Research methods unit III Scholarly Activity

1279

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FOCUS-GROUP AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW

Zaharia Rodica Milena

Bucharest University of Eonomics, Romania, Faculty of International Business and Economics,

[email protected] , Tel.:+40 21 319 19 90, tel. +40 0722179201

Grundey Dainora

Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities, [email protected], Tel.: +370 37 425 462,

Fax: +370 37 423 222

Stancu Alin

Bucharest University of Economics, Faculty of Marke ting, [email protected] , Tel.:+40 21 319 19 90

Qualitative research methods tend to be used more a nd more in academic research. The cost for these

methods is quite low and the results may be very in teresting and useful for many fields of study. However,

the utility and the characteristic of qualitative r esearch methods differ from subject to subject and from

discipline to discipline. This paper comes close to a comparison of two qualitative research methods

(focus-group and in-depth interview) used in invest igating the opinion of academics, analyzing by

comparison the results founded in a research conduc ted in the Bucharest University of Economics using

focus group and in-depth interviews. The conclusion s of the study reveal that apart of the limits states in

the literature, there are other elements that can c ontribute to obtaining unrealistic results.

Key words: Qualitative research methods, focus grou p, in-depth interview, academic research

Introduction

Rapid social change and the diversity of the world have contributed on a large scale to the diversification

of research methods. Limits of quantitative researc h methods have determined orientation to the qualit ative

instruments which are more reliable in certain circ umstances. There are many virtues of qualitative

research that determine a lot of researchers to man ifest preference for these kinds of methods: are the

correct choice of appropriate methods and theories, the recognition and analysis of different perspectives,

the researchers’ reflections on their research as p art of the process of knowledge production, and the

variety of approaches and methods (Flick, 2002:4). Qualitative research explain how it may be useful for

exploring “why” rather “how many”.

There are various types of instruments used to coll ect data for qualitative research. Focus groups and in-

depth interviews are among the most utilize instrum ents that researchers are using in collecting their data.

Focus group implies a group discussion in order to identify perceptions, thoughts and impressions of a

selected group of people regarding a specific topic of investigations (Kairuz, Crump and O’Brien, 2007 ).

Discussion should be perceived by the participants as no-threatening and free to express any kind of

opinion, no matter if this opinion is shared or not by the other participants. Focus groups generate v aluable

information, especially when the participants repre sent small groups of interest, ignored by the quantitative

research or when the area of investigation.

The in-depth interview is a technique designed to e licit a vivid picture of the participant’s perspective on

the research topic. During in-depth interviews, the person being interviewed is considered the expert and

the interviewer is considered the student. The rese archer’s interviewing techniques are motivated by t he

desire to learn everything the participant can shar e about the research topic.

In depth interview is an effective qualitative meth od for getting people to talk about their personal feelings,

opinions, and experiences. It is also an opportunit y to gain insight into how people interpret and ord er the

world. We can accomplish this by being attentive to the causal explanations.

The results obtained through these two qualitative methods varied (among others) according to the subj ect

investigated. As a general rule, in depth interview s, the participants are more confident, more relaxe d and

they feel more encouraged to express the deepest th oughts about a certain subject. In focus group the 1280

participants act according to their personality; it

is the risk that in some situation those with a we ek

personality to follow those with a stronger persona lity. There are also some situations when the issue

discussed is incommode and the participants are not confident in expressing their real opinions. They are

more preoccupied by the image that the other partic ipants will build up on them that to express what they

really think about that subject.

The case study

This study tries to identify the limits of using fo cus group comparing with in-depth interview in iden tifying

the opinions of academics regarding some aspects of academic research. The aspects evaluated through

these two qualitative methods were related to the c onnection between academic research and business

environment and to the performance of the academic research.

Both issues are quite very important for Romanian a cademics and universities management. The

performance of academic research (through the resul ts of the research process) is perceived as almost

similar with the performance of the university.

Cooperation between academic research and business environment is considered to be one of the proofs

that academic research is in the benefit of society , a confirmation of the market utility of universities.

Academic research is considered to be efficient and social valuable if it offers solution to real problems that

companies confront on. Students seem that are not w illing to sacrifice functional expertise in favor of

generalist expertise. (Schelfhaudt and Crittenden, 2005)

From universities point of view, collaboration betw een business environment and universities is an

important source of casuistic for the teaching proc ess. It is also an important source of financial resources

for universities, and many times sponsorship activi ty is determined by the implication of business

environment in the academic activity. There are cas es when industries developed in a perfect harmony w ith

universities (Silicon Valley).

From the students’ point of view, those universitie s with strong connection in business environment ar e

very attractive. It is a proof of the fact that the y will have better opportunities to find a job and a

confirmation that higher education does not offer o nly theoretical knowledge, but also practical skills and

abilities.

