1987 - the focussed interview and focus groups. continuities and discontinuities

7/23/2019 1987 - The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups. Continuities and Discontinuities

1/18

American Association for Public Opinion Research

The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and DiscontinuitiesAuthor(s): Robert K. MertonSource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Winter, 1987), pp. 550-566Published by: Oxford University Presson behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749327.Accessed: 27/05/2013 17:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association for Public Opinion Researchand Oxford University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.175.121.210 on Mon, 27 May 2013 17:40:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2749327?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2749327?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaporhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/18

THE

FOCUSSED INTERVIEW AND

FOCUS GROUPS

CONTINUITIES

AND

DISCONTINUITIES

ROBERTK.MERTON

No one can be more

urprised

t

mybeing

ere han . Four

years go,

I

wrotemyself

"self-emancipationroclamation," one-page tate-

ment

sserting

hat

wouldnot

gain ccept ny

nvitationrom

ny

sourceto write book,edit a book,write paper,write review

article-or give

a

public ecture

unless

t

so happened

hat had

al-

readywrittenr edited hat ook,writtenhat aper r reviewrticle,

or

assembled

otes

or

he

publicecture). et here am. Butwhatwas

one to do

when n

admired

tudent

f

ongago turns

ut

to

be the

president f the New York

chapter f the professionalrganization

that

ne's ifelongollaboratort

Columbia

ad

helped o

found?

You

will

nstantlyecognize oth

allusions: he one to Alan Meyer, he

other o Paul

Lazarsfeld.) hatdid not

providemany egrees

f

free-

dom.However,naccordwith he piritf hat elf-emancipatingroc-

lamation, did prevail pon the

organizers

f

this ession o

bill me

unmistakably

s

indulgingnly

n

mpromptu

emarks.

However,

hatdoesn'tmean hat 've done no

homework

t

all. I

hadtodo some, r remain

holly ilent. he truthf hematters that

there an't

be many eople n

thefield f social science nd certainly

none

n

the related

ield

f

marketingesearchwho know ess about

focus

groups

han . If

there

re,

that

pells

trouble.

o it

was

that

whenAlan

broached he

ubject ffocus roups o me,he enlistedmy

curiosityt once. It had beenonly littlewhile gothat at Kendall

and had earned f

the

widespread

se of

focus

groups

n

marketing

research.

erhapswe

had

beenreadinghe"wrong"booksand the

"wrong" ournals. At any

rate,

when

this development as lately

ROBERT

K. MERTON

iS

University

rofessor

meritus

t Columbia

niversity.

his s

the

text fa

talk

given o a

New

YorkAAPOR

meeting,

une 986, n

the

ubject:

How

Did

We

Getfrom

Focussed

nterviews'

o Focus Groups'?"

The otherpeakers

ere

Patricia endall, udithanger,ndJ.RonaldMilavsky. opiesof heir apersmay e

obtained

rom orinne irchner,

resident

Y-AAPOR,

/o

American

nstitute

or he

Blind,

5

West16

Street,

ew York,

NY

10011.

nce gain,

he

uthorladly

cknowl-

edges id

from

heJohn .

and Catherine

. MacArthur

oundation.

Public

Opinion Quarterly

Volume 51:550-566

? 1987 by

the Amencan

Association

forPublic

Opinion

Research

Published

byThe

University f

Chicago

Press / 0033-362X/87/0051-04(1)/$2.50

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

The

Focussed Interview and Focus

Groups 551

called to our attentionnd when he techniques

mployednfocus-

group esearchwere aid to derive romur work ome40years go

on the focussed nterview f groups Merton

nd

Kendall, 1946;

Merton, iske,

nd

Kendall, 956),.my wn

uriositybout hat evel-

opment egan o mount. till, did ittle ogratifyhat uriosityt the

time.Other esearch uestions nd problems

ereoccupyingmy t-

tention. nd s the iteraryhilosopher enneth

urke nceobserved

(in a memorableashion hat like o describes theBurke heorem):

"A wayof seeing s also a way of not eeing-a

focusuponobjectA

involves neglect f objectB." (Thatmaxim, y theway, s clearly

one to be rememberedn the use of focussednterviewsnd focus

groups.)

So it

was thatwhenAlanMeyer nvited

meto speak o this ssembly

about hat ubject, couldn't esist hemultiple

emptationse hadput

beforeme. Butnow want o translate lan's nvitationnto he ogni-

tive

terms,whichhe maynot recognize,hathelpedbringme here.

This, hen, s my nterpretationfwhathe

was saying; is subtextnd

my econstructionfwhatwas containednthat nvitation:Here is a

grand pportunityo meetwith group f ccomplishednd nformed

socialresearchers, any f them our ldfriends, rawn artly rom

the

universities

nd

partly rom hatworld

f marketingesearch o

which aul Lazarsfeld ntroduced ou half centurygo. Here s an

opportunitylso to combine newly merging

nterestn theorigins

and rapidgrowth f focus-groupesearch

withyour ifelongnterest

in

identifyingariouspatternsn the emergencend transmissionf

knowledge,articularly

n the

diffusion

fknowledgerom ne socio-

cultural orld o another. ow are deasconveyed nd how are they

modified

n

the

ourse

f

diffusion? hat an be earned

bout

atterns

ofchange nthe diffusionf nnovationsrom cience ntopractice?

And so on.

Havingdevoted great art

f your ife o studies n the

sociology

f

science-though,

nlike aul

Lazarsfeld, atheress

to

the

sociology

f

social

science-you

now have an

opportunity

o

reflect

loud,to speculate, bout his ort

f thingn connection ith

the

emergence

nd

growth

f

focus-group

esearch."

The

impromp-

titude

f

thisoccasion

holds

for

he

specific

ubject; heunderlying

questions

want

o address reenduring

nd

notvery

well

understood

ones; surely

otwellunderstood

y

me nd,privatelysuspect, otby

many thers.

I

am therefore

ndebted

o Judith

anger

or

having rought

e

up-

to-date

n the

state

f the

rt

of

focus-group

esearch

n the

pace

of

the

past

fewminutes.

My partly repared

mpromptu

emarks ill

be

based

argely

n

what

've

just

heard

nd

on some

documents found

lurking

n ancient iles. hose

files

re

essential

ince

don't

ake

much

stock

n

vagrant

memories-that

s,

memories

ithoutisiblemeans

f



4/18

552 Robert K. Merton

documentaryupport. he files rovide actual hecks n memoriesf

how the

focussed nterviews

concept-and-procedure

tarted

orme.

