internet research: the role of the focus group

Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, Number 4, pages 357–369.Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188

357

Internet Research: The Role of the Focus Group

Lynne ChaseJaquelina Alvarez

University of Wisconsin–Madison

LIS researchers have used the face-to-face focus group interview formany years. Other researchers have recently embraced a new renditionof the focus group—the online focus group. This article examines face-to-face and online focus group modes through a review of actual re-search experiences using the two approaches. Relevant literature isconsidered. Comparisons are then drawn as to similarities and contrastsin methodology, group dynamics, and group communication. Withinthis context, possible applications of the online focus group approachfor library and information science researchers and practitioners can beconsidered. Rapid development of technology coupled with the face-to-face and the online focus group approaches may allow the creation andimplementation of the hybrid version, the virtual focus group.

Everyday life has been changed by the introduction of the Internet. E-mail, dis-cussion lists, chat rooms, virtual communities, electronic shopping (or e-com-merce), online banking, and organizations’ home pages have generated new so-cial forms and new ways of communicating with others. Soon researchers willbe studying two different realities: what people think and do in the online envi-ronment and what they think and do offline. Practitioners are already targetingservices to cover needs of users from both of these realities. Given this situationpractitioners and researchers are adapting conventional methods of collectingdata to the electronic environment. These methods include online surveys (Wit-mer, Colman, & Katzman, 1999; Zhang, 1999), online focus groups (Gaiser,1997), and participant observation (Kendall, 1999).

The authors are indebted to Douglas Zweizig and Debra Wilcox Johnson for their guidance and feed-back throughout the planning and implementation of the online focus group study and as ideas for thispaper developed. Also this paper would not have been possible without the generous opportunities pre-sented by Ed Cortez. The authors are grateful to Louise Robbins, Director of the School of Library andInformation Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, for her enthusiastic encouragement.

Direct all correspondence to:

Lynne Chase, School of Library and Information Studies, University ofWisconsin–Madison, Helen C. White Hall, 600 North Park St., Room 4258, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

,

[email protected]

.

.

358 Chase & Alvarez

This article examines the process involved in the online mode as contrastedwith the face-to-face focus group and its potential applications within libraryand information science (LIS) research. McGrath and Hollingshead (1994)have established that a group’s efficiency suffers when shifted from face-to faceto technology-based communication (p. 113). Rather than conducting a singlestudy, using the same population, we hoped, therefore, to provide insight intothe two processes using their own past experiences. Furthermore, it is not ourintention to compare one approach to the other; rather, our intent is to investigatethe processes involved in each of the two modes and provide guidelines for use.

A review of the literature reveals that the use of face-to-face focus groups iswell established in the social sciences. Numerous examples of their use by re-searchers and practitioners can be found in library and information science(Johnson, 1996; Scott, Long, & Flanders, 1991; Widdows, Hensler, and Wyn-catt, 1991; Young, 1993). Although only one article suggested the use of onlinefocus groups for social science research (Gaiser, 1997), many others have dis-cussed the use of this mode since 1994 in the marketing and business literature(Crowley, 1996; Jacobson, 1996; Landreth, 1998; Miller, 1994; Parks, 1997). Ex-amples range from conducting online focus groups (OFG) with farmers for

Farm Journal Today

to learn their needs (Coakley, 1998) to finding out whatpeople with different illnesses, such as HIV, need (Maddox, 1998). Sterne(1996) explains the arranging and running of online focus groups to providecustomer support. Although in many cases these studies were neither scientificnor systematic, they provide a starting point for examining the uses of onlinefocus groups. We report on them here.

The first two sections of the article describe experiences using the two mo-dalities, the face-to-face focus group and the OFG. The next section then notesthe similarities and differences of the two approaches. Finally, the article pre-sents recommendations for uses of the face-to-face and OFG within LIS, andconclusions about the future of the focus group.

FACE-TO-FACE FOCUS GROUPS

Researchers use the qualitative data-collecting tool known as the interview ex-tensively. As Krathwohl (1998, p. 286) states, “Wherever there is a desire to tapan internal process, to gain knowledge of a person’s perceptions, feelings, oremotions, or to study a complex individual or social behavior, some form of in-terviewing is most helpful.” Many variations of the interview exist, rangingfrom one-on-one to group interactions.

