Calder Focus Groups

Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research
Author(s): Bobby J. Calder

Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, Special Issue: Recent Developments
in Survey Research (Aug., 1977), pp. 353-364
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150774
Accessed: 16-11-2016 11:53 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150774?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research
This content downloaded from 86.4.162.5 on Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:53:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
B. Focus Groups
BOBBY J. CALDER*
Use of the focus group technique is widespread in qualitative marketing

research. The technique is considered here from a philosophy of science
perspective which points to a confusion of three distinct approaches to focus
groups in current commercial practice. An understanding of the differences
among these approaches, and of the complex nature of qualitative research,
is shown to have important implications for the use of focus groups.
Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative

Marketing Research
_ __ ____ __ __
INTRODUCTION probably have a vague sense of uneasiness with the

There have come to be two kinds of commercial technique. As aptly put by Wells [18, p. 2-145], "How
marketing research. One is commonly called qualita- can anything so bad be good?"
tive, the other quantitative. For most marketers, In addition to the general uneasiness, numerous
qualitative research is defined by the absence of procedural questions surround the use of focus groups.
numerical measurement and statistical analysis. Quali- The following are typical questions.
tative research provides an in-depth, if necessarily Should focus group research ideally be generalized
subjective, understanding of the consumer. In prac- through additional quantitative research?
tice, qualitative research has become almost synony- When should focus group research be used?
mous with the focus group interview. This technique How many focus groups constitute a project?
involves convening a group of respondents, usually What is the role of interaction among the group
members?
eight to 10, for a more or less open-ended discussion
about a product. The discussion "moderator" makes Should focus groups be composed of homogeneous
or heterogeneous people?
sure that topics of marketing significance are brought
What expertise and credentials should a moderator
up. The research report summarizes what was said, have?
and perhaps draws inferences from what was said How important is the moderator's interviewing tech-
and left unsaid, in the discussion. nique?
One can detect in several quarters conflicting feel- Should management observe focus group sessions?
ings about focus groups. The results do seem useful What should a focus group report look like?
to management. But there is concern about the sub-
jectivity of the technique, and a feeling that any given These questions currently are debated by marketing
result might have been different with different re- researchers on the basis of their professional experi-
ences.
spondents, a different moderator, or even a different
setting. Most commercial reports contain a cryptic Neither the conflict between the apparent utili
statement acknowledging this conflict. The statement of focus groups and the reservations expressed a
cautions that focus group research should be regarded them, nor the typical procedural questions have
as preliminary. Results should not be generalized the subject of systematic argument. The marketi
without further quantitative research. Most users literature has been of little help to qualitative market
researchers. There have been occasional description
of applications [e.g., 7] and expositions of techniq
* Bobby J. Calder is Associate Professor of Behavioral Science
[e.g., 2, 10, 17], but this work has not established
in Management and of Psychology, Northwestern University.
a general framework for thinking about focus group
353
Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XIV (August 1977), 353-64
354 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1977
research. The purpose of this article is to provide As depicted in Figure 1, scientific conceptualization
such a framework through a critical inquiry into the must work in reverse, too. One must be able to use
fundamental nature of qualitative marketing research. constructs to interpret the real world, to determine
Qualitative marketing research is considered first whether real objects and behaviors possess the
from a philosophy of science perspective. This per- properties and relationships embodied in scientific
spective is not used simply to hold up the focus group theory [cf. 19]. This is the business of theory testing.
technique to a list of ideal criteria for scientific It is the most visible part of science, for it entails
methods. The author fully realizes that many practi- all of the methods and procedures associated with
tioners are not interested in being "scientists." They "being scientific." Basically, these methods are simply
are, however, interested in developing knowledge from systematic procedures for determining whether a
research. The philosophy of science provides a valua- theory is consistent with the workings of the real world.
ble perspective on knowledge-not just scientific If consistency is detected, the theory is retained,
knowledge, but the entire realm of knowledge. The though it is not considered proved; otherwise the
point of the philosophy of science perspective devel- theory is modified. The uniqueness of science is in
oped here is to analyze the type of knowledge sought the logical rigor and documentation employed in testing
by qualitative research, be it scientific knowledge or scientific constructs and relationships against the real
otherwise, to determine what this implies about the world.
use of the focus group technique. The implications Let us return to the nature of scientific constructs.
of seeking either nonscientific or scientific knowledge An important question is, how do we develop scientific
through focus group research are not well understood. constructs? Where do they come from? In all of
Though many practitioners might avoid the "scien- science, the origin of constructs is somewhat problem-
tist" label, the distinction is not as simple as it may atic [cf. 11]. Part of the answer seems to be that
seem. There are actually three different approaches good theory spawns its own constructs (the best
to focus group research in current practice. Drawing example being particle physics). There is also the
upon the philosophy of science perspective developed, process of modifying constructs on the basis of empir-
this article shows that each of these approaches reflects ical evidence. Still, there must be an external origin
a different kind of knowledge being sought. Though at some point in theory development, and this origin
none of the three approaches seeks scientific knowl- is the world of everyday thought and experience. As
edge in its strictest form, two are meant to yield shown in Figure 1, the world of everyday thought
knowledge which is in some sense scientific. is separate from scientific discourse. It is composed
of the terms and ordinary language that people use
A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE to give meaning to the world in their everyday lives.
What comes to mind when most people think As such,
of its function is analogous to that of science.
research is the image of "scientific" research. This one to interpret the real world by use of
It allows
image is somewhat fuzzy, and it is not easy to simplified ideas. The only difference is that scientific
articulate. Thus it may help to begin with a consensus constructs are supposed to be more powerful and to
view of what science is. Science is a particular way be subject to more rigorous and critical verification
of trying to understand the real world. For social than are everyday ideas. Although everyday thought
scientists the real world is the full physical complexity may initially supply ideas for scientific constructs,
of objects and behaviors. But the real world is much
too complex to be understood in and of itself. At
the heart of science is the process of conceptualization, World of abstraction > Scientific concepts
objects and and terms
which seeks to represent the real world in a simple behavior , interpretation (second-degree
constructs)
enough way to allow understanding. Scientific con-
^ ~ ~~; /
structs are abstracted forms and represent only limited
aspects of real-world objects and behaviors. If scien-
tific constructs mirrored the full complexity of the
real world, one could no more understand science
than one can directly understand the real world.
Constructs are simplifications and idealizations of
World of everyday
reality. They are, in short, abstractions of the real knowledge and
world. Some may seem more "real" than others-say, experience
(first-degree
"taste buds" as opposed to "attitudes"-but they constructs)
are all abstractions; they "exist" only within the realm

