Differences between the Focus Group and In-depth Interview
Qualitative research methods are essential when conducting market research. Focus groups and in-depth interviews are the two primary qualitative methods used to conduct person-to-person qualitative research. The two methods help in a better understanding of the participants’ opinions, motivations, and preferences. They are the best way for businesses to get to “how” and “why” behind the respondents’ decision-making. Although they are useful methodologies for obtaining proper and yielding copious amounts of data, focus group interviews, and depth interviews are not interchangeable. Instead, they differ on various features, as discussed in the paper.
In a focus group, a group of participants not exceeding ten people is recruited to participate in the study. The recruitment of participants is contingent on parameters that are relevant to the research under study. The study is conducted under the direction of moderators who guide the focus group on an average of one to two hours (Guest et al. 695). In an in-depth interview, there are no cases of the group. Instead, interviews are conducted on a one-on-one bases several times. Unlike in focus groups, participants in in-depth interviews have more time to speak because there is no sharing time allocated. In the latter, an individual responds to the interviewer.
In-depth interviews help in getting a deeper insight into the subject as opposed to the focus group. In the former, the respondent gets the interviewer’s undivided attention, and the subject matter is explored in more detail. Interviewees are allowed to provide detailed responses to the questions because they have more time to talk instead of focusing groups (Guest et al. 698). It is easier to recruit participants to commit to an interview when using an in-depth interview instead of a focus group where attention needs to be divided among all members. An in-depth interview also allows the interviewer to give the participant full attention and even adjust the interviewing style to the interviewee’s needs.
In a focus group, moderators encourage conversation among the members, thus leading to feedback that might spur further conversation. In the in-depth interview, there are no chances of conversation and discussion because there is only one respondent at a time. There is essentially sharing, and generation of ideas as individuals converse with one another.
A Focus group interview is recommended when research needs to gain multiple perspectives and unfiltered feedback from a large group. The methodology allows participants to engage in a brainstorming session to generate ideas through free participation and sharing of perspectives and feelings on the subject. Therefore, it will enable deep digging and discussing the issue compared to a one-person interview where one is only allowed to answer the questions as they are asked. They are often used during the concept development stage (Guest et al. 695). om the other hand, in-depth interviews are usually applied when the research needs to understand individual decision processes. It provides respondents with a chance to explore detailed perceptions, opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and decisions. It is usually essential in understanding the individual reaction based on their personal experience.
In conclusion, both the focused and in-depth interviews are essential for qualitative data collection during marketing research. Both methods enhance data collection. A Focus group entails a group discussion that aims to identify the participants’ perspectives, impressions, and thoughts through the help of the moderator. In-depth interviews entail conducting a one-on-one interview with one person at a time. This implies that unlike in the focus group where group opinion is obtained, the former is designed to elicit a clear picture of the participant’s perspective on the given topic.
Works Cited
Guest, Greg, et al. “Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 20.6 (2017): 693-708.