Prelude to the Focussed nterview

It all

started

n

myfirstnadvertent ork ession-a thoroughly

n-

plannedwork ession-withPaul Lazarsfeld ack

n

November 941.

That

tory as beentold

n

printeveral imesHunt, 961; azarsfeld,

1975:35-37; e Lellio, 1985:21-24), utnever ntracinghe eedbed f

thefocussed nterview. retell t here

n

that

new

context.

To beginwith, aul and I had neverheardof one another efore

coming

o Columbia.We had

notonlynotread one another;

we

had

literally

ever eard fone another.

Actually,hat eciprocalgnorance

is not

s

stranges

it

may eem.Afterll,Paulhadcome

from ne

way

of

life; , from uite another. ubstantivelypeaking,we had quite

differentnterestsndeven

posteriori,heres little priori eason o

suppose

hat ur

nterests ould verconverge nd overlap.)

But back to November 941,whenPaul, as the lder f us, invited

theMertonsodinner.nwhat was to discoverwas typical auline

fashion, pon our

arrival

aul metus at thedoor nd said something

like

his: Bob,

I

have wonderfulewsforyou. 've just gotten call

from he

O.F.F.

in

Washingtonthatwas theOffice f Facts

and

Fig-

ureswhich

was

thepredecessorf heOffice fWar nformation

hich

in

turnwas, believe,

he

predecessor ftheVoice ofAmerica]. hey

wantme to do

some testsof responses o several adiomorale ro-

grams. o here's

a

great pportunityoryou. Come withme to the

studio

o see how we

test udience

esponse."

Thus twas thatPaul draggedmeintothe strangeworld f radio

research-back

n

those arlydays,unknowno ust about veryone

and

surelyo to

me.

knew hat aulheadedup somethingalledthe

Office

f Radio Research

ut

knew

nothing

bout

tswork. o

offwe

went

nd

then t

was

that

saw

a

strange pectacle.Do try o

see it

through y

hennaive

yes

and

rememberhat

your resent ophisti-

cation s the

egacy

f

lmost alf centuryfevolvingnquiry.

enter

a

radiostudio or hefirst

ime,

nd

there see

a smallish

roup-a

dozen,

r were

here

wenty?-seated

n

twoor

three

ows.

Paul and

take urplaces s observerst the ideof he oom sunobtrusivelys

we

can;

there s no

one-way

mirror r

anythingf that ort.These

people

are

being

sked

to

press

a red

button n

their hairswhen

anythinghey

hear

on

the

recorded adio

program

vokes

negative

response-irritation,nger, isbelief,

oredom-andto

press green

button hen

hey

ave

a

positive esponse.

or the

est,

o

buttons

t

all.

soon earn hat heir

umulative

esponses

re

being egistered

n



5/18

The Focussed

Interviewand

Focus

Groups

553

a primitive

olygraph

onsisting

f the

requisite

umber

f

fountain

pens

connectedysealing

wax and string,s itwere,

o

produce

umu-

lative urves f ikesand dislikes. hatprimitivenstrumentecame

known s the

Lazarsfeld-Stanton

rogram

nalyzer.

Thereafter,

e

observe

one of Paul's assistants

uestioning

he

test-group-the

audience-about

their

reasons"for

heir ecorded

ikes

nd

dislikes.

I begin assing

otes

o Paulabout

what

take o

be

great

eficiencies

in theinterviewer's

actics

nd

procedures.

He was not

focussing

sufficiently

n

specifically

ndicated eactions,oth ndividual

nd

ag-

gregated.

e was inadvertentlyuiding

esponses;

e was not

liciting

spontaneous

xpressions

f earlier

esponses

when egmentsf

the

radioprogram erebeing layed ackto thegroup.And so onand so

on.

For

although

his s a newkind f nterviewituation

or

me,

am

not

unfamiliar

ith he rt

ndcraft f

nterviewing.

or

one

thing,

had

spent

more ime

han care to

remember

uring

he summer

f

1932

when

was

a

graduate

tudent

t

Harvard,

elping

o

keepmyself

alive

by

working

n

a

WPA

project

evoted o

nterviewingust

about

all thehoboes

nd homeless

men nd women

hat

ould

be located

n

the

Boston

area.

Having

had

the

experience

f interviewing

nder

those ometimestrenuousonditions,his ituationtrikesmeas pro-

viding

lmost rivileged

ccess

to people'sstates

f mind

nd

affect.

At

any

rate,

fter he nterviews

over,

Paulasks me:"Well,

what

did

you

think

f

t?"

I

proceed

o expressmy

nterest

n thegeneral

formatnd to reiterate,

t

some

ength,

my ritiquefthe

nterviewing

procedure.

hat,of course,

s

all Paulhad to hear.

As I

was tolearn

over he

years

was altogetherypicalf

him, e

promptlyo-opts

me.'

"Well, Bob,

it

happens

hatwe have

another

roup omingn

for

test.

Will

youshowus

how the

nterviewhould

e done?"

Thatwas

not defensive-aggressiveuestion,s you mightmistakenlyuppose

it was. Rather,

hatwas our Paul,

founding

irector f

the Office

f

Radio Research

as of other niversity-linked

rganizations

edicated

to

socialresearch),

ngaged n

preliminary

o-optation.

allow s

how

I will

trymy

hand at it-and

thusbeganmy

ifewith

whatwould

eventuate s

thefocussed roup-interview.

Judith

anger poke

f he

promptitude

hese

ayswith

which ocus-

group

data are acquired nd the

promptitude

ithwhich

ualitative

reports

asedon those

data areprepared.

hat's

not ntirelynfamil-

iar. recallPaul nducingmetowork na distinctlyreliminarynaly-

sis of hose

nterview

aterials

uringhenext ays,

he

weekend. he

1. In

his

passion

o

getall problems

e

thought

mportant

olved,

Paulmade

t

an

enduring

ractice

o

co-opt

ssociates

f

every

kind

o work n

them-students,

f

course,

ut

lsocolleagues

fvariedtripe:

oung

ndold;

near

nd

far;

ocial

cientists,

logicians,

mathematicians,

tatisticians,

nd philosophers.

his

pattern

f

disinterested

co-optation

as

been

beautifully

ecaptured

nprint

y twoofour

tudents

rom

hose

ancient

ays

ofthe

1940s

nd50s:

James

. Coleman

1980) nd

David

L.

Sills

1987).



