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: 28/06/2011 14:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org 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 probablyhave a vague sense of uneasiness with the There have come to be two kinds of commercial technique.As aptly putby Wells [18, p. 2-145], "How marketingresearch. One is commonly called qualita- can anythingso 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 proceduralquestions surroundthe use of focus groups. numericalmeasurement and statisticalanalysis. Quali- The following are typical questions. tative research provides an in-depth, if necessarily Should focus group research ideally be generalized subjective, understandingof the consumer. In prac- throughadditional quantitative research? tice, qualitative research has become almost synony- When should focus group researchbe 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 eight to 10, for a more or less open-ended discussion members? about a product. The discussion "moderator" makes Should focus groups be composed of homogeneous sure that of are or heterogeneouspeople? topics marketingsignificance 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 importantis the moderator'sinterviewing tech- and left unsaid, in the discussion. nique? One can detect in several quartersconflicting feel- Should managementobserve 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- researcherson the basis of their professional experi- spondents, a different moderator,or even a different ences. setting. Most commercial reports contain a cryptic Neither the conflict between the apparent utility statement acknowledgingthis conflict. The statement of focus groups and the reservationsexpressed about cautions that focus group research should be regarded them, nor the typical proceduralquestions have been as preliminary. Results should not be generalized the subject of systematic argument. The marketing without further quantitative research. Most users literaturehas been of little help to qualitativemarketing researchers.There have been occasional descriptions * of applications [e.g., 7] and expositions of techniques Bobby J. Calder is Associate Professor of Behavioral Science but this work has in Managementand of Psychology, NorthwesternUniversity. [e.g., 2, 10, 17], not established a general framework for thinking about focus group 353

Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XIV (August 1977),353-64 354 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, 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 fundamentalnature of qualitativemarketing research. constructs to interpret the real world, to determine Qualitative marketingresearch 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 "beingscientific." Basically, these methodsare simply are, however, interestedin developingknowledge from systematic procedures for determining whether a research.The philosophyof science provides a valua- theoryis consistentwith the workingsof 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 logicalrigor and documentationemployed in testing by qualitativeresearch, be it scientific knowledge or scientific constructs and relationshipsagainst the real otherwise, to determine what this implies about the world. use of the focus group technique. The implications Let us returnto the natureof scientific constructs. of seeking either nonscientific or scientific knowledge An importantquestion is, how do we develop scientific throughfocus groupresearch are not well understood. constructs? Where do they come from? In all of Thoughmany practitionersmight avoid the "scien- science, the originof constructsis somewhatproblem- 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 uponthe philosophyof science perspectivedeveloped, process of modifyingconstructs on the basis of empir- this articleshows thateach of these approachesreflects 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 PHILOSOPHYOF SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE to give meaning to the world in their everyday lives. What comes to mind when most people think of As such, its function is analogous to that of science. research is the image of "scientific" research. This It allows one to interpret the real world by use of image is somewhat fuzzy, and it is not easy to simplifiedideas. 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 particularway 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 heartof science is the process of conceptualization, World of abstraction > Scientific concepts objects and and terms which seeks to representthe real world in a simple behavior , interpretation (second-degree enough way to allow understanding.Scientific con- constructs) structsare abstractedforms and representonly limited aspects of real-worldobjects and behaviors. If scien- ^ ~ ~~;/ tific constructs mirroredthe full complexity of the real world, one could no more understand science than one can directly understandthe real world. Constructs are simplifications and idealizations of of the real World of everyday reality. They are, in short, abstractions 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 withinthe realm of scientific discourse. Scientific theory consists of constructsand the interrelationshipsamong them [5]. Figure 1 The value of this theory depends on