in terms of the burden on participants from inappropriate group sizes, a small number
of participants with a low level of interest in the topic could well have diffi culty maintaining
a meaningful number of postings, while a large number of participants who were highly
engaged with the topic could generate a wide range of comments and replies that would
be hard to follow. In less extreme cases, however, discussion boards can have an additional
advantage. The reason is this technology’s ability to maintain a more precise monitoring of
each participant’s degree of participation, through reports on not just number and length of
each participant’s postings but also which postings each person has or has not read.
As a fi nal design issue with regard to group size, all three focus group formats run
into problems when the initial size choice turns out to be inappropriate. Unfortunately,
resolving the problems of inappropriate group sizes are diffi cult to accomplish without
redesigning this aspect of the project as a whole. When it is possible to make this kind of
change, the most likely solution is simply to modify the size of the groups. In addition,
note that it may be necessary to rewrite the questions in ways that would help generate the
desired level of participation in these smaller or larger groups.
Ethical Issues
Concerns about ethics are the last area we will discuss with regard to research design. Plac-
ing ethical issues last does not, however, minimize their importance, because there is no
reason to even consider a research design that raises irresolvable ethical issues. The fi rst issue
that arises for both Internet research in general and online focus groups in particular is
whether new research environment requires a different set of ethical guidelines. Thomas
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21509_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 215 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
216 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
(2004) argues that there is no need to invent “new ethical rules for online research or try
to reduce ethical behavior in Internet research—or any other—to an immutable set of
prescriptions and proscriptions.” What he suggests is “an increased awareness of and com-
mitment to” already established ethical principles that apply across traditional research
methods (p. 187).
Even though we agree that most of the central aspects of existing ethical guidelines
apply to online focus groups, there are some differences between the online and off-line
environment that need to be carefully considered. Three of these issues have been exam-
ined further by a special task force (Ess & A. E. W. Committee, 2002). First, online research
poses a greater risk to individual privacy and confi dentiality because of the enhanced
accessibility of information on the Internet. In particular, skilled hackers could still pene-
trate even relatively high-level security procedures. Second, researchers may face a greater
challenge in obtaining informed consent, because the use of pseudonyms and multiple
online identities makes it harder to ascertain a participant’s identity. Finally, it can be
more diffi cult to decide which approaches are ethically appropriate, due to the greater
diversity of online venues (e-mails, chat rooms, Web pages, instant messaging, discus-
sion forums, etc.), as well as the unusually wide range of participants who can be reached
through online media (e.g., people from different cultural or legal settings).
One additional ethical issue that is specifi c to focus groups involves the things that
the participants learn about each other during the course of this discussion. Although the
research team can create procedures to assure the confi dentiality of the data they collect,
there is essentially no way to keep participants from violating each other’s privacy once the
group is over. This concern can be even more serious for online groups, where it is often
possible for the participants themselves to capture the text of their discussions. The most
common way to deal with this issue is to address it explicitly during the initial instructions,
but this only addresses the issue, rather than truly resolving it. A different approach is to
gather consent forms with the participants’ real names, and then assign pseudonyms for
the participants to use during the group. White and Thomson (1995) refer to this as “ano-
nymizing” the group. Interestingly, the same reliance on pseudonyms that can threaten
meaningful, informed consent in online groups can also serve as an advantage for anony-
mizing participation, based on the familiarity of pseudonyms on the Internet.
Overall, there are good reasons to adopt Thomas’s view (2004) that the fundamen-
tal ethical questions posed by new technologies are not new and, thus Internet research
ethics cannot be separated from the “broader social milieu” (p. 198). This means that an
inclusive approach to ethical issues, based on current standards, is the most appropriate
starting point for online focus groups. There are also, however, situations where it may be
necessary to consider the additional issues that arise from using this specifi c online tech-
nology for researching a specifi c topic with a specifi c set of participants.
Moderating
Moderators play a vital role in both face-to-face and online focus groups. In this section,
we will consider two basic things that moderators do in focus groups: they probe partici-
pants’ responses to the interview questions, and they guide the direction of the overall
discussion (Table 9.3).
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21609_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 216 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
Online Focus Groups 217
Managing Responses to Interview Questions
As we pointed out in the section on group structure, it is important for a moderator’s
actions to match the choice of either a more structured or less structured approach to con-
ducting the group. As we also noted in that section, the fi rst question plays a particularly
important role in moving the discussion toward the appropriate level of structure, and
this applies not only to the content of that question but also to the moderator’s handling
of the responses to that initial question. In essence, this is the point where a moderator
shifts from being the central object of attention into the role of managing the discussion
among the participants. For a less structured approach, moderators should begin with a
style that primarily facilitates a conversation among the participants themselves. Alterna-
tively, for a more structured approach, moderators should establish a style where they can
do more to direct the group’s discussion.