6/18

554 Robert

K. Merton

reportwas in the Office f Facts and Figureswithin week. That,

remember, as in November 941.Then ameDecember th, nd the

warwhich eld ittle ationalistic eaning utmuchmoral ignificance

for

many

f us back then.Not

very

much

ater nd for

ome

time

duringhewar, foundmyself ervings the iaison esearch erson

between he Columbia

group

nd whathad been established

y

the

United tates

Army

n

October fthat

ear

s theResearch ranch f

whatwas successivelynowns theMoraleDivision, hen heSpecial

ServicesDivision,

nd

finallys the nformationnd Education

ivi-

sion.

The

movementoward

uphemisms

ad

plainly egun.)

he

Re-

search ranchwas

directed n ts

research

not dministrative)

ide

by

the ngeniousndpracticed ocialresearcheram Stoufferwhowould

eventuallyee to

it

that distillationf the field tudies onducted

duringWorldWar

I

would ppear ntheform f thefour olumes f

TheAmerican oldier.)2 ooking newatvolume ,

I

notethat aul

and

I

are both isted s "consultants," lthough

n

theevent,

Paul

contributed

nfinitely

ore

han

in

that

apacity, specially hrough

his earlyformulationf latent tructurenalysis which ppears

n

volume , devoted

o

methodologicalnnovationsy

or for he Re-

searchBranch).

A

bit

more

boutthe

earlyphase

n

the

genesis

nd

growth

f the

focussed

group-interview.

or

a

time,

found

myself nterviewing

groups

f soldiers

n

Army amps

about

their

esponses

o

specific

training

ilms

nd

so-calledmorale ilms-some f them

esigned y

Frank

Capra

and other irectors f

that alibre.

n

the

ourseof that

experience

nd ater

n

work t theBureau f

Applied

ocial

Research

(which

had

evolved from he ColumbiaOffice f Radio

Research),

there

eveloped

he et

of

procedures

hich ameto be known

s the

focussed nterview. s Sam Stoufferotednhisprefaceovolume ,

thoseprocedures

ere

not

reported

here

ecause,by agreement

ith

him nd his

associate

Carl

Hovland, hey

ad been

published

everal

years

before

n

the

paper by

Pat

Kendall and

myselfMerton

nd

Kendall,1946).

As

early

s

1943, lso,

we were

putting

ocussed

nterviewso

use

with ndividualss

well

s

groups.

A

prime

ase

in

point

s the

tudy f

a "radio

marathon,"

hen

wholly

ewhistorical

henomenon,

hich

promised

o

provide "strategic

esearch ite" for

nvestigating

he

collective ehavior nd socialcontexts fmasspersuasionMerton,

Fiske,

nd

Curtis, 1946]1971).During period

f

18

hours,

he

pops

2. SamuelA. Stouffer

t al.,

The American oldier:

Adjustmenturing

Army ife;

Samuel

A. Stouffer

t

al.,

The American oldier:Combat nd

ts

Aftermath;

arl .

Hovland,

rthur . Lumsdaine,

ndFredD. Sheffield,xperiments

n Mass

Communi-

cation;

amuelA. Stouffert

al., Measurement

ndPrediction.

rinceton: rinceton

University

ress,1949.



7/18

The Focussed

Interview and Focus

Groups 555

singerKate Smith,widely erceived s a charismatic

atriot-figure,

spoke a seriesof prepared exts n 65 occasions,eliciting

he

then

unprecedentedotal f$39 millionnwar-bondledges.We conducted

focussednterviews

ith

00

New

Yorkers

whohad istened

o

part r,

in some cases, to all [ ] of theSmith roadcasts, oth hose isteners

who had responded y pledging war bond and

thosewho had not.

These interviews ere conductedwith isteners

ndividuallyn their

homes,

ot

ollectively

n

a radio tudio.

n the

bsence f

he

program

analyzer

o

provide oints fdeparture,he

nterviews erefocussed

upon

the

broadcast extswhichwe had subjected

o an intensiveon-

tent

nalysis.

The

resulting ualitativematerials

id muchto help

shapethe nterpretationf thequantitativeata, based upon polling

interviews itha representativeampleof about a thousand

New

Yorkers. t was thefocussed-interviewatathat

ed to dentificationf

a

public

distrust elated o a

sense

of anomie-in which

common

values

were

being ubmerged

n

a welter

f private

nterestseeking

satisfactionyvirtuallynymeanswhich re

effective"

p. 10).Analy-

sis

of thesedata led us also to a

social

phenomenon:

in

place

of

a

sense

of

Gemeinschaft-genuineommunity

f

values-there

ntrudes

pseudo-Gemeinschaft-theeigningfpersonaloncern ith he ther

fellow

n

order o

manipulate

im

the better"

p. 142);

n

still

ther

words,

the mere

pretense

f common alues

n

order o

further

ri-

vate

nterests"p. 144) Merton, 975:83; ohen,

1975;Beniger, 987).

The

focussed nterviewf ndividuals id not

exhibit ertain ssets

and

liabilities

f the

focussed

nterview

f small

groupings.I say

"groupings"

ince

hesewerenot,

f

ourse, roups

nthe ociological

sense of

having

common

dentity

r

a continuing

nity, hared

norms, nd goals.) Still, nteractionmong he

members f suchpro

tem ontrivedroups videntlyerved o elicit heelaborationf re-

sponsesust

as

it

may

have

contaminatedndividual

esponses y

mak-

ing

for bservable

onvergencef them. orrelatively,

he ndividual

interviewsased

on

prior ontent-analysisfthematters nder xami-

nation learly llowedformore ntensive lucidationy each person

while

not providing or he ntroductionf new

leads stimulatedy

others.

Years ater,Harriet uckermandapted nddeveloped his actic f

interviews ith ndividuals

ocussed

n the

priornalysis

f "texts"

n

herstudy f an ultra-elite,obel laureatesn science Zuckerman,

1972,

1977:

App. A). There, he content eing

nalyzed

n

detail o

provide

oci forthe

nterview as of coursefarmore omplex

nd

wide-ranginghan

n

the studies f mass-communication

ehavior. t

involved,

or

xample, dentifyingypothetically

ey events nd se-

quences

n

the

biographies

f

he aureates, rovisional

dentification

f

their ociometric

etworkst

various hases

of

heir areers,

he

pot-



8/18


ting

of their

uccesses

and failures n

research,

nd

patternede-

quences

dentified

n

their

ibliographies. s

Zuckerman

oted, his

was a kind f "focussed nterview,"ne that rovides or nalysis nd

interpretationather hanonlyfor hronicleas is typicallyhe case

with oral

histories").

