Voevodins' Library _ "Focus Groups" 3rd edition / Richard A. Krueger & Mary Anne Casey ... Interview, People, Discussion, Decision Making, Development, Single-Category Design, Multiple-Category Design, Double-Layer Design, Broad-Involvement Design, Audience, Written Plan, Questioning Route, Categories of Questions, Opening Questions, Introductory Questions, Transition Questions, Key Questions, Ending Questions, Campaign, Strategies for Selecting Participants, Sampling Procedures for Focus Groups, Moderating Skills, Moderator, Discussion, Head Nodding, Question, Analysis Strategies, Long-Table Approach, Using the Computer to Help Manage the Data, Rapid Approach, Sound Approach, Principles of Reporting, Written Reports, Narrative Report, Top-Line Report, Bulleted Report, Report Letter to Participants, Oral Reports, Styles of Focus Group Research, Telephone Focus Groups, Internet Focus Groups, Media Focus Groups Voevodin's Library: Interview, People, Discussion, Decision Making, Development, Single-Category Design, Multiple-Category Design, Double-Layer Design, Broad-Involvement Design, Audience, Written Plan, Questioning Route, Categories of Questions, Opening Questions, Introductory Questions, Transition Questions, Key Questions, Ending Questions, Campaign, Strategies for Selecting Participants, Sampling Procedures for Focus Groups, Moderating Skills, Moderator, Discussion, Head Nodding, Question, Analysis Strategies, Long-Table Approach, Using the Computer to Help Manage the Data, Rapid Approach, Sound Approach, Principles of Reporting, Written Reports, Narrative Report, Top-Line Report, Bulleted Report, Report Letter to Participants, Oral Reports, Styles of Focus Group Research, Telephone Focus Groups, Internet Focus Groups, Media Focus Groups


Voyevodins' Library ... Main page    "Focus Groups" 3rd edition / Richard A. Krueger & Mary Anne Casey



Texts belong to their owners and are placed on a site for acquaintance

Q. Isn't This Soft Research?
A. If by soft you mean we haven't quantified people's reactions, then yes, you're right, we didn't quantify them. It wasn't our intent to quantify. Our intent was to find the range of feeling and opinion on this topic. We did that. If by soft you mean without standards or rigor, then no, it isn't soft. (Go on to explain processes.)
This study sought to obtain perceptions of people on a complex topic. No instrument is available to measure the multiple views of this changing and complex concept. Indeed, the only way to study it was to obtain the in-depth perceptions of participants. The results could not be expressed in numeric form but needed to take on a descriptive style.
Another way to answer this is to discuss the value of observing but not controlling the population. Our answer might look like this: "In positivistic research, the emphasis is placed on achieving control. Research is 'hard' if it uses sufficient controls that document what has happened. The environment is controlled, people are controlled in terms of what treatment they receive, and also the variables that affect the study are controlled. Many human environments, outside of the laboratory, cannot and should not be controlled. Our intent in this study was to observe, to listen, to document, and to report the perceptions of our target audience. Establishing controls would not have been appropriate."
Background
The words soft or hard are imprecise and misleading. Hard tends to refer to numbers, especially those coming from standardized sources of testing, measurement, surveys, or experimental design. On the other hand, soft typically refers to descriptive, observational, or interview data. Increasingly, scientists are avoiding these terms. The colloquial language of "hard research" and "soft research" is pejorative, simplistic, and sometimes inflammatory. These words imply a superior-subordinate relationship.
<< How Do You Know Your Findings Aren't Just Your Subjective Opinions?
How Do You Determine Validity? >>