Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews

By D. Stokes, Richard Bergin. 2006

358 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Generation Z consumers' expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda (2017, background): “Furthermore, scholars (i.e., Palmerino, 1999; Stokes & Bergin, 2006), point out that researchers should use indepth interviews because they are an efficient approach and provide more depth of information, representation.”
Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study (2017, background): “Stokes and Bergin (2006) concluded that interviews provided greater depth and detail, while focus groups offered greater breadth and context, and while Namey and colleagues (2016) found a comparable range and frequency of themes in interview and focus group data, but additionally revealed Ta bl e 1.”
Development of a Risk Framework for Industry 4.0 in the Context of Sustainability for Established Manufacturers (2019, background): “First, case studies provide well-founded information, and help explore facts in depth [76,77].”
Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups: Generalisability, Quantifiability, Treatment of Context and Quotations (2010, background): “In their writings on methodology Stokes and Bergin (2006) compared the extent to which the results of focus groups differ from those of qualitative individual interviews in the analysis of a business question.”