See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345403248

Differences Between Focus Group and In-Depth Interview

Article · December 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 1,866

1 author:

Vannak Hour
BELTEI International University
21 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SWOT Analysis of Covid-19 on Education View project

The Application of Behaviorism in the Classroom View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vannak Hour on 07 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hour Vannak

HOUR VANNAK
vannak_hour@yahoo.com

Differences Between Focus Group and Depth Interview

1. Focus Group and Depth Interview

First, focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are
asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product,
service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging (“Wikipedia: Focus Group,” 2016,
para. 1). There are more participants sitting in the same room in focus group while
depth interview only involves one respondent at a time with the researcher. Second, in
focus group, the researcher usually is the one who starts the talk by introducing himself
and asking others to introduce themselves to group members. Then slowly, the
researcher guides the participants towards the topic he has planned. He may give a
statement and ask the participants to freely give response to it or he may ask a question
which he already has prepared and to which he encourages everyone to answer.
However, in depth interview, the researcher usually starts with a general conversation
about the surroundings or on a general topic before focusing on specific one since there
is only one respondent at a time. In addition, the respondent will be able to talk more
freely and honestly in order for the researcher to understand deeply about their views
without any group-member pressure like that in the focus group. Thus it usually takes
longer time than the focus group which only takes approximately between one or two
hours since everyone in the group has a chance to talk, shares and comments on one
another within the topic scope. Third, in the focus group the researcher may use either
one or all the methods in collecting data such as jotting down, audio recording, or video
recording the whole process of the discussion while in depth interview the researcher
tends to use audio or video recorder or both, usually not jotting down, since he or she
wants every bit of information given by the respondent and it is also a way to show that
he or she is fully paying attention and listening to the respondent. Fourth, the place and
time for the meeting of focus group are chosen by the researcher concerning the
convenience of all participants (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d.,
p. 83-84) while in depth interview, the place can be in the researcher’s office or

1
 Hour Vannak

respondents’ home and at their available time (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative

Research,” n.d., p. 86).

2. Strengths of Focus Group and Depth Interview

There are a lot of advantages in conducting focus group and depth interview.
First of all, in focus group respondents feel the safety when sitting in a group and
having one another to rely on when one of them could not answer some questions asked
by the researcher. Thus, sitting in a group makes participants feel more relax, and they
seem to talk more freely. (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p.
85). I still remember the feelings when one of my English language lecturers put me
into a group for a discussion. I was frustrated and wondering who else would be placed
in my group. I had my own expectation of the group members at the moment. The more
members I have, the better it is. The more outstanding students, the better I feel. The
more active members, the safer I feel. This is due to my experience of getting stuck
during the discussion process and the fear of not having enough information to share
with other groups and the lecturer. Other members help keep the process going on when
one gets stuck. However, in depth interview respondents feel free to talk about intimate
and confidential issues without fear (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,”
n.d., p. 87). This is mainly due to a one-on-one interview between the researcher and
the respondent. The respondent is encouraged to talk in depth over a topic or question
where there is no one else hearing or knowing about his or her secrets beside the
researcher. For example, they may be asked to talk about their bad habits. To make this
happen, the researcher must assure the confidentiality of the respondent and establish
trust. Once the trust between the two has been built up, the respondent will honestly
reveal his or her intimate and confidential information.
Second, spontaneous comments are encouraged in focus group (“Chapter 5:
Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 85). It is undeniable that one question
leads to another and vise versa with the comment. Individuals have different experience
and these may relate to one another in a different context. For example, one respondent
is sharing about his or her techniques to remember information and rules in a language
class. In the meantime, other respondents are flashing back about their own related

2
 Hour Vannak

experience and different techniques used for the same purpose. Then, they may
immediately comment on one another about the techniques; thus the researcher will
have a bunch of information given by the respondents and the discussion keeps going
on with just one question. In contrast, depth interview does not have this advantage
since it is a one-on-one interview but it helps to enhance a good rapport between the
respondent and the researcher which can be done less affectively in the focus group
(“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 87). A good rapport can be
built only through an appropriate amount of communication. This communication takes
place during the interview since the researcher initiates the respondent to do a lot of
talking in order to dig out what he or she wants to know.
Third, in focus group the participants can generate a quick understanding of the
issues so that just between one and two hours, everyone has moved far up the learning
curve (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 85). It is a common
sense that one learns faster from another’s experience especially when the issues are
related to real life. For example, when the researcher asks a question on a particular
topic, one may be not familiar with it but he or she may learn from other members’
answers and comments, thus reflecting on his or her own experiences and prior
knowledge. As a result, he or she learns better when relating this new knowledge to
what he or she has already known. In contrast, respondents in depth interview are more
independent in responding to the researcher and it is the researcher’s job to make sure
they understand what is being asked. However, depth interview is able to accommodate
widely scattered respondents while it can be extremely difficult to do that in focus
group (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 87). Respondents
may live in different locations and at different distance. Therefore, it is not convenient
or almost impossible for them to meet up at the same time unless very attractive
incentives are offered; this will cost a lot of money. For this reason, depth interview is
designed to be conducted with one respondent at a time and it is much easier for the
researcher and the respondent to set up a schedule at their own convenience. In terms of
place, whether the respondent comes over to the researcher’s place or vise versa.

