Focus Groups, Meaning Making and Data Quality

  • Patrizia Bertini
Conference paper


Data quality represents a major strategic asset for organisations and privacy is one of the main influencing factors impacting on organisations ‘practices related to customers’ data collection. Other elements which affects this relationship are individuals handling data within the organisation and their different needs, however there is limited research focussing on these aspects. This work presents early findings of an empirical qualitative research using focus groups within a social constructivist approach to delve into managers’ perception of data quality and to understand the impact of privacy on organisational practices. Focus groups have been widely adopted in academic research as an exploratory method to collect people’s opinion. This study shows how some features, like involving pre-existing groups, the adoption of questionnaires and the workshops’ setting can positively influence focus groups’ outcome, encouraging participants’ co-operative interaction, helping them to clarify concepts and raising awareness about privacy and data quality.


Focus Group Data Quality Social Constructivist Constructivist Process Brute Fact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, T. L., Johnson, G. M. & Walther, J. B. (1993). Understanding Communication Processes in Focus Groups. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful Focus Groups (pp. 51–63). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arazy, O., Oded, N., Patterson, R., & Yeo, L. (2011). Information Quality in Wikipedia: The Effects of Group Composition and Task Conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems 27(4), 71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakhtin, M. M., Emerson, C., & Holquist, M. (1986). Speech genres, and other late essays. Austin,: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batini, C., & Scannapieco, M. (2006). Data quality: concepts, methodologies and techniques. Berlin; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charreire, Petit, S., & Huault, I. (2008). From Practice-based Knowledge to the Practice of Research: Revisiting Constructivist Research Works on Knowledge. Management Learning, 39(1).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davenport Hughes, C. (1954). Accuracy in Statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 3(3), 146–149.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duran, E. (2009). Customer data management: the impacts of poor customer data quality on customer relationship management and organizations. Saarbrucken, Deutschland: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbs, A. (1997). Social Research Update 19: Focus Groups. from
  11. 11.
    Grabowski, M., Massey, A. P., & Wallace, W. A. (1992). Focus groups as a group knowledge acquisition technique. Knowledge Acquisition, 4(4), 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho, D. (2006). The Focus Group Interview: Rising to the Challenge in Qualitative Research Methodology Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 5.1–5.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollander, J. A. (2004). The Social Contexts of Focus Groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). The discourse reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kenett, R. S., & Shmueli, G. (2011). On Information Quality. R. H. Smith School Research Paper No. 06–100.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interactions between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munday, J. (2006). Identity in focus: The use of focus groups to study the construction of collective identity. Sociology, 40(1), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27(1), 85–111.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olson, J. E. (2003). Data quality : the accuracy dimension. San Francisco, Calif.; London: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vannan, E. (2001). Quality Data: An Improbable Dream? Educause Quarterly, 24(1), 56–58.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, R. J., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warr, D. J. (2005). “It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things”: Analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 200–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whitley, E. A. (1996). Confusion, Social Knowledge and the Design of Intelligent Machines. Journal of experimental and theoretical artificial intelligence, 8(3/4), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wibeck, V., Abrandt Dahlgren, M., & Öberg, G. (2007). Learning in focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations