967769

research-article2020
CQXXXX10.1177/1938965520967769Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyRichard et al.

Article
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Qualitative Research via Focus Groups:

2021, Vol. 62(1) 32­–45
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Will Going Online Affect the Diversity sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1938965520967769
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520967769

of Your Findings? journals.sagepub.com/home/cqx

Brendan Richard1, Stephen A. Sivo1, Marissa Orlowski1, Robert C. Ford1,

Jamie Murphy2, David N. Boote1, and Eleanor L. Witta1

Abstract
Practitioners and researchers are conducting more focus groups online as a qualitative data collection method, yet
rigorous methodological studies investigating the diversity of findings versus traditional in-person focus groups are limited.
Previous studies primarily focused on health topics, varied on topic scope (broad to sensitive), format (synchronous
vs. asynchronous), and online platform (several no longer exist). This experimental study sought to address that gap by
randomly assigning participants into treatment groups to brainstorm sustainable practices for the hospitality industry (i.e., a
broad topic) on a popular publicly available platform (i.e., Reddit). Although the in-person focus groups generated a greater
word count and number of ideas, they generated an equivalent number of unique ideas. In terms of idea diversity, thematic
analysis revealed a relatively high degree of overlap in themes from both groups. Of 13 themes, 10 (77%) occurred in both
treatment groups. The overlapping themes represented 91% of all key words generated across both groups. These results
highlight the potential for online focus groups to generate idea diversity at a level that is comparable to in-person focus
groups. For practitioners seeking to benefit from guest insights, the findings help to substantiate the value of a lower cost,
faster-to-market data collection method.

Keywords
qualitative methods; focus groups; online focus groups; idea generation; reddit