The present section emphasizes the role that moderators play in managing the discus-
sion of each question once it has been asked. These activities involve the ways moderators
work with responses that are directly related to answering the current question; as such,
they include many of the most basic ways that moderators interact with participants. As a
result, much of the material we cover here will also be relevant for the following section on
guiding the direction of the overall discussion. We have chosen to describe most of those
activities in this section so we can maintain a coherent description of moderating. In
addition, we will cross-reference this material at the relevant points in the other sections.
Table 9.3 Comparison of moderating issues for different types of focus groups
Face-to face groups Synchronous groups Asynchronous groups
Probing responses Direct requests Can use well-timed
text inserts
Careful monitoring for
timely requests
Nonverbal interaction Important resource Not relevant? Not relevant?
Following up
responses
Relatively easy to apply
at appropriate times
Possible, but more
diffi cult with well-
timed text inserts
Careful monitoring for
timely requests
Restoring off-topic
interaction
Relatively easy to both
refocus on original
or pursue emergent
topics
Inserts work better for
refocusing on earlier
topics than pursuing
new topics
Careful monitoring can
handle both refocusing
and pursuing new topics
Managing overly
active exchanges
Can ask for pause,
mention problem,
restart discussion
Diffi cult because
rapid exchanges are
common
Timely interventions are
crucial for diverting and
restoring
Minimizing
distractions
Rare, due to presence
of moderator and
participants in one
setting
Distractions from
both online and off-
line sources must be
prevented
Longer time period can
make it hard to reengage
distracted participants
Avoiding departures Rare, obvious, and
unsolvable
Common, hard to
detect or resolve
Common, but e-mail
can resolve
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21709_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 217 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
218 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
Probing Participants’ Responses
One of the most common things that moderators do during the discussion is to probe
the responses from individual participants. The most obvious goal of this probing is to
hear more about the specifi c content associated with this participant’s statement. We will
cover several forms of probing that pursue this goal, but we will begin the simplest type of
probes, which are sometimes called “free probes,” in the sense that moderators are free to
ask them at various points in the discussion, as a way to hear more about many different
kinds of comment. Examples include statements like: “Can you give me an example of
that?” “Help me understand what you mean by. . . .” “Tell me more about that,” and so on.
In addition to eliciting more material about a specifi c comment, the moderator can also
use these kinds of probes to signal all the participants about the kinds of content that are
especially appropriate for the discussion.
In face-to-face focus groups, an experienced moderator can easily inset these probes
into the fl ow of the participants’ conversation. Probes of this nature should, in principle,
be just as useful for online focus groups, but are harder to implement in both synchronous
and asynchronous focus groups. For synchronous groups, O’Connor and Madge (2001;
see also Madge et al., 2009 have developed a system for inserting pretyped comments in
the sequence of remarks in IM exchanges. This procedure begins before the fi rst group,
when members of the research group write up a series of probes, such as those illustrated
above, so that a moderator can cut and paste these prewritten statements into the discus-
sion. This reduces the problem of moderators trying to type up simple probes during
the rapid interaction that can occur in synchronous focus groups. In particular, insert-
ing prewritten probes increases the ability to request more information about a specifi c
remark, before it gets lost in the larger fl ow of exchanges. In addition, the effectiveness of
using inserted text is aided by the fact that the moderator’s remarks appear in a distinc-
tive color, so that the other participants will easily recognize that a moderator is making a
brief, targeted request. Despite the utility of this strategy, it still requires that moderators
have probes available that are clearly relevant for the current context; alternatively, they
need to fi nd some way to tailor a more generic prewritten probe. In addition, the pace of
exchanges must be slow enough to ensure that the probe can be clearly associated with
a particular remark. By comparison, the continuous, direct contact between moderators
and the participants in face-to-face groups can make it much easier to deliver the right
probe to the right person at the right time. Note, however, that these things do not occur
automatically; instead, they depend on moderators who are well trained in working with
face-to-face groups.
For asynchronous online groups, the slower pace makes it easier to place these probes
at the appropriate location in the ongoing discussion. Further, the discussion board tech-
nology makes it possible to attach these probes via the “reply” feature in this technol-
ogy. Where problems can occur is when the discussion gets dispersed over a number of
different threads and subtopics, which is likely to happen during the longer period that
is available in these focus groups. For moderators, this means that effective probing of
specifi c remarks requires careful monitoring of the full set of remarks throughout the
various segments of the discussion. This possibility for relatively dispersed interaction in
asynchronous focus groups can also reduce the effectiveness of moderator’s direct request
for replies to a participant’s posting, if that participant has moved on to a different section
of the overall conversation. Although these limitations on probing response probably are
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21809_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 218 9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM9/15/2010 3:43:50 PM
Online Focus Groups 219
not as great as the ones in asynchronous groups, they still demonstrate the advantages of
the spontaneity in face-to-face groups.