of scientific discourse. Scientific theory consists of
constructs and the interrelationships among them [5]. Figure 1
The value of this theory depends on the fact that OVERVIEW OF A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
abstract conceptualization is not a one-way process. PERSPECTIVE
FOCUS GROUPS AND THE NATURE OF QUALITATIVE MARKETING RESEARCH 355
the two types of knowledge are independent. Scientific first-degree constructs. Demographic analyses, such
knowledge is subject to its own rules of evidence. as breakdowns of consumption figures by age, are
But this independence is not absolute. Modern philos- a prime example. This research, in itself, bears more
ophers of science agree that all knowledge is highly upon everyday than scientific explanation. Age, used
presumptive [8, 13, 16]. No single hypothesis can purely descriptively, is not a scientific construct.
be examined without at the same time assuming the Quantitative research which does seek scientific ex-
truth of the bulk of all other knowledge, both scientific planation can be referred to simply as the scientific
and everyday. approach. Here, quantitative means much more than
Neither scientific explanations of consumer behav- merely working with numerical amounts or rating
ior nor explanations based on everyday knowledge scales. It implies the use of second-degree constructs
can be proved. All knowledge reduces to the choice and causal hypotheses which are subjected to scientific
between alternative explanations. It is thus entirely methods. The methods in common use are the experi-
reasonable to compare scientific and everyday expla- ment, some types of cross-sectional and panel surveys,
nations. The truly scientific explanation may be and time series analysis. Scientific quantitative mar-
expected to have advantages, but it is not automatically keting research, in sum, aspires to the scientific
superior. In the case of social science, these advan- knowledge depicted in the philosophy of science
tages are seen by many as more assumed than real. perspective.
Such considerations have led Campbell [6] to argue Qualitative marketing research similarly cannot be
for the cross-validation of social science by qualitative restricted to a literal definition of "doing research
common-sense explanation. This step rarely is taken, without numbers." Unlike the case of quantitative
and is probably generally considered to be "unscienti- research, the relationship of qualitative research to
fic." Nonetheless, some form of comparison between the scientific and everyday knowledge dichotomy is
scientific and everyday explanation should be part very ambiguous. An underlying confusion about this
of a sophisticated view of science, and this relationship relationship has led to three approaches being lumped
accordingly appears in Figure 1. under the label of "qualitative marketing research."
An example may clarify the nature of this compari- The three approaches should be kept distinct. Each
son. Suppose that a researcher postulates an attitude
process (scientific) explanation for a brand choice Table 1
which to most consumers is so low in involvement SUMMARY OF RESEARCH APPROACHES DISCUSSED
as to be, say, strictly a function of shelf-facings. The
foregoing discussion suggests that the researcher Type of
should reconsider his attitude process explanation. The knowledge
everyday explanation certainly does not prove that Approach desired Rationale
the scientific explanation is wrong, but it does indicate Quantitative
the need for increased skepticism. Descriptive Everyday To find numerical
The overall conclusion emerging from this discus- patterns related to
everyday concepts
sion is that the philosophy of science clearly implies
(e.g., consumption
a separation, though not an impenetrable boundary, breakdowns by
between everyday and scientific discourse. Explana- age)
tory concepts of the everyday kind are sometimes Scientific Scientific To use numerical
measurement to
called "first-degree constructs" (cf. Fig. 1). They are
test scientific
based on the social construction of reality by a set constructs and
of actors; they are imparted to a person as a conse- causal hypotheses
quence of socialization within a culture. In contrast, Qualitative
second-degree constructs belong to the realm of Exploratory Prescientific To generate
scientific
science. They are supposed to be highly abstract and constructs and to
to be subject to scientific methods, but they are no validate them
less a construction of reality. It is not "unscientific" against everyday
to compare the everyday and the scientific. experience
Clinical Quasiscientific To use
The categorization of knowledge as scientific or
second-degree
everyday has strong implications for the division scientific
between quantitative and qualitative marketing re- constructs without
search. Quantitative research commonly is associated, numerical
at least implicitly, with the realm of science. This measurement (i.e.,
clinical judgments)
connotation is not always accurate, however. Actually, Phenomenological Everyday To understand the
there are two approaches to quantitative research. everyday
What can be referred to as the descriptive approach experience of the
supplies numerical information relevant to everyday, consumer
represents a different version of the relationship be- idea is that "grounded theory is a way of arriving
tween qualitative research and the partition of scien- at theory suited to its supposed uses" [9, p. 3]. In
tific and everyday knowledge. other words, such theory is developed within the
The first two approaches seek knowledge that is context of its application. The aim of the exploratory
on the boundary between scientific and everyday, approach might well be described as grounded theory.
whereas the third clearly seeks everyday knowledge. Much qualitative research follows the exploratory
The following sections describe the approaches in turn. approach even though it never leads, to quantitative
A lack of understanding of the differences among research. The putative second-degree constructs and
them is responsible not only for much of the uneasiness hypotheses developed from focus groups frequently
surrounding qualitative marketing research, but also are not subjected later to scientific methods. Most
for misuses of this research. often this omission is due to the high costs of a second
quantitative stage. In such cases, concern commonly
THE EXPLORATORY APPROACH
is expressed about the risk of generalizing from the
Qualitative marketing research frequently issmall under-
samples of qualitative research. But there is
taken with the belief that it is provisional in much nature.
more at risk than sample generalizability. What
Focus groups often are conducted before the fielding happens with this truncated exploratory approach is
of a large sample survey. This exploratory approach that what is still essentially everyday knowledge (that
can take one of two somewhat different forms. Re- of the researchers and focus group participants) is
searchers may be interested in simply "pilot testing" cast in ostensibly scientific terms and treated as if
certain operational aspects of anticipated quantitative it were a scientific finding, instead of being at best
research. Their objective might be to check the word- a prescientific starting point. The problem is that this
ing of questions or the instructions accompanying knowledge has not been subjected to scientific meth-
product placements. Alternatively, researchers may ods for any sample; to assume that it is scientific
