Posted: December 28th, 2021

Article A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research

Article A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research

Abstract

Despite the abundance of published material on conducting focus groups, scant specific information exists on how to analyze focus group data in social science research. Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. First, they identify types of data that can be collected during focus groups. Second, they identify the qualitative data analysis techniques best suited for analyzing these data. Third, they introduce what they term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein meticulous information about which participant responds to each question, the order in which each participant responds, response characteristics, the nonverbal communication used, and the like is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize how conversation analysis offers great potential for analyzing focus group data. They believe that their framework goes far beyond analyzing only the verbal communication of focus group participants, thereby increasing the rigor of focus group analyses in social science research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

2

Keywords: focus group, focus group analysis, micro-interlocutor analysis, conversation analysis

Authors’ note: Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Box 2119, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341-2119, or e-mail tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com.

Traditionally, focus group research is “a way of collecting qualitative data, which—essentially— involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177). Social science researchers in general and qualitative researchers in particular often rely on focus groups to collect data from multiple individuals simultaneously. Focus groups are less threatening to many research participants, and this environment is helpful for participants to discuss perceptions, ideas, opinions, and thoughts (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Researchers have used focus groups for decades (Morgan, 1998), indeed for the past 80 years. In the 1920s, they were conducted to assist researchers in identifying survey questions (Morgan, 1998). In the early 1940s, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton, who are credited with formalizing the method of focus groups (Madriz, 2000), used focus group methods to conduct a government-sponsored study to examine media effects on attitudes towards the involvement of the United States in World War II (Merton, 1987). These groundbreaking methodologists used focus group data to identify “salient dimensions of complex social stimuli as [a] precursor to further quantitative tests” (Lunt, 1996, p. 81). Moreover, according to Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2005),

Two dimensions of Lazarsfeld and Merton’s research efforts constitute part of the legacy of using focus groups within qualitative research: (a) capturing people’s responses in real space and time in the context of face-to-face interactions and (b) strategically ‘focusing’ interview prompts based on themes that are generated in these face-to-face interactions and that are considered particularly important to the researchers. (p. 899)

Later, according to Greenbaum (1998), focus group data were collected and analyzed mainly for market researchers to assess consumers’ attitudes and opinions. In the past 20 years, focus group research has been used to collect qualitative data by social science researchers (Madriz, 2000). Furthermore, in the past years, books on the use and benefits of focus groups have emerged (Krueger, 1988; Morgan, 1988).

Social science researchers can derive multiple benefits from using focus groups. One is that focus groups are an economical, fast, and efficient method for obtaining data from multiple participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000), thereby potentially increasing the overall number of participants in a given qualitative study (Krueger, 2000). Another advantage to focus groups is the environment, which is socially oriented (Krueger, 2000). In addition, the sense of belonging to a group can increase the participants’ sense of cohesiveness (Peters, 1993) and help them to feel safe to share information (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Furthermore, the interactions that occur among the participants can yield important data (Morgan, 1988), can create the possibility for more spontaneous responses (Butler, 1996), and can provide a setting where the participants can discuss personal problems and provide possible solutions (Duggleby, 2005).

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

3

Literature abounds regarding how to design a focus group, how to select focus group participants, and how to conduct the focus group session group (e.g., appropriate focus group interview questions, length of focus group interviews, keeping focus group participants on task) (e.g., Krueger, 1988, 1994, 2000; Morgan, 1997). In a few articles published in health-related journals, authors (i.e., Carey, 1995; Carey & Smith, 1994; Duggleby, 2005; Kidd & Parshall, 2000; Morrison-Beedy, Cote-Arsenault, & Feinstein, 2001; Stevens, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998) have discussed issues related to the analysis of focus group data. However, there is very little specific information regarding how to analyze focus group data (Nelson & Frontczak, 1988; Vaughn et al., 1996; Wilkinson, 1999, 2004) or what types of analyses would be helpful with focus group data (Carey, 1995; Duggleby, 2005; Wilkinson, 2004). Consistent with this assertion, Wilkinson (2004) concluded:

As indicated, compared with the extensive advice on how to conduct focus groups, there is relatively little in the focus group literature on how to analyze the resulting data. Data analysis sections of focus group ‘handbooks’ are typically very brief….In published focus group studies, researchers often omit, or briefly gloss over, the details of exactly how they conducted their analyses. (p. 182, emphasis in original)

With this in mind, in the present article we provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data in social science research. First, we delineate multiple avenues for collecting focus group data. Second, using the works of Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers), we outline multiple methods of analyzing focus group data using qualitative data analyses. Third, we introduce a new way of analyzing focus group data, what we term micro-interlocutor analysis, which incorporates and analyzes information from the focus group by delineating which participants respond to each question, the order of responses, and the nature of the responses (e.g., non sequitur, rambling, focused) as well as the nonverbal communication used by each of the focus group participants. In particular, we conceptualize how conversation analysis offers much potential for analyzing focus group data. We contend that our framework represents a more rigorous method of both collecting and analyzing focus group data in social science research.

The Planning and Organization of the Focus Group

The research question and research design ultimately guide how the focus group is constructed. Well-designed focus groups usually last between 1 and 2 hours (Morgan, 1997; Vaughn et al., 1996) and consist of between 6 and 12 participants (Baumgartner, Strong, & Hensley, 2002; Bernard, 1995; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Krueger, 1988, 1994, 2000; Langford, Schoenfeld, & Izzo, 2002; Morgan, 1997; Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, & Bostick, 2004). The rationale for this range of focus group size stems from the goal that focus groups should include enough participants to yield diversity in information provided, yet they should not include too many participants because large groups can create an environment where participants do not feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and experiences. Krueger (1994) has endorsed the use of very small focus groups, what he terms “mini-focus groups” (p. 17), which include 3 (Morgan, 1997) or 4 (Krueger, 1994) participants, when participants have specialized knowledge and/or experiences to discuss in the group. Because participants might not be available on the day of the focus group, Morgan (1997) has suggested overrecruiting by at least 20% of the total number of participants required, and Wilkinson (2004) suggested an overrecruitment rate of 50%.

The number of times a focus group meets can vary from a single meeting to multiple meetings. Likewise, the number of different focus groups can vary. However, using multiple focus groups allows the focus group researcher to assess the extent to which saturation (cf. Flick, 1998;

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

4

Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morse, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) has been reached, whether data saturation (i.e., occurring when information occurs so repeatedly that the researcher can anticipate it and whereby the collection of more data appears to have no additional interpretive worth; Sandelowski, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers; Saumure & Given, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers) or theoretical saturation (i.e., occurring when the researcher can assume that her/his emergent theory is adequately developed to fit any future data collected; Sandelowski, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers). Focus groups can be formed by using preexisting groups (e.g., colleagues at a place of work). Alternatively, these groups can represent newly formed groups that the researcher constructs by selecting members either randomly or, much more commonly, via one of the 19 or more purposive sampling techniques (e.g., homogeneous sampling, maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling, or multistage purposeful sampling; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1997) have suggested that three to six different focus groups are adequate to reach data saturation and/or theoretical saturation, with each group meeting once or multiple times.

Krueger (1994) suggested that it is ideal for the focus group to have a moderator team. This team typically comprises a moderator and an assistant moderator. The moderator is responsible for facilitating the discussion, prompting members to speak, requesting overly talkative members to let others talk, and encouraging all the members to participate. Furthermore, the moderator is responsible for taking notes that inform potential emergent questions to ask. In most cases, the moderator presents the focus group participants with a series of questions. However, instead, the moderator might present the members with stimulus material (e.g., newspaper article, video clip, audio clip) and ask them to respond to it. Alternatively still, the moderator might ask the members to engage in a specific activity (e.g., team-building exercise, brainstorming exercise) and then provide reactions to it. In contrast, the assistant moderator’s responsibilities include recording the session (i.e., whether by audio- or videotape), taking notes, creating an environment that is conducive for group discussion (e.g., dealing with latecomers, being sure everyone has a seat, arranging for refreshments), providing verification of data, and helping the researcher/moderator to analyze and/or interpret the focus group data (Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Sources of Focus Group Data