A different aspect of probing, where face-to-face focus groups have an unquestionable
advantage, is the use of nonverbal communication. More specifi cally, moderators in face-
to-face groups can often fi nd opportunities to use “nonverbals” as an alternative to explic-
itly stated probes. Examples (from Western culture) include the use of an outstretched
hand to encourage a participant to say more, or the lift of an eyebrow to create a quizzical
look that “asks” for clarifi cation. Beyond pure nonverbal interaction, moderators can also
accomplish some of the same purposes through paraverbal interaction, where commu-
nication consists of sounds that are not actually words, as well as deliberate silence. Not
surprisingly, online researchers have noted the lack of these resources:
Using other traditional interviewing devices such as probes is also problematic; periods of
silence and pauses have different connotations online and there is no possibility of using an
enquiring glance or verbal prompts such as “. . . mmhmm . . .” in order to encourage partici-
pants to expand on certain points. . . . Alternative mechanisms need to be employed by the
researcher. (O’Connor & Madge, 2001, p. 10.2)
Unfortunately, the authors fail to suggest what those “alternative mechanisms” might be.
Following Up on Participants’ Responses
Another frequent technique that moderators use to pursue a topic is to ask follow-up
questions. The main difference between a probe and a follow-up question is that the lat-
ter consists of a substantive query that moves the conversation in a particular direction.
Follow-up questions are often preplanned, based on topics that the research team has
anticipated asking. In many cases, preplanned follow-up questions are often explicitly
included with the original question, so that moderators are alerted to the desirability of
discussing this aspect of the topic at this point in the interview. In face-to-face groups,
moderators can use any mention of the desired topic as a basis for asking a follow-up
question about that topic, such as “You’ve just mentioned something that we’re interested
in hearing more about. What else can people say about. . . .” Alternatively, if the amount
of discussion time for a question is nearing the end and the specifi ed topic has not come
up yet, a moderator can say, “I notice that no one has mentioned [topic] yet. What do you
think about that?” The point behind questioning techniques such as this is that they tem-
porarily draw attention to moderators in a face-to-face focus group, and then explicitly
return responsibility for the conversation to the participants. Of course, as before, these
tactics require moderators to have the necessary skills.
In general, it is relatively easy for online focus groups to adapt both the overall concept
of preplanned follow-up questions and many of the tactics that moderators in face-to-
face focus groups use to ask such questions. For synchronous focus groups, the previous
process of inserting prewritten text could be used for follow-up questions, in much the
same way that moderators in face-to-face focus groups will already be cued to follow
up on specifi c topics. Similarly, moderators in asynchronous focus groups can either fol-
low up on a given topic when it occurs or post a question about that topic if it does not
come up by itself. It is also the case, however, that follow-up questions in both types of
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 21909_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 219 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
220 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
online groups can be subject to the same limitations that we already noted for probing.
For example, in synchronous focus groups, the fl ow of interaction may be so rapid that
it is diffi cult to insert the follow-up question effectively; alternatively, in asynchronous
groups, a moderator may not be monitoring the appropriate location during the time
when it would be most useful to ask the follow-up question.
Coping With Off-Topic Discussions
After moderators present a question, they also keep the participants within the overall
topic for that question. All too often, however, it requires careful judgment to determine
when the participants are so far off-topic that it is time to address that concern. In particu-
lar, it is almost impossible to tell whether the next comment will take the discussion in an
exciting, new direction versus even further off-topic. The standard advice for this situation
relies on the distinction between less structured or more structured focus groups. Moder-
ators typically allow less structured groups to stray further, due to the exploratory orienta-
tion of these groups, which puts more value on the possibility of discovering “an exciting,
new direction” for the research. In contrast, moderators in more structured groups typi-
cally intervene sooner, due to the goal of hearing about things in-depth and detail, which
puts more value on hearing as much as possible about a specifi c set of topics.
When moderators decide that the discussion is offtrack, the classic response involves
breaking into the discussion, noting the group has gotten too far away from the topic in
the question, and then asking the group to “refocus” on the original question. Moderators
in face-to-face groups can accomplish this by simply catching the group’s attention and
then repeating the core content of the original question. Online moderators can use varia-
tions on the resources we have already discussed to bring groups back on target, and these
strategies are likely to be effective; at the same time, they are also trickier to implement
than in face-to-face groups. Thus, synchronous groups would have ready-made inserts
for dealing with the general issue of refocusing a discussion that was too far offtrack, but
this inserted text could require time for editing to match the current context in the con-
versation. For asynchronous groups, moderators would post instructions that pointed the
group back to the core topics in the discussion, but this would once again require careful
monitoring of the full discussion, so that this request was posted in a timely manner at an
appropriate location.