In Romania it is still believed that universities a re more oriented to theoretical approach than to pr actical

direction. Universities considered that business en vironment does not have positive reception for acad emic

research. Business environment is not convinced tha t universities have necessary abilities to find correct

answers for their problems.

Methodology

The purpose of this paper is to present the differe nces between focus group and in depth interview usi ng

these qualitative methods on a subject regarding th e academics’ evaluation of the performance of acade mic

research and the relation between business environm ent and academic research. Both focus group and in-

depth interviews were conducted in the same univers ity, following the same conversation guide. Some of

the academics interviewed by in depth interview met hod were present in the focus group. The structure of

focus group was similar with that of in-depth inter views. Academics were grouped in three categories,

according to age and involvement in research. Group A, below 30, group B between 30 and 50 (with two

sub-groups, B1 with little involvement in research and B2 with involvement in research) and group C, o ver

50 (also with 2 sub-groups: C1, with little involve ment in research and C2 with involvement in researc h).

The structure of the conversation guide was around three major themes: what do you consider about the

present evaluation system of academic research, why the performance of academic research in Romania is

considered to be low and how do you appreciate the relation between academic research and business

environment . In order to discuss the comparison between these two qualitative methods were selected two

questions: the first one, what do you consider about the present evaluation system of academic research,

and the last one, how do you appreciate the relation between academic research and business environment.

The reason of selecting these two questions is give n by the fact that the first two question offer similar

information from this paper’s goal point of view.

Also, literature review was used in order to determ ine the place of this study among other researches. At

the international level it is a constant preoccupat ion in analyzing both the virtues and the limits of focus 1281

group and in-depth interview and some of these stud

ies were consulted in order to sustain the conclusions

of the present paper.

Major findings

What do you consider about the present evaluation s ystem of academic research?

On this question, the answers gained in focus group and in in-depth interview were quite different. If both

in-depth interviews and focus group all of the part icipants complained about the present evaluation sy stem,

the motives of complains were different.

The participants’ attitude in focus group was rathe r favorable to the research aspects. Nobody mention ed in

the focus group pecuniary aspects. All critics expr essed by the participants in focus group were relat ed to

the relativity of the criteria established by the M inistry “why they are asking for publication in ISI journals,

when we don’t have such journals in Romania” (X12), to the high pressure that exist on the professors

“students are asking for a good professor, evaluati on system asks for a good researcher. It is quite difficult

to be good on both” (X3, X9, X11). All participants in focus groups agreed that publication should be a

criterion of evaluation, but not in this way. A lot of vague aspects were revealed, as “originality of the

research”, or “the contribution to the field”, crit eria which are difficult to evaluate and nobody exp lained

what it mean.

In in-depth interviews the critics were very acid. The attitude against research activity was evident. “When

I was hired, nobody told me that I supposed to be a researcher. I was thinking that I will be a professor”

(X9, X6). “Which is the difference between research institute and universities? We should educate people,

not to research” (X12, X10). Financial aspects were also among those reasons invoke the most. “They

should first look to our wages and then they should ask us to have similar performances as the western

academics” (X2, X7, X5).

The differences between the attitude expressed in f ocus group and in in-depth interviews have differen t

reasons. One reason is given to the fact that all a cademics acknowledge that research is an important part of

the academic activity and they don’t want to admit “in public” that they do not agree with it. The

complaints are related to the way of establishing c riteria not with the criteria. In in-dept interview, they felt

more confident and they expressed their concerning and their rejection regarding an activity which is

considered too difficult or unnecessary (for some) from their point of view.

Another reason is given by the differences between generations. Those over 50 are more reserved than

those under 30. But those over 50 have more officia l authority, so they abstain to express negative opinion

in order to preserve their image.

How do you appreciate the relation between academic research and business environment?

This issue is one on which focus group and in-depth interviews were convergent. Both in focus-group an d

in in-depth interviews a certain defensive attitude was revealed. The academics consider that business

environment does not offer credit to academic resea rch. “They are not interested in what can we offer.

Managers are suspicious; they consider us a sort of spy (X1)”. ‘If you know someone in a company, than

you have chances to develop some relation with them , otherwise is almost impossible”(X2). “Let’s be

realistic. What can we offer? Why should they be in terested in our researchers’ abilities?” (X7) “They

don’t need research; they definitely don’t need aca demic research”(X5).

Other opinions consider business environments hosti le to collaboration with academic environment. “Our

students have many difficulties in finding companie s for internship and those which accept students ignore

them and do not allowed students to be involved in their current job. “All the time, we receive the same

answer from the students when we ask them: what hav e you done in the company? I answer to the phone; I

typed something on computer, things like these….(X6 )”

From in-depth interviews, many additional comments appeared in link with the relation between academic

environment and business environment. Almost all of them were in the same spirit of malfunction relation,

which has roots both in the communist regime mental ity and in the perception that universities are mostly

oriented towards theory, not towards practice. “In communism, the collaboration between so called

‘business’ and universities were compulsory and nob ody could say no, therefore, it was a formal

cooperation, especially in the economic field. Mayb e for engineering it was different but for us, it was 1282

totally formal, without any kind of practical resul

ts.”(X20,X24, X2) “Companies do not appreciate

academic environment because they consider that uni versities offer only pure theory. Many students are

working today and they are saying that what we are teaching them doesn’t apply in practice”(X31).

