Use of Focus Groups in Business Ethics Research: Potential, Problems and Paths to Progress

IF 4.8 Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Business Ethics-A European Review Pub Date : 2015-07-01 DOI:10.1111/beer.12097
C. Cowton, Yvonne Downs
{"title":"Use of Focus Groups in Business Ethics Research: Potential, Problems and Paths to Progress","authors":"C. Cowton, Yvonne Downs","doi":"10.1111/beer.12097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of focus groups is a well‐established qualitative research method in the social sciences that would seem to offer scope for a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the field of business ethics. This paper explores the potential contribution of focus groups, reviews their contribution to date and makes some recommendations regarding their future use. We find that, while the use of focus groups is not extensive, they have been utilised in a non‐negligible number of studies. Focus groups are usually used as a supplementary method, often as part of the development of a research instrument. Whether used on their own or in conjunction with other methods, we find that in the majority of cases there is insufficient information for a reader to judge that the method has been carried out well and hence that the ‘findings’ may be trusted. Nor is it easy for future researchers to learn about the practical application of the method in business ethics contexts. We therefore recommend improved reporting in future published studies. Based on an analysis of a subsample of papers that provided a reasonable level of methodological detail, we provide further insights into, and recommendations for, the use of focus groups in business ethics research.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Ethics-A European Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

The use of focus groups is a well‐established qualitative research method in the social sciences that would seem to offer scope for a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the field of business ethics. This paper explores the potential contribution of focus groups, reviews their contribution to date and makes some recommendations regarding their future use. We find that, while the use of focus groups is not extensive, they have been utilised in a non‐negligible number of studies. Focus groups are usually used as a supplementary method, often as part of the development of a research instrument. Whether used on their own or in conjunction with other methods, we find that in the majority of cases there is insufficient information for a reader to judge that the method has been carried out well and hence that the ‘findings’ may be trusted. Nor is it easy for future researchers to learn about the practical application of the method in business ethics contexts. We therefore recommend improved reporting in future published studies. Based on an analysis of a subsample of papers that provided a reasonable level of methodological detail, we provide further insights into, and recommendations for, the use of focus groups in business ethics research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
焦点小组在商业伦理研究中的应用:潜力、问题和进步之路
在社会科学中,焦点小组的使用是一种完善的定性研究方法,它似乎为商业伦理领域的知识和理解的进步提供了重大贡献的范围。本文探讨了焦点小组的潜在贡献,回顾了他们迄今为止的贡献,并对他们的未来使用提出了一些建议。我们发现,虽然焦点小组的使用并不广泛,但它们已被用于不可忽略的研究数量。焦点小组通常被用作一种补充方法,通常作为研究工具开发的一部分。无论是单独使用还是与其他方法结合使用,我们发现,在大多数情况下,读者没有足够的信息来判断该方法是否得到了很好的执行,因此“发现”可能是可信的。未来的研究人员也不容易了解该方法在商业伦理背景下的实际应用。因此,我们建议在未来发表的研究中改进报告。基于对提供合理水平的方法学细节的论文子样本的分析,我们对焦点小组在商业道德研究中的使用提供了进一步的见解和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: -To offer rigorous and informed analysis of ethical issues and perspectives relevant to organizations and their relationships with society -To promote scholarly research and advance knowledge in relation to business ethics and corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship by providing cutting edge theoretical and empirical analysis of salient issues and developments -To be responsive to changing concerns and emerging issues in the business ethics and business and society sphere, and to seek to reflect these in the balance of contributions -To be the publication outlet of choice for all types of original research relating to business ethics and business-society relationships. Original articles are welcomed. Each issue will normally contain several major articles, and there will be an occasional FOCUS section which will contain articles on an issue of particular importance and topicality. Other regular features will include editorial interviews, book reviews, comments and responses to published articles, research notes and case studies. Business Ethics: A European Review is well established as an academic research journal which is at the same time readable, user-friendly and authoritative. It publishes both fully refereed scholarly papers and special contributions such as speeches and reviews. The range of contributions reflects the variety and scope of ethical issues faced by business and other organisations world-wide, and at the same time seeks to address the interests and concerns of the journals readership.
期刊最新文献
Does voluntary environmental, social, and governance disclosure impact initial public offer withdrawal risk? Communicating CSR relationships in COVID-19: The evolution of cross-sector communication networks on social media How can sustainable business models distribute value more equitably in global value chains? Introducing “value chain profit sharing” as an emerging alternative to fair trade, direct trade, or solidarity trade An examination of the 2012–2022 empirical ethical decision-making literature: A quinary review The consequences of dishonesty—A mediation-moderation praxis of greenwashing, tourists' green trust, and word-of-mouth: The role of connectedness to nature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1