The focus group technique, a variation of the group interview, has been usedextensively to ascertain the perceptions and feelings of participants around aparticular area of inquiry. The focus group can be used as an initial step in ques-tionnaire development or to elicit in-depth information. Johnson (1996, p. 176)states, “Focus groups are useful when evaluators are seeking innovative or cre-

Internet Research 359

ative solutions.” Furthermore, this method is well suited to collecting data thatcannot easily be obtained in other ways. Focus groups have been used by LISresearchers, as noted in the literature reviews by Kerslake and Goulding (1996)and Goulding (1997), and by practitioners in the field as mentioned above.

Typically, focus group questions start broadly and then narrow to specificswithin the area of interest. Recently, one of the authors, along with other re-searchers, conducted a series of eight in-person focus group interviews over athree-month period as part of a needs assessment project for the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA). Each focus group consisted of at least eight per-sons who were involved in work with the USDA either directly or through uni-versity partnerships. Three to four researchers working as a team fulfilled thefunctions of facilitator, recorder, and observer(s). The facilitator wished toelicit in-depth information in three areas:

1. Current information-seeking situation and behaviors;2. Unmet information needs in the current situation; and3. Customer expectations of a comprehensive information system, including

both needs and wants for system requirements.

For the most part, the individual focus groups were composed of individualswho shared such commonalties within group as agency affiliation, area of ex-pertise, or similar stakeholder characteristics. Each group, however, involvedindividuals with diverse experience and responsibilities. Following a focusgroup guide, the facilitator was able to elicit responses concerning the informa-tion-seeking behaviors of participants during an information search (see Table 1).

After each focus group session ended, the researchers individually recordedthe major themes and impressions that had emerged during the group interac-

TABLE 1Face-to-Face Focus Groups

Primary Query Areas

• Identify specific, prior information seeking situations from customers, for example: most recent, most

significant, most memorable. Then describe this situation as follows:

• How need arose;

• How information was to be used; audience for results;

• Additional “processing” needed to facilitate use of data/information;

• Barriers to gathering information in this situation; and

• What information was not available.

• Identify specific, future information needs from customer:

• What are content needs?

• What formats are needed?

• When is the information needed?

• Why is the information needed?

• Expectations of a comprehensive information system

• Priority needs and expectations of customers

360 Chase & Alvarez

tion. This information, together with the verbatim audiotape and notes takenduring the discussion, was used to identify major themes across all groups,across two or more groups, and unique to individual groups.

The following major themes arose from the focus group interviews:

1. Context and perceptions for the information system;2. Information needs;3. User considerations for efficient, effective, and flexible system;4. Barriers to information, such as difficulty of tracking information to the

source, inconsistencies in definition and description of concepts and dis-play of data;

5. Expectations for a comprehensive information system that includes “one-stop shopping,” prototypes, and access to commercial and external data-bases;

6. Non-system comments and concerns about lack of up-to-date technologyinfrastructure at the user level for some users and marketing issues; and

7. Quality assurance issues, such as control of data input, ongoing mainte-nance, security, and monitoring.

Findings suggested that information needs must be considered within thelarger arena of the overall information technology strategy for the USDA. Themost robust findings fell within the theme area of information needs. Focusgroup participants expressed the need to view agricultural information througha larger lens that includes multidisciplinary fields. Findings from the focusgroups were used in two ways: to design a survey on needs and perceptions ofusers of agricultural literature from a larger population and to determine whichinformation needs were most important within the context of building an agri-cultural information system (Cortez, 1999).

ONLINE FOCUS GROUP

We conducted an exploratory study involving an OFG in 1998. The study wasdesigned to explore issues of curriculum development for online informationretrieval courses within library and information studies programs. Online infor-mation retrieval is defined as “the topic area that encompasses the knowledgeand skills needed for searching commercially produced databases such as thoseon DIALOG” (Hsieh-Yee, 1997, p. 17). It was anticipated that online searchspecialists who teach courses dealing with online information search topicscould provide insight in this area of inquiry. After a review of the literature, Al-varez (1999) found that these specialists work in the online retrieval informa-tion field and have been dealing with the latest technology for an extended pe-riod of time. They tend to be early adopters of new technology and arecomfortable with rapid changes. They also are experienced in formulating andexpressing ideas online.