Although all three kinds of focus groups have relatively straightforward tactics for
returning a group back to the desired topic, the situation is rather different when modera-
tors decide to pursue a topic that emerges from a discussion that seemed to be headed off
target. For any format, they may not require any action at all, if the participants naturally
follow that strand of the conversation. If, instead, they merely mention it and then wander
away, the moderator will want to refocus them on that emergent topic. For face-to-face
groups, this involves saying something like, “Excuse me, but could we go back to [topic];
I’d really like to hear more about that.” For a synchronous group, however, this could
require a fair amount of work to insert a similar probe, because it would probably have
to be inserted spontaneously. For an asynchronous group, the moderator can more easily
post a remark that matched the basic content of the face-to-face comment, but this would
require a very timely action, before the group posted a series of remarks leading in some
other direction.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22009_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 220 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
Online Focus Groups 221
This last comment summarizes a theme that has appeared throughout our presenta-
tion in this section on managing responses to interview questions: many of the problems
mentioned are more likely to present less serious challenges in asynchronous rather than
synchronous focus groups. A related theme is the greater ability for managing these issues
in face-to-face focus groups as opposed to online groups. There is, thus, a progression
in the ability of moderators to manage the discussion of interview questions, where the
available options make this easiest in face-to-face focus groups and most diffi cult in syn-
chronous groups, with asynchronous groups occupying the middle position. The issues in
the next section will show a similar progression.
Guiding the Direction of the Overall Session
Managing Overly Active Group Exchanges
So far, our consideration of moderating has centered on ways that moderators work
with responses from individual participants, but moderators also need to deal with
responses that involve two or more participants. The most basic version of this problem
occurs when the intensity of the conversation leads to several participants talking at the
same time. This is another case where it is easier for moderators in face-to-face focus
groups to gain control over the situation. In particular, when moderators in face-to-face
groups make even a moderately assertive request for people to pause and stop talking,
that is usually enough to produce silence. After that, a moderator simply needs to explain
the problem and ask the participants to be more orderly as they restart their discussion.
This example is a reminder that even when moderators in face-to-face groups are playing
a less active role in the discussion, their obvious presence serves as a reminder that they
can make requests to the participants. It is also worth noting that these requests are least
likely to disrupt the discussion when they reinforce elements of the instructions from the
beginning of the session.
The problem of separating out the voices of multiple participants is more diffi cult in
online focus groups. In particular, rapid exchanges in online groups can create a situation
where participants “write over one another,” so that it is not clear when an entry is either
a new remark or a reply to a previous remark. The problem of overlapping comments is
most serious when participants are generating very rapid responses in IM-based synchro-
nous groups, where it has the nickname “blurring.” Internet Messenger technology is sus-
ceptible to this blurring of responses because it allows participants to enter new remarks
as fast as they can type them. As a result, when several participants generate a burst of
comments it is diffi cult to determine who is replying to whom.
One useful resource in this situation is for moderators to emphasize the IM window’s
built-in typing progress indicator (as shown at the bottom of the illustration in Figure 9.1).
To use this technique, moderators must recognize the fi rst signs of blurring, so they can
insert preventive instructions. This prewritten text asks the participants to be aware of the
typing progress indicator, and not to type when that fi eld indicates that someone else is
already preparing a comment. A set of such inserted instructions might read:
MOD: Can we all please pause for a moment?
MOD: I notice we’re “writing over” other’s comments, so watch the progress bar.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22109_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 221 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
222 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
MOD: If someone else is already typing, please wait before you start typing.
MOD: Then you can see what that person has to say before you respond.
Note that this approach also implicitly asks the participants to take more time reading
and refl ecting on the stream of messages, rather than jumping into an already blurred set
of exchanges.
Asynchronous focus groups can also generate a similar kind of blurring when several
people are posting on more or less the same topic at more or less the same time. Even if
the participants are using subject lines for threading and connecting to quotes from pre-
vious messages, it may still be diffi cult to determine which postings introduce new ideas
and which ones continue previous themes. For example, this can happen in a complex
discussion if different people respond to different subject lines when they are actually
commenting on very similar things. In that case, participants in a discussion board will
experience “blurring” as they try to sift through the topics in a series of recent posting.
For moderators in asynchronous focus groups, the best defense is continual monitoring
of as much of the total discussion as possible, and posting an effective intervention before
the problem leads to an annoying level of confusion. Although these problems with over-
lapping remarks may not be as serious in asynchronous focus groups as in synchronous
groups, they still require careful attention.
Managing Distractions and Departures
Although there are many other aspects of moderating, the last one that we will cover here
concerns the effort that it takes to manage distractions and departures during the course
of the groups. More specifi cally, the most severe version of these problems happens when
participants not only cease participating but actually leave the group all together. These
departures should not be confused with a human subject’s guarantee that all participation
is voluntary and people are free to leave. Further, it is not simply a matter of participants
who remain in the groups but simply cease their active participation. Instead, distractions
involve things outside the group proper that interfere with participation while departure
basically amount to “sneaking out” of the group.
Moderators in face-to-face focus groups seldom need to deal with either distractions
or departures, because of the self-contained nature of the setting. The most frequent
example of these problems consists of participants who leave for a bathroom break or
some other personal need without coming back. It typically takes the moderator about
5 min to recognize that the participant is not returning, and by that point there is nothing
that can be done. Yet, even if this is the most frequent form of distraction or departures in
face-to-face groups, it happens so rarely that it barely deserves mentioning. In addition,
the most common way of calling attention to and coping with this situation is with some
form of mild humor, such as, “Well, [person] certainly seems to be taking a long time in
the bathroom—either that or they are gone forever.”