Introduction Shamdasani, 2014). Specifically, within hospitality and

In-person focus groups have long been the norm for
qualitative market research, yet the abundance of personal
computers, mobile devices, the internet, and social media
has enabled the growth of online qualitative data collec-
tion. Online focus groups are becoming a more popular and
accepted method for collecting qualitative data, accounting
for more than US$1 billion of the US$10 billion in annual
spend on global qualitative market research (ESOMAR,
2018; Synnot et al., 2014; Wilkerson et al., 2014; Woodyatt
et al., 2016). This trend could accelerate as the long-term
impact of global pandemics on data collection methods
such as clinical research, field research, live experiments,
face-to-face interviews, and in-person focus groups is still
unknown (Metzler, 2020; Parry, 2020).
Focus groups have historically been employed across a
multitude of disciplines to research and solve a variety of
challenges including generating hypotheses, exploring opin-
ions and attributes, and developing new product ideas (Fern,
1982; Hair et al., 2008; Kitzinger, 1995; Murgado-Armenteros
et al., 2012; Powell & Single, 1996; D. W. Stewart &
tourism, focus groups have been conducted across a variety
of topics such as sustainability, optimizing hotel operations,
and customer brand relationships (Bowden, 2009; Dalci &
Kosan, 2012; Zouganeli et al., 2012). In their review of
marketing-focused hospitality research, Line and Runyan
(2012) found that close to 10% of studies used focus groups
for data collection.
Focus groups are not without their limitations though,
as they lack anonymity, discourage participation from hard
to reach and distant populations, are limited in the number
of participants they can accommodate, and can be rela-
tively expensive to conduct (Gammie et al., 2017; Prescott
et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2012). Thus, in recent years,
researchers have been experimenting with online focus
1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
2
University of Eastern Finland Business School, Joensuu, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Brendan Richard, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2368,
USA.
Email: brendan.richard@gmail.com
Richard et al. 33
groups. For example, an online focus group successfully
brought together geographically distant hotel marketers
and consultants from across Europe to discuss strategies
for search engine marketing (Paraskevas et al., 2011).
However, while growing in popularity in other fields, this
method of data collection has not yet seen extensive usage
in hospitality and tourism (Tavakoli & Wijesinghe, 2019).
Online focus groups possess several inherent advan-
tages that address many of the limitations of in-person
focus groups, thereby encouraging both researchers and
participants to engage in this data collection method. For
researchers, online focus groups represent an easier and
more cost-effective alternative to in-person focus groups
(Reid & Reid, 2005; Schweitzer et al., 2012), whereas par-
ticipants appreciate the convenience of choosing both the
time and place of their contribution (Zwaanswijk & van
Dulmen, 2014). Online focus groups can also vary signifi-
cantly based on the facilitating online platform, ranging
from synchronous live discussions (e.g., Zoom, Google
Meet, Microsoft Meet) to asynchronous discussion boards
(e.g., Reddit, Facebook).
However, although the usage of online focus groups
has increased, rigorous research focused on evaluating the
comparative quality of online to in-person focus groups,
including within the hospitality industry, is still sparse
(Woodyatt et al., 2016). Current studies have not employed
random assignment, which risks systematic bias, and thus
have called for future studies to include this technique
(Woodyatt et al., 2016). Previous studies were also pri-
marily focused on the topic of health, varied on topic
scope (broad to sensitive), format (synchronous vs. asyn-
chronous), and online platform (each was unique and sev-
eral no longer exist).
As a result, an opportunity exists for researchers to
empirically investigate online focus groups to better assess
their utility as a valid qualitative data collection method.
Our study seeks to fill this gap by experimentally testing the
comparative diversity of ideas using a broad topic on a
ubiquitous publicly available online platform. We used sus-
tainability, a popular topic among both hospitality research-
ers and the public (Myung et al., 2012; Zouganeli et al.,
2012), as the idea generation topic, and Reddit, one of the
world’s most visited websites, consisting of news aggrega-
tion and discussion boards, as the online platform (Shatz,
2016). Our analysis compared both word counts and idea
counts, as well as key word and theme overlap via a the-
matic analysis. This study’s findings should benefit aca-
demic scholars by reinforcing previous studies with a
stronger methodology and by extending research generaliz-
ability to include hospitality management. Practitioners will
also benefit, secure in the knowledge that conducting focus
groups online as a cost savings will not sacrifice the quality
of the findings.
Literature Review
Online Versus In-Person Focus Groups
Focus groups are an organized group discussion centered
on a topic and monitored and potentially guided by a
researcher (Bloor et al., 2001). According to Krueger’s
(1994) criteria, a proper focus group has six main charac-
teristics: It involves people, it occurs in a series, it has
homogeneous participants, it consists of a focused discus-
sion, it has qualitative data, and the data are collected.
Using these criteria, Turney and Pocknee (2005) explored
the dynamics of online focus groups and found them to be
theoretically sound. Consequently, both online and in-per-
son focus groups are grounded in the same principles.
Online focus groups, though, are an evolution of traditional
focus groups and therefore diverge from in-person focus
groups in specific aspects including anonymity, media
richness, social and moderator presence, participation and
facilitation format, and contribution size and organization.
In an online focus group, participants can remain anony-
mous (i.e., by using usernames and avatars), which offers a
sense of protection from reprisal. When participants are
anonymous, they self-report lower levels of social desir-
ability and anxiety and are more likely to have higher self-
esteem (Joinson, 1999). As a result, anonymous participants
feel a greater sense of comfort when contributing and may
be more willing to ask “foolish” or unpopular questions that
they would otherwise avoid asking for fear of mockery
(Aiken et al., 1994).
Conversely, anonymity comes at the expense of partici-
pating in a media-rich social environment that offers both
verbal and physical cues. Although online participants are
limited to text-based interactions that may be time-delayed
if the focus group is asynchronous (Reisner et al., 2018),
in-person participants can use all of their senses and com-
municate with multiple cues such as facial expression, eye
contact, and gestures, thus fostering “real-time” interactions
and face-to-face conversations (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Tu,
2000). This type of interaction also allows researchers to
interpret participants’ facial expressions, tone of voice, and
body language, which can lead to a richer understanding of
the data and themes (Schneider et al., 2002).
Online focus groups are facilitated via platforms or forums
such as Reddit or Facebook which present unique advantages
and disadvantages (Medley-Rath, 2019). Unlike in-person
focus groups, in which only one participant may speak at a
time, an online platform allows participants to contribute
simultaneously, leading participants to focus on generating
new ideas rather than remembering what they would like to
say while listening to others (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Straus,
1996). In addition, contributions can be nearly limitless in
size, are automatically recorded and retained, and can be
organized, categorized, and ranked by participants (Dawson
34 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)
& Bynghall, 2011; Herring, 2007). Without the presence of a
face-to-face moderator and safe in the anonymity inherent to
an online platform, though, dissonant participant behavior or
significant deviations from the research topic can occur
(Schneider et al., 2002; Underhill & Olmsted, 2003; Williams
et al., 2012). Collectively, these differences between online
and in-person focus groups necessitate comparing findings
obtained from both data collection methods.
Focus Group Comparison Studies
Several researchers have sought to empirically compare the
outputs from in-person and online focus groups to deter-
mine their relative value and to provide recommendations
to their fellow researchers and to firms considering engag-
ing in one of the two data collection methods. Although the
studies all share a common thread of comparing the two
methods of data collection, the way each study addresses
the topic highlights the tremendous differences in how these
focus groups can be operationalized. Across the studies,
focus group topics ranged from health issues, to intimate
partner violence, to mobile phones, to marriage attitudes.
All tools and platforms (e.g., software/websites) used to
facilitate the online focus groups were unique to the study
and varied between synchronous and asynchronous. Finally,
a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures and met-
rics were used to achieve the same goal of comparing the
two focus group types (Brüggen & Willems, 2009; Reid &
Reid, 2005; Schneider et al., 2002; Synnot et al., 2014;
Woodyatt et al., 2016).
Almost universally, independent of the online focus
group tool/platform and features, prior studies demon-
strated that although in-person participants generated larger
word counts, the overall number of ideas or responses was
similar. A study using eShareExpressions, a synchronous
communication tool, to investigate health websites found
that online focus groups contributed fewer words (Schneider
et al., 2002). Another study conducted via the synchronous
tool Chatspace focused on marriage attitudes and body
image and found that the online group had fewer words but
similar idea counts (Reid & Reid, 2005). Yet another study
used an unknown synchronous instrument to investigate
mobile phone perceptions and found that although online
focus groups had fewer words, they had the most ideas per
participants. A caveat to this result was that the ideas gener-
ated by online participants were deemed to be more super-
ficial (Brüggen & Willems, 2009).
Recently, researchers have sought to not only assess the
purely quantitative components (e.g., word count, idea
count) but also provide a quantitative assessment of quali-
tative components (e.g., degree of thematic overlap).
Synnot et al. (2014) compared the qualitative outputs of a
series of in-person focus groups versus an asynchronous
online forum focused on health issues. The researchers
perceived a high degree of overlap in the themes (i.e.,
diversity) generated by both treatment groups and deter-
mined that both methods of data collection yielded gener-
ally comparable information. Similarly, Woodyatt et al.
(2016) conducted in-person and online focus groups (two
each) on health issues, comparing the data quality between
the two data collection methods. Synchronous online focus
groups conducted on Adobe Connect were able to achieve
a similar number of thematic codes to the in-person focus
groups; more specifically, 25 of 27 thematic codes were
present in both focus group types.
Although both the Synnot et al. (2014) and the Woodyatt
et al. (2016) studies demonstrated the ability of online focus
groups to deliver an equivalent diversity of ideas, both stud-
ies also acknowledged the limitation of allowing focus
group participants to self-select into the treatment group of
their choice based on availability and preference. Thus, ran-
dom assignment of participants represents a critical meth-
odological gap in the literature, as it strengthens the internal
validity of the study. In addition, from a generalizability
standpoint, both studies were focused solely on health
issues. Accordingly, there exists an opportunity to compare
the quality of in-person versus online focus groups within
the field of hospitality using a rigorous experimental design
employing random assignment. We summarize the relevant
literature and the key differences between the literature and
our study in Table 1.
Method
Participants
We designed an experiment in which the diversity of ideas
generated on the broad topic of sustainability in the hospital-
ity industry could be measured employing random assign-
ment of participants to treatment groups. Institutional review
board approval was received for the study. Participants were
purposely sampled from the hospitality program at a large
university in the southeastern United States. An incentive to
enter into the study was offered to potential participants in
the form of extra credit. An alternate assignment was also
created and offered to potential participants who were not
available during the study time frame and to those who did
not wish to participate in the experiment.
A short online survey, conducted via Qualtrics, was pro-
vided to the students who were interested in participating.
The survey asked potential participants to provide age, sex,
academic level and program, and the number of years they
had been employed (both in total and specifically within
the hospitality industry). We also asked participants to pro-
vide their availability for the in-person focus group times,
which were held on the university campus and scheduled
around class times to best accommodate potential partici-
pants’ availability.
Richard et al. 35

Table 1.
Summary of Focus Group Comparison Literature.