Careful consideration of the attributes of these specialists led to the selection


of the OFG mode for the major portion of data collection. OFG, also called vir-tual, cyber, or electronic focus group or electronic group interviews (Parker,1998; Solomon, 1996; Todd, 1999) is a relatively new approach that recently hasgained popularity in marketing research. Market researchers appreciate the re-duced costs, ease of implementation, and rapid turnaround of data collectionafforded by this new technology. Weisman (1998, p. 20) states that “a growingnumber of focus groups have migrated from the real to the virtual world overthe past two years.”

For this study, e-mail invitations were sent to a pre-selected group of special-ists who were geographically dispersed. The criteria for selection were that: 1)the faculty had done extensive research or had written about instruction/teach-ing in information storage and retrieval and 2) the faculty was currently teach-ing an online information retrieval course in an American Library Association(ALA)-accredited library school. To obtain comprehensive data, a combina-tion of online and offline questions were provided. Following conventions usedin face-to-face focus groups, a

discussion guide was developed specifying objec-tives of OFG, logistics, and online and offline questions. The OFG was de-signed for this project to identify critical issues affecting the online informationretrieval world; explore how these issues affect the instruction of online infor-mation retrieval; and collect experts’ thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the fu-ture of online information retrieval education.

Ten online search specialists who expressed interest after the initial e-mailinvitation then received the individual session topic. The methodological con-siderations were explained. A group of six participants met online using theFirstClass Conferencing (SoftArc) software; the other four potential partici-pants had scheduling conflicts. Although the FirstClass Conferencing softwarelacked some of the features that the researchers desired, it was the only onethen available free of charge to researchers. In this case, the interviewer did nothave access to audio transmission or reception. Participants downloaded thesoftware from the University of Madison-Wisconsin and were provided with alogin name and a temporary password.

Prior to the online meeting, the participants were asked to reflect uponchanges over the last five years in the online information retrieval world. Withthose changes in mind, they were then asked to identify the three major issuesthat had an impact on the online information retrieval world. All responseswere compiled, and the three most frequently cited issues were given to thegroup before the meeting. These issues provided a framework of context forthe discussion but were not specifically part of that discussion (see Table 2).

Since this group of participants already had collegial relationships, there wasno need for extensive introductions or warm-up questions. The online discus-sion started with an informal conversation between the participants as they en-tered the discussion “room.” When everyone was online, the moderator postedthe first question and participants responded in a matter of seconds. Responsesand responder name were posted on the top of each participant’s screen. A text

362 Chase & Alvarez

box for response input was available for each participant on the lower portionof the screen. Because of the nature of synchronous communication, the mes-sages were displayed at the same time as participants were typing responses.

Although a novice participant complained online about this software charac-teristic, he quickly adjusted to it and engaged in the group discussion. Othertechnical limitations, however, were found with this conferencing software. Themajor limitation appeared to be the finite number of lines of text allowed in theinput box. This constraint prompted the moderator to send reminders aboutposting short, concise, and compact messages. This peculiarity of the softwarebecame a real concern because it hindered the in-depth discussion desired fromfocus groups.

Despite this drawback, the members of the group, who were generallycomfortable with the online environment. were not intimidated by the tech-nology and were neither shy nor reserved in sharing their thoughts and ideas.The online discussion lasted one hour. Captured data was printed out and an-alyzed. Participants agreed that the Internet has created the illusion thatsearching is easy. This illusion makes it more difficult to teach “traditional”online systems. They also agreed that peers do not always recognize the valueof teaching this subject. They also expressed a desire to enhanced faculty sup-port within LIS programs; there is a need for an appropriate textbook thatcombines theory and practice and that covers new issues related to onlinesearching.

