Data Richness Trade-Offs Between Face-to-Face, Online Audiovisual, and Online Text-Only Focus Groups
Abstract
This study offers an examination of data richness (i.e., topic-related data, topic unrelated data, researcher ratings of data richness, word count, and linguistic characteristics of data richness) trade-offs between face-to-face (FTF), online text-only and online audiovisual focus group mediums. Two focus group sessions were held for each type of medium. Data were analyzed using systematic content analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Findings showed that although online audiovisual focus groups show potential for producing data similar in richness to FTF focus groups, researchers should carefully consider the potential distractions that manifested in this study as a result of the medium itself, likely due to its novelty as a group communication medium. Online text-only groups did not facilitate rich data, as operationalized in this study, and also had a lower amount of data related to the topic of the groups due to more socializing and off-topic discussion. As the first study to empirically examine the potential of data from focus groups facilitated via webcam (online audiovisual), it concludes, the technology offers similar data richness to FTF focus groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Archer J. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In Wegner D. M., Vallacher R. (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 183–204). London, England: Oxford University Press.
Ashworth P. (2003). The origins of qualitative psychology. In Smith J. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 4–25). London, England: Sage.
Birnbaum M. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 803–832.
Breakwell G. M. (2006). Interviewing. In Breakwell G. M., Hammond S., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 367–390). London, England: Sage.
Brüggen E., Willems P. (2009). A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi. International Journal of Market Research, 51, 363–381.
Charmaz K. (2003). Grounded theory. In Smith J. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81–110). London, England: Sage.
Coyle A. (2007). Introduction to qualitative psychological research. In Lyons E., Coyle A. (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 9–30). London, England: Sage.
Dey I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, England: Routledge.
Dijkstra W., van der Veen L., van der Zouwen J. (1985). A field experiment on interviewer–respondent interaction. In Benner M., Brown J., Canter D. (Eds.), The research interview:Uses and approaches (pp. 37–63). London, England: Academic Press.
Dubrovsky V. J., Kiesler S., Sethna B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
Duggleby W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15, 832–840.
Edmunds H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Chicago, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group.
Etzioni A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Galloway K. L. (2011). Focus groups in the virtual world: Implications for the future of evaluation. In Mathison S. (Ed.), Really new directions in evaluation: Young evaluators’ perspectives. New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 131, pp. 47–51). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gunawardena C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147–166.
Harris J., Huntington A. (2001). Emotions as analytic tools: Qualitative research, feelings, and psychotherapeutic insight. In Gilbert K. (Ed.), The emotional nature of qualitative research (pp.129–145). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hayes A. F., Krippendorff K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
Hiltz S. R., Johnson K., Turoff M. (2006). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerised conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252.
Joinson A. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.
Kirk J., Miller M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kitzinger J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, 16, 103–121.
Krueger R. A., Casey M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lambert S. D., Loiselle C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 228–237.
LeCompte M. D., Goetz J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52, 31–60.
Leech N. L., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557–584.
Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Martlew M. (1983). The development of writing: Communication and cognition. In Coulmas F., Ehlich K. (Eds.), Writing in focus: Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs (pp. 257–276). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
McGuire T. W., Kiesler S., Siegel J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52, 917–930.
Morse J. M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olson K., Spiers J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1, 13–22.
Ogden J., Cornwell D. (2010). The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32, 1059–1071.
“Online audio-visual penetration and adoption rates” [web log comment]. (2005, July 5). Retrieved from http://weareorganizedchaos.com/index.php/2011/07/05/online-audio-visual-penetration-rates-adoption/
Pennebaker J. W., Booth R. J., Francis M. E. (2007). LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and word count. Austin, TX: LIWC. Retrieved from http://www.liwc.net
Pennebaker J. W., Mehl M. R., Niederhoffer K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual review of psychology, 54, 547–577.
Popper K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic.
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. (1999). Validity [Def. 1]. New York, NY: Random House.
Reid D. J., Reid F. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups: An in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 131–162.
Rezabek R. J. (2000). Online focus groups: Electronic discussions for research. Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1128
Rhodes S. D., Bowie D. A., Hergenrather K. C. (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the World Wide Web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 68–73.
Sandelowski M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers don’t count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 230–240.
Schneider S., Kerwin J., Frechtling J., Vivari B. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 31–42.
Sechrest L., Sidani S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and program planning, 18, 77–87.
Stenbacka C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, 551–555.
Stewart K., Williams M. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5, 395–416.
Tates K., Zwaanswijk M., Otten R., van Dulmen S., Hoogerbrugge P., Kamps W., Bensing J. (2009). Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: Examples from pediatric oncology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 15. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-15
Turney L., Pocknee C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4, 32–43.
Underhill C., Olmsted M. (2003). An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 506–512.
Walston J., Lissitz R. (2000). Computer-mediated focus group. Evaluation Review, 24, 457–483.
Walther J. B., Burgoon J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88.
Wand Y., Wang R. Y. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39, 86–95.
Webcam penetration rates and adoption. (2011, July 5). Retrieved from http://weareorganizedchaos.com/webcam-penetration-rates-adoption/
Werry C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay online text-only. In Herring S. C. (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 47–61), Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Whittemore R., Chase S. K., Mandle C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.
Wimmer R., Dominick J. (2013). Mass media research. Cengage Learning.
Biographies
Katie M. Abrams ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Department of Journalism and Technical Communication, who uses quantitative and qualitative methods to assess how people make sense of controversial food and agricultural issues.
Zongyuan Wang ([email protected]) is a PhD student in the School of Journalism. His research focuses on how visuals and visual environments influence people’s attention allocation to memory and emotion for consumer-related media messages.