Online Tool/
Research Topic Method Platform Online Format Relevant Metrics Results
Schneider et al. Health-related Quasi-experimental eShare Synchronous Comment word Online had fewer
(2002) web sites (no random Expressions count; comment words and more
(broad) assignment) relevancy; comments of
inter-participant agreement
agreement
Reid and Reid Marriage Within-subjects Chat space Synchronous Word count; Online had fewer
(2005) attitudes; body (with counter V2 number of ideas; words but similar
image (broad) balancing) participation rate; idea counts and
agreement less unequal
participation
Brüggen and Mobile phones Quasi-experimental Unknown Synchronous Idea depth and Online had fewer
Willems (2009) (broad) (no random breadth; number words and the
assignment) of words; most ideas per
contribution participant; also
efficiency the shallowest
ideas
Synnot et al. Health issues Quasi-experimental Discussion Asynchronous No quantitative Online had
(2014) (sensitive) (no random board findings; fewer words
assignment) qualitative analysis and more equal
only participation;
there appeared
to be thematic
overlap
Woodyatt et al. Intimate partner Quasi-experimental Adobe Synchronous Word count; Online had fewer
(2016) violence (no random Connect response count; words, similar
(sensitive) assignment) thematic codes response counts,
and high thematic
overlap
Richard et al. Hospitality; Experimental Reddit Asynchronous Word count; idea Online had fewer
(this paper) sustainability (random (online count; key word words, similar
(broad) assignment) forum) overlap; thematic count of unique
overlap ideas, modest key
word overlap,
and high thematic
overlap