There are many sources of focus group data, yet most researchers use only the actual text (i.e., what each of the participants stated during the focus group) in their analyses. Multiple types of data can be collected during a focus group, including audiotapes of the participants from the focus groups, notes taken by the moderator and assistant moderator, and items recalled by the moderator and assistant moderator (Kruger, 1994). All of these data can be analyzed, yet they differ in the amount of time and rigor it will take to complete the analysis.

Transcript-based analysis represents the most rigorous and time-intensive mode of analyzing data. This mode includes the transcription of videotapes and/or audiotapes, which, according to Krueger (1994), commonly will result in 50 to 70 pages of text per focus group meeting. These transcribed data can then be analyzed alongside field notes constructed by the moderator and assistant moderator and any notes extracted from the debriefing of one or more members of the debriefing team. Another mode for analyzing data from a focus group is tape-based analysis, wherein the researcher listens to the tape of the focus group and then creates an abridged transcript. This transcript is usually much shorter than is the full transcript in a transcript-based analysis. Notwithstanding, this type of analysis is helpful because the researcher can focus on the research question and only transcribe the portions that assist in better understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Note-based analysis includes analysis of notes from the focus group, the debriefing session, and any summary comments from the moderator or assistant moderator. Although the focus group is audiotaped and/or videotaped, the tape is used primarily to verify

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

5

quotations of interest to the researcher, although the tape can be used at a later date to glean more information. Finally, a memory-based analysis is the least rigorous because it involves the moderator recalling the events of the focus group and presenting these to the stakeholders. Unless the focus group researcher/moderator is experienced, we recommend that transcript-based analyses be used.

Focus group data can arise from one of the following three types: individual data, group data, and/or group interaction data (Duggleby, 2005). Focus group theorists disagree as to the most appropriate unit of analysis for focus group data to analyze (i.e., individual, group, or interaction). Some theorists believe that the individual or the group should be the focus of the analysis instead of the unit of analysis (Kidd & Marshall, 2000). However, most focus group researchers use the group as the unit of analysis (Morgan, 1997). By doing so, the researchers code the data and present emergent themes, unfortunately, typically not delineating the type of qualitative analysis used (Wilkinson, 2004). Although these themes can yield important and interesting information, analyzing and interpreting only the text can be extremely problematic. In particular, only presenting and interpreting the emergent themes provides no information about the degree of consensus and dissent, resulting in dissenters effectively being censored or marginalized and preventing the delineation of the voice of negative cases or outliers—what Kitzinger (1994) referred to as argumentative interactions—that can increase the richness of the data (Sim, 1998). Moreover, analyzing and interpreting information about dissenters would help researchers determine the extent to which the data that contributed to the theme reached saturation for the focus group, or what we call within-group data saturation.1, 2 Thus, information about dissenters would increase the descriptive validity, interpretive validity, and theoretical validity (cf. Maxwell, 2005) associated with the emergent themes, which, in turn, would increase Verstehen (i.e., understanding) of the phenomenon of interest.

Analyzing Focus Group Data with Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

To date, no framework has been provided that delineates the types of qualitative analysis techniques that focus group researchers have at their disposal. This is surprising, bearing in mind (a) the relatively long history of focus group research (i.e., around 80 years; Morgan, 1998), (b) the complexity of analyzing focus group data compared to analyzing data from an individual interview, and (c) the array of qualitative analysis techniques available to qualitative researchers (cf. Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers). Thus, in this section we identify qualitative data analysis techniques that are best suited for analyzing focus group data. The frameworks of Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers) suggest several qualitative analysis techniques that can be used to analyze focus group data. Specifically, the analytical techniques that lend themselves to focus group data are constant comparison analysis, classical content analysis, keywords-in-context, and discourse analysis (for a review of analytical techniques, see, for example, Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers). We summarize each of these analyses in subsequent sections.