Yoo Jin Song ([email protected]) is currently pursuing her master’s degree in advertising. She is interested in consumers’ negative responses toward marketing/advertising elements and also how those negative responses can be turned into positive ones.
Sebastian Galindo-Gonzalez ([email protected]) is a research assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. He is currently responsible for designing and executing the evaluation components for a variety of multidisciplinary projects in collaboration with a number of scientists inside and outside his university.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: June 3, 2014
Issue published: February 2015
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Social Science Computer Review.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 2613
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 76 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 80
- Participatory identification of the causes of antimicrobial use and ho...
- Reaching hard-to-reach communities: using WhatsApp to give conflict-af...
- Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: vali...
- Using the COM-B Model and Theoretical Domains Framework to Understand ...
- Absence, multiplicity and the boundaries of research? Reflections on o...
- Online synchronous focus group interviews: Practical considerations
- Moving from Offline to Online: How COVID-19 Affected Research in the S...
- Challenges and Opportunities to the Flow of Communication: Online Focu...
- Virtual reality as an immersive projective and autodriving advancement...
- Online Focus-Groups: Methodical Reflection
- Conception and Interpretation of Interdisciplinarity in Research Pract...
- Students’ Perspectives on Basic and Clinical Science Integration When ...
- Families' Experiences in the Virtual Hanen More Than Wor...
- Exploring the perspectives of engineering undergraduates on employabil...
- Twelve tips for conducting medical education research via videoconfere...
- Studying Voices of Middle Childhood Online: Conducting Online Video-Ba...
- Data Collection in Times of Pandemic: A Self-Study and Revisit of Rese...
- Development of a tool to support general practitioners to help adolesc...
- Implication of Ukraine War on EU Migration Flows: Perspectives and Cha...
- „Data Richness“ als Merkmal erfolgreicher Schulen. Ein Systematisierun...
- Online Focus Group Discussions to Engage Stigmatized Populations in Qu...
- Virtual Synchronous Qualitative Data Collection Methods Used in Health...
- Prioritizing Participant Safety During Online Focus Groups With Women ...
- Digital approaches to enhancing community engagement in clinical trial...
- Development of a colorectal cancer screening intervention for Alaska N...
- Management behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of healthc...
- Social media literacy in L2 environments: navigating anonymous user-ge...
- Pioneering the use of technologies in qualitative research – A researc...
- Stakeholder views of services for children and adolescents with obesit...
- Physiotherapy students’ perspectives on the use and implementation of ...
- Forest Therapy Trails: A Conceptual Framework and Scoping Review of Re...
- The Agreement of Personal Shopping Service through E-Commerce Platform...
- Moving on from trials and errors: a discussion on the use of a forum a...
- Reducing Relationship Conflict in Virtual Teams With Diversity Faultli...
- Conducting Research Six Feet Apart: The Feasibility of Transitioning Q...
- Reflections on the Use of Synchronous Online Focus Groups in Social Ca...
- A Systematic Comparison of In-Person and Video-Based Online Interviewi...
- A Literature Review of Studies that Have Compared the Use of Face-To-F...
- Examining clinical training through a bicultural lens: Experiences of ...
- How Do Family Physicians Perceive Their Role in Providing Pre-exposure...
- Vaccination Attitudes and Experiences of Medical Doctors in Croatia am...
- Participatory health research under COVID-19 restrictions in Bauchi St...
- Tools for Activating Data Marketplace (2)
- Reinterpretation of Health Information in the Context of an Emerging I...
- Beyond the In-Person Interview? How Interview Quality Varies Across In...
- Using Videoconferencing Focus Groups in Sexual and Reproductive Health...
- Aligning stakeholders’ mental models on carsharing system using remote...
- Recommendations for Virtual Qualitative Health Research During a Pande...
- Transition Pathways for the Farmed Salmon Value Chain: Industry Perspe...
- Autism research is ‘all about the blokes and the kids’: Autistic women...
- Exploring Students’ Perspectives on Well-Being and the Change of Unite...
- Stakeholder engagement in economic evaluation: Protocol for using the ...
- Supporting a sense of inclusion and belonging for genetic counseling s...
- Assessing the effectiveness of video-based interviewing: a systematic ...
- An Online ‘Face to Face’ Focus Group Approach for Understanding How Ho...
- Qualitative Human Factors Research Methods
- Adapting a Mental Health Intervention for Adolescents During the COVID...
- Digital format of social work research: reflections of practical exper...
- Conscripted curriculum: The experiences of minority genetic counseling...
- Development and Evaluation of a New Platform for Accelerating Cross-Do...
- How Does Mode of Qualitative Data Collection Affect Data and Cost? Fin...
- Leading Matters: Take it from the Professionals—a High-Level Overview ...
- Learning and coping through reflection: exploring patient death experi...
- Enhancing group‐based internet obesity treatment: A pilot RCT comparin...
- Texting the waters: An assessment of focus groups conducted via the Wh...
- Developing Methods That Facilitate Coding and Analysis of Synchronous ...
- STEER: Factors to Consider When Designing Online Focus Groups Using Au...
- Use of Web Conferencing Technology for Conducting Online Focus Groups ...
- Two Approaches to Focus Group Data Collection for Qualitative Health R...
- Online focus groups: a valuable alternative for hospitality research?
- Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodol...
- Using Online Meeting Software to Facilitate Geographically Dispersed F...
- The use of Facebook for virtual asynchronous focus groups in qualitati...
- Evaluating standards-based assessment rubrics in a postgraduate public...
- Is the Health App Challenge approach of patient-led application concep...
- Best Practices for Synchronous Online Focus Groups
- Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conf...
- Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conf...
- Virtual Versus In-Person Focus Groups: Comparison of Costs, Recruitmen...
- Development of a Tool to Measure Youths’ Food Allergy Management Facil...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
