07-Stewart-5002.

qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 109

7
Analyzing Focus Group Data
The analysis and interpretation of focus group data require a great deal of
judgment and care, just as any other scientific approach, and regardless of
whether the analysis relies on quantitative or qualitative procedures. A great
deal of the skepticism about the value of focus groups probably arises from the
perception that focus group data are subjective and difficult to interpret.
However, the analysis and interpretation of focus group data can be as rigor-
ous as that generated by any other method. It can even be quantified and sub-
mitted to sophisticated mathematical analyses, though the purposes of focus
group interviews seldom require this type of analysis. Indeed, there is no one
best or correct approach to the analysis of focus group data. As with other
types of data, the nature of the analyses of focus group interview data should
be determined by the research question and the purpose for which the data are
collected.
The most common purpose of a focus group interview is to provide an in-
depth exploration of a topic about which little is known. For such exploratory
research, a simple descriptive narrative is quite appropriate and often all that
is necessary. More detailed analyses are simply neither an efficient or produc-
tive use of time, unless they serve a particular research objective. However,
there are additional methods of analysis that may be appropriate for certain
purposes. In this chapter, we consider the methods of data analysis that are
most frequently used with focus group data. We begin this discussion by con-
sidering the question of how much analysis is appropriate.

HOW MUCH ANALYSIS?

Like most types of research, the amount of analysis required varies with the
purpose of the research, the complexity of the research design, and the extent
to which conclusions can be reached easily based on simple analyses. The
most common analyses of focus group results involve a transcript of the dis-
cussion and a summary of the conclusions that can be drawn. There are occa-
sions, however, when a transcript is unnecessary. When decisions must be
made quickly (which is common in marketing studies) and the conclusions of

109
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 110

110 FOCUS GROUPS

the research are rather straightforward, a brief summary may be all that is
necessary. In some cases, there may be time or budget constraints that prevent
more detailed analysis. In other cases, all interested parties and decision makers
may be able to observe or participate in the group, so there may be little need
for a detailed analysis or report. Nevertheless, some type of report is almost
always helpful, if only to document what was done for historical and auditing
purposes.
When the results of a focus group are so obvious as to require little sup-
porting documentation, detailed analysis is probably not worthwhile. One of
the authors was involved in a series of focus groups on a new government pro-
gram that was so clearly unacceptable and elicited so many objections that fur-
ther analysis of any kind seemed unwarranted. In this case, the decision about
the program was made quite clear by the focus group discussions. This is, in
fact, a good example of how useful focus groups can be as evaluative tools. It
is often the case that government planners, product design engineers, and other
professionals who design products and services believe that they understand
what their clients or customers need or should want. Focus groups provide a
tool for testing the reality of assumptions that go into the design of services,
programs, and products. On the other hand, if the researchers in this example
were interested in more than making a simple go/no go decision about a prod-
uct or program and instead wished to explore in detail the reasons the program
was unacceptable and the types of programs that might be acceptable, more
detailed analyses would be needed. Thus, the amount of analysis and the level
of detail and rigor ultimately depend on the purpose for which the research is
carried out and the cost-benefit of carrying out an analysis at a given level.
Aside from the few occasions when only a short summary of focus group
discussions is required, all analytic techniques for focus group data require
transcription of the interview as a first step. Thus we consider the issues sur-
rounding the transcription process and then turn our attention to some of the
more common tools for analysis of focus group data.

TRANSCRIBING THE INTERVIEW

The first step in many approaches to the analysis of focus group data is to have
the entire interview transcribed. Transcription services are readily available in
most cities and are generally able to provide relatively rapid turnaround at
modest cost. Transcription not only facilitates further analysis, but also it estab-
lishes a permanent written record of the group discussion that can be shared with
other interested parties. On the other hand, in research situations that are time
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 111

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 111

pressured or involve fairly mundane issues (e.g., advertising copy testing), a

transcript may not be prepared. In these cases, the researchers rely on detailed
notes taken by the focus group observers, or they may also replay the audio-
or videotape of the group as needed.
The amount of editing that the analyst does on a transcribed interview is a
matter of preference. Transcriptions are not always complete, and the moder-
ator may want to fill in gaps and missing words, as well as correct spelling and
typographical errors. There is a danger in this, of course, because the modera-
tor’s memory may be fallible or knowledge of what was said later in the course
of the interview may color the memory of what happened earlier.
Transcription also will faithfully pick up incomplete sentences, half-fin-
ished thoughts, parts of words, odd phrases, and other characteristics of the
spoken word in a group discussion. These characteristics are true to the flow
of the discussion, but they may make it difficult for a reader to follow the text.
Some editing may increase readability, but it is important that the character of
the respondents’ comments be maintained, even if at times they use poor gram-
mar or appear to be confused. Because one use of focus group interviewing is
to learn how respondents’ think and talk about a particular issue, too much
editing and cleaning of the transcript is undesirable and counterproductive.
Once the transcript is finished, it can serve as the basis for further analysis. It
should be noted, however, that the transcript does not reflect the entire character
of the discussion. Nonverbal communication, gestures, and behavioral responses
are not reflected in a transcript. In addition, the way members of the group use
words and the tone with which words are used are important sources of infor-
mation and can radically alter the interpretation of a statement. The statement,
“That is bad,” can have several very different meanings. The word bad is some-
times used as a way to say something is actually very good. Such a statement
could also mean something is really bad in the traditional meaning of this word.
For these reasons, the interviewer or observer may wish to supplement the
transcript with some additional observational data that were obtained during
the interview. Such data may include notes that the interviewer or observers
made during the interview, the systematic recording of specific events and
behaviors by trained observers, or the content analysis of videotapes of the dis-
cussion. Such observational data may be quite useful, but it will only be avail-
able if its collection was planned in advance. Preplanning of the analyses of
the data to be obtained from focus groups is as important as it is for any other
type of research. Once the focus group discussions have been transcribed,
analysis can begin. Today researchers have a variety of choices in analyzing
focus group data, and these generally fall into two basic categories: qualitative
or quantitative. Because focus groups are a variety of qualitative research, the
following discussion examines qualitative analytic approaches.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 112

112 FOCUS GROUPS

QUALITATIVE ANALYTIC APPROACHES

Technological advances in statistics have enabled extensive and elaborate

analyses of huge data bases derived from surveys, retail transactions, census
data, and numerous other sources. As later sections in this chapter explain,
quantitative analyses can also be applied effectively to qualitative data obtained
from individual depth interviews, focus groups, and ethnographies. On the
other hand, studies that rely on qualitative research methods often employ
qualitative approaches to extracting meaning from the data. Unfortunately,
unlike most statistical paradigms, there is much less consensus on how to ana-
lyze and interpret qualitative data. To a considerable degree, this is the result
of differences in the epistemological orientations and phenomenological foci
that characterize the behavioral science disciplines.