the fact that OVERVIEW OF A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE abstract conceptualizationis not a one-way process. PERSPECTIVE FOCUS GROUPS AND THE NATUREOF QUALITATIVEMARKETING RESEARCH 355 the two types of knowledgeare independent.Scientific first-degree constructs. Demographicanalyses, such knowledge is subject to its own rules of evidence. as breakdowns of consumption figures by age, are But this independenceis not absolute. Modernphilos- 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 Quantitativeresearch which does seek scientific ex- truthof the bulk of all other knowledge,both scientific planation can be referred to simply as the scientific and everyday. approach. Here, quantitativemeans much more than Neither scientific explanationsof consumer behav- merely working with numerical amounts or rating ior nor explanations based on everyday knowledge scales. It implies the use of second-degreeconstructs can be proved. All knowledge reduces to the choice andcausal hypotheses whichare subjectedto scientific between alternative explanations. It is thus entirely methods. The methods in common use are the experi- reasonableto compare scientific and everyday expla- ment, some types of cross-sectionaland panel surveys, nations. The truly scientific explanation may be and time series analysis. Scientific quantitativemar- 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 Qualitativemarketing research similarlycannot be for the cross-validationof 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 probablygenerally considered to be "unscienti- research, the relationship of qualitative research to fic." Nonetheless, some form of comparisonbetween the scientific and everyday knowledge dichotomy is scientific and everyday explanation should be part very ambiguous. An underlyingconfusion about this of a sophisticatedview of science, and this relationship relationshiphas led to three approachesbeing lumped accordinglyappears in Figure 1. under the label of "qualitativemarketing 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 SUMMARYOF RESEARCHAPPROACHES DISCUSSED as to be, say, strictly a function of shelf-facings. The foregoing discussion suggests that the researcher Typeof shouldreconsider his attitudeprocess explanation.The knowledge everyday explanation certainly does not prove that Approach desired Rationale the scientific explanationis wrong, but it does indicate Quantitative the need for increased skepticism. Descriptive Everyday To find numerical The overall conclusion emerging from this discus- patternsrelated to sion is that the philosophy of science clearly implies everyday concepts a (e.g., consumption separation, though not an impenetrableboundary, breakdownsby between everyday and scientific discourse. Explana- age) tory concepts of the everyday kind are sometimes Scientific Scientific To use numerical called "first-degreeconstructs" (cf. are measurementto Fig. 1). They test scientific based on the social construction of reality by a set constructsand 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 science. are to be scientific They supposed highly abstract and constructsand to to be subject to scientific methods, but they are no validatethem less a constructionof reality. It is not "unscientific" againsteveryday to compare the everyday and the scientific. experience The categorization of knowledge as scientific or Clinical Quasiscientific To use second-degree everyday has strong implications for the division scientific between quantitative and qualitative marketing re- constructswithout search. Quantitativeresearch commonly is associated, numerical at least implicitly, with the realm of science. This measurement(i.e., connotationis not clinicaljudgments) always accurate,however. Actually, Phenomenological Everyday To understandthe there are two approaches to quantitative research. everyday What can be referred to as the descriptive approach experienceof the supplies numericalinformation relevant to everyday, consumer 356 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1977 represents a different version of the relationshipbe- idea is that "grounded theory is a way of arriving tween qualitativeresearch and the partitionof 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, approachmight well be describedas groundedtheory. whereas the third clearly seeks everyday knowledge. Much qualitative research follows the exploratory The followingsections describethe approachesin turn. approach even though it never leads, to quantitative A lack of understandingof the differences among research. The putative second-degree constructs and themis responsiblenot only for much of the uneasiness hypotheses developed from focus groups frequently surroundingqualitative marketingresearch, 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 quantitativestage. In such cases, concern commonly THE EXPLORATORYAPPROACH is expressed about the risk of generalizingfrom the Qualitativemarketing research frequently is under- small samples of qualitative research. But there is taken with the belief that it is provisional in nature. much 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 exploratoryapproach 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 certainoperational aspects of anticipatedquantitative it were a scientific finding, instead of being at best research.Their objective might be to check the word- a prescientific startingpoint. The problemis 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 ambitiousgoal of using qualitative is risky indeed. research to generate or select theoretical ideas and Exploratoryqualitative research which is not fol- hypotheses which they plan to verify with future lowed by a quantitativestage is not necessarilyuseless. quantitativeresearch. 