Sebastian's questions Oct. 3

1. Bohnsack’s overview of group discussions and focus groups includes a long list of formats and methods. One of the shortcomings noted is the lack replicability: you can have the same participants talking about the same issue at different points in time and the discussion is going to be quite different. I wonder: isn’t this true of many other methods in the social sciences, including surveys, content analyses and experiments? In my view, what is replicable is the general finding, not the exact details that lead to that main finding. With focus groups it’s the same thing: perhaps the content of the conversations will vary, but the general pattern –if there’s one— should still be there.

2. In Reader’s study on ethical differences at large and small newspapers, there’s a marked difference on the role played by community “connectivity.” Basically, at large newspapers, journalists relied on universal professional values to determine what’s right and wrong, while at small newspapers, journalists weighted in the impact of a decision on the community. My question is: what are the pros and cons of relying on professional standards vs. community standards in terms of journalistic quality? What advantages/disadvantages small newspapers enjoy over audiences’ trust in news? If size matters, what happens with medium-sized newspapers? What other contextual characteristics may affect ethical decision-making (I’m thinking racial/ethnic divides, political cleavages, etc.)?

3. A methodological point of contention in Reader’s study: why interview editors’ only? Why not include some reporters? He justifies the decision based on the fact that editors were in the “best position to articulate their newsrooms’ policies and practices.” But I wonder if writers and reporters could have provided for a different perspective. Having worked as a journalist for several years, I can assure that those in senior-level positions have a different view of the relationship between the paper and the community from those of us who were working in the trenches. So, perhaps, I would have split my sample between editors and journalists, or do a group interview.

4. In Curtin and Maier’s article on “numbers in the newsroom,” I was impressed at the lack of methodological details. This, I’m sure, is a problem of word length: JQ needs 5,000 words and it’s preferable to cut the methods than the results. But, still, we only know that it was one paper, there were 33 subjects, focus groups were an hour long and participants were assigned to groups by job classification. But how were the focus groups actually conducted: did the moderator follow a script based on the RQs or was it more open and unstructured? Were the discussions taped or videotaped? How many people participated in each group: 2, 3, 7? How representative was the newspaper chosen? Over what period were the focus groups conducted? They mention two coders. Were these the authors, or some trained grad students? Footnotes would have worked in this case…

5. A question about format on the Curtin and Maier piece: is it really necessary to include as many block quotes as possible in order to present results from a focus group? While including participants’ own words is the main purpose of a focus group, reading one quote after another seems to me a bit of a patchwork or collection of quotes. Again, I’m just curious on how to report results from a focus group in a way that helps readers to follow the flow of the paper.