Epistemological Orientation

Whether explicit or simply subsumed, disciplines adopt basic premises

about the sources and nature of knowledge. Three distinctive perspectives are
particularly relevant to qualitative analyses of focus group data (Sayre, 2001).
First, social constructivism broadly posits that much of reality and the mean-
ing and categories that frame everyday life are essentially social creations.
This orientation traces its origins to thinking from social psychology, sociol-
ogy, and cultural anthropology. Focus group analyses that reflect this view
tend to emphasize how group members collaborate on some issue, how they
achieve consensus (or fail to), and how they construct shared meanings about
commercial products, communications, or social concerns. The phenomeno-
logical approach to analysis is almost the opposite. Drawing generally from
clinical psychology and more specifically from phenomenological psychol-
ogy, the analytic emphasis is on the subjective, idiosyncratic perceptions and
motivations of the individual respondent. This perspective is particularly use-
ful in marketing focus groups in which managers are extremely interested, for
example, in the detailed and in-depth reasons why one person loves the new
flavor of Fritos and another group member finds it disgusting. Because both
individuals represent important segments, thoroughly mining their thoughts
and feelings is critical. Finally, advocates of interpretivism accept the prior
perspectives but are skeptical about taking focus group respondents’ words at
face value. Researchers from this school owe much to ethnographic studies
that focus on both individuals’ words and actions, particularly to the science of
body language and facial expressions.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 113

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 113

Disciplinary Focus

As discussed in Chapter 1, the ways in which the earliest focus groups were
designed, fielded, and analyzed were strongly influenced by their parent disci-
plines, particularly social and clinical psychology and marketing research. These
influences remain strong today, although much cross-disciplinary evolution has
blurred some of the original differences. Newer intellectual currents have also
affected how researchers analyze focus group data. The field of hermeneutics
migrated from Europe to the American consumer research community in the
1980s. It values consumer stories, or narratives, as a powerful tool for under-
standing consumer motivation, meaning, and decision making. Consumers’ ver-
bal expressions are conceptualized as “text” and interpreted through an iterative
process of reading, analyzing, and rereading the text. For a review of the hermeneu-
tic approach, see Thompson (1997). The field of semiotics also focuses on
textual data but interprets this more broadly as including not only verbal expres-
sions but pictures, sounds, products, and advertisements (Sayre, 2001, p. 210).
Semiotic analyses commonly deconstruct textual data to uncover unintended or
hidden messages, which has proved particularly useful in the field of advertising
and communications research (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996; Stern, 1995). More
broadly, semiotic analyses of qualitative consumer data have helped identify the
signs and symbols that are embedded in textual data (Umiker-Sebeok, 1987).
Finally, some approaches to analyzing focus group data are, in comparison with
hermeneutics and semiotics, relatively atheoretical. This is particularly true of
marketing studies that seek to discover the major ideas and themes that emerge
from the group discussion. This approach also serves marketers’ frequent need
to quantify, statistically analyze, and generalize the findings from small-sample
qualitative studies.

Workbench Issues

Regardless of the disciplinary orientation of the focus group researcher,

there are common everyday issues that arise during many groups and require
analytic attention. Unlike statistical studies, focus group analysis actually
begins once the group has begun. This is due largely to the discretionary
opportunities the moderator has to terminate a topic, expand the discussion on
one that the group finds involving, or introduce an entirely new line of ques-
tioning. Still, the main analytic work occurs after the focus group discussion
ends. Above and beyond the hard data provided by the transcript, qualitative
analyses of focus groups involve other often equally important considerations.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 114

114 FOCUS GROUPS

The following draws from discussion in A. E. Goldman and McDonald (1987,

pp. 164–166).

Issue Order

Focus group discussions commonly begin with open-ended “grand tour”

questions that seek to obtain participants’ overall orientation toward a topic. The
moderator might begin with questions like, “Tell me about your overall grocery
shopping experiences these days,” or “How do you feel about your health insur-
ance plan?” It is often analytically interesting to observe which aspects are top-
of-mind and expressed first in the discussion. Judgment is required to interpret
whether the issues that are raised first truly represent the participants’ major con-
cerns or are merely mundane and socially safe topics. For example, in respond-
ing to the question about grocery shopping, someone might complain about the
high prices when this is actually not a major issue, but it represents a conven-
tional perspective and an easy way of joining the discussion.

Issue Absence or Presence

Most analyses of focus group data seek to find meaning in the nature of
participants’ verbal or written responses to the questions in the discussion
guide. This is logical and necessary, but exclusive emphasis on what is said or
written may provide only a partial picture of the situation. Things that go
unsaid or are not raised in the discussion may be equally important. Some
issues that participants don’t address may simply represent things that are
taken for granted (e.g., clean restrooms in restaurants). Others may represent
socially sensitive topics that individuals would prefer to avoid (e.g., retirement
savings activities and strategies). Finally, other issues may not materialize in
the discussion because they are simply not important. Interpreting the signifi-
cance of things that go unsaid requires considerable skills on the part of both
the moderator and the analyst(s).

Time Spent on the Issue

In preparing a focus group discussion guide, researchers typically allocate

blocks of time to the topics that will be covered. It is not surprising that things
don’t always go as planned. Some questions that were anticipated to elicit
extensive discussion fall flat and yield pithy sound bites from indifferent
respondents. Conversely, minor or transitional questions sometimes stimulate
vigorous wide-ranging discussion and much interaction among the participants.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 115

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 115

This tends to frustrate the moderator, but more important, it provides clues to
how much the participants care about a particular issue. It may be misleading
to focus only on the responses to different questions without also considering
the amount of time the participants chose to spend on each one.