have the much more ambitious goal of using qualitative is risky indeed.
research to generate or select theoretical ideas and Exploratory qualitative research which is not fol-
hypotheses which they plan to verify with future lowed by a quantitative stage is not necessarily useless.
quantitative research. For this purpose, focus groups Taken as everyday knowledge (as will be shown in
are usually less structured; respondents are allowed discussion of the third approach), it may well be very
to talk more freely with each other. useful. The mistake is to represent prescientific every-
When focus groups are conducted in anticipation day explanation as fully scientific but merely lacking
of scientific quantitative research, their purpose is sample generalizability.
really to stimulate the thinking of the researchers. One final point with regard to the exploratory
They represent an explicit attempt to use everyday approach is almost never recognized in marketing
thought to generate or operationalize second-degree research practice. The approach concentrates solely
constructs and scientific hypotheses (cf. Fig. 1). on the construct-generation relationship from the ev-
Though the subject of exploratory qualitative research eryday to the scientific (cf. Fig. 1). Of equal importance
is everyday knowledge, the knowledge desired is best in terms of the philosophy of science is the comparison
described as prescientific. The rationale of exploratory relationship from the scientific to the everyday. It
focus groups is that considering a problem in terms is useful to think of this relationship as cross-validating
of everyday explanation will somehow facilitate a scientific explanations against everyday ones. If the
subsequent scientific approach. Focus groups are a two explanations are not consistent, a choice must
way of accomplishing the construct-generation process be made. Given the current development of social
shown in Figure 1. science, this choice sometimes will favor the everyday
As was noted, however, the process of generating explanation. That is, consumers' explanations will
second-degree constructs from first-degree ones, of sometimes be favored over theoretical hypotheses.
moving from the everyday to the scientific, is very Thus, it is potentially misleading to assume that
poorly understood. The philosophy of science supplies qualitative research must always be provisional. It
no precise guidelines. Nor has any thought been given is also desirable to conduct independent exploratory
to this process in the marketing research literature. qualitative research. In this way, scientific explana-
This is not to say that the exploratory approach is tions can be compared with everyday ones. Contrary
not worthwhile, only that it is being attempted without to current practice, it is just as appropriate to conduct
benefit of any well-developed ideas of how to do it. focus groups after a quantitative project as before
The most relevant sources to which qualitative mar- it. Scientific explanations should be treated as provi-
keting researchers might turn are sociologists con- sional also.
cerned with the notion of "grounded theory." This The exploratory approach to qualitative research
term refers to theory systematically generated from seeks prescientific knowledge. This knowledge is not
qualitative as well as quantitative research as opposed meant to have scientific status. It is meant to be a
to theory generated by its own internal logic. The precursor to scientific knowledge. Its status is ulti-
mately rooted in the creativity of the individual. The indicative of the present clinical approach is Goldman' s
exploratory approach could be adopted to compare [ 10] description of the "depth" focus group interview.
scientific with everyday explanations. In this case, The term "depth" expressly "implies seeking in-
the objective would be not prescientific, but everyday formation that is more profound than is usually ac-
knowledge. cessible at the level of interpersonal relationships"
[10, p. 63]. Moreover, the depth focus group "defies
THE CLINICAL APPROACH
routine analysis" and an approach similar to the way
Whereas the exploratory approach seeks to"psychotherapy generate sessions are analyzed" [10, p. 68]
scientific constructs from everyday thought should
andbe toused. In other words, focus groups provide
compare scientific and everyday explanations, a qualitative
a sec- source for clinical judgment.
ond approach expressly attempts to conduct qualitative The clinical approach has led to some excesses in
research as a scientific endeavor. With this approach marketing. The nature of clinical judgment is such
qualitative methods are viewed as an alternative to that faulty or even far-fetched explanations may be
scientific quantitative ones. In marketing this approach accepted too easily by uncritical lay clients. This
most clearly reflects the perspective of clinical psy- problem apparently has led some marketers to con-
chology. A "clinical" heritage has deeply influenced clude that the clinical approach is inherently unscienti-
qualitative marketing research practitioners, both fic. On the contrary, put in proper perspective, it
those with and without actual clinical experience. is the most scientific of the three approaches to
Two premises underlie the clinical approach. One qualitative marketing research. One must be very
is that the constructs of everyday thought are often careful, however, about the relationship between the
misleading as explanations of behavior. The explana- clinical approach and the partition of scientific and
tions people can verbalize, by which they can describe everyday knowledge. The clinical approach is not
themselves, commonly conceal the real underlying scientific in precisely the same sense as scientific
causes of behavior. Self-reports, the grist of many quantitative research. Clinical judgment does not con-
quantitative techniques, cannot be taken at face value. form to the rules of scientific evidence. But, ideally,
Indeed, the actual causes of behavior may be at least such judgments are based on second-degree constructs
partly unconscious. Self-reports are filtered through and scientific explanations.
a variety of defense mechanisms such as rational- The depth focus group interview is not meant to
ization and thus do not directly reflect these uncon- be (or at least ought not to be represented as) a
scious determinants. scientific method. It is merely a device for obtaining
The second premise follows directly on the first. the kind of information useful for clinical judgment.
It is that the real causes of behavior must be detected The group discussion is intended to stimulate the
through the sensitivity and "clinical judgment" of a participants to produce relatively unguarded com-
specially trained analyst. The usual tools of quantita- ments. This is why Goldman stresses the creation
tive research are not adequate for this purpose. Clinicalof rapport among participants by the moderator. The
judgment is an analytical skill of somewhat nebulous claim of the clinical approach to being scientific rests
dimensions, though much faith is placed in it. It is not on this method, but on the presumed scientific
an ability developed largely from practical experience knowledge of the analyst. This knowledge underlies
for diagnosing the major causes of behavior from the his clinical judgment and presumably renders it more
complex overdetermination of both unconscious and scientific. Explanations developed in this way might
conscious causes. Although it is basically an art, as best be described as quasiscientific.