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 mistakeis to representprescientific every- When focus groups are conducted in anticipation day explanationas 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-generationrelationship from the ev- Thoughthe subject of exploratoryqualitative research erydayto the scientific (cf. Fig. 1). Of equal importance is everyday knowledge, the knowledge desired is best in termsof the philosophyof science is the comparison describedas prescientific.The rationaleof exploratory relationship from the scientific to the everyday. It focus groups is that considering a problem in terms is useful to think of this relationshipas 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 accomplishingthe construct-generationprocess 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 philosophyof science supplies qualitative research must always be provisional. It no precise guidelines. Nor has any thoughtbeen given is also desirable to conduct independent exploratory to this process in the marketingresearch literature. qualitative research. In this way, scientific explana- This is not to say that the exploratory approach is tions can be comparedwith everyday ones. Contrary not worthwhile,only that it is being attemptedwithout to currentpractice, it is just as appropriateto 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 qualitativeas well as quantitativeresearch 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- FOCUSGROUPS AND THENATURE OF QUALITATIVEMARKETING RESEARCH 357 mately rooted in the creativity of the individual.The indicativeof the presentclinical approach is Goldman's exploratory approach could be adopted to compare [ 10] descriptionof the "depth"focus groupinterview. 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 approachsimilar to the way Whereasthe exploratoryapproach seeks to generate "psychotherapy sessions are analyzed" [10, p. 68] scientific constructs from everyday thought and to should be used. In other words, focus groups provide compare scientific and everyday explanations, a sec- a qualitativesource for clinical judgment. ond approachexpressly attemptsto 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 quantitativeones. In marketingthis approach accepted too easily by uncritical lay clients. This most clearly reflects the perspective of clinical psy- problem apparently has led some marketersto con- chology. A "clinical" heritage has deeply influenced clude that the clinical approachis inherentlyunscienti- 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 relationshipbetween the misleadingas explanationsof 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 quantitativeresearch. Clinicaljudgment does not con- quantitativetechniques, 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 judgmentsare based on second-degreeconstructs 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 informationuseful 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 researchare not adequatefor this purpose. Clinical of rapportamong participantsby the moderator.The judgmentis an analytical skill of somewhat nebulous claim of the clinical approachto 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 diagnosingthe major causes of behavior from the his clinical judgmentand presumablyrenders it more complex overdeterminationof both unconscious and scientific. Explanationsdeveloped 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 clinicalapproach assumes the existence be scientific because clinical judgment is supposed of scientific knowledgeas a basis for clinicaljudgment, to take scientifically valid theory as a starting point it is crucial to appreciatethe 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 theorycould logicallybe treatedclinically, the concern knowledge without being bound by quantitativemeth- of clinicians is with the underlyingcauses of behavior ods of analysis. which are not directlyavailable from self-reports.This The clinical approachwas most obviously in vogue concern is what leads them to the need for clinical in marketing during the ascendancy of "motivation judgmentas a means of scientific interpretation.The research." The wide variety of qualitativetechniques 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 informationalinput for clinical judgment. The popu- history.These theoriesare 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 participantsto reveal their inner experience 358 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1977 in a way that is susceptible to clinical judgment and Certainly many practitionerswould recognize Ax- therefore clinical scientific interpretation. elrod's statement as descriptive of their own use of Contraryto what one might expect, the most trou- qualitativeresearch. 