Compared to the bounded setting of face-to-face groups, distractions or departures
are potentially much more troubling in the virtual environment for online groups. Once
again, these problems have the most consequences in synchronous focus groups. Because
of the short length and small size of these groups, anything that detracts from engage-
ment in the discussion can have a noticeable effect. Starting with distractions, the major
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22209_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 222 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
Online Focus Groups 223
concern involves individual participants who are pursuing other activities when they are
supposed to be interacting with the groups. This means that they are essentially “popping
in and out” of the discussion in ways that make them poor partners for an active conver-
sation. Further, they are likely to be less engaged and up-to-speed when they return after
missing a segment of the discussion. Even though it is theoretically possible to catch up by
scrolling back through the previous remarks, they must do that at the expense of keeping
track of the current exchanges.
The kinds of distractions that can occur in synchronous focus groups can originate
from both online and off-line sources. Some of the online activities that can reduce atten-
tion to the group include reading e-mails, playing computer games, or even taking part
in other IM sessions with friends. Off-line distraction often depends on the participants’
actual locations. For example, if they are at home, they might be talking on the phone
or watching television. The best way to minimize any of these sources of distraction in
synchronous groups is through prevention, starting at the earliest point of contact. In par-
ticular, this issue can be mentioned along with the fl exibility of choosing a time for group:
“It is very important that you spend the whole hour interacting with the rest of the group,
so please choose a time when you will not have any other distractions that might interfere
with your participation in the session.” In addition, the instruction could be reinforced at
the beginning of the session with a reminder of the importance of staying fully engaged
throughout the discussion.
Distractions in asynchronous focus groups take many of the same forms as those in
synchronous groups, except they occur over longer periods of time, where a participant
may not be posting for two or more days simultaneously. Once again, the general idea is
that something else becomes more interesting or more important than participating in
the group. The possibility of longer time periods in asynchronous groups is also a factor,
because the amount of effort that it would take to catch up with discussion may deter
the participant from reengaging. Fortunately, the format of asynchronous groups does
give the moderator an additional option that goes beyond prevention, through the pos-
sibility of sending the (non)participant a private e-mail that encourages rejoining the
discussion.
Turning to the more severe problem of participants who completely depart from the
group in either both synchronous or asynchronous focus groups, this is in many ways
a continuation of the same problems that began with distractions. From a moderator’s
point of view, the online venue can make it very diffi cult to distinguish between partici-
pants who are too distracted to participate fully versus those who have disconnected—let
alone telling the difference between either of those cases and participants who are still
there but are simply being quiet during this part of the discussion. At present, there seem
to be few consensual strategies for solving the problems of detecting and repairing depar-
tures in online focus groups, which may well refl ect an inability to adapt procedures from
face-to-face focus groups, where this concern is largely absent.
As this concludes our consideration of moderating, we would like to return to the
theme that we raised at the end of the fi rst half of this section: the idea that moderators
experience a progression in their ability to manage focus group discussions, where syn-
chronous groups pose the greatest diffi culties, asynchronous groups offer better options,
and face-to-face focus groups provide the most useful strategies. We would like to expand
on that argument but noting both the likely sources of this ordering, as well a set of
mitigating factors for each of the three types of focus groups.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22309_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 223 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
224 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
For synchronous focus groups, the diffi culties in managing the responses to questions
are primarily due to the possibility of rapid exchanges between the participants, but one way
to increase the moderator’s ability to respond quickly is through inserting prewritten com-
ments. For asynchronous focus groups, their advantages arise from both the more periodic
posting of comments over a longer period and the ability to reply to specifi c comments, but
these advantages have their limitations when the overall discussion becomes complex and
widely dispersed. For face-to-face focus groups, the major source of their advantages comes
from the more direct contact that moderators have with participants, but this can require a
skilled moderator, one who knows when and how to make appropriate comments.
Once again, these conclusions follow our overall goal comparing the relative advan-
tages and disadvantages of each format for conducting focus groups. Most importantly,
we want to remove any impression that moderating is either inherently harder in synchro-
nous groups or inherently easier in face-to-face groups. For some research projects, the
fast-moving pace of synchronous groups may not pose any problems whatsoever, while
the need for highly skilled moderators might eliminate face-to-face groups as a viable
option. Hence, the bottom line, as always, is that these three approaches to focus groups
each have a unique set of advantages and disadvantages, so deciding among them depends
on the goals of your research.
An Empirical Study of 30 Experimental Online Focus Groups
As a part of a broader online mixed-methods experiment, an empirical study of 30 online
focus groups was conducted to address several of the issues discussed above (Lobe, 2008).
The research was conducted on a portal called Slo-Tech (http://www.slo-tech.com), which
is Slovenia’s main Web site for Internet users who are active in the fi eld of information
technology. The community associated with this portal included 20,000 registered mem-
bers. The overall research goals were defi ned as studying the topic of Web site usability,
in terms of quality attributes related to how easy and effi cient it was to use the existing
interface for the Web site. There were three specifi c research questions: What does the
term “Web site usability” mean to these community members? What is their attitude to
the current usability of the Slo-Tech site? What would they want to be changed on the
portal in order to improve its usability?