is the medical model in general, it is widely held to Because the clinical approach assumes the existence
be scientific because clinical judgment is supposed of scientific knowledge as a basis for clinical judgment,
to take scientifically valid theory as a starting point it is crucial to appreciate the nature of the scientific
and as a problem-solving framework. The clinical theories favored by clinicians. Though any scientific
approach thus attempts to make use of scientific theory could logically be treated clinically, the concern
knowledge without being bound by quantitative meth-of clinicians is with the underlying causes of behavior
ods of analysis. which are not directly available from self-reports. This
The clinical approach was most obviously in vogue concern is what leads them to the need for clinical
in marketing during the ascendancy of "motivation judgment as a means of scientific interpretation. The
research." The wide variety of qualitative techniques theories they employ are thus psychodynamic ones
(e.g., projective tests and free association) employed which postulate constructs that are personal to the
by motivation researchers were intended to provide individual and develop over the course of his life
informational input for clinical judgment. The popu- history. These theories are at root intrasubjective. They
larity of many of these techniques has now receded. explain in terms of individual, subjective experience.
Though perhaps not as visible, the clinical approach Given this theoretical basis, it is reasonable that the
is definitely alive, having largely assumed such names depth focus group interview should concentrate on
as "depth research." The statement perhaps most causing participants to reveal their inner experience
in a way that is susceptible to clinical judgment and Certainly many practitioners would recognize Ax-
therefore clinical scientific interpretation. elrod's statement as descriptive of their own use of
Contrary to what one might expect, the most trou- qualitative research. It is common in agency circles,
blesome aspect of the clinical approach is not the for instance, for creative people simply to say that
use of the depth focus group, or even more exotic they would "like to hear consumers talk" in requesting
devices such as TAT pictures. The major cause for focus groups. The experiential utility of focus groups
concern is the scientific knowledge on which clinicians is accepted even by persons who implicitly think of
rely. It is fairly well known that psychodynamic their own research as mainly exploratory or clinical.
theories can be classified only questionably as scien- This acceptance does not seem in any way at odds
tific knowledge. They have not been subject to exten- with an exploratory or a clinical approach. Unfortu-
sive scientific verification, nor are they even thought nately, the notion of experiential utility has received
to be in testable form. The clinical approach is thus little reflection beyond its practical acknowledgment,
at best a calculated risk, but 'a risk that could pay despite the fact that this notion is the primary concern
off. More disturbing, and this is less well known, of the richest literature on qualitative research. So-
clinicians frequently draw more from everyday knowl- ciologists are the most active contributors to this
edge in making judgments than from psychodynamic literature.
theory. London [14, p. 22] describes this as a confu- Their work is by no means unified; in fact, it has
sion of morality and science, "the imposition of value several current streams. Perhaps the best general name
and fact upon each other." He contends that if the for it is "sociological phenomenology," and thus the
clinician "knew a little more of astrology or charlatan- label "phenomenological" is chosen here to refer to
ism or faith healing or the development of priestly the approach in marketing. The core ideas of socio-
castes, he might see some ironic and perhaps worri- logical phenomenology derive from writings of the
some parallels between his own and some less-honored philosopher-sociologist Alfred Schutz [cf. 15, 17]. In
crafts" [14, p. 22]. philosophy, the study of phenomenology is concerned
Such a breakdown in the ideal of clinical interpreta- with the representation of knowledge as conscious
tion very likely carries over to marketing research. experience. Schutz approached this experience as
Many qualitative researchers may believe that they intersubjectivity. Essentially, intersubjectivity refers
clinically interpret behavior in terms of scientific to the common-sense conceptions and ordinary expla-
causation, while in practice they explain why people nations shared by a set of social actors. It corresponds
do things, even involuntarily, in terms of everyday to the everyday knowledge depicted in Figure 1. The
motive and meaning. term "constructs of the first degree" is Schutz's.
The clinical approach to qualitative research seeks Toward the world of everyday knowledge one assumes
quasiscientific knowledge. This knowledge is meant "the natural attitude." This is the philosopher Hus-
to have scientific status. It is not fully scientific, serl's term and can be defined as [17, p. 320]:
however, because it has not itself been subject to
The mental stance a person takes in the spontaneous
scientific methods, only to clinical judgment. To the and routine pursuits of his daily affairs, and the basis
extent that the process of clinical judgment fails, the of his interpretation of the life world as a whole and
clinical approach results in everyday knowledge which in its various aspects. The life world is the world of
masquerades as scientific. Therefore, at its best, the the natural attitude. In it, things are taken for granted.
clinical approach yields quasiscientific knowledge; at
its worst, it yields phony scientific knowledge. The individual adopts the natural attitude from birth,
accepts everyday knowledge, and functions in terms
THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH of this knowledge.
A third approach to qualitative research in marketing The seeming objectivity of everyday knowledge
is summed up succinctly by Axelrod's description of depends on the natural attitude. In turn, the natural
the focus group [2, p. 6] as: attitude, Schutz argues, depends on the actor's as-
sumption that others see the world in the same way.
A chance to "experience" a "flesh and blood" con-
The natural attitude is based on the assumption of
sumer. " It is the opportunity for the client to put himself
in the position of the consumer and to be able to look
a reciprocity of perspectives. Intersubjectivity is thus
at his product and his category from her vantage point. defined socially, not individually.
Schutz contends that every actor is born with a
This statement may not seem much different from unique "biographical situation." No two people expe-
the exploratory or the clinical approach. However, rience the world in precisely the same way. But for
the difference is profound, it has the strongest im- everyday knowledge to be usable, and to seem objec-
plications for appreciating the nature of qualitative tively reliable, it must for the most part be shared
marketing research, and it is to be understood only by other actors. Not only must it be shared to some
in terms of the partition of scientific and everyday extent by all actors, but it must be shared increasingly
knowledge. with the closeness of interpersonal contact among
actors. For any given actor, intersubjectivity arises the researcher and the subjects, in the milieu of the