Procedure The participants assigned to an in-person focus group

An invitation to participate was sent to 461 undergraduate
students enrolled in hospitality programs, of which 91 stu-
dents (20%) completed the initial survey. Although this
response rate is relatively low, it does fall within the range
found within a response rate meta-analysis study (Baruch &
Holtom, 2008). Participants were then assigned to treatment
groups via stratified random assignment. Stratification was
based on employment tenure and sex, as these covariates
were shown to have an impact on participant’s creativity in
previous studies (George & Zhou, 2007; Zhang & Zhou,
2014). Stratified random assignment is also advisable for
small sample sizes (N < 100; Lachin et al., 1988) where
there is a perceived necessity to control for potential covari-
ates (Conlon & Anderson, 1990; Suresh, 2011).
who could not attend based on their stated availability were
reassigned, along with an equivalent number of randomly
selected participants from the online treatment group, to the
alternate assignment. A total of 72 participants (36 online
vs. 36 in-person) were assigned to the treatment groups.
Stratified random assignment resulted in treatment groups
that were relatively similar in sex (78% female for in-per-
son vs. 81% female for online) and average professional
hospitality experience (3.3 years for in-person vs. 3.4 years
for online). The average age of participants was also similar
(24 years for in-person vs. 22 years for online). Relative to
the treatment groups, the overall population of the hospital-
ity college at the large southeastern university was 75.3%
female and 24.7% male, roughly comparable to the study
sample. Of the 72 participants assigned to groups, 46
36 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)
completed the experiment resulting in final participant
counts of 25 online and 21 in-person.
Four in-person focus groups, lasting 60 min each, were
conducted on the university campus. Each focus group was
comprised of a small number of participants, consistent
with previous studies (Synnot et al., 2014; Woodyatt et al.,
2016), and recommended as a best practice (Krueger &
Casey, 2014; Liamputtong, 2011). Audio and video were
recorded via camcorders and saved for future analysis.
Participants were instructed that all information was confi-
dential and that personal identifiers would be removed.
Focus group ground rules were reviewed, and the idea gen-
eration question was provided to the participants.
The online focus group took place on Reddit, a platform
with the ability to anonymously host an online discussion.
Reddit has been highlighted in previous studies for its
value in online qualitative data collection (Shatz, 2016). A
private forum, or “subreddit,” was created called “r/data-
collection” that was only accessible to the researchers and
Reddit users approved by the researchers. Anonymous
Reddit usernames and passwords were created and indi-
vidually e-mailed to each online focus group participant in
addition to the start time, end time, and web address of the
online focus group session.
Idea Generation Question
Using focus groups to stimulate new ideas and develop
concepts is one of many potential uses for focus groups
(Stewart & Shamdasani, 1998). Both treatment groups
received the same idea generation question at the begin-
ning of the focus group session. In this study, the responses
provided by participants intended to address or resolve the
question from the focus group moderator were categorized
as “ideas” (Smith, 1998). The researchers adapted the idea
generation question for use in this study from one used in a
previous study by Girotra et al. (2010). The previous topic,
new product development for dorm rooms, was revised
to focus on new sustainable practices in the hospitality
industry:
A hotel chain has retained you to identify new or improved
sustainable hotel practices. The hotel chain (for example,
Marriott, Hilton, Holiday Inn) is interested in “going green”
and seeks practices likely to appeal to environmentally friendly
guests. These practices might be solutions to unmet needs or
improved solutions to existing needs. (adapted from Girotra
et al., 2010, p. 598)
After providing the question to the participants, the focus
group session moderator emphasized the broad nature of
the idea generation exercise, emphasizing that all “going
green” ideas were welcome, that they could be inspired by
any of their experiences (personal or professional), and that
they could be related to any area of hotel operations.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process was guided by Braun and
Clarke’s (2006, 2012) phases of thematic analysis for iden-
tifying, analyzing, and reporting themes to better under-
stand the ideas generated by both in-person and online
focus groups. A description of the process has been pro-
vided detailing key steps to bolster transparency and enable
replicability (Aguinis & Solarino, 2019; Guba, 1981;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morrow, 2005). The first author
familiarized himself with the data (Phase 1) by conducting
and moderating all the in-person and online focus groups
and listening to the audio/video recordings of the in-person
focus groups. Through these various processes, the first
author (and to a lesser degree the third author) immersed
themselves by repeatedly hearing and seeing the data. The
data were then transcribed; the in-person focus group
recordings were transcribed by a third party and, as the
online focus group data were text-based, were already in a
format appropriate to transfer into text files. The first
author transferred and organized the online focus group
data from Reddit into Excel documents. Both sets of tran-
scribed data were then read in their entirety by the first and
third authors to ensure that the outputs were true to their
original nature (Poland, 2002).
Then, the total word count of each treatment group, with
and without moderator text, was recorded. The first author
reviewed the data, and segments containing any ideas that
were potentially relevant to the idea generation question
were identified and transferred into new tab in the Excel file
(Braun & Clarke, 2012). Like previous studies (Synnot
et al., 2014; Woodyatt et al., 2016), the ideas generated
were often verbose, containing redundant and off-topic
information. As a result, we considered generating idea
summaries by reducing the full text of each idea down to
only the relevant information.
Prior studies that assessed the quality of idea generation
have made no mention of cleaning or summarizing ideas
(Girotra et al., 2010). Although the manipulation of qualita-
tive data risks introducing bias, wordy ideas with off-topic
content may also lead to inaccuracies in key word and the-
matic analysis due to coder fatigue (Neuendorf, 2016).
Ultimately, we decided that reducing coder fatigue and
facilitating interrater agreement was more important than
preserving the original structure of participant submissions,
so the first author created idea summaries for each contribu-
tion by removing redundant and off-topic information.
Recognizing that the idea summaries may contain
unconscious bias from the first author, we took steps to
mitigate this before beginning the coding process. A knowl-
edgeable external reviewer, a hospitality Ph.D. student, was
recruited to rate the idea summaries for accuracy. The exter-
nal reviewer received an Excel file containing the original
ideas submitted by each participant in their raw (tran-
scribed) form and the corresponding summaries generated
Richard et al. 37
by the first author and rated each summary on scale from
1 = not at all accurate to 5 = very accurate. The external
reviewer’s first assessment of the ideas and their corre-
sponding summaries resulted in more than 90% rated as a
“4” or above. The first author then worked with the external
reviewer to better understand the source of error for those
summaries that did not achieve a “5” rating. Underperforming
idea summaries were revised and re-reviewed until they
reached a score of “4” or higher for accuracy. A final review
resulted in 88% of the idea summaries rated “5,” with the
remaining 12% rated “4.” Of a total of 281 ideas, 211 were
identified as unique at the idea-summary level (e.g., some
ideas were identical/duplicate).
Once the idea summaries were finalized, initial coding
(Phase 2) was conducted by third parties external to the
research team using an inductive approach, based on their
hospitality experience, as guidance (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Two separate hospitality Ph.D. students each individually
coded the idea summaries with the key word(s) they believed
adequately represented the idea based on their professional
experiences and education in hospitality and tourism. As
there were duplicate summaries (e.g., idea summaries that
were identical), only the 211 unique idea summaries were
assessed by these coders. The initial individual coding effort
resulted in a total 1,124 key words generated across both
coders with 75% intercoder agreement (848 of 1,124 key
words). Then, the first and third author moderated a follow-
up session with the two coders to achieve alignment between
all key words. That session was successful, with both coders
agreeing on a final set of key words.
Once all the data had been coded, the first and third
authors re-familiarized themselves with the data and the
agreed-upon coding. Employing deductive reasoning
(Phase 3), meaningful groups were then sought, discussed,
and identified by the first and third authors using existing
hotel operational areas as a guide (e.g., rooms, engineering,
front desk, housekeeping, food & beverage, sales & market-
ing, catering & convention services, spa; Braun & Clarke,
2006; Miles & Huberman, 1984; O’Fallon & Rutherford,
2011). Although acknowledging that hotel size and the spe-
cific amenities and services offered vary across hotel seg-
ments, operational areas were defined as those areas that
typically possess a director-level position which reports
directly to the general manager of the hotel.
Using the key words, the first and third authors indepen-
dently assigned each idea summary to a theme (i.e., hotel
operational area). At this point, discussions were held among
the research team as to how to best assign themes when the
potential for thematic overlap existed (Phase 4). If more than
one theme was deemed appropriate, as several hotel opera-
tional areas can be involved in any given idea, we decided
that the theme would be determined based on an assessment
of which operational area would ultimately be responsible
for reporting progress on the idea/initiative to the general
manager (i.e. during the weekly executive committee
meeting). This discussion also assisted in determining what
exactly the essence of each theme would be (Phase 5). Our
initial thematic coding effort resulted in 86% agreement
(183 of 212 ideas). A follow-up session was then conducted
in which we discussed the thematic codes chosen, during
which we achieved alignment on all differing themes.
Finally, after all the themes were created and assigned,
an analysis was conducted to summarize insights (Phase 6).
Unlike traditional qualitative papers that may provide an in-
depth rich description of the full data set or provide a
nuanced account of a single theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006),
the generation and comparison (i.e., percentage overlap) of
the themes themselves was the goal of this study. Particular
emphasis was placed on those themes that did not overlap,
and the ideas and participants they were associated with, to
better understand why themes were generated in one but not
both groups.
Results
Word Count
To accurately calculate participant word count, moderator
text was removed from consideration from both sets of tran-
scripts. Overall, the in-person focus groups tended to have
longer responses, and in general, participants talked more
often than their online focus group peers. As a result, the
word count was substantially higher for the in-person focus
groups (27,807 words for in-person vs. 10,681 words for
online). The longer responses were often a result of partici-
pants providing a greater level of detail in their contributions,
including personal experiences, thoughts, and observations,
which has the potential to result in richer data. However,
these responses also tended to be more loosely structured
with more off-topic discussion and repetition of ideas.
For example, the idea of creating an on-site garden to
distribute fruits, vegetables, and herbs to hotel restaurants
was discussed within both focus group types. During one of
the in-person focus group sessions, a participant referenced
a hotel where they knew the practice was occurring and
then transitioned to how they had discussed the idea with
their hotel leadership, before finally noting the potential
benefits to guests:
I know the Ritz Carlton does that, the Ritz Carlton right there
they have like an acre farm like on property because they have
so much land and a lot of the ingredients used in a lot of the
restaurants is grown on property I’d like tried convincing my
executive chef to do that are property like I really want to see
like a small like herb garden you know like because we have
like an outdoor patio and just have useless ferns out there and
I’m like you can literally plant like you know some basil plants
and some mint and some rosemary and stuff like that and like
you know it’s like ok you save money and costs, you’ll its
38 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)
literally like it’s a nice, I want to say amenity to the guests but
it’s a nice like invitation I guess because you can be like they
go like you know go away outside like while you’re waiting for
a table and these are all the herbs that our bar uses for the
drinks and our kitchen uses for their dishes. (In-person focus
group 1, participant 113)
By comparison, online focus group responses were typi-
cally more clear, concise, and on-topic. The trade-off was
the potential impact to the richness of the data. In the fol-
lowing example, the online focus group participant intro-
duced the idea and succinctly highlighted the benefits the
idea could bring to a hotel:
Building an onsite garden, this would help hotels that
operate or host restaurants. On site growing cuts sourcing
costs and provides visual confirmation to guests that some
of the food they are eating is grown local. (Online focus
group, participant 35)
Although there are many ways to value qualitative data,
including the richness of the data, this study focused on the
number of ideas generated and the diversity of those ideas
based on a thematic analysis.
Idea Count
In terms of ideas generated, a preliminary analysis indicated
the higher word count of in-person focus groups returned a
slightly greater number of ideas (144 vs. 137), thus suggest-
ing that in-person focus groups were more successful.
However, further inspection revealed that in-person focus
groups were only able to generate 5% more ideas, even
though they generated 260% more total words in compari-
son to online focus groups. Therefore, from an efficiency
standpoint in terms of ideas generated per words written, the
online focus group was more efficient (1.3% vs. 0.5%).
Furthermore, the slight advantage in number of ideas
becomes nonexistent when assessing unique ideas generated
(105 in-person vs. 106 online). Table 2 provides a summary
of the word counts and idea counts for both treatment groups.
Key Words
In terms of key words generated, the coding of in-person
focus group participant submissions resulted in 378 total
key words (142 unique), whereas the online focus group
returned a total of 360 key words (139 unique). In-person
focus groups therefore had 5% more total key words and
2% more unique key words. In sum, there were 738 key
words assigned to participant submissions. Of these 738
assigned key words, 213 (43%) were unique across both
groups (i.e., unique and occurred in one or both focus group
types). Of these 213 unique key words, 68 (32%) occurred
in both in-person and online focus groups (Table 3).
Table 2.
Word, Total Ideas, and Unique Ideas Counts.
Quantity In-Person Online Total
Word count 27,807 10,681 38,488
Total ideas 144 137 281
  Total ideas/word 0.52% 1.28% 0.73%
Unique ideas 105 106 211
  Unique ideas/word 0.37% 0.99% 0.55%
Although both treatment groups shared only 68 unique
key words in common (see Table 4 for the top 20), they
represented 68% of all key words assigned to the participant
submissions (504 of 738). Shared key words constituted the
majority of all coded key words because each of the 68
unique key words occurred across several ideas (on average
more than 7 times each). Key words in both groups repre-
sented a diverse selection of hotel in-room features
(e.g., recycling bins, showers, toiletries, thermostat), hotel
property areas (e.g., garden, restaurant, parking), front desk
processing (e.g., key cards, paperless, messaging), and
operational improvements (e.g., lights, electricity, cleaning
supplies, motion-detectors).
Idea Diversity
Based on the thematic analysis of key words associated
with the ideas generated from both treatment groups, both
groups had a roughly equivalent number of thematic codes
generated, although there were some differences between
the groups. The in-person focus groups generated seven
thematic codes, whereas the online focus group generated
six (see Table 5). A high degree of overlap existed between
the two groups, as five codes were common to both (engi-
neering, housekeeping, rooms, food & beverage, and sales
& marketing). These five codes represented 91% of all the
key words associated with participant submissions (673 of
738). In addition, the in-person focus groups had two unique
themes (catering & convention services and spa), whereas
the online focus group had one unique theme (human
resources). Collectively these unique themes represented
9% of the key words generated.
Idea Diversity by Participant
Given the high degree of overlap between the themes
generated by both groups, but also the presence of themes
unique to both groups, it was worthwhile to investigate how
themes were generated by participants. Were common and
unique themes generated by the majority or only a handful
of participants? In the case of the overlapping themes, four
of the five themes each had eight or more participants
within their respective focus group type contribute to their
Richard et al. 39