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 hearconsumers talk" in requesting devices such as TAT pictures. The major cause for focus groups. The experientialutility of focus groups concern is the scientific knowledgeon which clinicians is accepted even by persons who implicitly think of rely. It is fairly well known that psychodynamic their own research as mainly exploratoryor clinical. theories can be classified only questionablyas scien- This acceptance does not seem in any way at odds tific knowledge.They have not been subject to exten- with an exploratoryor 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 primaryconcern off. More disturbing, and this is less well known, of the richest literature on qualitative research. So- cliniciansfrequently draw more from everyday knowl- ciologists are the most active contributors to this edge in makingjudgments 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 moralityand science, "the impositionof value severalcurrent streams. Perhaps the best generalname and fact upon each other." He contends that if the for it is "sociological phenomenology," and thus the clinician"knew a little more of astrologyor 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 parallelsbetween his own and some less-honored philosopher-sociologistAlfred Schutz [cf. 15, 17]. In crafts" [14, p. 22]. philosophy,the study of phenomenologyis concerned Such a breakdownin 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-senseconceptions and ordinaryexpla- causation, while in practice they explain why people nationsshared 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 qualitativeresearch seeks Towardthe worldof everyday knowledgeone assumes quasiscientific knowledge. This knowledge is meant "the naturalattitude." 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 scientific to clinical To the The mental stance a person takes in the spontaneous methods, only judgment. and routine pursuitsof his daily affairs, and the basis extent that the process of clinical judgmentfails, the of his interpretationof the life world as a whole and clinicalapproach results in everydayknowledge which in its various aspects. The life world is the world of masqueradesas scientific. Therefore, at its best, the the naturalattitude. In it, things are taken for granted. clinical approachyields quasiscientificknowledge; at its worst, it yields phony scientific knowledge. The individualadopts the naturalattitude from birth, accepts everyday knowledge, and functions in terms THE PHENOMENOLOGICALAPPROACH of this knowledge. A thirdapproach to qualitativeresearch 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- sumptionthat 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 opportunityfor the client to put himself a of is thus in the position of the consumer and to be able to look reciprocity perspectives. Intersubjectivity at his productand his category from her vantagepoint. 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 marketingresearch, 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 FOCUSGROUPS AND THENATURE OF QUALITATIVEMARKETING RESEARCH 359 actors. For any given actor, intersubjectivity arises the researcherand the subjects, in the milieu of the from his contact with other actors (includingcommon latter" (originalitalics). Also favored is unstructured patterns of general socialization). Thus intersubjec- interviewingin which, accordingto 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 particularintersubjectivity to the extent that they of theirentire life, or a part of it, or some other aspect have less contact andhave had dissimilarsocialization. about themselves" (original italics). Both participant Intersubjectivitywill be greatestwithin primary groups observation and unstructuredinterviewing seek the and will be less within larger, more encompassing descriptionof the intersubjectivityof a set of actors groups. throughthe researcher'sown 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 geographiclocation, race, or whatever. For example, qualitative marketingresearch is identical to that of intersubjectivityis less between social classes in the phenomenologicalsociology. 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 naturalatti- of different groups of consumers. Although deviant tude toward its own intersubjectivitybut is ethnocen- groupings vary more in intersubjectivitythan most tric toward that which is not shared by other classes. consumption-relatedgroupings, the exercise of quali- This capsule version of Schutz's ideas captures tative research should be the same in principle. Mar- much of the spiritof recent work on phenomenological keters for the most part belong to social groupings sociology within the areas of ethnomethodologyand whose intersubjectivity is not the same as that of symbolic interactionism.Note especially the depen- manyof theirtarget segments. Realityin the executive dency of intersubjectivityon 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 emergingfrom 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 intersubjectivityof a set of subjects, he The ideas of phenomenological sociology provide must interactwith them to the extent that he acquires greater methodological direction than is currently the ability to take their perspective so that their availablein marketingresearch practice. Focus groups intersubjectivityseems naturalto him. A recent socio- following the phenomenologicalapproach amount