from his contact with other actors (including common latter" (original italics). Also favored is unstructured
patterns of general socialization). Thus intersubjec- interviewing in which, according to the same text [4,
tivity is relative; different sets of actors will differ in p. 6], "people reveal in their own words their view
their particular intersubjectivity to the extent that they of their entire life, or a part of it, or some other aspect
have less contact and have had dissimilar socialization. about themselves" (original italics). Both participant
Intersubjectivity will be greatest within primary groups observation and unstructured interviewing seek the
and will be less within larger, more encompassing description of the intersubjectivity of a set of actors
groups. through the researcher's own experience of that inter-
The key variable is the degree of personal contact subjectivity. The focus of any interview technique
and similarity of socialization, which is basic to all becomes vicarious experience.
social groupings, such as those based on social class, The goal of the phenomenological approach to
geographic location, race, or whatever. For example, qualitative marketing research is identical to that of
intersubjectivity is less between social classes in the phenomenological sociology. Both attempt to experi-
United States than within them. Although major as- ence a set of actors and to describe that experience.
pects of everyday knowledge are shared by different Though sociologists historically have been more in-
social classes, many features are not. The unshared terested in deviant groups (e.g., gangs), marketing
features of everyday knowledge conform to different researchers are concerned with the intersubjectivity
intersubjectivities. Each class adopts the natural atti- of different groups of consumers. Although deviant
tude toward its own intersubjectivity but is ethnocen- groupings vary more in intersubjectivity than most
tric toward that which is not shared by other classes. consumption-related groupings, the exercise of quali-
This capsule version of Schutz's ideas captures tative research should be the same in principle. Mar-
much of the spirit of recent work on phenomenological keters for the most part belong to social groupings
sociology within the areas of ethnomethodology and whose intersubjectivity is not the same as that of
symbolic interactionism. Note especially the depen- many of their target segments. Reality in the executive
dency of intersubjectivity on the reciprocity of pers- suite differs drastically from that of most kitchens.
pectives arising from the contact of a set of actors. Qualitative research is an excellent way of bridging
The conclusion emerging from this work is that quali-social distance.
tative research requires actual contact between the There is more to be seen in phenomenological
researcher and his subjects. For the researcher to sociology, however than a confluence of purposes.
describe the intersubjectivity of a set of subjects, he The ideas of phenomenological sociology provide
must interact with them to the extent that he acquiresgreater methodological direction than is currently
the ability to take their perspective so that their available in marketing research practice. Focus groups
intersubjectivity seems natural to him. A recent socio- following the phenomenological approach amount to
logical qualitative research text [4, p. 8] puts this an effort to get consumers to talk to each other about
very simply: "In qualitative methods, the researcher product-related issues. But the role of the moderator
is necessarily involved in the lives of the subjects" in this interaction is very poorly prescribed. The
(original italics). As Blumer [3, p. 86] argues: moderator's behavior most often is left to the idiosyn-
cracies of the person moderating. To the extent that
. . . the student must take the role of the acting unit
whose behavior he is studying. Since the interpretation the moderator's technique is not idiosyncratic, it most
is being made by the acting unit in terms of objects likely is drawn implicitly from the exploratory or
designated and appraised, meanings acquired, and deci- clinical approaches. These two approaches are not
sions made, the process has to be seen from the compatible with the phenomenological approach. Ex-
standpoint of the acting unit. . . . To try to catch ploratory focus groups entail creative prescientific
the interpretative process by remaining aloof as a intellectualization. Clinical focus groups concentrate
so-called "objective" observer and refusing to take on intrasubjectivity, on quasiscientific interpretations
the role of the acting unit is to risk the worst kind based on second-degree constructs which are personal
of subjectivism-the objective observer is likely to to the individual. Neither allows the active involve-
fill in the process of interpretation with his own surmises
ment, the highly interactive personal contact, called
in place of catching the process as it occurs in the
experience of the acting unit which uses it [italics for by the phenomenological approach.
added]. A bias toward the seeming objectivity of the explor-
atory and clinical approaches forces an unduly de-
The necessity of contact for truly grasping the tached moderator style in many applications of the
intersubjectivity of a set of actors has led phenome- phenomenological approach. Similarly, too much reli-
nological sociologists to favor the method of partici-ance sometimes is placed on the professional qualifi-
pant observation. The text [4, p. 5] referred to cations of moderators. It is more important in the
previously broadly defines this as "research charac- phenomenological approach to employ moderators
terized by a period of intense social interaction between whose own backgrounds make it easier for them to
take the role of a particular consumer segment. choice, given the current development of social
These considerations lead to the question of the science.
relationship between the phenomenological approach To summarize, the phenomenological approach pro-
and the partition of everyday and scientific knowledge.
vides a systematic description in terms of first-degree
Clearly, the intersubjectivity that is the object of constructs of the consumption-relevant intersubjec-
inquiry constitutes everyday knowledge. But does the tivity of a target segment. The description is of how
treatment of this everyday knowledge itself belong consumers interpret reality in their own terms. In
to the world of everyday knowledge or to that of contrast, the clinical approach gives what is hoped
scientific knowledge? Most researchers would contend to be a scientific interpretation of reality. This inter-
that, as ordinary description derived from experiencing pretation employs second-degree constructs repre-
the role of the other, the phenomenological approach senting the intrasubjectivity of individual consumers.
results in everyday knowledge.' This description, The logic of the phenomenological approach dictates
however systematic and thorough, still relies by its that the researcher have close personal involvement
nature on first-degree constructs. For most phenome-with consumers. He or she must share, participatively
nological sociologists, this status does not preclude or vicariously, the experience of consumers. It is
the development of a social science of second-degree misleading, on reflection, to say that the value of
constructs. It does raise a difficult problem, though. phenomenological focus groups is in the experiencing
Some sociologists, mainly the ethnomethodologists, of consumers. What they should yield is the