Table 3.
Key Word Breakdown Within and Across Focus Group Types.

Quantity In-Person Online Total

Total key words 378 360 738
Unique key words within groups 142 139 281
Unique key words across groups (in either) 213
Unique key words across groups (in both)  68

Table 4. creation. The fifth theme, sales & marketing, was the lone
Top 20 Key Words Shared Across Both Focus Group exception, as the in-person groups had four participants and
Types. the online group had only one participant (see Table 6).
Key Word Count % of All Key Words Within the in-person focus groups, an average of eight par-
ticipants contributed to an overlapping theme (ranging from
Reduce guest room energy 37 5.0 1 to 14), whereas online focus group had an average of nine
Reduce waste 28 3.8 participants contributing (ranging from 1 to 15).
Paperless 24 3.3 Within the in-person focus groups there were two
Recycling 19 2.6 unique themes, catering & convention services and spa.
Reduce guest room waste 19 2.6 The catering & convention services theme was broadly
Reduce water consumption 16 2.2
contributed to by seven participants, whereas the spa
Reduce energy 15 2.0
theme was only generated by one participant. The spa
Reduce plastic waste 14 1.9
ideas were focused on reducing waste related to spa expe-
Local produce 13 1.8
riences that the participant appeared to have experienced.
Reuse towels 12 1.6
Garden 11 1.5
For example:
Key cards 11 1.5
Motion sensors 11 1.5 I think they also waste a lot of cotton when they are taking off
Room recycling bin 11 1.5 the nail polish. So maybe they can, cause I know there is a little
container that people stick their figure in and they twirl it
Self-generated electricity 11 1.5
around and the nail polish comes off. So maybe like that would
Toiletry/toiletries 11 1.5
help them a lot instead of using cotton. (Focus group 3,
Electricity 10 1.4
participant 134)
Phone as key card 10 1.4
Reduce plastic 10 1.4
The catering & convention services theme, however,
was a relatively broad collection of ideas based on wed-
dings, banquets, and general events hosted at weddings. It
Table 5. appears that contributions were spurred by participants
Themes by Focus Group Type. sharing their experiences of working in events in addition to
Key Word % of All participant’s general experiences with weddings. It is
Themes Count Key Words unclear why this theme was not present within the online
group. It is possible that as the instructions were written and
In-person
not verbally provided to the participants, the events space
 Engineering 126 17.1
was an overlooked area of the hotel industry.
 Housekeeping 88 11.9
 Rooms 56 7.6
Within the online focus group, the standalone unique
  Catering & convention services 48 6.5 theme was human resources, which was contributed to by
  Food & beverage 36 4.9 three participants. These ideas all focused specifically
  Sales & marketing 15 2.0 around training for hotel staff. For example, one participant
 Spa 9 1.2 noted the opportunity to reduce waste by providing better
Online training to housekeepers:
 Engineering 130 17.6
 Housekeeping 92 12.5 I have found that while hotels try to “go green” by asking
 Rooms 67 9.1 guests to reuse towels or place them on the ground for new
  Food & beverage 58 7.9 ones, it often backfires. If housekeeping isn’t properly trained
  Human resources 8 1.1 in green housekeeping, they will replace the towels that are
  Sales & marketing 5 0.7 hung up as well. I have gotten multiple calls from guests who
were disappointed to see that their reusable towels had been
40 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)