But back to thefocussed nterview ith roups. his s plainly ot

the occasion

for

a systematicccountof its essential eaturess a

research ool. However, houldyou be able to find copy of The

Focused nterview-tomydismay, hepublishernsisted n dropping

one

of

the 's

in

focussed-you

will

find full ccount f

component

proceduresnd therationale or ach ofthem.But you are not pt tolocate a copy. Thatbook, published y The Free Press n 1956 fter

two editions

ad been

published y

theBureauof

Applied

ocialRe-

search

n

mimeographedorm,s thoroughlyut ofprint.

n

fact, his

copy,

which

located

or his

vening,

ontains

cardfrom

my

ecre-

tary

f

the

mid-1970s

hich eads:

"This

is the

only opy

we

have

n

the

office."3

You

might

urn nstead o the more ccessible

paperby

Pat

Kendall

nd

myself, ublished

n

theAmerican ournal

f

Sociol-

ogy

en

years

before hebook

Merton

nd

Kendall,1946).

In light f all this,youwillnotbe surprisedo learn hatwhat 've

heard bout

ocus-group

esearch

hus

ar

onight,nd

the ittle

eading

I've done on the subject, esonates.At east, n ts bold outlines, he

disciplined

se

of

focus-group

ata has an

amiable

ongruence

ith

whatwe were

trying

o

do

with he focussed nterview ack

then.

However,

was struck

y

certain

eatures

f

Judithanger's ummary

of heuses of

focus-group

aterials

owadays.

hese seem

o

contrast

strongly

ith

heways

n

which

we had

beenmakingse offocussed-

interview

aterials.

ou

will

recallmyhaving

eferred

o

work

with

Sam StoufferndtheResearchBranchwhichhad involved ocussed

group-interviews.

hat

workwas

in

conjunction

ith

Carl

Hovland,

who headed

up

the

Experimental

ectionof

the Research

Branch.

Carl,

who

was

on leave from

ale

during

he

war,

was

possibly

he

most

ccomplishedxperimentalsychologist

ver o work

n

the

f-

fects f ocial

ommunication;any

f

youmaynot

know im

ince

he

died

n

1961 t the

age

of

49,

but

he

is

remembereddmiringly

nd

affectionatelyy

thoseof us who knewhimwell.

Now,

Carl was the

one

designing

nd

directing

ontrolled

xperiments

n the

esponses

f

soldiers o those rainingnd "morale"films. newould hinkhat he

3. I've ustfound

vidence,

n theform f

a letter

rom he xecutive

ice

president

f

Benson

& Benson

nc.

writtendozen

years go,

that hebook

was

outof

printt

east

by

then.

However,

'll

postpone

eporting

hat ntil

ater ince tprovides

mewith

bridge etween

hefocussed

nterview

ndfocusgroups

which had forgotten

ntil

cameupon

he

etter.



9/18

The Focussed Interview

and Focus

Groups

557

experimentalse oftest nd

control roups

wouldbe taken o provide

a

sufficientesignfor

dentifyinghe

effects f the films. ut Carl

wisely ecognizedhat hiswas not o. Itcouldnotprovidehe pecific

qualitativenformatione

were ble to

provide hroughurfocussed

interviews.

hat nformationovedbeyond

he net effects

f "the

films"a

most omplex etof evocative

timuli-todentify,t least

provisionally,he lements

nd configurations

fthat omplex xperi-

ence

whichmight ave led to

thoseeffects.

hequantitativexperi-

mental

esign

nabled

ne to

determinehe ggregateffects

utpro-

vided no clues to

what t was about the ilm's

content hatmight ave

produced heobserved

ffects. he focussed

nterview as designed

toprovide uchmaterials-it dentified,rovisionallyndsubject o

checks hroughurther

uantitative

xperimentalesearch,he spects

of

situational

xperienceeading o the

observed utcomes.

hiswas

so either

n

investigating

particularoncrete xperience,

s

in

the

case

of

responses o

a

particular

ilm

r radio

program,r a recurrent

experience, hich,

take

t, s

often he

research ocus ffocus-group

research hese

days.

Our

qualitativedjuncts

o the

xperimentalesign

oon convinced

that rilliantesignerfexperimentsarlHovland hat othkinds f

data were

required

or ound onclusions: he

rigor

f thecontrolled

experiment

ad ts

costs ince tmeant

ivingp

access tothe

phenom-

enological spects

of

the

real-life

xperience

nd nvitedmistaken

n-

ferences bout

the

sources

f

that

xperienced

esponse;

he

qualita-

tive detail

provided

y

the

focussed

group-interview

n turn

ad its

costs ince

t

could ead

only

o new

hypotheses

bout

he ources nd

character

f

the

response

which

n

turn

equired

urther

uantitative

or,

n

this

ase,

further

xperimental

esearch

o test he

hypotheses.

Fromwhat haveread ndheard, gatherhatmuch ffocus-group

research

oday

s a

growing

ype

f

market esearch oes

not nvolve

this

omposite

f

both

ualitative

nd

quantitative

nquiry.

ne

gains

the

mpressionhat

ocus-group

esearchs

beingmercilessly

isused

as

quick-and-easy

laims or

he

validity

f

the

research

re notsub-

jected

to

further,uantitative

est.

Perhaps

he

pressures

f themar-

ketplace

for

quick-and-easy-possibly,

or

quick

and

relatively

n-

expensive-research

make for

this misuse

of

focus

groups.

That

misuse-the

term

eems

smidgen

ess harsh han abuse"-consists

in takingmerely lausible nterpretationserivingrom ualitative

group

nterviews

nd

treating

hem s

thoughhey

ad been shown o

be

reliably

alidfor

gauging

hedistributionsf

response.

