The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups
Abstract
Focus group discussions are now widely used for gathering data, in social science as well as in commercial marketing and public opinion research. One appeal of focus groups is that in some ways they seem like everyday talk, but their effectiveness depends on a tension between the moderator's constraints and participants' interaction. The moderator introduces and defines topics, but participants can shift, close, and interpret them. The moderator elicits disagreement in a way specific to focus groups, but participants manage their disagreement. Thus we see not simple control by the moderator, but a complex collaborative project operating under the shared assumption that the purpose of the discussion is to display opinions to the moderator. These findings extend the analysis of conversation in institutional settings and contribute to a methodological critique of the reification of attitudes and opinions in some social science research. (Focus group techniques, conversation, discourse analysis, interaction, agreement, topic, laughter, environment.)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants
Kitzinger, J. (1994) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023 · Cited by 3,870
Cited by
A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690900800301 · Cited by 1,775
Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa · Cited by 823
The Social Contexts of Focus Groups
Hollander, J. A. (2004) · Journal of Contemporary Ethnography · doi:10.1177/0891241604266988 · Cited by 596
Metadata
- Authors
- Myers, G.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-111
- ISSN
- 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8013
- OpenAlex
- W2028584993
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0047404500019734
- The paper
- Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500019734
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.