lodge a powerful criticism against conventional social experiencing of the experience of consumers.
science. They claim that all too often researchers The phenomenological approach to qualitative re-
confuse first-degree constructs with second-degree search seeks everyday knowledge. This knowledge
ones. The explanatory constructs of everyday life are is not meant to have scientific status. It is the everyday
assumed implicitly to have some scientific status. knowledge, the experience, of the consumer.
The concern of the ethnomethodologists is that the
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING RESEARCH
validity of most of the supposed second-degree social
PRACTICE
science constructs rests more on their utility in every-
day knowledge than on scientific evidence. Consider Qualitative marketing research is more complex
an example. In everyday life it is natural to explain any simple notion that quantitative research per
the behavior of people in terms of personality traits. objective numerical analysis which qualitativ
Nearly 5% of the English language is given over to search sacrifices for intensive analysis and fast tu
trait names [1]. The first-degree constructs of traits around. That there is more involved than a trade-off
have been carried over into the realm of social science. between precision and flexibility is especially evident
Traits have certainly received considerable attention in light of the three distinct approaches to qualitative
in consumer behavior research. Nor is this an improper research in current practice. These approaches must
way of generating a second-degree construct. It is be viewed in terms of the partition of everyday and
possible, however, trait explanations are not scientif- scientific knowledge. The exploratory approach seeks
ically valid. Empirical evidence indicates that trait prescientific explanations stimulated by everyday
theory needs considerable elaboration [e.g., 12]. That thought. The clinical approach seeks quasiscientific
simple trait theory persists in social science may be explanations based on clinical judgment. The phenom-
attributable to its entrenchment in everyday explana- enological approach seeks everyday explanations
tion rather than to its scientific merits. derived from personal contact. The three approaches
The point is that much of what is considered to are summarized in Table 1.
be scientific may belong more to everyday explanation. These three approaches are not well understood
Phenomenological qualitative research therefore may by those who use them. Frequent confusion of the
have a stronger claim to the use of conventional social approaches testifies to this lack of understanding.
science constructs than does scientific research. In Marketing researchers often subscribe to the explora-
any event, this criticism should give pause to marketers tory and clinical approaches (as evidenced by the usual
who would condemn the nonscientific status of the statements included in the introductions of commercial
phenomenological approach to qualitative marketingreports) but commonly pursue something more akin
research. Not only does this work have practical utility, to the phenomenological approach. It is hoped that
but it is also entirely defensible as the approach of discussion of each approach provides a deeper under-
standing of them. The discussion also has several
specific implications for questions typically raised
about the use of focus groups.
'It should be noted that social psychologists have sought specifi- Perhaps the most common question is about gener-
cally to investigate the constructs and hypotheses of everyday
alizability, which usually is considered by analogy with
knowledge scientifically. This was the goal of Heider's original
the quantitative survey-how can one project to a
work on "naive psychology." It continues to be ill-acknowledged
larger
rationale for current attribution theory studies in social psychology. universe results which are not stated as numeri-
cal scores and are based on poor sampling? The The problem is to determine the extent to which a
conventional answer is that such results can be gener-
particular intersubjectivity manifested in focus groups
alized only by a followup quantitative stage. But
is shared. That is, how large is the social grouping
analogy to quantitative techniques is the wrong point which has a particular perspective in common? Here
of reference. One must consider the nature of qualita- it does make sense to address generalizability through
tive research in thinking about generalizability. a descriptive quantitative survey. Both opinion polling
For the exploratory approach, sample generali- and psychographic/life-style surveys can be seen as
zability is not even particularly meaningful. The goal attempts to do just this. These are not attempts at
is either to generate ideas for scientific constructs scientific explanation so much as checks on the extent
or, as urged here, to compare scientific with everyday of everyday perspectives. The present popularity of
explanations. It is difficult to specify what projectionusing pictures of consumers to illustrate different
to a larger universe means in this context. The likeli- psychographic profiles is indicative of the phenome-
hood of generating an idea or confidence in a compari- nological character of this work. Surveys do seem
son should depend to some extent on the number effective in establishing the generality of different
of focus groups, but this is not the same as sample patterns of intersubjectivity. But recall that the phe-
generalizability. What researchers presumably have nomenological approach is predicated on experiencing
in mind is generalizability when the scientific construct
the experience of consumers. This is best done through
or explanation is employed in quantitative research.personal contact. Quantitative surveys, though they
However, this is a problem for the quantitative re- permit estimates of generality, are a poor substitute
search procedure, not a concern of the qualitative for even vicarious experience. The best way to gener-
research. The error is to assume that focus groups alize from phenomenological focus groups is to con-
are provisional in the sense of yielding preliminary duct additional groups in an attempt to cover as many
versions of quantitative findings. On the contrary, different social groupings as possible. The widespread
exploratory focus groups only suggest a construct faith or in the superiority of quantitative over qualitative
provide a comparison with everyday knowledge. They research is clearly reversed for the phenomenological
do not constitute a scientific test. Sample generali- approach.
zability is a property only of subsequent quantitativeHow then does one answer the typical question,
research. It is misleading even to speak about the
"Should qualitative research ideally be generalized
generalizability of exploratory focus groups. through additional quantitative research?" Conven-
Generalizability is more meaningful for the clinicaltional wisdom says yes. The foregoing discussion says
approach. Here a scientific interpretation is being no. This strategy makes sense only for the phenome-
made, and one would like to know whether it holds nological approach. And even then it is neither an
beyond the focus group sample. Recall, however, that effort to attain scientific legitimacy nor the preferable
the basis of this interpretation is clinical judgment.method of generalizing. Focus group research basically
must stand alone!
