Paul's Question for 10/5

In Bohnsack’s article on group discussion and focus groups, the replicability of results is described as one of the main methodological problems in present-day debate about focus groups within the Anglo-Saxon debate. Later, Morley’s notion that discussion groups are representative of broader entities, and that interactions, not individuals, should be examined is discussed. Does this mean that a focus group, while interesting, must only be used as a supplement to other research to be truly valuable? For instance, use the focus group to better explain responses to a larger survey?

It seems to me that qualitative research can lend itself to subjective conclusions when it comes to interpreting interviews. For instance, in the article comparing ethics within small and large newspapers, one small-paper editor stated that his staff looks at what's in the best interest of the community. That was classified in the article as putting community standards above journalistic standards. I would argue the former is an integral part of the latter. Can interviews be easily adopted into one's own beliefs when drawing conclusions?

The newspaper ethics article used 28 interviewees in 14 geographic areas to ensure that there were several large newspapers in each area. Is there a rule of thumb when it comes to how many interviews are conducted to have a valid sample?

When it comes to coding material, the grounded theory approach means the researcher does not begin the process until after all of the interviews are completed and the data receives several close readings. Is this the norm among qualitative researchers?

I really liked the approach taken in the Lewis article as she described how she came to cover her Internet topic. She uses first person in her writing. Is there a preferred method, or is it simply a matter of the journal's taste?