Constant comparison analysis. Developed by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, Strauss, 1987), constant comparison analysis, also known as the method of constant comparison, was first used in grounded theory research. Yet, as Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers) have discussed, constant comparison analysis can also be used to analyze many types of data, including focus group data.

Three major stages characterize the constant comparison analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During the first stage (i.e., open coding), the data are chunked into small units. The researcher attaches a descriptor, or code, to each of the units. Then, during the second stage (i.e., axial

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

6

coding), these codes are grouped into categories. Finally, in the third and final stage (i.e., selective coding), the researcher develops one or more themes that express the content of each of the groups (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Focus group data can be analyzed via constant comparison analysis, especially when there are multiple focus groups within the same study, which, as noted previously, allows the focus group researcher to assess saturation in general and across-group saturation in particular. Because focus group data are analyzed one focus group at a time, analysis of multiple focus groups effectively serves as a proxy for theoretical sampling, which is when additional sampling occurs to assess the meaningfulness of the themes and to refine themes (Charmaz, 2000). Thus, researchers could use the multiple groups to assess if the themes that emerged from one group also emerged from other groups. Doing so would assist the researcher in reaching data saturation and/or theoretical saturation. Thus, we recommend that researchers design their studies with multiple focus groups to have groups with which to test themes. We call this design an emergent-systematic focus group design, wherein the term emergent refers to the focus groups that are used for exploratory purposes and systematic refers to the focus groups that are used for verification purposes.

Classical content analysis. Similar to constant comparison analysis, classical content analysis includes creating smaller chunks of the data and then placing a code with each chunk. However, instead of creating a theme from the codes (as with constant comparison analysis), with classical content analysis, these codes then are placed into similar groupings and counted. Within Morgan’s (1997) three-element coding framework, there are three unique ways to use classical content analysis with focus group data: (a) the analyst can identify whether each participant used a given code, (b) the analyst can assess whether each group used a given code, and (c) the analyst can identify all instances of a given code. We recommend that researchers not only provide information regarding the frequency of each code (i.e., quantitative information) but supplement these data with a rich description of each code (i.e., qualitative information), which would create a mixed methods content analysis.

Keywords-in-context. The purpose of keywords-in-context is to determine how words are used in context with other words. More specifically, keywords-in-context represents an analysis of the culture of the use of the word (Fielding & Lee, 1998). As noted by Fielding and Lee, the major assumption underlying keywords-in-context is that people use the same words differently, necessitating the examination of how words are used in context. Furthermore, the contexts within words are especially important in focus groups because of the interactive nature of focus groups. Thus, each word uttered by a focus group member not only should be interpreted as a function of all the other words uttered during the focus group, but it should be interpreted with respect to the words uttered by all other members of the focus group. As is the case for classical content analysis, keywords-in-context can be used across focus groups (i.e., between-group analysis), within one focus group (i.e., within-group analysis), or for an individual in a focus group (i.e., intramember analysis). Keywords-in-context involves a contextualization of words that are considered central to the development of themes and theory by analyzing words that appear before and after each keyword, leading to an analysis of the culture of the use of the word (Fielding & Lee, 1998).

Discourse analysis. A form of discourse analysis that is also known as discursive psychology was developed by a group of social psychologists in Britain led by Potter and Wetherell, who posited that to understand social interaction and cognition, it is essential to study how people communicated on a daily basis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Broadly speaking, this form of discourse analysis involves selecting representative or unique segments or components of language use (e.g., several lines of a focus group transcript) and then analyzing them in detail to

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

7

examine how versions of elements such as the society, community, institutions, experiences, and events emerge in discourse (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). More specifically, Cowan and McLeod (2004) conceptualized that discourse analysis operates on three fundamental assumptions: antirealism (i.e., people’s descriptions cannot be deemed true or false portrayals of reality), constructionism (i.e., how people’s constructions are formed and undermined), and reflexivity.