Intensity of Expression

Often related to the issue of time are the moods and emotions that arise as var-
ious topics are covered. A focus group can be like an emotional roller coaster
that veers from the dull formality of a committee meeting to moments of group
hilarity to mildly hostile silence. Such situations challenge the moderator to get
things going or calm them down. They also challenge the analyst to interpret the
nature and sources of participants’ emotional reactions and expressions. The
field of marketing today places a strong emphasis on the theory and practice of
customer relationship management (CRM). The role of consumers’ emotional
connections to products and brands is increasingly seen as a key link in the rela-
tionship. This orientation has contributed to the growing use in focus groups of
emotional elicitation techniques such as projective methods.

Reasons Versus Reactions

Focus group analysts are naturally interested in observing how participants

react to the various questions and stimuli that are presented to the group.
Sometimes when discussion guides are crammed with too many questions, the
moderator is pressed just to get through them all and has little time for prob-
ing the participants about the reasons for their responses. In other situations,
which are quite common in marketing studies, the researchers have a strong
interest in separating winning from losing product or advertising concepts.
Such groups tend to involve a lot of voting and ranking from the participants,
and they often pay insufficient attention to the various and often subtle reasons
for their evaluations. Overemphasis on individuals’ reactions is at odds with
the basic premise of focus group research that, ideally, mines rather than sur-
veys participants’ ideas and orientations.

Doubt and Disbelief

One central theme in the current criticism of focus group research is that
participants say one thing and do another. This problem is not unique to focus
groups and also arises in survey research. Focus group moderators and ana-
lysts need to be sensitive to situations in which participants’ expressions may
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 116

116 FOCUS GROUPS

reflect social desirability influences, pressures to conform to groupthink, or

the persuasive effects of a dominant group member. The analysis also needs to
be aware of and seek to resolve individual responses that are inconsistent. For
example, in a focus group comprised of mothers of young children, one per-
son explained, “I check the nutrition labels very carefully on the food I buy for
my kids,” yet later in the group, the same woman said, “Sometimes, if the kids
like it, I just throw it in the cart. I always seem to be in a hurry.” Focus group
researchers often need to exercise caution in accepting participants’ words at
face value.

Individuals Versus the Group

The analysis of focus group data often seeks to generalize findings in terms
of the group using terms such as most, very few, and the majority. In groups
that are extremely homogeneous (e.g., upper-middle-class widows between 65
and 75 years old who still live independently), this may make sense. On the
other hand, it represents a subtle intrusion of inappropriate quantitative analy-
sis. In most studies, focus group research involves small samples that are
imperfectly representative of a larger population. This makes group level gen-
eralizations questionable on both statistical and sampling criteria. An alterna-
tive approach is to view each individual in the group as representing a
particular demographic, lifestyle, or attitudinal segment, which encourages a
within-person rather than an across-person analysis.

The Scissor-and-Sort Technique

The scissor-and-sort technique, which is sometimes called the cut-and-paste

method, is a quick and cost-effective method for analyzing a transcript of a
focus group discussion. The first step in applying the technique is to go
through the transcript and identify those sections of it that are relevant to the
research question(s). Based on this initial reading, a classification system for
major topics and issues is developed, and material in the transcript related to
each topic is identified. Color-coded brackets or symbols may be used to mark
different topics within the text with colors. The amount of material coded for
any one topic depends on the importance of that topic to the overall research
question and the amount of variation in the discussion. The coded material
may be phrases, sentences, or long exchanges between individual respondents.
The only requirement is that the material be relevant to the particular category
with which it has been identified. This coding exercise may require several
passes through the transcript as categories of topics evolve and the analyst
gains greater insight into the content of the group discussion.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 117

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 117

Once the coding process is complete, the coded copy of the transcribed interview
may be cut apart (the scissors part of the technique). Each piece of coded mater-
ial can be cut out and sorted so that all material relevant to a particular topic is
placed together. This cutting and sorting process may also be readily carried out
on any computer with a word-processing program. Whether scissors or a personal
computer is employed in the process, both yield a set of sorted materials that pro-
vides the basis for developing a summary report. Each topic is treated in turn with
a brief introduction. The various pieces of transcribed text are used as supporting
materials and incorporated within an interpretative analysis.
The scissor-and-sort technique is a very useful and efficient approach to
analysis, but it does tend to rely very heavily on the judgment of a single ana-
lyst. This analyst determines which segments of the transcript are important,
develops a categorization system for the topics discussed by the group, selects
representative statements regarding these topics from the transcript, and devel-
ops an interpretation of what it all means. There is obviously much opportu-
nity for subjectivity and potential bias in this approach. Yet, it shares many of
the characteristics of more sophisticated and time-consuming approaches.
In some cases, it may be desirable to have two or more analysts indepen-
dently code the focus group transcript. The use of multiple analysts provides
an opportunity to assess the reliability of coding, at least with respect to major
themes and issues. When determining the reliability of more detailed types of
codes such as the intensity of positive and negative emotion associated with
various institutions and organizations, more sophisticated coding procedures
are required. All are types of content analysis, a topic to which we now turn.

Content Analysis

The meaning of a focus group discussion, or for that matter any set of
words, does not leap out complete with interpretation and insight. Rather, the
content of the discussion must be examined and the meaning and its particular
implications for the research question at hand discovered. Every effort to inter-
pret a focus group represents analysis of content. There are, however, rigorous
approaches to the analysis of content, approaches that emphasize the reliabil-
ity and replicability of observations and subsequent interpretation. These
approaches include a variety of specific methods and techniques that are col-
lectively known as content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004). There are frequent
occasions when the use of this more rigorous approach is appropriate for the
analysis of data generated by focus groups. This may even be necessary when
numerous focus groups are fielded, yielding a large volume of data.
The literature on content analysis provides the foundation for computer-
assisted approaches to the analysis of focus group data. Computer-assisted
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 118