There was disagreement on whether either establishing a separate onlinesearch course or integrating the skills throughout other courses would be pref-erable. The online focus group findings were then used as the basis for the de-sign of an opinion survey intended for students enrolled in the LIS program atthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. The online course design benefited fromthe findings of the online focus group and the student survey.

TABLE 2Online Focus Groups

Offline Question

Think back about the last five years in the Online Information Retrieval World. Which are the three

major issues impacting Online Information Retrieval World?

Online Questions

How have these issues affected the topics you cover in your graduate level Online Information

Retrieval Course(s)? (Not curricula changes in general, just in the course)

How have these issues impacted your teaching strategies?

How have you addressed the issue of balance between hands-on and theory components in your

course(s)?

What other challenges do you face in teaching online information retrieval? (Especially in the area of

teaching general concepts versus latest advances in online retrieval)


SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF THE TWO PROCESS APPROACHES

After the online educator curriculum study, we had an opportunity to compareit to the more conventional focus group approach used for the governmentstudy. The two experiences described were not undertaken to compare one tothe other; they were presented here to illustrate the process involved in runningeach type of focus group. The review of similarities and differences of the twoapproaches will be explained in terms of the methodology (see Table 3) and thegroup dynamic and communication (see Table 4) used in each case. The charac-teristics of the OFG that will be described pertain to the synchronous OFG.The dynamics of asynchronous interaction may lead to different deductions.

Methodology

Online and face-to-face focus groups are both appropriate for exploring andgathering ideas. For both methods, clear-cut guidelines and objectives must be

TABLE 3Comparison Between Face-to-Face and Online Focus Group Methodologies

Face-to-Face Online

Interview Guide Same Same

Facilitator Highly skilled in face-to-face

communications

Highly skilled in online

communications

Skilled as interviewer Skilled as interviewer

No technology expertise

necessary

Expert in technology

Participants Recruitment By phone, letter, email, survey By email, online survey

Universal representation can be

achieved

Universal representation not

feasible (automatically excludes

those who are not computer

literate)

Travel required No travel required

Constrained geographically No geographic limitation

Costs Can be high (especially when

travel is involved)

Lower (even with software,

facilitator fees)

Technical Requirements Audiotaping equipment Hardware, Conferencing software

Data Recording Not immediately available. Need

person to record, tape recorder

or video recorder plus

transcriber after the meeting

Script immediately available

Data Analysis Can be multi-dimensional: multi-

textured (recorded tape),

recorder notes, non verbal

observations, and other notes

from onsite researchers

One-dimensional (text only)

364 Chase & Alvarez

defined by the researcher(s). Johnson (1996) asserts that developing a discus-sion guide for the face-to-face focus group gives structure to the interviews andalso helps the interviewer facilitate the discussions and provide continuityamong groups. It is as important to use a well-constructed guide in the onlineenvironment. The guide should contain the clearly defined objectives and a setof three to five open-ended questions. The questions should reflect the objec-tive and should move from broad to specific topics in a natural progression.Keeping participants on target in the online focus group setting can be chal-lenging. The speed of the conversation and the nonlinear nature of the discus-sion may necessitate more probes and follow-up phrases.