Why on this question the results were similar? Why the both methods lead to the same

conclusion, that business environment is hostile an d is not interested in the research that could

be provided by academics?

One explanation states in the fact that the collabo ration between business environment and academics i s a

difficult one. Every academics confronted with this difficult cooperation between universities and business

environment, mostly through students’ internship ac tivity. As one of the interviewed academics said, it is

somehow frustrating to ask the students all the tim e the same question: “What have you gained from you r

internship and to receive the same answer over and over again: “Almost nothing because they didn’t

allowed me to involve in their business”. It is a r eal situation given by the insufficient maturity of business

environment, on one side, and the struggle of acade mics to prove their business utility on the other side.

We have to accept that Romania is still learning ma rket economy and all the actors are in the middle of a

radical transformation process. Business environmen t in Romania, in general, gives no real attention to the

research activity. Many things are done “per se”. R omanian companies are to poor and multinationals

prefer to involve specialized companies in their re searches, not academic environment. This is not a s ecret,

and academics are aware of this aspect. Therefore, the same opinions are reflected by the focus-groups and

in-depth interviews.

Another explanation could be offered by the questio n itself. Apart from the other two themes, this one is

about “somebody else”. It is a subject that concern s all of us, but it involves another “entity”, an abstract

one, “business environment”. In focus group nobody was worried that his/her opinion is misunderstood or

that the expressed opinions will have any kind of n egative consequences. Furthermore, as all of them

expressed the same thoughts, there was no fear of a “bad” image perceived by the other participants.

Another motive could be given by the fact that the cooperation with business environment is not necess ary

assimilated with the personal academic performance. If an academic does not publish, this could be

interpreted as a lack of skill or a low performance , but not being involved in cooperation with busine ss

environment could be the results of many external f actors, which does not necessary should be related with

personal abilities or personal performance.

Conclusions

The use of qualitative research methods is consider ed to be a solution in investigating “Why?” especia lly

when the need to generalize the results is not nece ssary. Qualitative research methods are also preferable

when the investigation is oriented to determine mot ivation, perceptions or believes.

Focus-group and in-depth interview are among the mo st used methods. There are some advantages offered

by these instruments: low costs and valuable inform ation, which are difficult to obtain from a quantitative

research.

The inconvenient of these methods are determine by their limits in generalization the results. Also the

results can be altered if the instruments are used in an improper manner. This case study shows that

interviews are also especially appropriate for addressing sensitive topics that people might be reluctant to

discuss in a group. The question regarding the

present evaluation system of academic research was a

sensitive one and the results demonstrated that on question like this in-depth interviews are more ind icated.

On the second question the results were similar usi ng both methods because the subject discussed was

suitable for a group discussion too.

References

1. Aaker D.A; Kumar, V.; Day, G. (2001), Marketing Res earch, Seventh Edition, John Wiley&Sons,

Inc. New York

2. Burns, A.C; Bush, R.F (2002), Marketing Research, T hird Edition, prentice Hall, New Jersey

3. Flick, U (2002), An introduction to Qualitative res earch, SAGE Publication, London 1283

Kairuz, T, Crump K, and O’Brien, A. (2007), “Tools for data collection and analysis”,The

Pharmaceutical Journal, Vol. 278, pp. 371-377, (ref erred on 02/04/2008), available from

www.pjonline.com

5. Kvale S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qua litative Research Interviewing. London: Sage

Publications

6. Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Fi eld Guide, (referred on 12/04/2008) available

from

ttp://www.fhi.org/nr/rdonlyres/eprvylcljxmbssmuizj3 rcnycde2pnlowtoa7nxedbjl23jqjpitifimwv6v

2tmsmyocepirpjpfrd/interviews1.pdf

7. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. (1995), Qualitative Interviewin g: The Art of Hearing Data. London: Sage

Publications

8. Schelfhaudt, K; Crittenden, V.L. (2005), “Specialis t or generalist: Views from academia and

industry”, Journal of Business Research, 58, pp. 94 6– 954, (referred on 02/03/2008), available

from Elsevier

9. Simon-Kumar, R. (2005), "Is Qualitative Research al so Quality Research? Debating the limits of

Critical Scholarship" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies

Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Haw aii, (referred on 22/03/2008), available from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p72159_index.html

University of Oradea, Economic Science Series and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or

posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for individual use.