Shannon's

undamental

heory

f communication

eminds s that

calculated

edundancy

as ts

uses

by

enlarging

he

probability

hat he

message

will

get

through.

o

I

sayredundantly

nd

emphaticallyhat,



10/18


for s, qualitative ocussed roup-interviews

ere aken s

sources f

new ideas and new hypotheses, ot as demonstratedindings

ith

regard o the extent nd distributionf the provisionallydentified

qualitative atternsfresponse. hose deas andhypotheses adto be

checked

ut

by

further

urvey

esearch

or

nthe

ase

oftheResearch

Branch tudies, y furtherxperimentalesearch).

he

point

s

that

limited ualitative esearch annot n principle eal with hedistribu-

tion and

extent

f tentativelydentifiedatterns.Medicine

had to

discover

hat linical

bservations

ereno substituteor

pidemiolog-

ical investigation.)can report o you

that

ome

of the

hypotheses

derived rom ocussed nterviews

uring

ur

collaborative

ork

with

Carl Hovlanddid notcheckoutuponfurthernquiry.hepoint s,of

course,

hat

here s no

way

of

knowing

n

advance

ffurther

uantita-

tive esearchwhich lausible nterpretationshypotheses)

ill

pan

out

and

which

will

not.

Focussed nterview nd Focus Groups:

Continuities nd

Discontinuities

I've been asked to speak to the subject f continuitiesetween he

focussed nterviewnd thecurrent

se offocusgroups.

believe hat

there re

both ontinuities

nd

discontinuities.have

the

mpression

that here s rathermore ntellectualontinuityhan xplicitlyecog-

nizedhistoricalontinuity.fterll, TheFocused nterviewoldonly

few

housand opies, or hemost art nthe1950s, believe, ndthen

went ut of

print.

We have

no evidence n

the

distribution

f those

copies-say,

as between

cademics

nd market

esearchers.

ooking

into iles,which vertheyearshaveproved o be a continuingource

of

serendipitous4

nd

therefore

urprisinginds,

discover

long-

forgotten

eferenceo

a

letter n the

mid-1970s.

t

testifies

hat here

was somedirect nd dentifiableontinuityhichwas then ecognized

by

research

eople

n

theworld fcommerce. ather han araphrase

that

etter,

'll

transmithis rchival racer ntact, hanks o myhome

Canon

photocopier

hich

llows

me

to canonize

his

ocument

with-

out

possible rror):

4. Inthis rinted

ersion

fmy alk

refero an unpublished

onographyRobert

.

Merton

ndElinor

arber1958).

ttreats

he ocial ndcultural

ontexts

f he oinage

of theword

erendipity

n the 18th entury;

he limate

frelevant pinion

n which

t

firstaw print

n the 19th;

hediverse ocial

circles f itterateurs,

hysical

ndsocial

scientists,

ngineers,

exicographers,

ndhistorians

ntowhich

t

diffused;

he

hanges

f

meaning

ndergone

n the

ourse

f diffusion,

nd the deological

ses to

whicht has

been

variouslyut.

rather

oubt hathe iffusion

f he ocussed

nterviews ready

or

a comparable

nalysis.



11/18

The Focussed Interview and

Focus Groups

559

Benson& Benson,nc.

P.O. Box 269

Princeton,.J.08540June 7,1976

Professor

obertK. Merton

Fayerweatherall

Columbia niversity

New

York,

N.Y.

10027

Dear Professor

erton:

Over

the

years

we

have derived

onsiderablese from ur

copyof

the

second dition f TheFocussed

nterview-A

Manual. As youundoubt-

edly reaware,focussed roupnterviewingas becomewidespreadn

commercialircles nd

s

eliciting

nterest

nthe cademic ndnon-profit

research

ectors.Oddly nough,ittle as been

writtenn

the ubject n

systematic

ashion, nd, n nearly very ase,

thatwhich as

apparently

shouldnot

have been. We have urged ther

esearcherso

refer o the

Manual,

but

nvariably

ave been told hat opies simply re

notto be

found.

n

otherwords,we apparentlyossess

one of the

astknown

copies

ofthe

Manual, nd,

understandably,

re reluctanto end t out.

Now, we

are startingo receive ueries or

Xerox opies.

Our

opy

arries o copyrightndthe ntroduction

uggestshe eports

inthepublic omain.

We would

ike

to

reprint

he manual nd

offert for ale to interested

researchers

t about$10-$12percopy,plus

postage.We think

t s only

fair

hat

we consultwith ouon this irst.We

would ropose

o offerhe

authors

15%royalty

n eachcopy old. Payment ould e

made emi-

annually..

.

Sincerely,

Robert ezilla

Executive

ice

President

Now,

like

a

longtime qualitative

researcher,

want

to

take

you

briefly

hrough part

of this

document

which

testifies o

continuity

between

academe and

the

marketplace.

Note

that t

begins

by referring

to

"our

copy

of

. . .

The Focussed

Interview-A

Manual."

That must

refer

o the

second

mimeographed

dition

put

out

by

the

Columbia

Bureau

of

Applied

Social Research

rather

han

the

far

more

widely

circulated

etterpress

dition

publishedby

The Free Press

in

1956.

This

I infer rom

he

spelling

f the word

Focussed in the

title, spelling

have always preferrednd thereforedopted in the two Bureau edi-

tions

but

one,

as

I've

said,

which

The

Free

Press

(as

before

t,

the

editor

of the American Journal

of

Sociology)

had

unwarrantably

ut

forcibly

iminished o Focused.

Thus,

the two-essed

Focussed serves

as

a

marker f

the earlier

ditions.

Note too

that

by 1976,

he

executive

vice

president

f

Benson &

Benson

is

reporting

hat "focussed

[n.b.]

group

nterviewing as become widespread

n

commercial

ircles

and



12/18

560 Robert

K.

Mertoi

is eliciting nterest n the academic and non-profit

ectors." If his im

pressionwas sound, this suggests-somewhat to

my startlenow an(

perhapsback in 1976-that thepattern f focussedgroup-interviewing

had

expanded to

the

pointof eliciting nlarged nterest

n the

academic

worldwhere thad originated.Not to continuewith

line-by-lineloss

I

remark nlynow on

the

ntrinsic ecency ofRobertBezilla of Bensor

&

Benson

in

suggesting royalty o

the

authors hould

he be allowed

ta

reprint

he

manual; this, mind you,

even

though

he

(mistakenly)

s.

sumed thatthe

work

was in

the public domain.

You may

be

curious about what happened

n

response to that

gener.

ous offer

o

reprint, s indeed

I

am.

But

nothing

n

my

archival files

allows me to say, fromwhich conclude thatnothing fconsequencc

happened.

That is one indicationof direct continuity etween academia

anc

the

marketplace. gather

that

during

he

passage

from

Morningsidc

Heights

to

Madison

Avenue the

focussed interviewhas

undergone

some

sea

changes of

the kind 've

been

in a

positiononlyto

hint t:

the

quick would-be conversionof

new

plausible nsightsntodemonstrable

gospel

truths.As I

say,

I'm not

really qualified

o

speak

to

this

poini

since 've seen nexttonothing f current ocus-groupesearch t close

range.