TABLE 4Comparison of Approaches Regarding Group Dynamics and Communication

Face-to-Face Online

General Aspects Comfortable for people with

strong verbal communication

skills

Comfortable for computer literate

Comfort level can be influenced by

environment

Comfort of being at home or in

own office

Discussion Characteristics Ambiguity of content can be

addressed through interviewer

probes and follow-up questions

More difficult for interviewer to

inject probes and follow-up

questions

May be dependent on facilitator’s

expertise in bring participants

into the discussion and

participant interest in the

discussion

May be dependent on facilitator’s

expertise in bringing

participants into the online

discussion and participant

interest in the discussion

Indepth information can be

obtained

Indepth information desired but

not always easily obtainable

Communication Flow Responses may be influenced by

other participants, group

dynamic may spark new ideas

Sense of anonymity may allow

participants to express their

opinions honestly and

spontaneously

Sometimes needs facilitator’s

encouragement

Moves quickly from topic to topic

Easy to guide and keep focus Can lose focus even with

facilitator’s intervention

Non-verbal Body language and facial

expression can be observed

and recorded

Response time and frequency,

spelling, stylistic text usage

Cues can be ambiguous; can be

interpreted or verified by expert

facilitator

Can be interpreted or verified by

expert facilitator

Verbal Emotion can be conveyed through

tone of voice

Limited to test expressions or

symbols


The success of a focus group depends largely upon the facilitator. A focusgroup facilitator should possess a number of qualities: empathy, experiencewith group dynamics, the ability to communicate, and the expertise to direct orfacilitate rather than control the discussion. The facilitator should be selectedbased on attributes necessary for conducting either the face-to-face or the on-line focus group. Skill sets will differ depending upon the method employed.That is, in a face-to-face focus group, the facilitator must have a skill set that in-cludes expert observation of nonverbal cues. In an OFG, the facilitator shouldpossess a skill set that includes technological and language expertise that willcompensate for the lack of the physical cues present in the face-to-face mode.This includes knowledge of the most appropriate software for the situation.Online focus group software allows private communication between the re-searcher and the facilitator in a separate window during the session. Thus, theresearcher can guide the facilitator during the actual focus group discussion.

Recruiting is one of the most difficult and time-consuming activities of ar-ranging a focus group discussion. The potential participants should representthe target group while being diverse enough to offer a range of ideas. Universalrepresentation issues must be discussed. If a wide spectrum of participants isdesired, the OFG may not be appropriate as it automatically excludes non-computer participants. Candidates can be contacted by phone, mail, e-mail, orin person. Individuals selected should be likely to speak to the outcomes speci-fied in the objectives. Candidates should be identified who are comfortablewith the chosen environment.

Group Dynamic and Communication

The group dynamics are likely to be affected whichever method is employed.Those who have made technology a part of their everyday lives may be moreenthusiastic and responsive in the online environment, as well as those whosepersonalities inhibit easy person-to-person communication. For instance, peerpressure among young people may be exacerbated by face-to-face contact. Mc-Gee (1997, p. 54) states: “Kids are more willing to disagree with what someoneelse has said when they aren’t looking that person in the face. The insecuritieschildren have about their appearance and manner are also minimized.” On theother hand, studies have suggested that a sense of anonymity may increase anti-social behaviors such as flaming (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992).

The discussion characteristics also differ between the two approaches. Ambi-guity within the discussion is more likely to be addressed and clarified immedi-ately within the face-to-face setting. Although there is a certain synergy as par-ticipants view the discussion onscreen, the lack of a distinct emotional timbrecreated by tone of voice and body and facial signals limits its effectiveness. Thishindrance, however, may be reduced by a recent development. OFG softwareis available that includes a list of nonverbal symbols representing facial expres-sions and other gestures to display emotion in the online environment (Heck-

366 Chase & Alvarez

man, 2000). OFG participants already have access to tools that allow emer-gence of personalized writing styles.

A certain spirit of good will, however, can develop when human beings ex-change ideas and disclose attitudes and beliefs in close proximity to others. Inother words, a community may emerge within the face-to-face environmentthat does not in the electronic environment. The face-to-face focus group set-ting allows a more comprehensive experience; that is, information is exchangedthrough speech, tonal quality, extensive nonverbal cues, while at the same timethere is increased pressure to participate.

In the OFG mode, the information exchange is primarily dependent on thelanguage domain and on the initiative of the participants to contribute. A non-contributor in the online environment tends to be less conspicuous than in theface-to-face setting and may be more difficult to draw into the discussion. Be-cause of the widespread assumption that the group dynamic is negatively im-pacted in the online environment, social scientists have been reluctant to usethis technique. The absence of a linear conversation progression may engendermultiple discussion topics simultaneously (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). Keyboard-ing and reading require more effort and time than the face-to-face focus groupinteraction of speaking and listening. Other researchers contend that reading isfaster than listening (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994).

Applications

Each focus group method manifests unique characteristics. A comparison ofthe process rather than the outcome of each approach will allow researchers toapply the appropriate focus group design to a particular situation.

