Once the ten focus group members had been identified, the researcher provided them, via e-mail, an informed consent and requested that each member sign and return the form in order to participate in the study. The informed consent restated the purpose of the study and further explained that the participant’s involvement in the study was voluntary. As such, the participant could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. The informed consent also indicated that no compensation of any sort, financial or otherwise, would be offered in exchange for participation, and provided information about the safeguards being taken by the researcher to ensure ethical conduct and to protect the participant’s identity. Finally, the informed consents notified participants that the focus group session would be audio-recorded so that the researcher could create a written transcript upon the conclusion of the group.

When the informed consents were received for each member, the researcher then determined a day and time for the focus group and contacted each member to ensure that they would be able to participate. With the participation of all ten members confirmed, the researcher then reserved an office space for the day and time of the focus group and sent the participants an e-mail with the address of the location and a brief summary about what to expect during the focus group session.

On the appointed day and time, the focus group convened and the researcher invited each group member to begin by introducing himself or herself by stating his or her name and relationship to the apparel industry. The ground rules for the focus group session were then explained by the researcher, and the researcher then proceeded to engage group members by asking a series of questions to guide the discussion (See Appendix A for focus group question script). Members responded to the questions and when all questions and comments had been exhausted, the researcher thanked the participants for their time and concluded the active part of this phase of the research study.

At this point, the researcher reviewed the audio-taped version of the focus group and began creating a typewritten transcript to facilitate the identification and coding of specific words, ideas, and themes that emerged in response to the focus group questions. In the transcript, all names were obliterated and only the members’ professional positions were used to identify their responses. The researcher read the transcript several times in order to identify themes, making a list of these themes as she went along. She also asked four colleagues to review the transcript and code themes that they identified; the purpose of doing so was to create a multiple rater system in order to improve the reliability of the study, a common technique in qualitative content analysis research (Chandler & Lyon, 2001). Once these raters had completed their respective reviews of the transcript, the researcher created a list of all of the identified themes and used these, through a process of applied descriptive statistical analysis, to render interpretations and conclusions that not only shed light on the quantitative data, but also served to answer research question two. The list of themes identified by the researcher and the raters is included in Chapter Four.

Ethical Considerations

Because the research study was comprised of a quantitative and a qualitative methodology, the researcher will describe the ethical considerations of each phase of the study separately.

Quantitative Component

Just because there were no human subjects in the quantitative phase of the study does not mean that this part of the research was free of ethical concerns. Because the researcher was not generating original data, she needed to ensure that the data she was sourcing came from reliable sources and that it was valid to the best of her knowledge. She also needed to be sure to identify the source of all data accurately and appropriately. Finally, in using the data, it was important for the researcher to offer a clear and thoughtful assessment about the possible limitations of the data for the specific purposes of this study; this assessment is provided in a later section of this chapter, found under “Limitations.”
Qualitative Component

Any time that research involves living subjects, it is important that the researcher conduct a thorough analysis of the potential harm that could come to study participants. In the case of this particular study, there were no physical, mental, or psychological harms anticipated as the result of participants’ engagement in the study. However, the researcher was aware that because most of the focus group participants were industry leaders and were likely to tailor the openness of their responses to the degree of privacy and protection the researcher could ensure them, she decided that the participants would be identified only by their positions, not by their names or their organizational affiliations or any other personal identifying information. She was also aware that the audio-taping of the session might pose some ethical concerns related to privacy, and she assured the participants that the audio version of the focus group would be destroyed once the written transcript was created. She further explained that participants could receive a copy of the final document produced by the researcher, should they so choose, upon the completion of the study. Finally, the researcher complied with all of the academic institution’s requirements with respect to ethical conduct of research. As mentioned earlier, informed consents were obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the focus group, and participation was voluntary.

Limitations

Because the research study was comprised of a quantitative and a qualitative methodology, the researcher will describe the limitations of each phase of the study separately.
Quantitative Component
Although quantitative research often involves the researcher’s collection of original, primary data, there is value in identifying data that already exist and making use of them. While the reliance about existing data may be seen as a limitation of this study, the researcher prefers to actually view it as a particular benefit of the study. As the researcher explained in the introduction to this chapter, research is—or should be—cumulative, meaning that research conducted today should build upon and improve the research design models and methodologies employed yesterday; it should also strive to answer some of the questions that were left unresolved or which were raised by previous researchers. In this way, current research picks up where the existing body of knowledge leaves off, expanding and deepening our understanding of important social and economic phenomena.