3
 Hour Vannak

3. Limitation of Focus Group and Depth Interview

There are also a number of disadvantages within focus group and depth interview.
First of all, the minority view of the group members may be lost in focus group
(“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 85). During the discussion
process the researcher may record only the majority view, thus leaving the rest
unrecorded. This may be due to the amount of information burdening upon him or her.
As a result, he or she may filter down the information selecting only what has been
spoken the most. However, the minority view is important as well because, from it, the
researcher may find something very interesting, useful, and which is not planned or
thought of before. In contrast, this problem does not take place in depth interview since
it only involves one respondent at a time. However, this interview may produce a
different problem in which there is a tendency that the respondent does not mirror the
true emotions and motivations (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d.,
p. 87). This is true especially when the researcher is not a skilled person in asking
questions as well as building a good rapport with the respondent. The respondent may
not reveal his or her true emotions and feelings to a stranger (the researcher). Anyway,
since he or she is paid for the job, he or she may just try to give any responses that will
please the researcher. In this case, the researcher is facing a big disaster in his or her
study for the findings will not be valid and reliable.
Second, having a focus group can be more costly than depth interview
(“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 85). It is extremely difficult
to find volunteers for the focus group since not everyone is willing to spend their
precious time and money on transportation to the group meeting without something in
return. To make matters worse, those who volunteer themselves do not usually meet the
criteria to be participants in the focus group. In this case, the researcher must pay
whether by cash or other incentives to the targeted participants. In most cases, the
researcher may need more than one group to strengthen the validity and the reliability
of the finding. Therefore, the more groups the researcher recruits, the more money to be
spent. In contrast, in depth interview the researcher may go over to a respondent’s
home to conduct the interview which is usually cheaper than paying the respondent on
transportation fee and other hidden fee such as on a meal and drink. But the problem is

4
 Hour Vannak

that there may be some interruptions by the respondent’s family members (“Chapter 5:
Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 87). For example, kids may run to and fro
making loud noise. The respondent, who is the parent, has to keep an eye on them.
Neighbours may come over to ask for something. Whatever the interruption is, it may
easily divert the respondent’s attention from thinking thoroughly before answering
questions. If this happens, the researcher may have only unreliable information. This is
absolutely harmful to the study.
Third, the success of focus group relies heavily on the researcher’s skills
which are usually variable (“Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p.
85). It is not strange that sometimes conducting a focus group is a waste of time, money
and efforts if the researcher gets no answers to his questions. This may happen to some
researchers, especially those who are less experienced or beginners. However, the
researcher in depth interview may not have this problem since he or she can easily
probe the respondent using “wh-” and “how” questions when the respondents are
reluctant to give answers or give unclear answers. But it has its own problem in that it
may lead the researcher into the temptation at the analysis stage of counting how many
respondents have said one thing and how many the other (“Chapter 5: Introduction to
Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 87). It is quite possible that the researcher may want to
compare responses by categorizing those who have the same idea over one item. This
makes the research questionable because when it comes to counting, the researcher is
stepping his foot on the path of quantitative research, thus in this case, the quantitative
design should be used.

4. When to Use Focus Group and Depth Interview

First of all, the focus group is used when desired information about behaviours
and motivations is more complex than a questionnaire is likely to reveal. Through a
series of well designed questions, focus group can often get a more honest and in depth
information (Morgan & Krueger, 1993 as cited in “New York State Teacher Centers:
Focus Group”, 2012, para. 4). It is absolutely true that when administering
questionnaires, respondents may indicate that they only “agree” or “disagree” with an
item. However, the researcher fails to look deeply into their opinions on certain things

5
 Hour Vannak

such as why they agree or disagree with a particular item, what they think about it, what
other related things not listed in the questionnaires they want to share, and so forth.
Behaviours and motivations are hard to be judged using questionnaires since they are
more objective, and respondents always have their own reasons to behave in certain
ways. In contrast to the focus group, depth interview is best suited when it is necessary
that one respondent’s response is not polluted by the other respondents (“Chapter 5:
Introduction to Qualitative Research,” n.d., p. 86). Unlike the group focus where all
respondents sit together, depth interview is a one-on-one interview between the
researcher and the respondent. Thus, there is no chance that the respondent’s response
is influenced by other respondents. In other words, there is no peer pressure and the
respondent feels free to talk about whatever in his or her mind. In addition, depth
interview is more preferable to the focus group when the respondent is very sensitive
due to the discussion of certain topics such as personal issues, financial planning and so
on. It is common that most people do not want others to know about their financial
background since it is considered as a family matter; thus only those perceived as very
closed friends or family members will the respondent reveal the secret to. However, the
researcher rarely encounters this kind of closed proximity among the respondents.
Therefore, some of them will not give responses honestly. Fortunately, this problem can
be solved through depth interview.

6
 Hour Vannak

REFERENCES

Chapter 5: Introduction to Qualitative Research. (n.d.). From

http://www.b2binternational.com/b2b-blog/ebook/market-research-chap05.pdf

Emelda, M. (2011). Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative Observation.

From http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-qualitative-
and-quantitative-observation/

Wikipedia: Focus Group. (June 2016). FL: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group

View publication stats