Guide to Advanced Empirical
Download 1.5 Mb. View original pdf
|
3299771.3299772, BF01324126
- Navigate this page:
- 5.1. Traditional focus groups
| Focus Group Variations The literature offers several studies that thoroughly discuss a single type of focus group or compare selected variations with each other (Clapper and Massey, 1996; Easton et al., 2003; Hansen and Hansen, 2006; Klein et al., 2007; Massey and Wallace, 1991; Montoya-Weiss et al., 1998; Morgan, 1996; Newby et al., 2003; Parent et al., 2000; Reid and Reid, 2005; O’Connor and Madge, 2003; Oringderff, 2004; Sweet, 2001; Ten Pow, 2003; Turney and Pocknee, 2004; Wellner, 2003; Zinchiak, 2001). Based on this literature and also on our own experiences of conducting all main types of focus groups (e.g., Bragge et al., ac, awe have gathered comparative information on traditional, GSS-mediated face-to-face, as well as online focus groups (synchronous and asynchronous. The results of these comparisons are presented in Tables 3–5. Moreover, we will discuss the comparison data with respect to four issues people, technology, process and costs. We have not cited the above reference sources in the tables or in the discussion to keep them more concise. 5.1. Traditional focus groups Regarding people issues, the moderator’s task in traditional focus groups is easier than with computer-mediated groups (that are lower in media richness, especially in different-place settings, although the moderator must possess excellent social skills. The participants may feel more satisfied with a familiar verbal and more social process, and they do not have to possess typing skills (e.g., elderly people. However, the participants can be recruited from a limited geographical distance, and they maybe shy about talking, especially about sensitive or controversial issues. The media-rich interaction in the verbal process is high, and it can result in the deepest insights. The process usually stays focused without any external distractions, and if they happen, the facilitator can respond immediately. However, group 106 J. Kontio et al. thinking, domineering, communication apprehension, getting off-the-track, and social rank related issues are common problems. Concerning technology, the audio or even video recording of the session is quite usual and routine. The latter is needed in case it is important to know afterwards who said what. In traditional settings, it is possible to present handheld prototypes or models. The travelling, venue, and transcribing costs are high. Traditional focus groups can accommodate the lowest number of participants due to serial communication mode, thus more groups with relatively homogeneous participants are needed (see Table 3 fora summary). Table 3 Benefits and drawbacks of traditional focus groups Benefits Drawbacks+ Richer media, researchers may observe − High travelling costs (participants nonverbal communication, and moderators) such as body language, facial expressions, tones of voice etc+ Moderator’s task is easier than with − High rental costs venue computer-mediated communications (especially those indifferent- place settings+ Participants may feel more satisfied − High transcribing costs and long with a verbal/social process delay in reporting (especially older people+ The process usually stays focused − Limited time to speak per person without any external distractions (e.g. with ten participants 6 min/ (and if they happen, the facilitator person in 1 h) can respond immediately+ FTF discussion is a familiar form of − Possible dominance of some persons communication to the participants+ Participants don’t have to have typing − Group thinking (pressure to conform) and skills (e.g. children, old people) communication apprehension (e.g. with sensitive issues) may occur+ Possibility to utilize 3D-models, proto- − Comments and ideas evaluated types, highly confidential material etc. based on the presenter, not the idea itself+ Smaller probability for technical − Max. 12 participants per group problems (audio and video recording technologies needed in FTF sessions are more mature than computer-mediated communication technologies The more people, the more process losses due to the serial communication mode The discussion might easily get offtrack thus the moderator must be determined and knowledgeable about how to guide the group dynamics Moderator must have excellent social skills Requires homogeneity between participants, and thus often several groups Need for videotaping if vital to know who said what 4 The Focus Group Method as an Empirical Tool in Software Engineering 107 Download 1.5 Mb. Share with your friends:
|