118 FOCUS GROUPS

approaches to content analysis are increasingly being applied to focus group

data because they maintain much of the rigor of traditional content analysis
while greatly reducing the time and cost required to complete such analyses.
Such programs also provide a means for examining the contents of verbal
interaction in ways that are impossible for a human observer. We consider
computer-assisted approaches to content analysis in detail later in this chapter.
Before doing so, however, it will be helpful to more rigorously define content
analysis and review the general approach employed in such analysis.
Krippendorf (2004) defined content analysis as “a research technique for
making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter)
to the contexts of their use” (p. 18). Over 40 years ago, Janis (1965) defined it
as follows:

Any technique (a) for the classification of the sign-vehicles (b) which relies solely
upon the judgments (which theoretically may range from perceptual discrimina-
tion to sheer guesses) of an analyst or group of analysts as to which sign-vehicles
fall into which categories, (c) provided that the analyst’s judgments are regarded
as the report of a scientific observer. (p. 55)

A sign-vehicle is anything that may carry meaning, though most often it is

likely to be a word or set of words in the context of a focus group interview.
Sign-vehicles may also include gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, or
any of a variety of other means of communication, however. Indeed, such non-
verbal signs may carry a great deal of information and should not be over-
looked as a source of information.
Content analysis has a long and rich history in the social sciences (see
Krippendorf, 2004, for a concise history of the method). It has been widely
applied to such varied phenomena as propaganda, literature and newspapers,
transcripts of psychotherapy sessions, and television programming. A rather
substantial body of literature now exists on content analysis including books
by Krippendorf (2004), Neuendorf (2002; see http://academic.csuohio.edu/
kneuendorf/content/ for an online version of this source), and Popping (2002).
A number of specific instruments have been developed to facilitate content
analysis including the Message Measurement Inventory (R. G. Smith, 1978) and
the Gottschalk-Gleser Content Analysis Scale (Gottschalk, Winget, & Gleser,
1969). The Message Measurement Inventory was originally designed for the
analysis of communications in the mass media, such as television program-
ming and news magazines. The Gottschalk-Gleser Content Analysis Scale, on
the other hand, was designed for the analysis of interpersonal communication.
Both scales have been in use for a long time, and there is a rich literature on
their applications. These scales have been adapted for other purposes, but they
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 119

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 119

are generally representative of the types of formal content analysis scales that
are in use.
Janis (1965) identified three distinct types of content analysis based on the
purpose of the investigation:

1. Pragmatical content analysis, which includes procedures for classifying signs

according to their probable causes and effects. In this type of analysis the empha-
sis is on why something is said.
2. Semantical content analysis, which seeks to classify signs according to their
meanings. This type of analysis may take three forms:
a. Designation analysis, which determines the frequency with which certain
objects (or persons, institutions, or concepts) are mentioned. This type of
analysis can be a rather simple counting exercise.
b. Attribution analysis, which examines the frequency with which certain char-
acterizations or descriptors are used. Again, this can be a simple counting
exercise, but the emphasis is on adjectives, adverbs, descriptive phrases, and
qualifiers rather than the targets of these parts of speech.
c. Assertions analysis, which provides the frequency with which certain objects
(persons, institutions, etc.) are characterized in a particular way. Assertions
analysis involves combining designation analysis and attribution analysis.
Such an analysis often takes the form of a matrix, with objects as columns and
descriptors as rows.
3. Sign-vehicle analysis, which classifies content according to the psychophysical
properties of signs (counting the number of times specific words or types of
words are used). For example, the degree to which a topic is emotionally involv-
ing for respondents may be revealed by examination of the number of emotion-
laden words used. (p. 57)

All of these types of analysis may be appropriate to the analysis of focus

group data depending on the types of research questions at issue. For example,
pragmatical content analysis may be employed when trying to understand the
attributions of a group of consumers concerning product failures or the beliefs
of a group of teenagers concerning the transmission of AIDS. Semantical con-
tent analysis might be used to look at the number of positive and negative char-
acterizations of the Democratic or Republican Party. This example is more
specifically an assertions analysis. Finally, sign-vehicle analysis might be used
to count the number of emotion-laden words that a group of union members
use when referring to their employers. Indeed, these are examples of three
measures that have a long history of use: (a) the frequency with which a sym-
bol or idea appears, which tends to be interpreted as a measure of importance,
attention, or emphasis; (b) the relative balance of favorable and unfavorable
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 120

120 FOCUS GROUPS

attributions regarding a symbol or idea, which tends to be interpreted as a measure

of direction or bias; and (c) the kinds of qualifications and associations made
with respect to a symbol or idea, which tend to be interpreted as a measure of
the intensity of belief or conviction (Krippendorf, 2004, p. 59). Other types of
measures that may flow from these types of analyses might focus on the pres-
ence or absence of an idea or concept, which might suggest something about
focus group respondents’ awareness or knowledge and the frequency with which
two or more ideas, objects, or persons are associated or linked (Krippendorf,
2004, p. 59).
Although content analysis is a specific type of research tool, it shares many
features with other types of research. The same stages of the research process
found in content analysis are present in any research project. Krippendorf
(2004, p. 83f) identified a number of these stages:

• Data making
• Data reduction
• Inference
• Analysis
• Validation
• Testing for correspondence with other methods
• Testing hypotheses regarding other data

Data used in content analysis include human speech, observations of behav-

ior, and various forms of nonverbal communication. The speech itself may be
recorded, and if video cameras are used, at least some of the behavior and non-
verbal communication may be permanently archived. Such data are highly
unstructured, however, at least for the purposes of the researcher. Before the con-
tent of a focus group can be analyzed, it must be converted into specific units of
information that can be analyzed by the researcher. The particular organizing
structure that may be used will depend on the particular purpose of the research,
but there are specific steps in the structuring process that are common to all
applications and questions. These steps are unitizing, sampling, and recording.
Unitizing involves defining the appropriate unit or level of analysis. It would
be possible to consider each word spoken in a focus group as a unit for analy-
sis. Alternatively, the unit of analysis could be a sentence, a sequence of sen-
tences, or a complete dialogue about a particular topic. Krippendorf (2004,
pp. 97–110) suggested that in content analysis there are three kinds of units
that must be considered: sampling units, recording units, and context units.
Sampling units are those parts of the larger whole that can be regarded as
independent of each other. Sampling units tend to have physically identified
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 121

