The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and Discontinuities
Abstract
ROBERT K. MERTON; THE FOCUSSED INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUPS CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES, Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 51, Issue 4, 1 January 1987, Pages
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
Cited by
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
Morgan, D. L. (1996) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 · Cited by 2,353
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
Overview of Focus Group Research
Asbury, J.-E. (1995) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239500500402 · Cited by 399
The sciences of science communication
Fischhoff, B. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Merton, R. K.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1987
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 550
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064128527
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.26
- 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: The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and Discontinuities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/269057
- The paper
- Merton, R. K. (1987). The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups: Continuities and Discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1086/269057
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.