The OFG methodology can be used to gauge the perceptions and feelings ofthose who interact regularly in an electronic environment. Through continuingexposure to online interaction in the school and library settings, many youngadults are electronically conversant. OFG provides a familiar and reassuringvenue for these participants. This approach to collecting ideas was adopted inmarketing in 1994 when Viacom’s Nickelodeon Network ran the first online fo-cus group using young adult participants (Miller, 1994).

Online focus groups would be particularly effective for addressing sensitiveissues that are troublesome to handle in the face-to-face environment. As anexample, in a hospital library, there may be a need to ascertain the informationneeds of individuals with various illnesses of a sensitive nature. The anonymityof the online focus group may allow forthright discussion of delicate topics.

The Internet has allowed libraries to create entirely new ways to serve con-stituents. Library web pages, virtual reference desks, e-mail reference, and on-line catalogs and databases are a growing part of the information function ofthe library. For example, to measure the effectiveness of a virtual referencedesk or to evaluate a new library Website design, users who regularly access li-brary information online may provide feedback through use of the OFG. As


Weisman (1998, p. 20) asserts: “Reviewing Web sites is a natural subject for on-line focus groups and, not surprisingly, this is the service for which these groupsare used most.”

Researchers could also take advantage of this method in the study of users ofvirtual libraries. These users are being studied through use of conventionalmethods, while use of the OFG may provide a more comfortable environmentfor the study subjects. The OFG can also be used as an adjunct to the in-personfocus group and is useful for pre-group demographic data collection, debrief-ing, wrap up, and clarification of face-to-face focus group.

Certainly, the face-to-face focus group approach will continue to serve a pur-pose as long as researchers are interested in data obtained from groups that arecomfortable with in-person communication. And because the face-to-face in-teraction allows symbolic and nonverbal components to enhance the data, thismethod will remain viable when solutions are sought for problems of a compli-cated nature (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). Furthermore, as Weisman (1998, p. 20)has noted, the online technology does not replace the face-to-face mode “be-cause the two are different animals.”

An offspring of the online and face-to-face focus groups may well emerge inthe near future. Currently, digital audio communication is often of poor quality,and limitations of bandwidths prevent real-time delivery of video (Foo, Hui,&Yip, 1999). As digital audio and video transmission mechanisms continue toimprove, the virtual focus group (a hybrid of the face-to-face and the OFG ap-proaches) may evolve.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this discussion was to present the similarities and differences ofthe two focus group approaches. Although they are similar in format, we havepointed out major differences in terms of communication dynamic. The face-to-face focus group approach is well established as a data collection method andwill continue to exist. The OFG is currently being used primarily as a marketingtool. The usefulness of this approach in social sciences research has yet to befully explored. As the group dynamic and the communication in the electronicenvironment are studied and understood, the hesitations in using this approachmay decrease.

The strengths and weaknesses of each approach lie primarily within the in-teraction domain. The online focus group approach will facilitate data gather-ing from groups who find expression of ideas through writing more appealingthan verbal interaction. The face-to-face approach will continue to allow thecollection of data from those who express ideas more readily in the personalsetting.

Synchronization of video and audio components can support a virtual focusgroup that will retain the benefits of both the face-to-face and the online focus

368 Chase & Alvarez

group methods while eliminating many of the disadvantages. As more ap-proaches become available to researchers and practitioners, it is essential tofirst ascertain the data collection goals and the characteristics of the target pop-ulation before selecting the particular focus group approach. Social sciences re-searchers and practitioners who stay informed about developing technologiesand research approaches will be able to take full advantage of the best methodfor the project at hand.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, Jaquelina. (1999). Re-designing the online reference and informationservices course, unpublished, specialist paper, School of Library and Infor-mation Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Coakley, Debbie. (1998). Last research tools give marketers better insight intocustomers.

Agri Marketing, 36

(10), 24–28.Cortez, Edwin M. (1999). Research, education, and economics information sys-

tem: an engine for strategic planning and information policy developmentat the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Journal of Government Informa-tion, 26

, 119–129.Crowley, Aileen. (1996). Looking for data in all the right places.