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 121

boundaries. For example, sampling units may be defined as individual words,

complete statements of an individual, or the totality of an exchange among two
or more individuals.
Recording units, on the other hand, tend to grow out of the descriptive sys-
tem that is being employed. Generally, recording units are subsets of sampling
units. For example, the set of words with emotional connotations would
describe certain types of words and would be a subset of the total words used.
Alternatively, individual statements of several group members may be record-
ing units that make up a sampling unit that consists of all of the verbal
exchanges related to a particular topic or issue. In this latter case, the record-
ing units might provide a means for describing those exchanges that are, for
example, hostile, supportive, or friendly.
Context units provide a basis for interpreting a recording unit. They may be
identical to recording units in some cases, whereas in other cases they may be
quite independent. Context units are often defined in terms of the syntax or struc-
ture in which a recording unit occurs. For example, in marketing research, it is
often useful to learn how frequently evaluative words are used in the context of
describing a particular product or service. Thus, context units provide a referent
for the content of the recording units. To illustrate how these distinctions might
be drawn in a particular study, consider a medical equipment manufacturer that is
exploring new product opportunities through several focus groups. The context
unit is a new in-home medical device that enables the early diagnosis of diabetes.
The sampling units would be participants’ words or phrases and the recording
units their expressions of positive or negative attitudes about the medical product.
Sampling units, then, represent the way in which the broad structure of the
information within the discussion is divided. Sampling units provide a way of
organizing information that is related. Within these broader sampling units, the
recording units represent specific statements, and the context units represent the
environment or context in which the statement occurs. The way in which these
units are defined can have a significant influence on the interpretation of the con-
tent of a particular focus group discussion. These units can be defined in a
number of different ways. Table 7.1 distinguishes five such approaches to defin-
ing these units. Focus group research is most often concerned with referential,
propositional, and thematic units, but there may be occasions when the use of
physical or syntactical units is appropriate. This approach may seem somewhat
abstract and overlapping to some degree, yet it provides a framework for more
systematic and nuanced analyses of focus group data. Also, the definition of the
appropriate unit of analysis must be driven by both the purpose of the research
and the ability of the researcher to achieve reliability in the coding system. The
reliability of such coding systems must be determined empirically and in many
cases involves the use of measures of interrater agreement.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 122

122 FOCUS GROUPS

TABLE 7.1
Approaches to Defining Content Units

• Physical units divide the content of a medium by such physical properties as size,
place, time, and length. For example, a book, a billboard, and a single issue of a
magazine would all be examples of physical units. The boundaries of these units
are defined by time and space.
• Syntactical units divide the content of a medium based on its natural grammar.
Words, individual television programs or news items, and chapters within books
are examples. These units tend to be defined by the source of the communication.
• Categorical units are defined in terms of a referent, an expression, regardless of
length, that refers to or describes the same person, object, or event.
• Propositional units (also called kernels) are referential units that possess a
particular structure and offer a particular thought about the referent object or
person. Thus, the statement, “He is a bright, but dishonest man,” includes two
propositions: (a) the man is bright and (b) the man is dishonest.
• Thematic units include more global interpretative or explanatory sets of
statements. Recurring systems of beliefs or explanations represent thematic units.
Thus, one might find that in a focus group there is a recurring theme that
salespeople are dishonest. Alternatively, analysis of the morning news over time
might reveal themes related to significant economic changes or political conflict.

SOURCE: Adapted from Krippendorf (2004), pp. 97–110.

It is seldom practical or necessary to try to unitize all of the discussion that

arises in a focus group. When multiple focus groups are carried out on the
same general topic, complete unitization becomes even more difficult. For this
reason, most content analyses of focus groups involve some sampling of the
total group discussion for purposes of analysis. The analyst may seek to iden-
tify important themes and sample statements within a theme or use some other
approach such as examining statements made in response to particular types of
questions or at particular points in the conversation. Like other types of sam-
pling, the intent of sampling in content analysis is to provide a representative
subset of the larger population. It is relatively easy to draw incorrect conclu-
sions from a focus group if care is not taken to ensure representative sampling
of the content of the group discussion. Almost any contention can be supported
by taking a set of numerically unrepresentative statements out of the context
in which they were spoken. Thus, it is important for the analyst to devise a plan
for sampling the total content of group discussions. This task is complicated
when only some group participants answer a particular question.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 123

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 123

The final stage of data making is the recording of the data in such a way as
to ensure their reliability and meaningfulness. The recording phase of content
analysis is not simply the rewriting of the statements of one or more respon-
dents. Rather, it is the use of the defined units of analysis to classify the con-
tent of the discussion into categories such that the meaning of the discussions
is maintained and explicated. It is only after this latter stage has been accom-
plished that one can claim to actually have data for purposes of analysis and
interpretation.
The recording phase of content analysis requires the execution of an explicit
set of recording instructions. These instructions represent the rules for assign-
ing units (words, phrases, sentences, gestures, etc.) to categories. These
instructions must address at least four different aspects of the recording
process (Krippendorf, 2004):

1. The nature of the raw data from which the recording is to be done (transcript,
tape recording, film, etc.)
2. The characteristics of coders (recorders), including any special skills such as
familiarity with the subject matter and scientific research
3. The training that coders will need in order to do the recording
4. The specific rules for placing units into categories

These rules are critical to establishing the reliability of the recording exer-
cise and the entire data-making process. Further, it is necessary that these rules
be made explicit and that they are demonstrated to produce reliable results
when used by individuals other than those who developed them in the first
place. The common practice of reporting high interrater reliability coefficients
when they are based solely on the agreement of individuals who have worked
closely together to develop a coding system does not provide a fair and rea-
sonable measure of reliability (Lorr & McNair, 1966). Rather, the minimum
requirement for establishing the reliability of a coding system should be a
demonstration that judges exhibit substantial agreement when using only the
coding rules.
Once a set of recording rules has been defined and demonstrated to produce
reliable results, the data-making process can be completed by applying the
recording rules to the full content of the material of interest. Under ideal cir-
cumstances, recording will involve more than one judge so that the coding of
each specific unit can be examined for reliability and sources of disagreement
can be identified and corrected. This is because there is a difference between
developing a generally reliable set of recording rules and ensuring that an indi-
vidual element in a transcript is reliably coded.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 124