Table 6. words, Woodyatt et al.’s (2016) results compare favorably

Themes by Participant Count. with our results, which revealed that in-person groups gen-
erated 260% more words. However, having moderated the
Participant
Themes Count Overlap in-person focus groups and reviewed the transcripts, the
first author considers a combination of off-topic conversa-
In-person tions, filler words, and statements made, whereas partici-
 Engineering 14 Yes pants were finding a way toward their desired answer to be
 Housekeeping 11 Yes the source of the higher volume of words rather than addi-
 Rooms 10 Yes tional focused content or ideas. In contrast, participants in
  Food & beverage 8 Yes
the online focus group were more “professional,” focusing
  Catering & convention services 7 No
on responding directly the question asked and doing so after
  Sales & marketing 4 Yes
having thought through and editing their answers.
 Spa 1 No
In addition, although 260% more words generated by the
Online
 Engineering 15 Yes
in-person focus groups may sound impressive, the online
 Housekeeping 13 Yes focus group was actually more efficient when normalized
 Rooms 10 Yes for words per idea generated, with one idea per 78 words
  Food & beverage 10 Yes versus one idea per 193 words for the in-person focus
  Human resources 3 Yes groups. Furthermore, although the increased word count
  Sales & marketing 1 No resulted in a greater number of ideas for the in-person focus
groups (144 vs. 137), this difference disappeared entirely
after the unique ideas were assessed, to the extent that the
replaced. This reflects negatively on the hotel. I think that the total number of unique ideas shifted slightly in favor of
first step to going green is to properly train staff in green online focus groups (106 vs. 105; see Figure 1). As a result,
practices. (Online focus group, participant 5) it is possible to see how, at a minimum, online focus groups
can generate a similar quantity of ideas.
Although this idea does relate specifically to housekeepers Nonetheless, when focus groups are used to generate
and could have conceivably been themed as such, we ideas, it is not just the quantity of ideas that matters but also
determined it should belong to a separate theme due to the the quality. The more diverse the ideas are, the more likely
training aspect. it is that a valuable outlier valuable will exist (Girotra et al.,
2010; Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2009). The results of the the-
matic analysis for this study revealed that (a) a similar num-
Discussion
ber of themes were generated from each treatment group
With the growth in online qualitative data collection, it is and (b) there was a high degree of commonality between
imperative that online focus groups be assessed for their the themes across the two treatment groups. At a total of 13
ability to deliver, at a minimum, an equivalent level of data themes identified and only three unique to one group or the
diversity (e.g., breadth of themes) when compared to in- other, a total of 77% of the themes were consistent between
person focus groups. Previous researchers in other fields, online and in-person focus groups (see Figure 1). Again,
such as health studies, have found on numerous occasions a this result was consistent with prior research; in Woodyatt
level of consistency in the number of thematic codes gener- et al.’s (2016) study, 25 of the 27 thematic codes appeared
ated by the two types of focus group. However, these stud- in both treatment groups, resulting in a similarly strong
ies are based on experiments that lack random assignment. overlap percentage of 93%. In addition, the 10 shared
Our study seeks to strengthen the literature by offering themes that resulted from our study represented more than
another data assessment of the relative strength of online 91% of all key words associated with participant contribu-
focus groups, as compared to in-person focus groups, via an tions. These results demonstrate that it is possible for online
experiment with random assignment to the two treatment focus groups to generate not only a similar quantity of
groups. In addition, this study extends the literature into the results (i.e., unique ideas) but also a similar diversity of
area of hospitality. ideas (as measured via thematic overlap). These findings
In assessing the total word count by focus group type, we can help to reassure researchers seeking to conduct online
found that the in-person groups were able to generate a sub- focus groups that their results won’t be “all flash and no
stantially higher volume of words (27,807) when compared substance”; in other words, a collection of homogeneous
to the online group (10,681), which is consistent with past ideas that lack the potential outliers necessary to help drive
research. For example, Woodyatt et al. (2016) also found business growth.
that in-person focus groups outperformed online focus Still, there were some areas in which the focus group
groups in word count (15,907 vs. 4,981). At 319% more results diverged from each other. A thematic breakdown of
Richard et al. 41
Figure 1.
In-Person Versus Online Volume and Diversity of Ideas.
the data by participant count revealed that almost all the
overlapping ideas were contributed to by at least eight
participants in each treatment group (roughly 33% of the
participants). This finding reinforces the ability of the two
different focus group types to generate a similar set of
responses in terms of thematic diversity. Within the three
themes unique to each group, two of them (spa and human
resources) were more restricted in their number of contribu-
tors (one and three, respectively), whereas catering & con-
vention services was the only unique theme with broad
support from a total of seven participants within the in-
person focus groups. These findings potentially highlight
how the impact of individual participant differences can
outweigh the data collection method. Although random
assignment was employed and the groups were similar in
professional tenure, each participant’s unique life experi-
ences contributed to the focus group in their own ways.
Although this is a challenge, it is one not unique to online
focus groups but rather a fundamental feature of all focus
groups, which are made up of a small semi-homogeneous
groups of individuals.
Practical Implications
To stay competitive, hospitality firms need new ideas,
including both incremental improvements and explorative
departures, to effectively engage in innovation (Cho et al.,
2020). Focus groups offer hospitality firms one viable
method to obtain the new ideas they need to remain
competitive. Traditional focus groups are challenging to
organize though, from finding participants willing to dedi-
cate time to meet at a specific time and place to capturing
and transcribing the findings (Gammie et al., 2017; Reisner
et al., 2018). Online focus groups alleviate these challenges
and offer hospitality firms a cheaper, faster, and more effi-
cient method of obtaining the insights and ideas they are
seeking from guests (see Figure 2).
Furthermore, in uncertain times when the risk of resur-
gent viral outbreaks is at the forefront, moderator and par-
ticipant safety may potentially become a determining factor
in choosing a research method. When the health and safety
of participants is at risk, research institutions suspend face-
to-face research, including in-person focus groups (Metzler,
2020; Parry, 2020). Even with institutional approval, par-
ticipants may be less willing to participate if they are con-
cerned for their safety, thus delaying or increasing the cost
of data collection. Online focus groups, both asynchronous
(e.g., Reddit) and synchronous (e.g., Zoom), can be con-
ducted from a location of the participant’s choosing, provid-
ing a safe and effective alternative without compromising
researchers’ ability to generate diverse responses.
However, online focus groups are fundamentally differ-
ent from traditional focus groups. As such, it is important
for firms to know that engaging in online focus groups will
not come at the expense of good ideas to feed into their
innovation pipeline. The diversity of ideas generated is cru-
cial because diversity leads to outliers, and outliers lead to
beneficial innovation (Girotra et al., 2010). Hospitality
42 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)
Figure 2.
Online Focus Group Benefits.
firms do not need 100 mediocre ideas; they need one game
changing idea. This study highlights how engaging in online
focus groups can result in a similar level of idea diversity as
in-person focus groups, thus supporting their adoption for
hospitality firms.
Finally, it is important to note that our findings were
based on focus groups with small sample sizes consisting of
participants with modest hospitality experience. As such,
firms should take care not to automatically generalize the
findings to their unique situation (Morrow, 2005). In addi-
tion, our online focus groups were conducted on a discus-
sion board setting (i.e., Reddit) versus a live video setting
(e.g., Zoom) and were limited to a specific idea generation
topic, sustainability. Firms might also encounter challenges
employing online focus groups with populations that are
less technically savvy. Furthermore, as the study was
focused on comparing idea generation in online versus in-
person focus groups, firms should not assume that all types
of focus group activities will be equally valuable in both
settings. Perhaps our findings would be most relevant to the
marketing organization and their new product development
efforts and less relevant to other teams within the firm.
Limitations and Future Research
Limitations which could affect the internal validity of this
study were the overall extent to which qualitative process
established trustworthiness, as well as the level of control
over the treatment groups during the experiment and the use
of idea summaries to assist in idea coding. Although the
researchers sought to maintain a high level of trustworthi-