Research Design
All of the focus groups were conducted in a synchronous format for two reasons. First,
from a substantive point of view, this was primarily an applied research topic, which did
not call for the level of refl ection that would occur over a longer, asynchronous data col-
lection. Second, from a methodological point of view, we specifi cally investigated the
most appropriate number of participants in online synchronous focus groups that used
instant-messenger (IM) technology.
In terms of the actual data collection, the focus groups were conducted in a way that
allowed the participants to use a variety of IM clients, including MSN, AIM, Pidgin, and
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22409_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 224 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
Online Focus Groups 225
Windows Live. These programs are easily compatible with each other, which means that
the participants in the same discussion could use a variety of IM programs without any
problems. It is also important to recognize that all of the participants were quite familiar
with IM, due to their technological backgrounds. In addition, the participants needed
little explanation of the three research questions because they were all quite familiar with
the Web site in question.
Recruitment Process
Slo-Tech users were invited to participate in online focus groups in various steps, through
a process that was highly infl uenced by the fact that we were working with a community
who were attached to a Web site that already included a number of built-in features. First,
the call for focus-group participation was published in the news section of the Slo-Tech
portal, where it was available for comments and responses from the entire user com-
munity. Next, all of the users who commented on the initial news announcement about
the research project received an invitation to participate, which was sent via a personal
messaging feature within the portal’s overall system. A list of the respondents who were
willing to participate in the focus groups was created, including both their instant mes-
saging contact information and the suggested time slots when they would be available for
participation. Later, each of the participants was contacted via instant messaging to fi nal-
ize the arrangements for the focus groups.
Online Moderating Issues
As we mentioned earlier, moderation is a vital process for a successful focus group. The
moderator signed in at least 20 min prior the beginning, and when a participant joined
the conversation window, the moderator greeted them and thanked them for participat-
ing. The moderator used informal language in a “chatty” way and encouraged them to use
an informal language, not paying attention to the grammar. The moderator’s comments
also included emoticons, which were quite familiar to this group’s participants. A special
attention was given to the participants’ typing skills.
Beside the usual issues (trying to keep the discussion focused and getting the partici-
pants to open up), the moderator was dealing with the additional challenge of prevent-
ing too much uncontrolled interaction. As we noted above, these issues of maintaining
continuity can be a distinct problem in synchronous focus groups. To encourage greater
continuity, the moderator asked participants to pay attention to the “typing in progress”
indicator (see Figure 9.1) used in all groups as a way to encourage greater control over
posting and replying, and to avoid typing when someone else was already writing a com-
ment. In addition, the moderator asked the participants to read all the comments that
were being posted before adding their own replies. Surprisingly, there were only in a few
cases when two typing icons emerged, and these all occurred in the focus groups with
the largest number of participants. The question of maintaining continuity in these IM
sessions was thus closely connected to the number of participants, which is discussed
below.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22509_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 225 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
226 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
The Number of Participants
Of the 30 focus groups in the experiment, 10 were conducted with three participants, 10
with four, and 10 with fi ve. The groups with fi ve participants were indeed highly interac-
tive, but to the extent of producing a confusing stream of comments. These comments
were extremely short (normally only a few words), and it was hard to tell when these
participants were either adding their own remarks or replying to earlier statements. There
was also a considerable amount of overlap among the comments during any short period
of time, leading to a “blurring” of the discussion. According to Puchta and Potter (2006),
in face-to-face focus groups, overlapping is often due to incorrect predictions about where
the previous participant’s contribution was going to end, and that defi nitely seemed to
be the case in these larger groups (p. 11). Finally, the pattern of rapid fi re exchanges in
the fi ve-person groups also limited the moderator’s ability to play an active role in the
discussion.
The online focus groups with four participants were still highly interactive, but they
maintained more continuity with less blurring, in comparison to the groups with fi ve
participants. The more orderly nature of these groups produced comments and replies
that were well articulated. These groups were also easier to moderate than the larger ones.
There was, however, one notable problem with regard to both the nature of the interac-
tion and the challenges of moderating, based on a tendency for these groups to divide into
pairs, with two people starting to chat with each other and ignoring the rest of the conver-
sation. In the literature on traditional focus groups, these pairwise interactions are char-
acterized as “side conversations,” and moderators are instructed to act quickly to bring the
two participants back into the general conversation (Morgan, 1996). In the present case,
this was harder to accomplish, due to both the limits of online moderating and the fact
that each pair of participants made up half of the four-person group.
The evidence shows that the focus groups with three participants were the most ben-
efi cial. All issues were easily covered. Increased self-involvement and self-disclosure was
observed. The answers were more elaborated and better formulated. Participants were
more attentive to the typing-indicator sign and did not “jump into the words” of the other
participants. Thus, overall conclusion for the optimal number of participants in this par-
ticular set of online focus groups would be three, with four participants a workable possi-
bility with a moderator who is skilled enough to keep side conversations to a minimum.