to logical qualitative research text [4, p. 8] puts this an effort to get consumersto talk to each other about very simply: "In qualitative methods, the researcher product-relatedissues. But the role of the moderator is necessarily involved in the lives of the subjects" in this interaction is very poorly prescribed. The (originalitalics). As Blumer [3, p. 86] argues: moderator'sbehavior most often is left to the idiosyn- cracies of the To the extent that . . . the student must take the role of the acting unit person moderating. whosebehavior he is studying.Since the interpretation the moderator'stechnique is not idiosyncratic,it most is being made by the acting unit in terms of objects likely is drawn implicitly from the exploratory or designatedand appraised,meanings acquired, and deci- clinical approaches. These two approaches are not sions made, the process has to be seen from the compatiblewith the phenomenologicalapproach. Ex- standpoint of the acting unit. . . . To try to catch ploratory focus groups entail creative prescientific the interpretativeprocess by remaining aloof as a intellectualization.Clinical focus groups concentrate so-called "objective" observer and refusing to take on intrasubjectivity,on quasiscientificinterpretations the role of the acting unit is to risk the worst kind based on second-degreeconstructs which are personal of subjectivism-the objective observer is likely to to the individual. Neither allows the active involve- fill in the process of interpretationwith his own surmises the interactive called in place of catching the process as it occurs in the ment, highly personal contact, experience of the acting unit which uses it [italics for by the phenomenologicalapproach. added]. A bias towardthe seeming objectivityof 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 intersubjectivityof a set of actors has led phenome- phenomenologicalapproach. 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 terizedby a period of intensesocial interactionbetween whose own backgroundsmake it easier for them to 360 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1977 take the role of a particularconsumer segment. choice, given the current development of social These considerations lead to the question of the science. relationshipbetween the phenomenologicalapproach To summarize,the phenomenologicalapproach pro- andthe partitionof everydayand scientific knowledge. vides a systematic descriptionin terms of first-degree Clearly, the intersubjectivity that is the object of constructs of the consumption-relevantintersubjec- inquiryconstitutes 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 researcherswould contend to be a scientific interpretationof reality. This inter- that, as ordinarydescription derived from experiencing pretation employs second-degree constructs repre- the role of the other, the phenomenologicalapproach senting the intrasubjectivityof individualconsumers. results in everyday knowledge.' This description, The logic of the phenomenologicalapproach dictates however systematic and thorough, still relies by its that the researcher have close personal involvement natureon first-degreeconstructs. 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 developmentof a social science of second-degree misleading, on reflection, to say that the value of constructs. It does raise a difficult problem, though. phenomenologicalfocus groups is in the experiencing Some sociologists, mainly the ethnomethodologists, of consumers. What they should yield is the lodge a powerful criticismagainst conventional social experiencingof the experience of consumers. science. They claim that all too often researchers The phenomenologicalapproach to qualitative re- confuse first-degree constructs with second-degree search seeks everyday knowledge. This knowledge ones. The explanatoryconstructs of everyday life are is not meantto have scientific status. It is the everyday assumed implicitlyto have some scientific status. knowledge, the experience, of the consumer. The concern of the ethnomethodologistsis that the IMPLICATIONSFOR RESEARCH of most of the supposed second-degreesocial MARKETING validity PRACTICE science constructsrests more on their utility in every- day knowledge than on scientific evidence. Consider Qualitativemarketing research is morecomplex than an example. In everyday life it is natural to explain any simple notion that quantitativeresearch permits the behavior of people in terms of personality traits. objective numerical analysis which qualitative re- Nearly 5% of the English language is given over to search sacrifices for intensive analysis and fast turn- trait names [1]. The first-degree constructs of traits around. That there is more involved than a trade-off have been carriedover into the realmof social science. between precision and flexibility is especially evident Traits have certainly received considerable attention in light of the three distinct approachesto qualitative in consumerbehavior 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 explanationsare not scientif- scientific knowledge. The exploratoryapproach seeks ically valid. Empirical evidence indicates that trait prescientific explanations stimulated by everyday theory needs considerableelaboration [e.g., 12]. That thought. The clinical approach seeks quasiscientific simple