But

I

note

the

following

bservation

by

Leo

Bogart 1984:82):

In

the

1970s,

nother

ype

f

qualitative

esearch

apidlymoved

o

the

forefront:

he o-called ocus

group

nterviewn which

half-dozeno a

dozen

people

re

assembled

nd

engaged

n

discussion.

The

term

ocus

group

s a barbarismhat onfused

ociologist obert

K.

Merton's ech-

niqueof

an

unstructured

ut

"focused" nterview-inwhich skillful

interrogatoreeps he espondent'sttentionrom

andering

ff he ub-

ject

at hand-and

the

traditional

ociological echnique

f

talking

o a

homogeneous

r related

roup

f

people

who stimulateach other nder

the nterviewer'sracticed uidance.)*A groupnterviewan be con-

ducted

with

ittlemore

expense

than

n

intensiventerview ith ne

individual,

ut

since

everyone

n

the

group ets

counted, respectable

number

f

respondents

an be

toted

p

in

the

ample.

The

most

eguilingspect

ffocus

roups

s

that

hey

an be observed

in

action

y

clients nd creative

eople

hidden ehind

one-way

mirror.

Thus,

he

planners

nd executors f

advertising

an be made

o feel

hat

they

re

themselves

rivy

o the

nnermostevelations

fthe

onsuming

public. hey

know

what onsumershink f he

product,

he

ompetition,

and

the

advertising,aving

heard t at first and. The trouble s that

people

who an be enticednto

researchaboratory

o not

lways epre-sent true ross-sectionfpotentialustomers. cadreofprofessional

respondentsre alwaysready o volunteer,nd oud-mouthsan domi-

*

Paul

F.

Lazarsfeldnd Frank

tanton irst

ombined hese

echniques

n

the

radio rogram

nalyzer.

roups fpeople

ressed

uttonsorecordheirmoment-

by-momentesponses

o what

heyheard.The

interviewer,

xamininghetape,

questioned

hem s to

why hey eacted s

they id.CBS

still sesthis echnique

o

evaluate elevision

rograms.



13/18

The Focussed

Interview and Focus Groups 561

nate nd

sway hediscussion.While seful ndprovocativedeas

emerge

from roupsust as they o from

ndividualualitativenterviews,

t s

dangerousoaccept hemwithoutorroborationromarger-scaleurveyresearch.

So much for

criticalobservationson

some present-day ractices n

focus-group esearch. Now back for a few

moments o

the

archives.

Roaming

throughmy filesof thatfullgeneration go-and you

recall

what Ortega

y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, nd

Juli'an

Marias had

to say

about the

social

reality

and

dynamics

of generations-I

have

come

upon

a

long-forgottenetter o Jeremiah

aplan, thefounding resident

of

The

Free

Press, telling

how the

mimeographed

ditions

of The

Fo-

cussed Interview ame to be transformednto he printed dition.Hav-

ing shared this etterwith

my

coauthors,Marorie Fiske and

Pat Ken-

dall,

I

now

include t n

what s

fast

becoming

n

archive-based hough

still

fragmentary

ccount of the

evolution

of the

focussed

group-

interview

s

prelude to

the

evolving

focus-groupmode of research.

[Mr.Jeremiahaplan

The Free Press]

8August 955

Dear Jerry,

...

The

news

ofthemomentn this:

have setmyself quota,during

these omfortable

acation-days,f

o

many ages dayfor

ewriting

he

Focused nterview.

ow that weekhas

goneby nd am still nsched-

ule,

am

quite

confidenthat t willbe

completed y

the ime return.

Since

my

ecretary

s

awaynextweek, herewill e a little

elay

n

typing

thisnew

version

ut hems. willdefinitelye ready or heprinter

ythe

end

of themonth....

Item

1: This

s

a complete e-writing;carcely ive entences

n

a

chap-

ter emainntact.Nevertheless,t s not, nany ignificantense, new

edition;here

s

next

o nothingywayofnewmaterial

except

or little

based on

focused nterviewsn

the

diaries

fmedical

tudents)

nd ittle

by way of

new

deas.

I've

tried

nly

o eliminatehe worsthorrors f

exposition

n the

arlier

rintingsnd,

for

he

rest,

o make t

clear,

f

not

fascinating.

t

seems

o

me, herefore,

hat

t

hould ot e

designated

s a

new

dition, ut s theThird

e-printing

rewritten),

o

that

o excessive

claims

eem o be

implied. hopeyou gree.

I'll explain

henature f he

rewritingn the

preface.)

Item

: As

youknow,

his

s a

short

ook-it

will

un o about 30

ms.

pages includingbout25 single-spacedagesofan analyticalableof

contents hichwas found sefulnthe

Bureau

editions').

wouldn't

ike

to

have

the

book

be too

expensive:

t is

all

straightext,

no

tablesor

charts,

nd hould e

easy

to set n

type.

At

he ame

ime, hope

hat

id

can

design

t

so that t isn't too

crowded.Can

you

et

me

have

your

thinkingn price nd

design?

.

Yours,

[Robert

.

Merton]



14/18


As can

be

seen, by the mid-1950she essential oncept f the fo-

cussed

nterview

nd ts basic

procedures

ith

heir

tated

ationales

had become stabilized. ndeed, these did not evolve furthert the

Columbia

Bureau. So it

was

that

this nterlinearewritingf the

Manual,which ookplace on

the

sandsof Ocean City and thusper-

haps ntroduced

new

diom, y-the-sea-change),ecame heversion

that oulddiffusend evidently id diffusentovarious esearch ec-

tors,notablyt seems nto hesector f market esearch.

Intellectual iffusion nd Obliteration y Incorporation

That

particularathway f diffusionnto hemarketplace as neither

intended

or,

s

I

recall, nticipated.peaking ormyself,thought

f

thefocussed nterview

s

a

generic esearchechnique,ne

that

ould

be

and

would

e

applied

n

every phere

f

human ehavior

nd

experi-

ence,

rather han

argely

onfinedo matters f nterestn market e-

search.

As forthe actual

paths

of diffusionaken

by

the

focussed

interview,

cannot

ay.

No

case study f

hat

iffusionas

been

made.