Of course, these results need to be considered within the specifi c context of this study.
In this case, the contextual factors include both the high level of familiarity that the par-
ticipants had with the topic and their equally high engagement in discussing the topic
with other like themselves. Even so, it is hard to escape the conclusion that synchronous
focus groups are likely to provide higher quality data with considerably fewer participants
than are recommended for traditional face-to-face focus groups.
Conclusions
As we stated at the beginning of this chapter, there is no one right way to do focus groups,
which means that face-to-face focus groups are not inherently superior to online focus
groups; similarly, synchronous or asynchronous focus groups are simply different uses of
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22609_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 226 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
Online Focus Groups 227
online technology where the choice of one or the other depends upon the nature of the
research project. Our approach throughout has thus been to compare these three formats
for conducting group interviews. In particular, we have emphasized the advantages and
disadvantages of each format across a wide variety of issues associated with focus groups.
The purpose of these comparisons, has been to help researchers evaluate these three dif-
ferent ways to do focus groups. This ability to evaluate the available options for focus
groups is essential in making decisions about which method to use and how to use that
method. Just as important is the need to express specifi c goals, because choices about
methods can only be judged by how well the strengths of a given method meet the needs
of a research project.
Our comparisons of these three options have followed what Van Selm and Jankowski
(2006) called an “intermediate stance” toward online technology. This intermediate stance
rejects the extreme positions of either inventing totally new criteria for each method or
simply using the existing standards from the equivalent off-line method; instead, this
stance advocates adapting an online method to meet the core elements of the more tra-
ditional version of that method. This intermediate approach led us to use the large body
of knowledge about traditional face-to-face focus groups as the frame of reference for
describing the relative advantages and disadvantages of both synchronous and asynchro-
nous focus groups. Now, however, we wish to reassess the usefulness of this intermediate
stance as an approach for the future directions of online focus groups.
At this point in time, we believe there is no question that both synchronous and asyn-
chronous focus groups have demonstrated their ability to apply online technologies in
ways that match the most essential features of traditional focus groups, that is, producing
informative qualitative data through interactions between participants who are guided
by a moderator. Having achieved success with this intermediate stance, it is now time to
take a more creative stance and pursue more ambitious goals. Our view of this creative
stance for online focus groups is not to abandon the basic principles of face-to-face focus
groups, but rather to move beyond using traditional focus groups as the main standard
for assessing online groups.
In order to take a more creative stance, research about online focus groups should con-
centrate on developing new options and revising the existing ones, while maximizing the
value of the interaction that is so central to focus groups. This stance points to goals that are
quite different from answering the question, “I wonder how I could adapt this technology
to produce something that looked as if it evolved from a face-to-face focus group?” Instead,
researchers who work with online focus groups should begin experiencing what the master
violin teacher Shunryu Suzuki called “beginner’s mind”—a concept he borrowed from Zen
Buddhism to capture the curiosity, enthusiasm, and willingness to experiment what new
students often bring to their fi eld. From that perspective, the future of online focus groups
should be driven by the question “I wonder what would happen if. . . .”
References
Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 3(2).
Burns, E. (2005). The online battle of the sexes. ClickZ. Retrieved on June 11, 2006, http://www.
clickz.com/stats/sectors/demographics/article.php/3574176.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22709_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 227 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
228 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Chen, P., & Hinton, S. M. (1999). Realtime interviewing using the World Wide Web. Sociological
Research Online, 4(3), 21. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/3/chen.html.
Christians, C. G., & Chen, S. S.-L. (2004). Introduction: Technological environments and the
evolution of social research methods. In Johns, M. D., Chen, S. S.-L., & Hall, G. J. (Eds.),
Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 15–23). New York: Peter Lang.
Coomber, R. (1997). Using the Internet for survey research. Sociological Research Online, 2(2).
Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/.
Denzin, N. K. (2004). Prologue: Online environments and interpretive social research. In Johns,
M. D., Chen, S.-L., & Hall, G. J. (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics
(pp. 1–12). New York: Peter Lang.
Ess, C. (2004). Epilogue: Are we there yet? Emerging ethical guidelines for online research. In
Johns,M. D. Chen, S. S.-L., & Hall, G. J. (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics
(pp. 253–263). New York: Peter Lang.
Ess, C., & A. E. W. committee (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Retrieved
from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the
Internet. Retrieved on July 12, 2006, http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf.
Fricker, R. D. J., & Matthias, S. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys:
Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14(4), 347–367.
Gaiser, T. J. (2005). Conducting on-line focus groups. Social Science Compuer Review, 15(2), 135–144.
Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet research methods: A practical guide
for the social and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Hine, C. (2005a). Virtual methods and the sociology of cyber-social-scientifi c knowledge. In Hine,
C. (Ed.), Virtual Methods (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Berg.
Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005b). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg.
Illingworth, N. (2001). The Internet matters: Exploring the use of the Internet as a research tool.
Sociological Research Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/.
Jacobson, D. (1999). Doing research in cyberspace. Field Methods, 11(2), 127–145.