124 FOCUS GROUPS

The assessment of the reliability of a coding system may be carried out in a

variety of ways. As noted above, there is a difference between establishing that
multiple recorders are in general agreement (manifest a high degree of inter-
rater reliability) and establishing that a particular unit is reliably coded. The
researcher must decide which approach is more useful for the given research
question. In most focus group projects, general rater reliability will be more
important because the emphasis is on general themes in the group discussion
rather than specific units. However, there may be occasions when the reliabil-
ity of individual units is more relevant.
Computation of a coefficient of agreement provides a quantitative index of
the reliability of the recording system. There exists a substantial literature on
coefficients of agreement. Treatment of this literature and issues related to the
selection of a specific coefficient of agreement are beyond the scope of this
book. Among the more common coefficients in use are kappa (Cohen, 1956),
pi (Scott, 1955), and Krippendorf’s alpha (Krippendorf, 1970, 2004). All of
these coefficients correct the observed level of agreement (or disagreement)
for the level that would be expected by chance alone. Krippendorf (2004)
offers a useful discussion of reliability coefficients in content analysis, includ-
ing procedures for use with more than two judges (see also Spiegelman,
Terwilliger, & Fearing, 1953).
Data making tends to be the most time-consuming of all the stages in content
analysis. It is also the stage that has received the greatest attention in the content
analysis literature. The reason for this is that content analysis involves data mak-
ing after observations have been obtained rather than before. Content analysis
uses the observations themselves to suggest what should be examined and sub-
mitted to further analysis, whereas many other types of research establish the
specific domain(s) of interest and associated metrics prior to observation.
The difference in the emphasis accorded the data-making phase by different
types of research methods is similar to the difference between essay questions
and multiple-choice questions. In both types of questions, there are certain
issues of interest, but in the case of essay questions, the answers are not provided.
Thus, the answers are in the words of the respondent. Whoever evaluates the
examination must devote time to analyzing the answers and determining how
“correct” the response is. This evaluation stage is unnecessary for multiple-
choice questions because the available answers are identified for the respon-
dent, and the evaluator need only determine whether the correct answer was
selected. Multiple-choice questions require greater preparation prior to admin-
istration because the correct answer must be identified along with reasonable
alternative, but incorrect, responses.
In survey research, much of the data making occurs prior to administration of
the survey. Such data making involves identification of reasonable alternatives
from which a respondent selects an answer. Thus, data making is a step in survey
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 125

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 125

research and all types of research, but it occurs prior to observation. In content
analysis, data making occurs after observation. The emphasis on reliability is
clearly important in studies with scientific, theoretical purposes. On the other
hand, these procedures are used less frequently in the time-pressured and prag-
matic focus groups that are conducted in the marketing research field.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

The recording or coding of individual units is not content analysis. It is merely a

first stage in preparation for analysis. The specific types of analyses that might be
used in a given application will depend on the purpose of the research. Virtually
any analytic tool may be employed, ranging from simple descriptive analysis to
more elaborate data reduction and multivariate associative techniques. Much of
the content analysis work that occurs in the context of focus group data tends to
be descriptive, but this need not be the case. Indeed, although focus group data
tend to be regarded as qualitative, proper content analysis of the data can make
them amenable to the most sophisticated quantitative analysis.
It is common for focus group interviews to be used for purposes of develop-
ing hypotheses that are then tested or validated with other types of research. For
example, a focus group may yield hypotheses that are tested through a survey of
the population of interest. This is, of course, a perfectly appropriate approach.
On the other hand, the need for validation is not unique to focus group research.
This is well illustrated in a study by Reid, Soley, and Wimmer (1980) of repli-
cation studies in the field of advertising. Although the majority of the studies
they examined in this research were replications of survey and experimental
research findings, there was an equal probability of the replication producing
results contrary to the original study as there was of the replication finding sup-
port for the original study. Such findings are not unique to advertising and sug-
gest that replication and validation are necessary steps in any scientific endeavor.
There is a need for validation of focus group results, just as there is a need for
validation of other types of research findings. Such validation may involve con-
tent analysis of additional focus group data or may employ other methods and
measures such as survey research or formal experiments.

COMPUTER-ASSISTED CONTENT ANALYSIS

Content analysts were quick to recognize the value of the computer as an ana-
lytical tool. The time-consuming and tedious task of data making can be
greatly facilitated through use of the computer. Computers can be programmed
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 126

126 FOCUS GROUPS

to follow the data-making rules described earlier. The importance of ensuring

that these rules are well designed is made even clearer in the context of their
use by a computer. In recent years, computer-assisted interpretation of focus
group interviews has received considerable attention and built on the earlier
foundations of research on content analysis.
The earliest uses of computers in content analysis involved counting and
sorting units of analysis. A straightforward counting of the number of words
and number of different words is easily programmed on a computer, and the
program can be written to ignore grammatical endings and count only differ-
ent word stems. Such counts and listings are useful in data making because
they provide an indication of the word content of material. Once particular cat-
egories of words have been defined, the computer can quickly count words in
these identified categories and be used to quickly identify their location.
Search-and-find and cut-and-paste routines that now exist on virtually every
word-processing software package make it easy to automate the old cut-and-
paste technique described above, which commonly saves both research time
and money.
Commercial software products specifically designed for content coding
and word counting are now widely available. SPSS offers a product called
Verbastat (www.spss.com/verbastat/), StatPac offers a product called Verbatim
Blaster (www.statpac.com/content-analysis.htm), and QSR International
offers the NVivo and NUD*IST products (www.qsrinternational.com/). There
are many other products available, and all vary in terms of their ease of use,
comprehensiveness, focus, and cost. An especially useful review of these prod-
ucts is provided by Duriau and Reger (2004).
The computer is capable of a great deal more than automation of search,
find, count, cut, and paste activities. One problem with simple counting and
sorting of words is that these procedures lose the context in which the words
occur. For example, a simple count of the frequency with which emotionally
charged words are used loses information about the objects of those emotional
words. Because the meanings of words are frequently context dependent, it is
useful to try to capture their context. This is one reason content analysts rec-
ommend the identification and coding of context units as a routine part of con-
tent analysis.
One computer-assisted approach to capturing the context as well as content
of a passage of text is the key-word-in-context (KWIC) technique. The KWIC
approach searches for key words and lists the key word along with the text that
surrounds it. The amount of text obtained on either side of the key word can
be controlled by specification of the number of words or letters to be printed.
One of the earliest computer programs for KWIC analyses was the General
Inquirer (Stone, Dunphy, Smith, & Ogilvie, 1966; Stone & Hunt, 1963), which
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 127