ness by providing an in-depth explanation of the process,
removing bias through external reviewers, and detailing the
transferability of the findings, several beneficial practices
such as prolonged engagement and member checks were
not conducted due to the availability of the participants
(Guba, 1981; Morrow, 2005; Nowell et al., 2017; Schwandt
et al., 2007). Separately, although the first author was pres-
ent for the entirety of each of the in-person focus groups,
the online focus groups were moderated periodically during
the session by reviewing participant contributions to ensure
a safe, nonthreatening environment. Online focus group
participants contributed remotely and, as a result, were not
directly monitored in the same manner as in-person partici-
pants. Furthermore, in their original format, many of the
ideas proposed in the focus groups were verbose and con-
tained off-topic information and therefore were summa-
rized by the first author. However, understanding that this
potentially introduced bias, a knowledgeable external
reviewer was also employed to rate the idea summaries for
accuracy prior to coding.
The external validity of this study is the ability to general-
ize beyond the participants and idea generation topic. This
study invited participants specifically from the hospitality
college within a large university in the southeastern United
States, and the idea generation topic was focused on brain-
storming sustainable practices in the hospitality industry.
Given the small sample sizes of the focus groups and the
lack of statistical analyses, it is important not to overly gen-
eralize the findings to other populations or settings (Morrow,
2005). As sustainable practices is a broad topic, the results of
this study might not be applicable to more narrow or sensi-
tive topics, like health conditions or sexual preference, top-
ics more typical for a focus group conducted in the medical
field, or other topics not focused on sustainability. Also,
the study tested generating new ideas, which, while an
Richard et al. 43
acceptable purpose for a focus group (Stewart & Shamdasani,
1998), is not the only use of focus groups.
In this study, an experiment was conducted using in-per-
son groups and an online platform to compare the diversity
of ideas generated from two different types of focus groups.
Future research could focus on the methods used to monitor
participants and the possibility of opening up the online
focus groups to a much wider audience. In-person focus
groups must take place in a single physical location where
the participants gather and can be directly monitored by the
researchers. Online participants, however, can contribute
from a location of their choosing, theoretically increasing
their study response rate but decreasing the ability to moni-
tor their participation. Future research could seek to utilize
a platform that would provide more control and oversight
by the researchers on how and when the participants con-
tributed. This increased level of control and monitoring
would improve the internal validity of the study.
In-person focus groups are limited in their size by not
just the ability to get all the participants into the same room
at the same time but also the manner in which participants
can contribute, as only one person can (or should) speak at
a time. Beyond a certain number of participants, efficiency
drops as the other participants are listening and waiting
their turn rather than contributing. This is not true in online
focus groups where no such restriction exists. Rather than
increasing the level of control, future studies could also test
the opposite direction and loosen oversight. Instead of
engaging in random assignment with the goal of a rela-
tively homogeneous group, researchers could open partici-
pation up to the worldwide crowd of contributors (Ford
et al., 2015). Although the volume of unique ideas and the
diversity of ideas should increase, the ability to monitor
and focus the discussion on the topic would decrease. In
this way the study would be challenging, assuming it could
even be defined as a focus group per Krueger’s (1994) cri-
teria. But, if successful, it could challenge whether these
criteria remain relevant in a world where ubiquitous online
access allows for a near limitless number of contributors to
a discussion.
Conclusion
“What we believe in first and foremost is listening to your
guest, listening to potential customers” (Kirk Kinsell,
Former President of the Americas, InterContinental Hotels
Group).
Market research is big business. More than US$75 bil-
lion is spent annually by firms around the globe on market
research (ESOMAR, 2018). A substantial portion of that
funding goes to qualitative research, specifically traditional
in-person focus groups, but interest for and investment in
online focus groups is growing. Because conducting focus
groups online can be both simpler and more cost-effective
than in-person groups, it is a tempting data collection
method for researchers and firms. Researcher favorability is
compounded by participant preference. Potential partici-
pants prefer the ability to contribute to a focus group in a
time and place of their choosing, requiring less incentives
and producing a higher rate of attendance. Taken together, it
is important for hospitality researchers and practitioners to
understand the impact conducting focus groups online has
on research findings. The results of this study show that in
certain circumstances, online focus groups can be a valu-
able tool to assist hospitality researchers and firms in learn-
ing from their participants and guests to help generate
insights that progress the field of study, improve the experi-
ence, and grow market share.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, or publication of this article.
References
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replica-
bility in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite
informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291–1315.
Aiken, M., Krosp, J., Shirani, A., & Martin, J. (1994). Electronic
brainstorming in small and large groups. Information &
Management, 27(3), 141–149.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate lev-
els and trends in organizational research. Human Relations,
61(8), 1139–1160.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001).
Focus groups in social research. SAGE.
Bowden, J. (2009). Customer engagement: A framework for
assessing customer-brand relationships: The case of the
restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 18(6), 574–596.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy-
chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper,
P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J.
Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook
of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs:
Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological
(pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
Brüggen, E., & Willems, P. (2009). A critical comparison of offline
focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi. International
Journal of Market Research, 51(3), 1–15.
Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., & Han, S. J. (2020). Innovation ambi-
dexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for startup
and established restaurants and impacts upon performance.
Industry and Innovation, 27(4), 340–362.
Conlon, M., & Anderson, G. C. (1990). Three methods of random
assignment: Comparison of balance achieved on potentially
confounding variables. Nursing Research, 39(6), 376–379.
44 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 62(1)
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational informa-
tion requirements, media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Dalci, I., & Kosan, L. (2012). Theory of constraints thinking-pro-
cess tools facilitate goal achievement for hotel management:
A case study of improving customer satisfaction. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(5), 541–568.
Dawson, R., & Bynghall, S. (2011). Getting results from crowds:
The definitive guide to using crowdsourcing to grow your
business. Advanced Human Technologies.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brain-
storming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.
ESOMAR. (2018). Global market research 2018. https://www.
esomar.org/knowledge-center/reports-publications
Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation:
The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and modera-
tor on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19(1), 1–13.
Ford, R. C., Richard, B., & Ciuchta, M. P. (2015). Crowdsourcing:
A new way of employing non-employees? Business Horizons,
58(4), 377–388.
Gammie, E., Hamilton, S., & Gilchrist, V. (2017). Focus group
discussions. In Z. Hoque, L. D. Parker, & M. A. Covaleski
(Eds.), The Routledge companion to qualitative accounting
research methods (pp. 372–386). Taylor & Francis.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive
context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood,
and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2010). Idea generation
and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56(4),
591–605.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of
naturalistic inquiries. Educational Resources Information
Center Annual Review Paper, 29, 75–91.
Hair, J. F., Celsi, M., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2008). Essentials
of marketing research. McGraw-Hill/Higher Education.
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for
computer-mediated discourse. Language@ Internet, 4(1),
1–37.
Joinson, A. N. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and inter-
net-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 433–438.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus
groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for
applied research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical
guide for applied research. SAGE.
Lachin, J. M., Matts, J. P., & Wei, L. J. (1988). Randomization in