Joinson, A. N. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behaviour on the Net. In
Gackenbach,J. (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal
implications (pp. 43–60). New York: Academic Press.
Joinson, A. N. (1999). Anonymity, disinhibition and social desirability on the Internet. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31(3), 433–438.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-
awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.
Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: Virtual worlds, real
lives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Joinson, A. N. (2005). Internet behaviour and the design of virtual methods. In Hine,C. (Ed.),
Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 21–34). Oxford: Berg.
Jones, S. (2004). Introduction: Ethics and Internet studies. In Johns, M. D., Chen,S. S.-L., & Hall,
G. J. (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 180–185). New York: Peter
Lang.
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiesler, S., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated
communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 50(3), 402–413.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22809_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 228 9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM9/15/2010 3:43:51 PM
Online Focus Groups 229
Kitchin, R. M. (1998). Towards geographies of cyberspace. Progress in Human Geography, 22(3),
385–406.
Kivits, J. (2005). Online interviewing and the research relationship. In Hine,C. (Ed.), Virtual
methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 35–49). Oxford: Berg.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA.: Sage.
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups. In Morgan,D., & Krueger, R. (Eds.),
The focus group kit (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lobe, B. (2008). Integration of online research methods. Information technology/social
informatics collection. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences.
Lozar Manfreda, K. (2001). Web survey errors. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social
Sciences.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for
researching online. London: Sage.
Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek,
CA.: Altamira Press.
Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job
application responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72–80.
Mitchell, W. J. (1995). City of bits: Space, place, and the infobahn. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (2008). Purposive sampling. In Give, L. M. (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Nguyen, D. T., & Alexander, J. (1996). The coming of cyberspacetime and the end of polity. In
Shields, R. (Ed.), Cultures of Internet: Virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies (pp. 99–124).
London: Sage.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, H., & Madge, C. (2001). Cyber-mothers: Online synchronous interviewing using
conferencing software. Sociological Research Online, 5(4). Retrieved from http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/.
O’Connor, H., & Madge, C. (2003). Focus groups in cyberspace: Using the Internet for qualitative
research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 133–143.
O’Connor, H., Madge, C., Shaw, R., & Wellens, J. (2008). Internet-based interviewing. In Fielding,
N., Lee, R., & Blank, G. (Eds.), The sage handbook of online research methods (pp. 271–289).
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Oringderff, J. (2004). “My way”: Piloting an online focus group. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 3(3), PAGES.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1999). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 4(1), PAGES.
Pastore, M. (2001). Online consumers now the average consumer. Retrieved on June 11, 2006,
http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/demographics/article.php/5901_800201.
Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2006). Focus group practice. London: Sage.
Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. M. (2005). On-line focus groups: An in-depth comparison of computer-
mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research,
47(2), 131–162.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,
MA.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In Rice, R. E. (Ed.), The new media:
Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129–156). Beverly Hills: Sage.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 22909_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 229 9/15/2010 3:43:52 PM9/15/2010 3:43:52 PM
230 The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research
Schensul, J., LeCompte, M., Trotter, R. T., Cromley, E. K., & Singer, M. (1999). Mapping social
networks spatial data & hidden populations. In Schensul, J. & LeCompte, M. (Eds.)
Ethnographer’s toolkit (Vol. 4). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Shields, R. (2003). The virtual. London: Routledge.
Short, S. E. (2006). Focus group interviews. In Perecman, E. & Curran, S. R. (Eds.), A handbook
for social science fi eld research: Essays & bibliographic sources on research design and methods
(pp. 103–115). London: Sage.
Slater, D. (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offl ine. In Lievrouw, L. A., &
Livingstone, S. M. (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs
(pp. 533–546). London: Sage.
Sproull, L. S. (1986). Using electronic email for data collection in organisational research. Academy
of Management Review, 74, 159–169.
Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context clues: Electronic mail in organizational
communications. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.
Tates K., Zwaanswijk M., Otten R., van Dulmen S., Hoogerbrugge P. M., Kamps W. et al. (2009).
Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: Examples
from paediatric oncology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(15). Retrieved from
www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/15.
Terrance, A. L., Johnson, G. M., & Walther, J. B. (1993). Understanding communication process
in focus groups. In Morgan, D. L. (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of art
(pp. 51–64): Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Thomas, J. (2004). Reexamining the ethics of Internet research: Facing the challenge of overzealous
oversight. In Johns, M. D., Chen, S. S.-L., & Hall, G. J. (Eds.), Online social research: Methods,
issues, & ethics (pp. 187–201). New York: Peter Lang.
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity, 40,
435–456.
Wallace, P. M. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental
observations over time. Organisational Science, 6(2), 402–413.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues fi ltered out, cues fi ltered in: Computer-mediated
communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of
interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
White, G. E., & Thomson, A. N. (1995). Anonymized focus groups as a research tool for health
professionals. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 256–61.
09_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 23009_HesseBiber_Chap09.indd 230 9/15/2010 3:43:52 PM9/15/2010 3:43:52 PM