Discourse analysis depends on the researcher’s sensitivity to language use, from which an analytic tool kit is developed that includes facets such as rhetorical organization, variability, accountability, positioning, and discourses (Cowan & McLeod, 2004). With respect to rhetorical organization, the analyst examines selected talk or text to determine how it is organized rhetorically to make assertions that are maximally credible while protecting the speaker from challenge and refutation (Billig, 1996). According to Potter (2004), discourse analysts maintain “a specific focus on the way versions and descriptions are assembled to perform actions” (p. 207). When using language, people perform different social actions such as supporting, questioning, or criticizing. Language then varies with the action performed. Thus, variability can be used to demonstrate how individuals employ different discursive constructions to perform different social actions.

The discourse analyst examines words and phrases to ascertain how individuals use accountability for their versions of experiences, events, locations, and the like. For example, when questioning the competence of a female supervisor, a male employee might use the phrase “I am a big supporter of feminism,” to prevent being accused of sexism. Positioning denotes the proclivity for speakers to situate each other with respect to social narratives and roles. For instance, the way a student talks might position him/her as a novice, whereas the way a teacher talks might indicate that he/she is an expert.

Finally, the concept of discourses refers to well-grounded ways of relating to and describing entities. Cowan and McLeod (2004) stated that the use of discourse analysis procedures can require a critical rereading of processes that occur in social interactions that have been overlooked. Discourse analysis lends itself to the analysis of focus group data because these data stem from discursive interactions that occur among focus group participants.

Micro-interlocutor Analysis: A New Method of Analysis for Focus Group Research

According to Wilkinson (1998), most focus group analysts use the group as the unit of analysis. However, using the group as the unit of analysis precludes the analysis of individual focus group data. In particular, it prevents the researcher from documenting focus group members who did not contribute to the category or theme. As such, their voices, or lack thereof, are not acknowledged. These focus group members might include those who are relatively silent (e.g., members who are too shy to speak about this issue; members who do not want to reveal that they have a different opinion, attitude, experience, level of knowledge, or the like; members who do not deem this issue to be worth discussing), members who are relatively less articulate, members who have a tendency to acquiesce to the majority viewpoint, and members who are not given the opportunity to speak (e.g., due to one or more members dominating the discussion, due to insufficient time for them to speak before the moderator moves on to the next question).

As noted by Crabtree, Yanoshik, Miller, and O’Connor (1993), a sense of consensus in the data actually might be an artifact of the group, being indicative of the group dynamics, and might provide little information about the various views held by individual focus group members. According to Sim (1998), “Conformity of opinion within focus group data is therefore an

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

8

emergent property of the group context, rather than an aggregation of the views of individual participants” (p. 348). As such, when discussing emergent themes, we recommend that in addition to providing verbatim statements (i.e., quotations) made by focus group participants, whenever possible, researchers delineate information about the number or proportion of members who appeared to be part of the consensus from which the category or theme emerged. Furthermore, researchers should specify the number or proportion of members who appeared to represent a dissenting view (if any) as well as how many participants did not appear to express any view at all. In addition, because merely agreeing to a majority view either verbally (e.g., by using statements such as “I agree” or “Yes”; by making an utterance such as “Uh-um”) or nonverbally (e.g., nodding one’s head or smiling) might reflect some level of acquiescence, we suggest that researchers document how many focus group members provide substantive statements or examples that generate or support the consensus view. Similarly, we recommend that they document how many members provide substantive statements or examples that suggest a dissenting view. Thus, researchers/moderators are reliant on the assistant moderator who is in the best position to record information about the level of consensus and dissension. To facilitate this information-gathering process, we recommend that the assistant moderator use template sheets. For example, he or she could use a matrix similar to the one in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Matrix for assessing level of consensus in focus group