trait theory persists in social science may be explanationsbased on clinicaljudgment. The phenom- attributableto its entrenchmentin everyday explana- enological approach seeks everyday explanations tion ratherthan to its scientific merits. derived from personal contact. The three approaches The point is that much of what is considered to are summarizedin Table 1. be scientific maybelong moreto everyday explanation. These three approaches are not well understood Phenomenologicalqualitative research therefore may by those who use them. Frequent confusion of the have a strongerclaim to the use of conventionalsocial approaches testifies to this lack of understanding. science constructs than does scientific research. In Marketingresearchers often subscribe to the explora- any event, this criticismshould give pauseto marketers tory and clinicalapproaches (as evidenced by the usual who would condemn the nonscientific status of the statementsincluded in the introductionsof commercial phenomenologicalapproach to qualitative marketing reports) but commonly pursue something more akin research.Not only does this workhave practicalutility, to the phenomenologicalapproach. It is hoped that but it is also entirely defensible as the approach of discussion of each approachprovides a deeper under- standing of them. The discussion also has several specific implications for questions typically raised about the use of focus groups. 'It shouldbe noted that social psychologistshave soughtspecifi- Perhapsthe most common question is about gener- cally to investigate the constructs and hypotheses of everyday which is considered with knowledge scientifically. This was the goal of Heider's original alizability, usually by analogy work on "naive psychology." It continues to be ill-acknowledged the quantitative survey-how can one project to a rationalefor currentattribution theory studies in social psychology. largeruniverse results which are not stated as numeri- FOCUS GROUPS AND THE NATUREOF QUALITATIVEMARKETING RESEARCH 361 cal scores and are based on poor sampling? The The problem is to determine the extent to which a conventionalanswer is that such results can be gener- particularintersubjectivity manifested in focus groups alized only by a followup quantitative stage. But is shared. That is, how large is the social grouping analogy to quantitativetechniques is the wrong point which has a particularperspective in common? Here of reference. One must consider the natureof qualita- it does make sense to address generalizabilitythrough tive research in thinkingabout generalizability. a descriptivequantitative survey. Both opinion polling For the exploratory approach, sample generali- and psychographic/life-style surveys can be seen as zability is not even particularlymeaningful. The goal attempts to do just this. These are not attempts at is either to generate ideas for scientific constructs scientific explanationso 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 projection using pictures of consumers to illustrate different to a larger universe means in this context. The likeli- psychographicprofiles is indicative of the phenome- hood of generatingan 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 nomenologicalapproach is predicatedon experiencing in mindis generalizabilitywhen the scientific construct the experience of consumers.This is best done through or explanation is employed in quantitativeresearch. 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 vicariousexperience. The best way to gener- research. The error is to assume that focus groups alize from phenomenologicalfocus groups is to con- are provisional in the sense of yielding preliminary duct additionalgroups in an attemptto cover as many versions of quantitative findings. On the contrary, different social groupingsas possible. The widespread exploratoryfocus groups only suggest a construct or faith in the superiorityof quantitativeover qualitative providea comparisonwith everyday knowledge. They research is clearly reversed for the phenomenological do not constitute a scientific test. Sample generali- approach. zability is a propertyonly of subsequent quantitative How then does one answer the typical question, research. It is misleading even to speak about the "Should qualitative research ideally be generalized generalizabilityof exploratoryfocus groups. through additional quantitative research?" Conven- Generalizabilityis more meaningfulfor the clinical tional 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 legitimacynor the preferable the basis of this interpretationis clinical judgment. methodof generalizing.Focus groupresearch basically Clinical judgment is not itself sufficiently specifiable must stand alone! to permitsystematic extrapolation.Generalizations of The 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 phenomenologicalapproach should be Poor generalizability is inherent in clinical focus used when management is out of touch with the groups. It might be thought that generalizabilitycan consumer,or when targetsegments consist of minority be assessed through subsequentresearch designed to or rapidly changingsocial groupings.The exploratory test the clinical interpretation with a quantitative approachshould be used when scientific explanation technique.This notion is somewhat paradoxical,how- is