Still, the researcher would be remiss if she did not note some of the particular limitations of the data sets that she used for the study. For instance, one of the limitations is that the researcher did not determine the parameters within which the original data were collected. She cannot, therefore, assert with complete confidence that the assumptions and interpretations underlying both the processes that were used to collect the data and the parameters that limited the data collection are accurate. For instance, the Economics and Statistics Administration collects data each month that it assigns to the category “Advance Monthly Sales for Retail Trade and Food Services.” The purpose of these data is to track, over time, how sales in key segments of the U.S. economy are either stable or dynamic and variable. The segments, though, are assigned as follow: total, ex auto, auto, and general merchandise (Scheleur & Lukasik, 2007). The obvious limitation of this data set is it lumps a mind-boggling amount of “general merchandise” into a single category, and for the purposes of the present study, it is impossible say precisely what percentage clothing constitutes in this category. The researcher rejected, whenever possible, vague, ambiguous, or overly large data sets that did not identify clothing/apparel as a specific category; however, in some cases, doing so was not possible. Thus, when interpreting the data presented in Chapter Four, both the researcher and the reader need to be cautious about understanding precisely what phenomena the data purport to reflect and what they may (or may not) reflect in actuality.

Qualitative Component

Although some theorists view qualitative research as weak because it is anecdotal and because it is typically collected through the researcher’s interaction with individuals or small groups—thereby limiting the ability of the researcher to generalize results to a larger population– other theorists and researchers contend that the data produced by qualitative research have value because they shed light on the dynamics that give rise to the numbers represented by quantitative data (Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Tashakorri & Teddlie, 1998). Also, as journalist Lisa Belkin (2003) argues, “anecdotal evidence counts when it becomes cumulative,” much like quantitative data (n.p.).

However, the researcher admits that there is a limitation worth noting with respect to the qualitative component of this particular research study, and that limitation is the potential of so-called group effect that often occurs in a focus group (Daymon & Holloway, 2002). Daymon and Holloway (2002) explain the dynamics that commonly emerge in a focus group and how they can affect the content and integrity of the data: “…one or two individuals… may dominate the discussion,” they write, “introducing bias or influencing the direction if other members are compliant. There are people who know it all, or think they do, speaking up first and not allowing others to give an opinion” (p. 199). Daymon and Holloway (2002) add that “group pressures can distort the expression of individual opinions,” resulting in the loss of individual “critical stance[s]…and conformity in thinking and convergent answers” (p. 199). For these reasons, the researcher must take such possibilities into account when analyzing qualitative data collected in this manner. Daymon and Holloway (2002) contend that one-on-one interviews can produce a greater variety of opinions, emotions, and attitudes; however, they acknowledge that interviews are not as expedient or as efficient, particularly for understanding large-scale phenomena, as the focus group.

Although group-think may indeed be a limitation—and if it is, it is difficult to determine, precisely, the impact that it has on the outcome of a study–there are some scholars who argue that “group think” may actually be unexpectedly useful to a researcher. Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002), for example, argue that the focus group model permits “researchers to observe interactions about a discussion topic, which can illuminate the way [stakeholders] collectively frame issues and construct group solidarity” (p. 107). Such a dynamic is particularly important and relevant to the present study, as the U.S. apparel industry is, to a certain degree, quite insular, and the influential members of the industry tend to shape public perceptions and attitudes based on their own observations, ideas, and beliefs. Thus, in making some projections and forecasting about the next five years in the U.S. apparel industry, the researcher must take into account the influence of the opinion-makers and industry leaders who participated in this study. Even if their opinions reflect the thoughts of the group, rather than individuals, the researcher contends that it is a persuasive and vocal group that has the power to influence public opinion and, by extension, consumer activity and public policy.

Data Analysis Plan
Although the research study was comprised of a quantitative and a qualitative methodology, the researcher will describe the data analysis plan of each phase of the study together, as the set of quantitative data can be better understood by considering the qualitative data and vice-versa. To analyze a data set that was generated using a mixed methodology, the researcher can use a variety of different approaches. For the kinds of data collected in this study, the researcher selected a parallel mixed analysis, which is also referred to as triangulation (Onwuegbuzie, 2002).

As explained in the preceding sections, the quantitative data that were collected were organized and presented in tabular format, and the qualitative data were coded for themes using a multiple rater, content analysis procedure. Both types of data were analyzed using a descriptive statistics approach. For the quantitative data, the researcher analyzed trends: Did unemployment go up, go down, or remain stable during the timeframe that was analyzed? How did import-export trends change and how were consumers reacting to larger market concerns by either buying more or less clothing during the time period examined? How did the comments of the focus group participants shed light on the trends that were identified by analysis of the numerical statistics? The answers to these questions are presented in the following chapter.