182 The Marketing Book
Advantages of group discussions
Cost and speed; since a large number of
respondents are being ‘processed’ simultane-
ously, data collection and analysis are quicker
than for individual interviews.
Many individual decisions are made in a
social context – groups provide that context.
Society’s requirements and perspectives are
part of the discussion process and not merely
an ‘optional extra’.
Group discussions allow for the observa-
tion, and analysis, of non-verbal communica-
tions: this will enable trained moderators to
assess the validity of the respondents’
statements.
A group of people, in concert, will generate
a far wider range of opinions, insights and
information, because of stimulation and/or
synergism, than they might have done when
examined as individuals. Some respondents
may feel ‘comforted’ by the group and less
exposed than they would have done in an
individual interview; their anxiety being
reduced, the method will enable them to
produce more valid responses. The unstruc-
tured or semi-structured nature of the discus-
sion allows the moderator to probe behind
respondents’ answers which are incomplete or
ambiguous. As many observers can become
involved in the collection of the data, apart
from the moderator, a higher level of reliability
should result from the analysis.
Disadvantages of group discussions
Only a small number of respondents can
become involved, therefore the question of
unrepresentativeness arises; thus, the ability to
‘project’ the results onto a population is cur-
tailed. This, however, does not invalidate the
method as a research tool, as the method is
usually only used, as in exploratory research,
where generalizations concerning a population
are not required.
Contrary to the ‘comfort’ factor already
mentioned, some respondents may feel over-
awed/inhibited by the presence of the other
respondents, causing them to act in an atypical
manner. Shyer members of the group might be
allowed to be ‘shouted down’ by an ineffective
moderator, by those with more dominant per-
sonalities; thus, an important role of the moder-
ator is to ‘bring out’ the shyer members of the
group and to restrain the enthusiasm of the
more extrovert members. If the group reacts in
a negative sense against the moderator, then the
chances of generating valid, useful data are
much reduced.Individual depth interviews
Between the poles of structured–direct inter-
views (the administered questionnaire) and the
unstructured–indirect lies the topic of this
section – the individual depth interview, that
Kahan (1990) calls ‘an unstructured personal
interview which uses extensive probing to get a
single respondent to talk freely and to express
detailed beliefs and feelings on a topic... to
discover the more fundamental reasons under-
lying the respondents’ attitudes and
behaviour’.
Smith (1998) includes the following cate-
gories of depth interviews: Mini-depth interview– lasts approximately 30
minutes and not as wide ranging as a full
in-depth interview.
Semi-structured interview– employs pre-set
questions which the interviewer cannot
change, but the respondents may reply using
their own words.
Paired interview– an interview conducted on
two respondents, e.g. the stipulator and user
of a product or service.
Triangular interview– three respondents are
interviewed, e.g. when investigating leisure, a
theatre-goer, member of a gymnasium and
amateur cricketer are interviewed.Group discussions and depth interviews are
techniques whose main aim is to seek out, to
delve, to try to understand and to explore;