desired but researchersare uncertainabout second- ever. The justificationfor the clinical approachis that degree constructs, or when a scientific explanation it allows the use of scientific constructs (unconscious is at hand and researchers wish to compare it with thoughts, etc.) which are difficult to investigate quan- the consumer's interpretation. Finally, the clinical titatively. Attemptingthen to base the generalizability approach should be used when researchers invoke of a clinical interpretationon quantitativeresults, and scientific constructs which are not amenable to self- 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 appropriatefrom until the moderator can anticipate what is going to the first. Generalizabilityis 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 particularkind. 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- Generalizabilityis also importantfor the phenome- carious experience. But one can anticipate without nological approach, though it has a different meaning. having yet made a clinical judgmentor having formed 362 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1977 an idea for a second-degree construct. The number nologicalapproach 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 dictumsof focus group the clinicalapproach. The process of clinical judgment researchis to avoid serial questioningwhere a number is related intimately to interviewingtechnique. Clini- of people are simply being interviewed at once. In- cians believe that some techniques facilitate clinical teraction among the participantsis 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, Whatexpertise should a moderatorhave? The clini- there seems to be little agreement about the role of cal and exploratoryapproaches demand a high degree interaction. What does it accomplish? Interaction is of sophistication with scientific theory. In contrast, clearlyimportant for the phenomenologicaland clinical most importantfor the phenomenological approach approaches.But to understandthe 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 relationis different for the two approaches. There may also be dispositionalcharacteristics which With the phenomenologicalapproach, 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 managementobserve 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 moderatoris not a part of the the clinical and exploratoryapproaches. What is being interaction. He or she must be detached from it so revealedcannot be seen by the lay observer. Observa- that the group dynamics can be used as a tool to tion makes sense for the phenomenologicalapproach probe and manipulatethe defenses of the members. if it helps the managerto experience the consumer's Interactionhas a differentpurpose 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 functions as viously 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 The thinking. exploratory ap- PROFILESOF THE THREEAPPROACHES TO FOCUS proach implies more participationfrom key members and more one-to-one interaction with the moderator GROUP RESEARCH than do the other approaches. Should focus be of Explor- Phenomeno- groups composed homogeneous atory Clinical logical or heterogeneous people? Heterogeneous groups rich information for the or The approachcan be might yield exploratory generalizedwith a followup clinical approaches. Clinicalgroups, however,,should quantitativestage No No Yes most often be homogeneous to facilitate rapport. The approachshould be used Phenomenological groups require homogeneity. A when the goal is to shared perspective cannot be expected to emerge if experiencethe consumer No No Yes the are not similar. The anticipation people rule-of-thumbis appropriate How importantis the moderator'sinterviewing tech- for determiningthe number nique? Many focus group moderatorsaffect stylized of groupsconducted No No Yes interviewingtechniques which encompass everything Obtaininga high level of interactionamong the group from how respondents are seated, and whether or membersis essential No Yes Yes not they are addressed by name, to how nondirective A homogeneousgroup of the moderatoris. From the present perspective, these people is necessary No No Yes techniques do not seem crucial for the exploratory The moderator'sinterviewing or the which techniqueis crucial No Yes No phenomenologicalapproach. Anything The moderatormust have is comfortablefor the participantsis probablyconsis- scientific credentials Yes Yes No tent with these two approaches. One technique or Observationby management the other is not likely, in itself, to help much in is appropriate No No Yes obtainingideas for scientific explanationsor in under- Verbatimquotes should be standing the consumer's experience. The phenome- emphasizedin the report No No Yes FOCUSGROUPS AND THENATURE OF QUALITATIVEMARKETING RESEARCH 363 styles of reporting. The phenomenological report be more a license to "qualitativeclairvoyance" than should include extensive quotes ("verbatims") from good research. consumer comments. It might be supplemented by Scientific integrity might best be maintained by edited tapes of the sessions. Oral presentations also having two largely separate realms of marketingre- should be helpful. Anythingwhich better conveys the search. Most routinequalitative research would follow reality of the consumer's perspective is