PC Week,13

(42), 51.Foo, Schubert, Hui, Siy Cheung, & Yip, See Wai. (1999). Enhancing the quality

of low bit–rate real-time Internet communication services.

Internet Re-search, 9

, 212–214.Gaiser, Ted J. (1997). Conducting on-line focus groups: A methodological dis-

cussion.

Social Science Computer Review, 15

, 135–144.Goulding, Anne. (1997). Joking, being aggressive and shutting people up: The

use of focus groups in LIS research.

Education for Information, 15

, 331–341.Heckman, James. (2000). Turning the focus online: Web snares ever-more

qualitative research.

Marketing News, 34

(5), 15.Hsieh-Yee, Ingrid. (1997). Teaching online and CD-ROM resources.

Journal ofEducation for Library and Information Science, 38

(1), 14–34.Jacobson, Paul. (1996). Focus on the consumer.

American Advertising, 12

(4),28–29.

Johnson, Debra Wilcox. (1996). Focus groups. In Douglas Zweizig (Ed.),

TheTELL IT! manual: The complete program for evaluating library perfor-mance

(pp. 176–184). Chicago: American Library Association.Kendall, Lori. (1999). Recontextualizing “Cyberspace”: Methodological con-

siderations for on-line research. In Steven Jones (Ed.),

Doing Internet re-search: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net

(pp. 57–74). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kerslake, Evelyn, & Goulding, Anne. (1996). Focus groups: Their use in LISresearch data collection.

Education for Information, 14

, 225–235.


Kiesler, Sara, & Sproull, Lee. (1992). Group decision making and communica-tion technology.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,52

, 96–123.Krathwohl, David R. (1998).

Methods of educational and social science re-search: An integrated approach

. New York: Longman.Landreth, Darien. (1998). Focus groups on the net: Some pros and cons of do-

ing qualitative research online.

Marketing (Maclean-Hunter), 103

(17), 16.Maddox, Kate. (1998). Virtual panels add real insight for marketers: Online fo-

cus-group use expanding.

Advertising Age, 69

(26), 34

1

.McGee, Tom. (1997). Getting inside kid’s heads.

American Demographics,19

(1), 52–55.McGrath, Joseph, & Hollingshead, Andrea. (1994).

Groups interacting withtechnology

(Sage Library of Social Research No. 194). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Miller, Cyndee. (1994). Focus groups go where none has been before.

Market-ing News, 28

(14), 2.Parker, George. (1998). Interviewing interactively.

Marketing News, 32

(2), 7.Parks, Alexia. (1997). On-line focus groups reshape market research industry.

Marketing News, 31

(10), 28.Scott, R. Neil, Long, J. Gordon, & Flanders, E. Lorene. (1991). Don’t ask un-

less you really want to know! Tapping branch campus library users’ percep-tions with focus groups interviews. In

Off-campus library services confer-ence, Albuquerque

(pp. 225–239). Mount Pleasant, MI: Central MichiganUniversity.

Solomon, Mary Beth. (1996). Targeting trendsetters.

Marketing Research, 8

(2), 9.Sterne, Jim. (1996).

Customer service on the Internet: Building relationships, in-creasing loyalty, and staying competitive

. New York: John Wiley.Todd, David. (1999). Virtual focus groups elicit mixed reaction.

Strategy: The Cana-dian Marketing Report,

30. Weisman, Rachel X. (1998). Online or off target?

American Demographics,20

(11), 20–21.Widdows, Richard, Hensler, Tia, & Wyncatt, Marlaya. (1991). The focus group

interview: A method for assessing users’ evaluation of library services.

Col-lege and Research Libraries, 52

(4), 352–359.Witmer, Diane, Colman, Robert, & Katzman, Sandra. (1999). From paper-and-

pencil to screen-and-keyboard. In Steven Jones, (Ed.),

Doing Internet re-search: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net

(pp. 57–74). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, Vicki. (1993). Focus on focus groups: A step-by-step guide to runningfocus groups.

College and Research Libraries News, 54

, 391–394.Zhang, Yin. (1999). Scholarly use of internet-based electronic resources: A sur-

vey report.

Library Trends, 47

, 740–746.

internet research: the role of the focus group

Documents