Running through the Lunt and Livingstone reading was the familiar theme of quantitative vs. qualitative research methods. The article is critical of the belief that focus groups, as a qualitative research method, are useful only as a supplement to quantitative data, and argues that with the right justification and with a mindful/critical approach, focus groups are a useful research method in themselves. As someone who is more inclined to pursue qualitative research methods for my own work, I spent time once again considering the advantages or values of qualitative data.

Lunt and Livingstone argue that the construction of a focus group can make a good theoretical framework in itself - that is, they suggest using the artificiality of a focus group scenario as a lens through which to understand the information you are gathering. I agree that it is important to be aware of, and critical of, the context in which focus group conversation takes place (which is kind of a simulation of a "real" scenario for conversation) - but whether researchers acknowledge the artificiality of them or not, I still think that artificiality is a bit weird. I would much prefer to observe by participating, or by in some way allowing people doing things that are natural to them. I realize there are issues that arise with that kind of method, too - I just feel like they are issues I am better prepared to work with or around.