Clinical judgment is not itself sufficiently specifiable
to permit systematic extrapolation. Generalizations ofThe ideas discussed here bear upon other typical
clinical judgment can be accomplished only through questions as well. When should qualitative research
intuition, and this has no claim to being scientific. be used? The phenomenological approach should be
Poor generalizability is inherent in clinical focusused when management is out of touch with the
groups. It might be thought that generalizability can consumer, or when target segments consist of minority
be assessed through subsequent research designed to or rapidly changing social groupings. The exploratory
test the clinical interpretation with a quantitative approach should be used when scientific explanation
technique. This notion is somewhat paradoxical, how- is desired but researchers are uncertain about second-
ever. The justification for the clinical approach is that
degree constructs, or when a scientific explanation
it allows the use of scientific constructs (unconsciousis at hand and researchers wish to compare it with
thoughts, etc.) which are difficult to investigate quan-
the consumer's interpretation. Finally, the clinical
approach should be used when researchers invoke
titatively. Attempting then to base the generalizability
scientific constructs which are not amenable to self-
of a clinical interpretation on quantitative results, and
not on clinical judgment, makes no sense. If it did report or direct inference.
make sense, there would have been no rationale for How many focus groups constitute a project? It is
the original use of clinical judgment. A quantitative usually said that focus groups should be continued
technique would have been more appropriate from until the moderator can anticipate what is going to
the first. Generalizability is thus a critical issue with
be said in the groups. This typically happens with
clinical focus groups; unfortunately, no one really the third or fourth group of a particular kind. This
knows how to determine it, aside from conducting rule of thumb seems adequate for the phenome-
more and more groups. nological approach: anticipation probably reflects vi-
Generalizability is also important for the phenome- carious experience. But one can anticipate without
nological approach, though it has a different meaning.
having yet made a clinical judgment or having formed
an idea for a second-degree construct. The number nological approach even seems to call for the absence
of groups for the other two approaches should vary of any style that would be apparent to the group.
according to when the desired results are actually Such a style might make it difficult for the moderator
achieved. to take part in the group as a member. Interviewing
What is the role of interaction among the group technique may be much more crucial, however, for
members? One of the few real dictums of focus group the clinical approach. The process of clinical judgment
research is to avoid serial questioning where a number is related intimately to interviewing technique. Clini-
of people are simply being interviewed at once. In- cians believe that some techniques facilitate clinical
teraction among the participants is thought to be a judgment and others do not. There may well be
major virtue of the technique. Group dynamics, effective and ineffective styles for the clinical ap-
members stimulating other members, is held up as proach, though it would be no simple task to identify
the basic rationale for the technique. In contrast to which are effective and which are ineffective.
this consensus about the importance of interaction, What expertise should a moderator have? The clini-
there seems to be little agreement about the role of cal and exploratory approaches demand a high degree
interaction. What does it accomplish? Interaction is of sophistication with scientific theory. In contrast,
clearly important for the phenomenological and clinical most important for the phenomenological approach
approaches. But to understand the role of this interac- are previous experiences which are maximally com-
tion, one must specify the relation of the moderator patible with those of the focus group participants.
to it. This relation is different for the two approaches. There may also be dispositional characteristics which
With the phenomenological approach, the moderator allow some people to take the role of others more
must be part of the interaction. He or she must readily.
participate in the group dynamics as a member. It Should management observe focus group sessions?
is necessary to feel a part of the group in order to Opinions differ sharply on this question. From the
experience the group's shared perspective. With the present perspective, observation is of no use with
clinical approach, the moderator is not a part of the the clinical and exploratory approaches. What is being
interaction. He or she must be detached from it so revealed cannot be seen by the lay observer. Observa-
that the group dynamics can be used as a tool tion to makes sense for the phenomenological approach
probe and manipulate the defenses of the members. if it helps the manager to experience the consumer's
Interaction has a different purpose for each approach. experience.
For the exploratory approach, however, interaction What should a focus group report look like? Ob-
is not nearly so important. The group functionsviously as the approaches identified call for different
a convenient device for interviewing a number of
people, one or more of whom might stimulate the Table 2
moderator's scientific thinking. The exploratory ap- PROFILES OF THE THREE APPROACHES TO FOCUS
proach implies more participation from key members
GROUP RESEARCH
and more one-to-one interaction with the moderator
than do the other approaches.
Explor- Phenomeno-
Should focus groups be composed of homogeneous
atory Clinical logical
or heterogeneous people? Heterogeneous groups
The approach can be
might yield rich information for the exploratory or
generalized with a followup
clinical approaches. Clinical groups, however,, should quantitative stage No No Yes
most often be homogeneous to facilitate rapport.The approach should be used
Phenomenological groups require homogeneity. A when the goal is to
shared perspective cannot be expected to emerge if experience the consumer No No Yes
The anticipation
the people are not similar. rule-of-thumb is appropriate
How important is the moderator's interviewing tech- for determining the number
nique? Many focus group moderators affect stylized of groups conducted No No Yes
interviewing techniques which encompass everything Obtaining a high level of
interaction among the group
from how respondents are seated, and whether or members is essential No Yes Yes
not they are addressed by name, to how nondirectiveA homogeneous group of
the moderator is. From the present perspective, these people is necessary No No Yes
techniques do not seem crucial for the exploratory The moderator's interviewing
or the phenomenological approach. Anything whichThetechnique is crucial No Yes No
moderator must have
is comfortable for the participants is probably consis- scientific credentials Yes Yes No
tent with these two approaches. One technique orObservation by management
the other is not likely, in itself, to help much in is appropriate No No Yes
obtaining ideas for scientific explanations or in under-Verbatim quotes should be
emphasized in the report No No Yes
standing the consumer's experience. The phenome-
styles of reporting. The phenomenological report be more a license to "qualitative clairvoyance"