Perhaps study tilizinghenow vailable esourcesfcitationnaly-

sis

coupled

with nterview

r

questionnairenquiriesmong epresen-

tative

amples

f

different

opulations

f ocial

researchers ould

ro-

vide some

understanding

fthe xtent nd

directionsf

that

iffusion

of

a

modest, elimited,

nd

readily

dentifiable

nnovations well as

thekinds nddeterminantsfdiverse inds f

hanges

n

t

s it

spread

to

one

or another esearch ector.

Not,

mind

ou,

hat

hediffusionf

this

echnique

warrants

uch

a

study

ecause of ts research

mpor-

tance

but

only

because it seems to have some of the

elements f

a

strategicesearch ite5 ornvestigationfthediffusionf ntellectual

innovations-and

hat,

s

many

f

you know,

was a

subject

f

deep

interest

nthe

Columbia ureau f

Applied ocial

Research ack

n

the

1960s,

s

you'llrecall

from he

path-breakingtudy y

Jim

oleman,

Elihu

Katz,

and

Herb

Menzel

1966).

And s

you

couldnot

know,

hat

interest

as

been

brilliantly

enewed

on

Morningside eightsby

RonaldS. Burt

1987)

n

his

reanalysis

f the

Coleman-Katz-Menzel

data.

So

much

or n

excursionnto heserious, ystematictudy f the

diffusionfinnovations. ere, in theconcludingmoments f these

remarks,

can

only

urn

o the

rchiveswhich nce againyield bit

f

pertinentvidence-evidencewhich ears

witness hat he

focussed

interview as not

onfinedo academe

r

the

marketplaceut,

t east

once,

found

ts

way

nto he

sphere

f

religion,

iz.:

5. The

concept

f strategic

esearch

ite s elucidated

omewhat

n

Merton,

987.



15/18

The Focussed Interview

and Focus

Groups

563

Board

of Education

The

UnitedMethodist

hurch

Division ftheLocal Church

September 8,

1969

Dr. RobertK. Merton

Departmentf Sociology

Columbia

niversity

New York,NewYork 10027

Dear Dr. Merton:

We

are

conductingmajor tudy f

the tate fthe hurchchool

f

The

UnitedMethodist hurch nd would ike to make use ofthe focusedinterviewechnique hich ou have describedn thebookbythat itle.

I

am having ifficulty

ocating dditional

opiesofthebook ndam won-

dering

f

youcoulddirectmeto a supplier

rom hom

we

might

urchase

copiesfor se

n

our rainingessions.

Up to this ime he nly

opieswe

havebeen ableto discover re those

which re n several ibraries.

Your help

n thismatter illbe greatly

ppreciated.

Cordially ours,

Warren . Hartman

Back now

to a

few

more bits of documentary

vidence on

the con-

tinuity rom

he

focussed

nterview s a mode

of

social

and

psychologi-

cal

inquiry

o the focus

group.

I turn

o

the

fairly

ecent

past

and the

virtual

present

for

a

few

qualitative

ndicatorsof

that

continuity.

n

1976,precisely

30

years

after at Kendall's and

my

first

ublication

n

the focussed

interview,

n

introduction

n

a book entitled

Qualitative

Research in

Marketingby Danny

Bellenger,

Kenneth

Bernhardt,

nd

Jack Goldstucker published by the Chicago MarketingAssociation)

virtually egins

by reporting

hat"Merton, Fiske,

and Kendall

distin-

guishthefocus groupas following hese

criteria"

nd thenproceeds

to

quote

the

paragraph

on "The Nature of

the

Focused

Interview"

that

opens

our

book. Here

you

will note a

diagnostic

conflating

f

the

focussed interview nd

the

focus

group,

at least a

terminological

on-

flation.We never used the term"focus group"-at least,

not as

I

recall-but

apparently

hese authors on marketing

esearch saw

the

focus

group

s

so fully erivative s

to have us setting owncriteria or

focusgroups.To be sure, we repeatedly xaminethe values and limita-

tions of

using

focussed

interviews

n

groupsrather

han

ndependently

with

ater

ggregated

ndividuals nd thatmight e a basic

theme n the

continuity-cum-change.

Recognitionof

the accent on thattheme s found n a

fairly ecent

article

ust

drawn to

my attention

hat was published n

Information

Technology and

Libraries (December

1983). Introducing research



16/18

564

Robert K. Merton

programor ibrarysers ndon-line ublic ccess catalogsOPACS), t

has occasion o refer o "focused-groupnterviews"ndgoeson to say

(p. 381) that completedescriptionsf the focused-groupnterview

method nd

analysis

re

given

n

Merton,

iskeand Kendall'smanual

on themethod."

Early

on

in

these

remarks-so long ago

that

you

are not apt to

remember-Ihazarded he mpressionhat herewas more intellec-

tual

ontinuity"

etween he

focussed

nterviewndfocus roups han

"explicitlyecognized istoricalontinuity."

he

distinctionetween

the

wo

kinds f

continuitys one that as ong

eemed asic to me n

tryingounderstandatternsn thehistoricalransmissionf knowl-

edge.For nthe ourse f ime,deaswhichretaken pandutilized r

developed

ecome o

much

part

fcurrent

nowledge,

oth

xplicit

andtacit,

hat heir

ources ndconsequently

he inesof ntellectual

continuityet ncreasingly

ost o view. have

dentifiedhis

henome-

non

n

the ransmissionfknowledges "obliterationy ncorporation

(OBI)":

"the

obliterationfthe

ources

f

deas,

methods,

r

findings

by

their

ncorporation

n

currentlycceptedknowledge.'

6

At the

out-

set,

he

ource

f

particular

dea ormethod

s known nd dentified

y

thosewhomakeuse of t. In due course,however, sers nd conse-

quently ransmitters

f that

knowledge ho

are

thoroughly

amiliar

with ts origins ome to assume hat his s also

true f their eaders.

Preferring

ot o be

obvious r to nsult heir

eader's ssumed nowl-

edgeability,hey

o

onger

efer

o

the

riginal

ource.And

ince,

n

ll

innocence,many f us tend o attribute significantdea,method, r

formulation

o

the

uthorwho

ntroduced

s to

t,

he

qually

nnocent

transmitterometimes ecomes dentified

s

the

originator.

hus

t

s

that n

the successive ransmissionfknowledge, epeated

se of t

may raseall butthe mmediatelyntecedentsource,"thus roduc-

ing

what described

n

On

the

houldersof

Giants

Merton,

965:218-

219ff.)

s

a

historical

alimpsestor palimpsesticyndrome)

n

which

the

original

ource s

notonlyobliterated

ut

replaced y

the

nter-

mediary

etween ource nd

recipient

f that

knowledge.