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 127

is still in use today. The home page can be found at www.wjh.harvard.edu/~

inquirer/.
The General Inquirer uses a theoretically derived dictionary for classifying
words. A variety of similar systems has since been developed and often uses
specially designed dictionaries for a particular application. Some of these
programs are simply designated as KWIC and others are named for particular
applications for which KWIC may be used. Among the more frequently cited
software programs for content analysis are TEXTPACK (Mohler & Zuell,
1998), about which we will have more to say shortly, Concordance (Watt,
2004), WORDSTAT (Provalis Research, 2005), and TextQuest (Social Science
Consulting, 2005). Software for text analysis is frequently reviewed in jour-
nals such as Computers and the Humanities, published by Kluwer Academic
Publishers, and Literary and Linguistic Computing, published by Oxford
University Press. Specialized dictionaries for use in conjunction with text
analysis programs like the General Inquirer and TEXTPACK are also avail-
able. Antworth and Valentine (1998) provide a brief introduction to several of
these specialized programs and dictionaries.
More recent work on content analysis, built on the research on artificial
intelligence and in cognitive science, recognizes that associations among
words are often important determinants of meaning. Further, meaning may be
related to the frequency of association of certain words, the distance between
associated words or concepts (often measured by the number of intervening
words), and the number of different associations. The basic idea in this work
is that the way people use language provides insights into the way people orga-
nize information, impressions, and feelings in memory and, thus, how they
tend to think.
The view that language provides insight into the way individuals think
about the world has existed for many years. The anthropologist Edward Sapir
(1929) noted that language plays a critical role in how people experience the
world. Social psychologists have also long had an interest in the role language
plays in the assignment of meaning and in adjustment to the environment (see
for example, Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956; Chomsky, 1965; Sherif &
Sherif, 1969). In more recent years, the study of categorization has become a
discipline in its own right and has benefited from research on naturalistic cat-
egories in anthropology, philosophy, and developmental psychology and the
work on modeling natural concepts that has occurred in the areas of semantic
memory and artificial intelligence (for reviews of this literature, see Hahn &
Ramscar, 2001; Medin, Lynch, & Solomon, 2000).
This research has been extended to the examination of focus groups.
Building on theoretical work in the cognitive sciences, Anderson (1983), Grunert
(1982), and Grunert and Goder (1986) developed a computer-assisted procedure
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 128

128 FOCUS GROUPS

Mark Relevant Parts of Text

Construct Categories and Key Word List

Check Validity of Key Word List

Revision Necessary?

revise categories/
yes no
key word list

Check Remaining Text by

Leftover List

yes Additions Necessary

no

Transform Raw Text to Codes

Figure 7.1 Data Making Prior to Analysis of Associative Proximities

SOURCE: Grunert and Goder (1986). Reprinted with permission.

for analyzing the proximities of word associations. Their approach builds on

prior work on content analysis as well. Indeed, the data-making phase of the
approach, which is illustrated in Figure 7.1, uses the KWIC approach as an
interactive tool for designing a customized dictionary of categories. The par-
ticular computer program used for this purpose is TEXTPACK, but other com-
puter packages are also available.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 129

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 129

The construction of a customized dictionary of categories is particularly

important for the content analysis of focus groups because the range and speci-
ficity of topics that may be dealt with by focus group interviews is very broad,
and no general purpose dictionary or set of codes and categories is likely to
suit the purposes of a researcher with a specific research application. For
example, in focus groups designed to examine the ways in which groups of
respondents think and talk about personal computers, there will be a need to
develop a dictionary of categories that refer specifically to the features of com-
puters, particular applications, and specific work environments. In focus
groups designed to examine the use of condoms among inner city adolescents,
it is likely that a dictionary of categories will be required to capture the con-
tent of the discussion that includes the slang vernacular of the respondents.
Although the dictionaries developed for other applications may provide some
helpful suggestions, the specificity of the language used by particular groups
of respondents to discuss a specific object within a given context almost
always means that the focus group analyst will have to develop a customized
categorization system. Although quantitative in approach, such procedures
enhance focus groups’ qualitative objective to obtain the natural language and
expressions of individual participants.
Once the data-making phase is complete, the associative structure of the dis-
cussion content can be analyzed. This is accomplished by counting the dis-
tances between various cognitive categories. Distance, or the proximity of two
categories of content, is defined as the number of intervening constructs. Thus
two constructs that appear next to one another would have a distance of 1. To
simplify computations, Grunert and Goder (1986) recommended examining
categories that are at a maximum value of 10. This maximum value is then used
as a reference point and distances are subtracted from it in order to obtain a
numeric value that varies directly (rather than inversely) with intensity of asso-
ciation. This procedure yields a proximity value rather than a distance measure;
that is, the higher scores represent closer associations among categories.
Because most categories appear more than once, the measures of association
are summed over all occurrences to obtain a total proximity score for each pair
of constructs. These proximity data may then be used for further analysis.
Grunert and Goder (1986) provided an illustration of their procedure in the
context of focus groups designed to learn something about differences in the
way laypersons and experts talk and think about cameras. Focus group data
obtained independently from laypersons and experts were submitted to analy-
sis. Of particular interest were differences in the two groups with respect to
associations between particular attributes of cameras and uses of cameras.
More specifically, interest focused on the frequency with which particular
characteristics of cameras, such as autofocus and lens variety, are mentioned
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 130

130 FOCUS GROUPS

AUMA Characteristics Laypersons Experts

Total # of attributes 36 40
# of attributes linked to uses 13 31
Total # of uses 4 12
# of uses linked to attributes 4 12
Absolute # of links 19 120
Relative # of links 13% 25%

