Structured interview content

To ensure that the preliminary research objectives were adequately addressed (Dilorio et al.

1994, cited in McLafferty 2004), an interview guide was developed for this study. According to Liamputtong (2011), an interview guide is a general outline that includes potential questions that the moderator might ask during the group discussion, and is considered one of the critical components in determining the success of a focus group.

The interview guide for this study was developed based on the related literature on consumer shopping among traditional markets and modern retailers in Indonesia and other countries (e.g. Kingry et al. 1990, cited in McLafferty 2004) . The outline starts with simple, general questions, progressing to specific, more complex questions in order to encourage participation from all members.

The interview guide was drafted in English and then translated into Indonesian. Back-translation is a well-known method for making sure the questions retain the closest possible meaning in another language (Van der Velde, Jansen and Anderson 2004). The procedure for back-translation by Warwick and Lininger (1975, cited in Iarossi 2006) was followed.

Firstly, the interview guide was translated from English to Indonesian by the researcher, then another Indonesian student translated it back into English. The two versions of the interview guides were then compared and any inconsistencies corrected. The pilot focus group

81

discussion was conducted in Perth on November 2011. The participants were recruited from the researcher’s network, mainly Indonesian housewives living in Perth.

As additional discussions were needed for the dry food category (as rice had to be replaced with cooking oil), there were two series of focus groups in this study. For the first five focus groups, the interview guide was divided into two sessions (please refer to Appendix A). The first session was related to the first and second research objectives, while the second session was related to the third research objective (see Table 4.1). For the additional four focus groups, only one session was held to identify shopping habits associated with the purchase of cooking oil (please refer to Appendix B).

In the first session, discussions centred around a number of questions about the food retailer most often used to purchase the food ingredients that would be cooked and consumed at home. The discussions also addressed alternative food retailers, frequency of purchase, mode of transport, and the types of retailers mainly used to purchase dry goods, fresh vegetables, and fresh meat. Topics included the consumers’ likes and dislikes for wet markets and hypermarkets, while cross-shopping topics covered specific products that were purchased from certain retailers, the number of wet markets and hypermarkets used, and participants’

reasons for choosing a certain type of retailer over another.

82

Table 4.1: Topics of questions for preliminary study

Research objectives Session Topic

First five focus groups (December 2011)

Identify general food shopping habits 1 General food shopping habits identify consumers’ perceptions of wet

markets and hypermarkets and identify cross-shopping behaviour among wet markets and modern retailers

1 Consumers’ perceptions of wet markets and hypermarkets (likes and dislikes about both retail formats)

2 Cross-shopping behaviour among wet markets and hypermarkets

Identify shopping habits associated with the purchase of three product categories

2 Shopping habit associated with the purchase of rice, kangkong and chicken

Additional four focus groups (September 2012) identify shopping habits associated with the purchase of cooking oil

1 Shopping habits associated with the purchase of cooking oil

In the second session, the topic was the purchase of rice, kangkong, and chicken. Questions included frequency and quantity of purchase, product type and packaging, reasons for choosing certain types of product, the main retailer used for each product, and reasons for selecting preferred retailers. The additional four focus groups covered questions relating to the purchase of cooking oil (see Table 4.2).

83 Table 4.2: Questions for selected product category

Rice Chicken Kangkong Cooking oil

Frequency of

selecting Reasons for selecting Reasons for

selecting Reasons for selecting quantity purchased Live chicken or

dressed chicken quantity purchased quantity purchased Packaging of the

rice Reasons for choice Pre-packed or loose

kangkong Brand or non-brand

to purchase rice If portions, what

portions Other retailers used

84

4.2.3 Sample selection

In the conduct of focus group discussions, it is not unusual to use convenience samples.

Although the focus group results cannot be readily applied to the population, due to the limited number of participants and the lack of representativeness (Van Wezemael et al.

2010; Bertrand, Brown and Ward 1992), the strength of the focus group lies in evaluating phenomena that exist in the target population and providing a deep and meaningful description of these phenomena (Vicsek 2010). According to Flick (2007), such sampling capitalises on the presence of any ‘outliers’ and seeks to incorporate the opinions of the participants rather than to dismiss them. The focus is not the proportion of such individuals in the population, but rather the insights that can be gathered about certain phenomena through including these exceptions.

The quality of a qualitative study depends on the breadth of the data collected. This means that a limited sample size can be justified for focus group research because there is a trade-off between the number of focus groups and the depth of the data collected (Carlsen and Glenton 2011). Researchers often prefer to use convenience sampling to select participants for focus groups to save both time and money (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook 2007).

Previous research (Ulvila, Paloviita and Puupponen 2009) has shown that recruiting focus group participants in food stores is very time-consuming – in their study there were many cancellations and no-shows.

According to Schroder and McEachern (2005), a convenience sample is justified for an exploratory study, given the participants are the target market for the product under study.

Based on this consideration, participants in the current study were selected on the basis of convenience sampling (Cao et al. 2009; Chamhuri and Batt 2009a) and drawn from the social network of the researcher using a snowball sampling technique.

However, convenience sampling does not eliminate the need to consider the characteristics of the focus group samples. Researchers still have to be selective in the sample selection for focus groups to suit the objectives of the research (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook 2007).

Qualitative sampling is generally referred to as involving either ‘theoretical’ or ‘purposive’

sampling. Furthermore, the composition of the group has important implications for the outcome of the discussion. Insofar as the researcher has specific research objectives and wishes the group participants to communicate properly, he or she should manage the group composition to improve the probability of achieving the objectives. This may mean ensuring a certain level of homogeneity or heterogeneity within the group, or conducting multiple

85

focus groups that differ with respect to their composition (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook 2007). Homogeneity may imply that participants come from a similar culture or possess similar views (Liamputtong 2011), or that they have typical attribute associated the with topic of the focus group (Krueger and Casey 2009; Garrison et al. 1999).

Ensuring that participants in a focus group share some similar attributes is not only prudent in terms of research design, but may also encourage discussions on sensitive themes (Bloor et al. 2001, cited in Flick 2007). Many researchers prefer homogeneous groups, as individual group members are more confident in voicing their views (Sim 1998). Participants in the same focus group discussion might be of the same gender, age range, ethnicity, and social class (Bloor et al. 2002, cited in Chamhuri 2009).

Many types of focus groups have very broadly defined parameters. For such general purposes, recruitment is relatively easy. For example, in many marketing research applications, the group may be defined simply in terms of the user of a particular product or the principal food shopper in a household (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook 2007).

Some researchers, however, believe that heterogeneous focus groups are generally more effective than homogeneous groups because a variety of skills, perspectives and types of knowledge can be brought to bear on the performance of the task (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook 2007). An argument or disagreement is expected to unearth the reasons behind different opinions and allow both moderators and participants to clarify their perspectives (Flick 2007).