clinical trials: Conclusions and recommendations. Controlled
Clinical Trials, 9(4), 365–374.
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and
practice. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Line, N. D., & Runyan, R. C. (2012). Hospitality marketing
research: Recent trends and future directions. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 477–488.
Medley-Rath, S. (2019). Using Facebook secret groups for qualita-
tive data collection. The Qualitative Report, 24(7), 1765–1777.
Metzler, K. (2020). How will COVID-19 impact student
research projects?. https://www.methodspace.com/how-
will-covid-19-impact-student-research-projects/
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
source book of new methods. SAGE.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative
research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.
Murgado-Armenteros, E. M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., & Vega-Zamora,
M. (2012). Differences between online and face to face focus
groups, viewed through two approaches. Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(2), 73–86.
Myung, E., McClaren, A., & Li, L. (2012). Environmentally
related research in scholarly hospitality journals: Current
status and future opportunities. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1264–1275.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J.
(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trust-
worthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1). Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Fallon, M. J., & Rutherford, D. G. (2011). Hotel management
and operations (5th ed.). Wiley.
Paraskevas, A., Katsogridakis, I., Law, R., & Buhalis, D. (2011).
Search engine marketing: Transforming search engines into
hotel distribution channels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
52(2), 200–208.
Parry, M. (2020, March 18). As coronavirus spreads, universities
stall their research to keep human subjects safe. https://www.
chronicle.com/article/As-Coronavirus-Spreads/248274
Poland, B. D. (2002). Transcription quality. In J. F. Gubrium & J.
A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context
& method (pp. 629–649). SAGE.
Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International
Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8(5), 499–504.
Prescott, T. L., Phillips II, G., DuBois, L. Z., Bull, S. S., Mustanski,
B., & Ybarra, M. L. (2016). Reaching adolescent gay, bisex-
ual, and queer men online: Development and refinement of
a national recruitment strategy. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 18(8), Article e200.
Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. (2005). Online focus groups: An in-depth
comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus
group discussions. International Journal of Market Research,
47(2), 131–162.
Reisner, S. L., Randazzo, R. K., White Hughto, J. M., Peitzmeier,
S., DuBois, L. Z., Pardee, D. J., & Potter, J. (2018).
Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations:
Methodological considerations for online focus group discus-
sions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1658–1673.
Schneider, S. J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J., & Vivari, B. A. (2002).
Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face
focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 31–42.
Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging
interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and
authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 114, 11–25.
Richard et al. 45
Schweitzer, F. M., Buchinger, W., Gassmann, O., & Obrist, M.
(2012). Crowdsourcing: Leveraging innovation through online
idea competitions. Research-Technology Management, 55(3),
32–38.
Shatz, I. (2016). Fast, free, and targeted: Reddit as a source for
recruiting participants online. Social Science Computer
Review, 34(4), 537–549.
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of
active ingredients. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2),
107–134.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1998). Focus group research:
Exploration and discovery. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.),
Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 505–526).
SAGE.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups:
Theory and practice (Vol. 20). SAGE.
Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communica-
tion media and information distribution on participation and
performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups.
Small Group Research, 27(1), 115–142.
Suresh, K. P. (2011). An overview of randomization techniques:
An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research.
Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 4(1), 8–11.
Synnot, A., Hill, S., Summers, M., & Taylor, M. (2014).
Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with
people with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Health Research,
24(3), 431–438.
Tavakoli, R., & Wijesinghe, S. N. (2019). The evolution of
the web and netnography in tourism: A systematic review.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 29, 48–55.
Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2009). Innovation tournaments:
Creating and selecting exceptional opportunities. Harvard
Business Press.
Tu, C. H. (2000). Online learning migration: From social learning
theory to social presence theory in a computer-mediated com-
munication environment. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 23, 27–37.
Turney, L., & Pocknee, C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New
frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 4(2), 32–43.
Underhill, C., & Olmsted, M. G. (2003). An experimental com-
parison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups.
Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 506–512.
Wilkerson, J. M., Iantaffi, A., Grey, J. A., Bockting, W. O., &
Rosser, B. S. (2014). Recommendations for internet-based
qualitative health research with hard-to-reach populations.
Qualitative Health Research, 24(4), 561–574.
Williams, S., Clausen, M. G., Robertson, A., Peacock, S., &
McPherson, K. (2012). Methodological reflections on the
use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 368–383.
Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. (2016). In-person
versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis
of data quality. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 741–749.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncer-
tainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction
effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164.
Zouganeli, S., Trihas, N., Antonaki, M., & Kladou, S. (2012).
Aspects of sustainability in the destination branding process:
A bottom-up approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 21(7), 739–757.
Zwaanswijk, M., & van Dulmen, S. (2014). Advantages of asyn-
chronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups
as perceived by child, adolescent and adult participants: A
survey study. BMC Research Notes, 7(1), Article 756.
Author Biographies
Brendan Richard completed his PhD in research methodology,
measurement and analysis from the University of Central Florida.
His research interests include: the sharing economy, crowdsourc-
ing, focus groups and future studies. He has publications in:
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Journal of Revenue & Pricing Management, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, and Journal of Tourism Futures.
Stephen Sivo is a tenured Professor at the University of Central
Florida. He has taught statistics, research methods, and measure-
ment theory for graduate programs for over 20 years. He has
chaired or served on more than 150 doctoral dissertations since he
began at UCF. He specializes in Statistical Analysis, Survey
Research, Test Development and Program Evaluation with a par-
ticular emphasis on Structural Equation Modeling.
Marissa Orlowski, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Rosen
College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central
Florida, where she teaches beverage and restaurant operations
courses. Her research interests include food and beverage con-
sumption, food packaging and presentation, and multisensory
food experiences. She also specializes in quantitative research
methods.
Robert C. Ford, PhD, Arizona State University, is Professor of
Management Emeritus at the University of Central Florida and
is a Visiting Professor at Rollins College. Besides publishing
several books, he has published in both top research and practitio-
ner journals. Bob was editor of The Academy of Management
Executive and an active member of the Southern Management
Association (SMA) which he served as its president, awarded its
Distinguished Service Award, and elected a Fellow.
Jamie Murphy’s background includes European Marketing
Manager for PowerBar and Greg Lemond Bicycles, a Florida State
University PhD, consulting for Google, hundreds of academic and
dozens of New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles. His
research foci, and passions, are sustainability and effective Internet
use.
David N. Boote is Associate Professor of Curriculum Studies in
the College of Community Innovation and Education at UCF. His
research currently focuses on curricular issues related to doctoral
education, especially for learning more sophisticated forms of
literature reviewing and research. Central to all his teaching and
research is the desire to understand how people cope and thrive in
environments of high cognitive, affective, and normative flux.
Eleanor L. Witta, PhD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, retired,
was an associate professor within the College of Education and
Human Performance at the University of Central Florida (UCF).
She taught and has a passion for: The fundamentals and quantita-
tive foundations of graduate research, statistics and quantitative
methods.