Focus Group

Question

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

Member 4

Member 5

Member 6

1

2

3

……

The following notations can be entered in the cells:

A = Indicated agreement (i.e., verbal or nonverbal) D = Indicated dissent (i.e., verbal or nonverbal) SE = Provided significant statement or example suggesting agreement SD = Provided significant statement or example suggesting dissent NR = Did not indicate agreement or dissent (i.e., nonresponse)

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

9

Using Figure 1 would allow the researcher to count the number of focus group members falling into each category, which could appear in the final report (e.g., “Four of the six focus group members believed…, with the remaining two members not providing any response to this question”; “All six focus group members had this experience….with one member vividly recalling…”).

Some focus group methodologists (e.g., Carey, 1995; Kidd & Marshall, 2000; Morgan, 1993, 1997; Silverman, 1985) have promoted the use of simple descriptive counts of categories. We agree that counts can provide very useful information, not only about level of consensus/dissent but also about response patterns among the focus group members. However, we believe that counts should never be used to replace any qualitative data arising from focus groups because by themselves they can present a misleading picture. In particular, the fact that the majority or even all of the focus group members express a particular viewpoint does not necessarily imply that this viewpoint is important or compelling. However, when contextualized, the use of counts can provide richer information than would be obtained by using qualitative data alone (cf. Sandelowski, 2001). Indeed, supplementing qualitative data with counts yields a form of mixed methods data analysis, or what is also known as mixed analysis (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; see also Morse, 2003). When used in this manner, enumerating the frequency of a particular viewpoint or experience actually expands the data set rather than reduces it. For example, we believe that it is more informative to report that 7 out of 8 participants held a certain viewpoint (i.e., data expansion) than to state that the majority of participants held a certain viewpoint (i.e., data reduction). Moreover, in addition to helping emergent themes be situated in a more meaningful context (i.e., enhancing representation), enumerating the data (where possible) can help to validate any inferences made about the level of consensus.

As stated by Sechrest and Sidani (1995, p. 79), “qualitative researchers regularly use terms such as ‘many,’ ‘most,’ ‘frequently,’ ‘several,’ ‘never,’ and so on. These terms are fundamentally quantitative.” Thus, focus group researchers can obtain more meaning by disclosing information about level of consensus/dissent. Moreover, just as using counts by themselves can be problematic, mainly reporting and describing the themes that emerge from an analysis of focus groups also can be misleading because, to the extent that any themes that might stem from dissenters are ignored, it can lead to unwarranted analytical generalizations (i.e., in which findings are “applied to wider theory on the basis of how selected cases ‘fit’ with general constructs”; Curtis, Gesler, Smith, & Washburn, 2000, p. 1002) and internal (statistical) generalizations (i.e., which, in the context of focus groups, involve making generalizations, inferences, or predictions on data obtained from one or more focus group members to all focus group members; Onwuegbuzie, Slate, Leech, & Collins, 2009). Thus, the inclusion of frequency data helps the researcher to disaggregate focus group data, which is consistent with the qualitative researcher’s notion of treating each focus group member as a unique and important study participant. Further, as noted by Onwuegbuzie, Johnson, and Collins (2009), the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions and stances representing constructivist and other qualitative-based paradigms (e.g., participatory paradigm) do not prevent descriptive statistics from being combined with qualitative data.

Lazarsfeld, the same methodologist who co-developed focus group methodology, as we noted previously, and his colleague Allen Barton (Barton & Lazarsfeld, 1955) advocated the use of what they coined as quasi-statistics in qualitative research. According to these authors, quasi- statistics refer to the use of descriptive statistics that can be extracted from qualitative data. Furthermore, Howard Becker (1970), a prolific symbolic interactionist, concluded that “one of

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3)

10

the greatest faults in most observational case studies has been their failure to make explicit the quasi-statistical basis of their conclusions” (pp. 81–82). Consistent with this assertion, Maxwell (2005) observed,

Quasi-statist

Order | Check Discount