appropriate. the phenomenologicalapproach. The exploratoryand Reports of clinical or exploratorygroups should con- clinical approaches would be used with caution, and centrate much more on the analyst's own reasoning only when clearly dictated. Present misconceptions in reaching conclusions. about the desirabilityof linking qualitativeand quan- To sharpen the distinction among the three ap- titative research would be abandoned. Marketers proaches to focus group research, the implications would recognizethe need for both qualitativephenom- discussed are summarizedin 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 Whatevertrends emerge in qualitativeresearch, 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 natureof qualitativeresearch qualitativemarketing 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 of and should be explored. The greatestthreat to qualita- knowledge sought (see Table 1). Importantquestions tive research findings is not lack of generalizability aboutfocus 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 surroundingtheir use, knowledge, requiredifferent answers. is based on opinion conformity ratherthan the nature of qualitativemarketing research. THE FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE MARKETING RESEARCH REFERENCES As previously stated, the three approachesdetected 1. Allport, G. W. and H. S. Odbert. "Trait-Names: A and elaborated on are not sharply distinguished in Psycholexical Study," Psychological Monographs, 47 the minds of marketingresearchers. It is hoped that (1, Whole No. 211). the foregoing discussion, if nothing else, shows that 2. Axelrod, M. D. "MarketersGet an Eyeful When Focus qualitative marketing research is a diverse GroupsExpose Products,Ideas, Images, Ad Copy, Etc. activity. to News Otherwise the confusion of approaches may worsen. Consumers," Marketing (February28, 1975), Most is an fuzziness of 6-7. troubling increasing the clinical 3. H. Interactionism: Recall that the rationale for this Blumer, Symbolic Perspective and approach. approach Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, is that it allows scientific interpretationwhere con- Inc., 1969. structs cannot be investigated quantitatively; hence 4. Bogdan,R. and S. J. Taylor. Introductionto Qualitative the need for clinicaljudgment. Increasingly,however, Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, all kinds of theories are being applied with "clinical" Inc., 1975. judgment. Focus groups are interpretedin terms of 5. Bunge, M. ScientificResearch I: The Searchfor System. any available social science construct (e.g., attitudes, Berlin:Springer, 1967. values, traits, roles, norms, etc.). This is not an 6. Campbell, D. "Qualitative Knowing in Action Re- The Journal Social application of the exploratory approach. It is an search," of Issues, in press, 1974. to extend the clinical to 7. Cox, K. K., J. B. Higginbotham,and J. Burton. "Ap- attempt approach all con- of Focus Interviews without to their to plications Group in Marketing," structs, regard amenability existing Journalof Marketing,40 (January1976), 77-80. scientific methods. This is a misuse of qualitative 8. Feyerabend, P. K. "Against Method: Outline of an research. It is an attempt to shortcut the scientific AnarchisticTheory of Knowledge," in M. Radnerand process, without the attendant justification of the S. Winokur, eds., Analysis of Theories and Methods traditionalclinical approach.The result is often expla- of Physics and Psychology. Vol IV. Minnesota Studies nations which have no claim to being even quasi- in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis:University scientific. Social science constructs are used merely of MinnesotaPress, 1970. as convenient (and probably 9. Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss. The Discovery of overly intellectualized) Grounded ways of describingthe phenomenologyof consumers. Theory:Strategies for QualitativeResearch. This trend leads to scientific Chicago: Aldine, 1967. purportedly interpreta- 10. Goldman,A. E. "The GroupDepth Interview," Journal tions which either (1) are needlessly based on clinical Marketing,26 61-8. or are in fact of (July 1962), judgment (2) phenomenologicaldescrip- 11. Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry:Methodology for tions couched in social science jargon. Perhaps these BehavioralScience. New York:Intext EducationalPub- are useful to marketingmanagement. But they may lishers, 1964. 364 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH, AUGUST 1977

12. Kassarjian,H. H. "Personalityand Consumer Behavior: Evolutionof Collective Understanding.Princeton, New A Review," Journal of MarketingResearch, 8 (No- Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1972. vember 1971),409-18. 17. Wagner, H. R. Alfred Schutz on Phenomenologyand 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. Criticismand the Growthof Knowl- 18. Wells, W. D. "GroupInterviewing," in R. Ferber, ed., edge. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1970. Handbookof MarketingResearch. 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 Phenomenologyof the Social World. and ConsumerResearch. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Evanston,Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1967. Winston, 1973. 16. Toulmin, S. E. Human Understanding.Vol. 1. The