Without

oing

he

requisite esearch,

cannot

resume

o

say

how

much f he eeming iscontinuityetweenhe ocussednterviewnd

its modified

and,

take

t, sometimesbused)version

n

the

form f

focus

groups

s

actuallynothernstance f

obliteration

y ncorpora-

tion.But that ome OBI has occurred an be inferredrom recent

article

y

two

professors

f

sociology

t the

University

fCalifornia-

Riverside,

avid L.

Morgan

nd

Margaret

.

Spanish 1984),

which

describes

focus

groups"

s

"a

relatively

ewresearch ool"

p. 253).

6.

The phenomenon

f

OBI is

noted n Merton,

1968,

and in

other

writings

ince.

This

summary

s drawn fromMerton,

1979;

see also Garfield,

977.



17/18

The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups

565

Ifthefocussed nterview as experiencedvenoccasional bliteration

by ncorporationn theoriginatingield f sociology, ne s inclined o

supposethat t is all the more a fortiori)ikely o have occurredn

other ields

nto

which t had

diffused.

And nowa finalword, temmingnce againfrom hemarketplace,

but one which,muchto my pleasure, ecognizes hat he focussed

interviews not t all confinedo marketesearch.ndeed, n ight f ts

use by religious nd other leemosynarynstitutions,t might venbe

described s ecumenical.

ut

perhapsmore ellings a

review

f

The

Focused Interview ppearing n the October 1956 ssue of The Journal

of Marketing. nderstandably,he

review

s oriented o

its

probable

readersnremarkinghat hebook "shouldbe ofparticularalue othe

studentnd

practitioner

f

marketingesearch."

Good

enough;

more

qualitativevidence fdiffusionrom cademe o themarketplace.

ut

muchmore

n

point or heoriginal oncept f

the

focussed

nterview

as a generic ather han ubstantivelyestrictedesearch ool s the

concluding

eclarationn

the

review

hat This

manual

hould

e read

by thosewho are attemptingo understandheproblemsnvolved

n

subjective r motivationesearch n whatever ield

t

may

ie." Pre-

cisely o. Useful ormarketingesearch, o be sure,butnotonly or

marketingesearch. ather, set ofprocedures or he ollection nd

analysis

f

qualitative

atathat

mayhelpus gain

n

enlargedociologi-

cal and

psychological nderstanding

n

whatsoever phere f

human

experience.

References

Beniger, ames . (1987)

"Personalizationfmass

media

nd

thegrowth

fpseudo-community."

Communicationesearch 4:352-371.

Bogart, eo (1984)

Strategy

n

Advertising.d ed.

Chicago:CrainBooks.

Burt, onald . (1987)

"Social contagionnd

nnovation:ohesion

ersus tructuralquivalence."

American ournalf

Sociology 2:1287-1335.

Cohen,Harry

1975)

"Pseudo-Gemeinschaft:problem fmodern

ociety."Western

ociological

Review :35-46.

Coleman, ames .

(1980)

"Paul F. Lazarsfeld: hesubstance ndstyle f hiswork."Pp. 153-174nRobert

K. Merton nd MatildaWhite

iley eds.),

Sociological

raditions

rom

eneration

to

Generation:limpses

f

the

American

xperience.

orwood,

J:

Ablex

Publishing

orp.

Coleman, ames .,

Elihu

Katz, and

Herbert

Menzel

1966)

Medical nnovation: Diffusion

tudy.

ndianapolis: obbs-Merrill.

De

Lellio,Anna

1985)

"Intervista

Robert . Merton: e aspettative

ocialididurata."Rassegna

taliana

di

Sociologia 6:3-26.



18/18

566

Robert

K. Merton

Garfield,ugene 1977)

"The obliteration

henomenon'nscience-and the

dvantage fbeing

obliterated "p. 396-398 n EugeneGarfield,ssays ofanInformationcientist,

vol. 2. Philadelphia:

SI Press.

Hunt,Morton1961)

"

'How does t cometo be so?': A

profilefRobert .

Merton." he NewYorker,

28 January.

Lazarsfeld, aul F.

(1975)

"Working

ith

Merton."

p.

35-66 n

Lewis

A.

Coser ed.), The dea ofSocial

Structure. ew York:Harcourt

raceJovanovich.

Merton, obert .

[1965] 1985)

On

the

Shoulders f Giants.New York:

Harcourt race

Jovanovich.

(1968)

Social

Theory

nd

Social Structure. ew York:The Free

Press.

(1975)

"On the

riginsf

the erm:

seudo-Gemeinschaft."

estern

ociological

eview

6:83.

(1979)

Foreword oEugene

Garfield,itation

ndexing:

ts

Theorynd Application

n

Science,Technology,

nd

Humanities.

ew

York:

John

Wiley.

(1987)

"Three

fragments

rom

sociologist's otebooks:

stablishing

he

phenomenon,

specifiedgnorance,

nd

strategicesearchmaterials." nnual eview f

Sociology

13:1-28.

Merton,

obert

., and Elinor arber

1958)

"Thetravels nd

adventures

f

serendipity: study

n

historicalemanticsndthe

sociologyf science."Manuscript.

Merton,

obert

.,

with

Marjorie

iske nd Alberta

urtis

1946]

1971)

Mass

Persuasion. ew York:

Harper

nd Bros.

Reprint,

estport,

T:

Greenwood

Press.

Merton,

obert

.,

Marjorie iske,

nd

Patricia

.

Kendall

1956)

The Focused nterview. ew York:

The

Free Press.

Merton,

obert

., and

Patricia .

Kendall

1946)

"The focused

nterview." merican

ournal

f

Sociology

1:541-557.

Morgan,

avid

L.,

and

Margaret

.

Spanish1984)

"Focusgroups:A new

tool

for

ualitativeesearch."Qualitativeociology

7:253-270.

Sills,David L. (1987)"Paul F. Lazarsfeld, 901-1976: biographical emoir." p. 251-282 nNational

Academy

f

Sciences,Biographical emoirs.

Washington:

he National

Academy

Press.

Zuckerman,

arriet

1972)

"Interviewing

n

ultra-elite."ublic

Opinion

uarterly

6:159-175.

(1977)

Scientific

lite:

Nobel Laureates

n

theUnited tates.

New York:

The

Free Press.

1987 - the focussed interview and focus groups. continuities and discontinuities

Documents