Online focus groups: a valuable alternative for hospitality research?

被引:0
|
作者
Richard, Brendan [1 ]
Sivo, Stephen [1 ]
Orlowski, Marissa [2 ]
Ford, Robert [3 ]
Murphy, Jamie [4 ]
Boote, David [1 ]
Witta, Eleanor [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cent Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[2] Univ Cent Florida, Rosen Coll Hospitality, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[3] Univ Cent Florida, Dept Management, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[4] Univ Eastern Finland, Savonlinna, Finland
关键词
Focus groups; New product development; Sustainability; Qualitative methods; Idea generation; Crowdsourcing; FACE-TO-FACE; BRAINSTORMING GROUPS; SUSTAINABLE TOURISM; PRODUCTIVITY LOSS; TECHNOLOGY; IDEA; CREATIVITY; QUALITY; COMMUNICATION; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0715
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Purpose This paper aims to test the idea generation capabilities of online text-based focus groups as compared to the traditional in-person focus groups using sustainability in the hospitality industry as the idea generation topic. Idea generation quantity and quality are analyzed and the theoretical and practical implications for the hospitality industry are discussed. Design/methodology/approach An experimental study tested the quality of ideas generated by online versus in-person focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled from the hospitality program at a large southeastern United States university and randomly assigned into one of two treatment groups: online text-based or traditional in-person focus groups. During both treatment groups participants generated ideas focused on sustainability in the hospitality industry. Findings The online focus group generated a comparable quantity of ideas, in addition to a similar average quality of ideas and number of good ideas. Practical implications The generation of ideas and the selection of opportunities drive the innovation process through which firms can strengthen their competitive advantage and maintain and grow market share and profitability. The results of this study may assist hospitality firms in determining which form of qualitative research delivers the highest return on investment by generating the best ideas at the lowest cost. Originality/value This paper breaks new ground by assessing the effectiveness of idea generation in online versus traditional focus groups, comparing both the quantity and quality of ideas generated from an experimental study that uses random assignment.
引用
收藏
页码:3175 / 3191
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] QUALITATIVE RESEARCH - INTRODUCING FOCUS GROUPS
    KITZINGER, J
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 311 (7000): : 299 - 302
  • [32] FOCUS GROUPS - A RESEARCH TECHNIQUE FOR NURSING
    KINGRY, MJ
    TIEDJE, LB
    FRIEDMAN, LL
    [J]. NURSING RESEARCH, 1990, 39 (02) : 124 - 125
  • [33] Focus groups - Their use in administrative research
    Crawford, M
    Acorn, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NURSING ADMINISTRATION, 1997, 27 (05): : 15 - 18
  • [34] FOCUS GROUPS IN TROPICAL DISEASES RESEARCH
    KHAN, ME
    MANDERSON, L
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING, 1992, 7 (01) : 56 - 66
  • [35] Beyond consensus: an alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research
    Paraskevas, Alexandros
    Saunders, Mark N. K.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, 2012, 24 (06) : 907 - 924
  • [36] The Citation Factor Reconsidered: New Alternative for Tourism and Hospitality Research
    Korstanje, Maximiliano E.
    [J]. ROSA DOS VENTOS-TURISMO E HOSPITALIDADE, 2018, 10 (04) : 829 - 833
  • [37] ONLINE CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY: A MIXED METHOD RESEARCH
    Komsuoglu, Buket
    Cevirgen, Aydin
    [J]. DETUROPE-THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM, 2022, 14 (02): : 82 - 107
  • [38] Video Review: An Alternative to Coding Transcripts of Focus Groups
    Clayman, Marla L.
    Webb, Jennifer
    Zick, Amanda
    Cameron, Kenzie A.
    Rintamaki, Lance
    Makoul, Gregory
    [J]. COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES, 2009, 3 (04) : 216 - 222
  • [39] Premises and experiences: the analysis of online focus groups execution
    Parada Duenas, Francisco Javier
    [J]. ENCRUCIJADAS-REVISTA CRITICA DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES, 2012, 4 : 95 - 114
  • [40] Simulated jury decision making in online focus groups
    Tabak, Samantha J.
    Klettke, Bianca
    Knight, Tess
    [J]. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2013, 13 (01) : 102 - +