BAMA Characteristics Laypersons Experts

Total # of attributes 36 40
# of attributes linked to brands 28 34
Total # of brands 22 27
# of brands linked to attributes 20 24
Absolute # of links 151 274
Relative # of links 19% 25%

BUMA Characteristics Laypersons Experts

Total # of attributes 22 27
# of attributes linked to brands 0 14
Total # of brands 4 12
# of brands linked to attributes 0 10
Absolute # of links 0 34
Relative # of links — 10%

Figure 7.2 Summary Information on Camera Associations

SOURCE: Grunert and Goder (1986). Reprinted with permission.

in the context of specific uses of cameras (represented by an attribute uses

matrix [AUMA]). Also of interest were differences related to the frequency
with which specific brands of cameras are mentioned in the context of uses
like action photography, slides, and portraits (represented by a brand uses
matrix [BUMA]). In addition, the study focused on differences between par-
ticular brands with respect to specific attributes, that is the frequency with
which specific brands of cameras are associated with particular features (rep-
resented by a brand attribute matrix [BAMA]).
Figure 7.2 provides a summary of the results of this application. Not sur-
prisingly, there are far richer associative structures among experts than among
laypersons. The particular character of these structures can also be illustrated.
For example, Figure 7.3 provides an illustration of the associative structures of
experts and laypersons for the brand Canon. The lengths of the lines in the
figure are inversely related to strength of association. The graphical illustration
in Figure 7.3 provides a comprehensible means for summarizing the informa-
tion obtained through content analysis. Note that Figure 7.3 provides informa-
tion about the types of associations made as well as the frequency of these
associations, which are represented by the numbers within the circles.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 131

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 131

ILLEGA
EXP

S
POS NSION
BATTERIES

ITIE

A
O SU
CANON PLANE

R
L IMPO

ME
EXPERTS

SIBIL
RE

CA

Y
EXP

ET
TIM

RT

ET
PI

E
W

RI

Y
CT

SIZ
IN

IT
Y

CK
E
UR D

VA
DE IT

IL
E 19 15 IV AR

PO

B
QU R 24 16 D

NS
T

TI
14 SI AN

PA
AL
ST

LE
IT 25 12 N
SE

M
AL

ES
Y

CO
11 T C

ID
32 H NI

SL
APER
TURE 9 LI
G CH H US
9 TE AS OC
34
9 FL T OF
6 3 AU
HANDLING 44 2
1 SHUTTER
TEST RESULT 55 33 FREQUENC
Y
70 25 MA
GTH CRO-P
L LEN ICTUR
FOCA 93 26 V ES
GTH ACA
LEN 115 TIO
ECT N
OBJ E RA 123 125 130 5 P
EO
C AM C PL
X I 5 E
FLE AT
HT

PRICE

RE M HO
BB
WEIG

TO 5 Y
AU 3 MO
2 TI
VE
SP
OUT

EC
IA
-IND

LP
IC
OOR

TU

IC
RE

AT
S

BA
TO

TT
ER
AU

IES
24 20
DEL
ED MO
CO NTINU
CANON PLANE ROBUSTNESS 30 16 DIS
LAYPERSONS
32 44
RE
L T 34 PU
SU TA
RE
PRICE

TI
ST O
N
TE

Figure 7.3 Graphic Representation of the Canon Plane for Experts and
Laypersons
SOURCE: Grunert and Goder (1986). Reprinted with permission.

Obviously, the amount of effort required to complete the type of analysis

summarized in Figures 7.2 and 7.3 is considerable. Whether the amount of
effort is justified in other applications depends on a variety of factors: time and
budget constraints, the nature of the research question, and the availability of
a computer and the necessary software. The important point to be made is that
the level and detail of analysis of focus group data can be increased consider-
ably through use of the computer. At the same time, the computer can be an
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 132

132 FOCUS GROUPS

extremely useful tool for data reduction. It can also be used for uncovering
relationships that might otherwise go unnoticed. Thus, like most of the research
tools in the social sciences, the focus group interview has benefited from the
advent of the computer. Users of focus group interviews have also become
increasingly facile in the use of the computer as an aid to the analysis and
interpretation of focus group data.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of focus group data can take a wide variety of forms. These may
range from very rapid, highly subjective impressionistic analyses to very
sophisticated computer-assisted analyses. There is no best approach. Rather,
the approach selected should be consistent with the original purpose of the
research and the information needs that gave rise to it. It is unfair to suggest
that all focus group research involves highly subjective analysis. This is cer-
tainly the case in many applications, but there exist an array of sound proce-
dures for ensuring reliable and objective results and for quantifying outcomes.
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 133

ANALYZING FOCUS GROUP DATA 133

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What factors should be considered when determining how much analysis of a

focus group discussion is worthwhile?
2. How much editing of a transcription of a focus group is useful? Why?
3. What factors should a focus group researcher consider in choosing a qualitative
versus a quantitative approach?
4. Why is the order in which focus group participants raise particular topics important?
5. In what type of situation should focus group analysts be skeptical about what
focus group participants say in the group?
6. Describe the scissor-and-sort technique. How can this technique be automated
on the computer?
7. What is content analysis? Why is it appropriate for analysis of focus group
discussions?
8. What is data making? Why is it important?
9. What are the steps in data making?
10. What are recording rules? How does one determine whether a set of rules is
useful?
11. What is the key-word-in-context (KWIC) approach? How would it be used to
analyze focus group data?
12. What is meant by associative structure? How does one examine associative
structure? How might analysis of associative structures be useful in the context
of focus group research?
13. Identify research situations when the following types of analysis might be most
appropriate:
a. A quick impressionistic summary
b. A thematic analysis using the cut-and-paste approach
c. Assertions analysis
d. Pragmatical analysis
e. Analysis of associative structures

Exercise: Find a news story in a popular magazine. Develop a categorization

system for coding the content of the story. Share your content analysis with a
friend who has not read the magazine. How much of the content of the story
does your friend obtain from your content analysis? What does this suggest to
you about the uses of content analysis?
07-Stewart-5002.qxd 6/6/2006 11:46 AM Page 134