Focus Groups and Market Research
When reading “Focus Groups and Market Research” I was again reminded of the difficulties that qualitative research undergoes. From past research methods classes I remember that quantitative research is usually preferred and viewed as having more validity than most qualitative research. This article proved that point but also looked at the effectiveness of qualitative research, different approaches and the need for it especially in the social sciences fields.
In class we have talked about the need to do research before newsletters, flyers, surveys are conducted but have also mentioned that lack of monetary funds that NPO have. If research is not being taken seriously since there is not a lot of time and money available in NPOs, there is also a high possibility that time won’t be given to qualitative research. I think that if NPOs were going to conduct any type of research that quantitative research would be their first choice since qualitative research is just preliminary research and a follow up has to be conducted as well as the lack of validity and the lack of forums to follow for a good study. Personally, I prefer qualitative data since I don’t like numbers and don’t like graphs and charts but I do realize its important in the academic arena, especially in its job of providing validity.
The article talks about the confusion in qualitative data since it’s hard to make generalizations and each focus group can have different outcomes depending on environment, surveyor and any other number of variables. There are 3 approaches to conducting qualitative data. The first one is the exploratory approach which is pre-scientific explanations stimulated by every day thought. Then there is the clinical approach which is quasi-scientific explanations based on clinical judgment. And lastly the phenomenological approach which seeks everyday explanations derived from personal contact. All of theses approaches try to partition scientific knowledge from everyday experiences and thought but as seen from the definitions they are quite complicated and confusing to the average person. Therefore, the author suggests that unless you know what you are doing that the phenomenological approach would be the most logical.
The future of qualitative research seems to depend on the need for more awareness since it is quite confusing and takes more time and creativity. I think its good to have a balance between qualitative and quantitative data and that they can’t stand alone. As for NPOs having the time and money to conduct substantial and effective qualitative data that doesn’t seem like a feasible approach.
In class we have talked about the need to do research before newsletters, flyers, surveys are conducted but have also mentioned that lack of monetary funds that NPO have. If research is not being taken seriously since there is not a lot of time and money available in NPOs, there is also a high possibility that time won’t be given to qualitative research. I think that if NPOs were going to conduct any type of research that quantitative research would be their first choice since qualitative research is just preliminary research and a follow up has to be conducted as well as the lack of validity and the lack of forums to follow for a good study. Personally, I prefer qualitative data since I don’t like numbers and don’t like graphs and charts but I do realize its important in the academic arena, especially in its job of providing validity.
The article talks about the confusion in qualitative data since it’s hard to make generalizations and each focus group can have different outcomes depending on environment, surveyor and any other number of variables. There are 3 approaches to conducting qualitative data. The first one is the exploratory approach which is pre-scientific explanations stimulated by every day thought. Then there is the clinical approach which is quasi-scientific explanations based on clinical judgment. And lastly the phenomenological approach which seeks everyday explanations derived from personal contact. All of theses approaches try to partition scientific knowledge from everyday experiences and thought but as seen from the definitions they are quite complicated and confusing to the average person. Therefore, the author suggests that unless you know what you are doing that the phenomenological approach would be the most logical.
The future of qualitative research seems to depend on the need for more awareness since it is quite confusing and takes more time and creativity. I think its good to have a balance between qualitative and quantitative data and that they can’t stand alone. As for NPOs having the time and money to conduct substantial and effective qualitative data that doesn’t seem like a feasible approach.
posted by Anonymous @ 12:54 PM
3 Comments:
At 2:58 PM, March 17, 2008,
Jon Weiner said…
For a lot of Non-Profit's, think that qualitative data may be a more attactive option, especially given the limited funds that these organizations typically deal with. We have talked a lot, as Anna said, about the role of research in regards to the functionality of various PR tactics like newsletters, web content and others. If I was in charge of a non-profit and I needed to get some good, representative info rather quickly on my target publics I would probably opt for a focus group of some sort over the more formal quantitative data.
A focus group can be simple, and can provide good perspective on how consumers or patrons think about an organization or a specific part of an organization. I would have to think that regardless of budget, the people in charge of a small non-profit could likely understand what areas they were weak in and come up with some questions they would like to ask consumers about why they appear to be weak in these areas. Like the article calls it, a simple phenomenological effort aimed at "better understanding the consumer experience" can be both cost effective and very timely to set up and conduct.
Like Anna says, ideally, a mix of qualitative and quantitative data provides the best reasearch data, but if I was in charge of an organization strapped for funds and could only pick one - I feel like a basic focus group can be very beneficial if the right questions get asked. The argument could be made that quantitative data might be needed to form those questions, but if pressed, I'm sure most organizational leadership could do a good job of identifying the important areas where better consumer insight was needed.
There is certainly no blanket answer to the question of ... Which type of research should you do if you can only pick one, qualitative or quantitative? Each has its own merits and shortcomings and the article talks about. But I feel like a focus group might be the most cost effective way to address a wide variety of issues. They are easy, simple and when given a chance, my experience is that it is not hard to get passionate consumers to speak their mind. Again, if you ask the right questions, you can get a lot of good data.
At 9:25 PM, March 17, 2008,
Lei said…
I agree that qualitative research is better in gaining in-depth understanding from the target audience, particularly for small nonprofits focusing on the local market. I think this method is even more crucial in the start-up stage of an organization or a new service.
As the article points out, quantitative research looks for numerical patterns and uses numerical measurement to test scientific constructs and causal hypotheses. To the core, it emphasizes generalization. On the other hand, qualitative research emphasizes contextualization, which works well in studying whether the marketing strategies are right for this particular organization or target audience. The limited experience on focus group discussions that I have tells me that this type of research allows participants to help each other generate ideas, which is a benefit that structured quantitative studies will never have. As Jon said, a good focus group study depends on asking the right questions; and I think it also depends on the moderator's ability of controlling the situation, such as controlling the dominant speaker and making sure the discussion is right on track. In addition, for small nonprofits, perhaps a few incentives are much cheaper than keeping a SPSS software. And because of the generalizable nature of quantitative studies, nonprofits with limited budget could just look for existing studies for numerical patterns.
At 8:35 PM, February 27, 2012,
Anonymous said…
Hello,
Focus groups can be used to gather information on the acceptability and usability of new or re-launched products or services, reactions to new advertising campaigns or specific advertisements, or consumer perceptions of a whole product class. Group discussions are especially useful techniques for researching new products, testing new concepts or determining. Market research focus groups is a first step to gaining insight and knowledge about customers, prospects, and experts. Thank you.
Paid Surveys and Focus Groups
Post a Comment
<< Home