The major advantage of the focus group over questionnaires and structured interviews is that it reveals what is on the respondents mind and not the researchers (Bryman, 1988). The respondents are able to talk in their own terms about issues that are of central significance to them rather than responding to predetermined, closed ended questions presumed important by the interviewer. In the latter, the respondent is limited by the choices offered and therefore findings could be unintentionally influenced by the researchers oversight or omission. Direction in interviews is also largely incompatible with eliciting unanticipated responses. Rice comments; "A defect of interviews for purposes of fact-finding in social science is that the questioner takes the lead. That is, the subject plays a more or less passive role. Information or points of view of the highest value may not be disclosed. In short, data obtained from an interviewer are as likely to embody preconceived ideas of the interviewer as attitudes of the subject interviewed" (Rice, 1931). By contrast, non-directive procedures like focus groups begin with limited assumptions and place considerable emphasis on getting in tone with the reality of the respondents. .
Another fundamental advantage of focus groups is that it is possible to observe the dynamics of group interaction (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). One can get into peoples subculture and observe the process of the construction of reality and how views emerge. This is very difficult to achieve in the depth interview. In a group setting people may be creative and can entertain new ideas that they would not normally entertain on their own. Inhibitions are relaxed and people open up in a way which is seldom seen in one-to-one interviews (Jarrett, 1993; Knodel et al, 1987). As participants answer questions, the responses spark new ideas or connections from other participants. Yovovich notes; "Interaction among respondents stimulates new ideas and thoughts.