should include extensive quotes ("verbatims") fromgood research.
consumer comments. It might be supplemented byScientific integrity might best be maintained
edited tapes of the sessions. Oral presentations also
having two largely separate realms of marketing
should be helpful. Anything which better conveys the
search. Most routine qualitative research would fo
reality of the consumer's perspective is appropriate.
the phenomenological approach. The exploratory
clinical approaches would be used with caution
Reports of clinical or exploratory groups should con-
centrate much more on the analyst's own reasoningonly when clearly dictated. Present misconcep
in reaching conclusions. about the desirability of linking qualitative and q
To sharpen the distinction among the three ap- titative research would be abandoned. Marketers
proaches to focus group research, the implications would recognize the need for both qualitative phenom-
discussed are summarized in checklist form in Table enological research and scientific quantitative re-
2. The columns of this table provide a convenient search.
profile of each approach. Remember that the only Whatever trends emerge in qualitative research, one
claim being made is that these approaches are dis- thing is certain. Focus groups should not be the
cernible, though often blurred, in current practice; exclusive technique. The nature of qualitative research
qualitative marketing research would profit greatly by does not limit it to any one best technique. Other
fuller appreciation of the differences among them. techniques are just as legitimate as the focus group,
These differences stem directly from the types ofand should be explored. The greatest threat to qualita-
knowledge sought (see Table 1). Important questions tive research findings is not lack of generalizability
about focus groups should not be resolved by conven- but lack of validity. Validity can best be assessed
tion, predilection, or happenstance. Different ap- with multiple methods. The commitment to focus
proaches, reflecting the need for different types of groups, like the conventions surrounding their use,
knowledge, require different answers. is based on opinion conformity rather than the nature
of qualitative marketing research.
THE FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE MARKETING
RESEARCH REFERENCES
1. Allport, G. W. and H. S. Odbert. "Trait-Names: A
As previously stated, the three approaches detected
and elaborated on are not sharply distinguished in
Psycholexical Study," Psychological Monographs,
the minds of marketing researchers. It is hoped (1, that
Whole No. 211).
the foregoing discussion, if nothing else, shows2. Axelrod,
that M. D. "Marketers Get an Eyeful When Foc
Groups Expose Products, Ideas, Images, Ad Copy, Et
qualitative marketing research is a diverse activity.
to Consumers," Marketing News (February 28, 1975
Otherwise the confusion of approaches may worsen. 6-7.
Most troubling is an increasing fuzziness of the clinical
3. Blumer, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective
approach. Recall that the rationale for this approach
Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Ha
is that it allows scientific interpretation where con-
Inc., 1969.
structs cannot be investigated quantitatively;4.hence
Bogdan, R. and S. J. Taylor. Introduction to Qualita
the need for clinical judgment. Increasingly, however,
Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Son
all kinds of theories are being applied with "clinical"
Inc., 1975.
judgment. Focus groups are interpreted in terms 5. Bunge,
of M. Scientific Research I: The Search for Syste
Berlin: Springer, 1967.
any available social science construct (e.g., attitudes,
values, traits, roles, norms, etc.). This is not6. Campbell,
an D. "Qualitative Knowing in Action Re
application of the exploratory approach. It search,"
is an The Journal of Social Issues, in press, 1974.
7. Cox, K. K., J. B. Higginbotham, and J. Burton. "
attempt to extend the clinical approach to all con-
plications of Focus Group Interviews in Marketing,"
structs, without regard to their amenability to existing
Journal of Marketing, 40 (January 1976), 77-80.
scientific methods. This is a misuse of qualitative
8. Feyerabend, P. K. "Against Method: Outline of
research. It is an attempt to shortcut the scientific
Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge," in M. Radner an
process, without the attendant justification S. ofWinokur,
the eds., Analysis of Theories and Metho
traditional clinical approach. The result is often of Physics and Psychology. Vol IV. Minnesota Studie
expla-
nations which have no claim to being even in quasi-
the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: Universit
of Minnesota Press, 1970.
scientific. Social science constructs are used merely
9. Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss. The Discovery
as convenient (and probably overly intellectualized)
ways of describing the phenomenology of consumers. Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Researc
Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
This trend leads to purportedly scientific interpreta-
10. Goldman, A. E. "The Group Depth Interview," Jour
tions which either (1) are needlessly based on clinical
of Marketing, 26 (July 1962), 61-8.
judgment or (2) are in fact phenomenological descrip-
11. Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology fo
tions couched in social science jargon. Perhaps these
Behavioral Science. New York: Intext Educational Pub-
are useful to marketing management. But theylishers, may 1964.
12. Kassarjian, H. H. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: Evolution of Collective Understanding. Princeton, New
A Review," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (No- Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972.
vember 1971), 409-18. 17. Wagner, H. R. Alfred Schutz on Phenomenology and
13. Lakatos, I. "Falsification and the Methodology of Social Relations: Selected Writings. Chicago: The Uni-
Scientific Research Programmes," in I. Lakatos and versity of Chicago Press, 1970.
A. Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowl- 18. Wells, W. D. "Group Interviewing," in R. Ferber, ed.,
edge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Handbook of Marketing Research. New York: McGraw-
14. London, P. The Modes and Morals of Psychotherapy. Hill Book Co., Inc., 1974.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964. 19. Zaltman, G., C. R. Pinson, and R. Angelmar. Metatheory
15. Schutz, A. The Phenomenology of the Social World. and Consumer Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1967. Winston, 1973.
16. Toulmin, S. E. Human Understanding. Vol. 1. The

Calder Focus Groups

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calder Focus Groups

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research

Author(s): Bobby J. Calder

Use of the focus group technique is widespread in qualitative marketing

Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative

INTRODUCTION probably have a vague sense of uneasiness with the

Journal of Marketing Research

are all abstractions; they "exist" only within the realm

styles of reporting. The phenomenological report be more a license to "qualitative clairvoyance"

You might also like