What are focus groups?
Focus group is a term often applied to a group discussion carried out for market research purposes. This may seem simple but i have found there are very different expectations of what should happen in a focus group. (This is most starkly seen by whether or not there is an expectation whether or not people should raise their hands during the group to signal what they are thinking. Once I had a quantitative colleague from another market helpfully rewrite a discussion guide for a global project so it started with people raising their hand only if they were working…). Historically there has been a difference between how focus groups are used even within the English speaking research community. Mary Goodyear famously wrote a paper dividing the attitudes into 2. One school is termed “Conative” which refers to a style or approach to qualitative market research that is interpretative and based on a humanistic approach. Its primary objective is to achieve understanding of a topic or issue in participants’ own terms. In this approach, data is collected through unstructured qualitative interviews or group discussions and is treated as requiring analysis and interpretation.
This is contrasted by Goodyear with a ‘cognitive’ style of qualitative research, most commonly seen in the USA. Mary Goodyear positioned this type of focus group as where pre-defined topics are explored, in a relatively structured or disciplined way, through face-to-face interviews or group discussions. The outputs - participant comments and expressed attitudes - are taken more or less at face value.
This is a topic that can famously split even Esomar qualitative conferences in the past. I do think now that methodologies are evolving, blending and fragmenting, that this quite simplistic division is blurring as we all grapple with the impact of social media. It is one of the interesting challenges of working across emerging markets - that both researchers and clients can span the whole spectrum. I also believe that newer online methodologies are truly enabling us to access in a key market like China or Japan, the beliefs and perceptions of participants that are not always expressed readily in a focus group environment.
What is the future for focus groups as a tool?
There has been much debate over what role focus groups should play as part of our wider qualitative toolkit. Last year Sheila Keegan reviewed the FOURTHAQR-QRCA international conference for the British Psychological Society. During the conference there was a debate on the role of focus groups. Peter Cooper and Simon Patterson, of CRAM International, launched into a debate to attack and defend the much maligned ‘focus group’.
Simon argued that focus groups are outdated, artificial, rely on participants’ unreliable memories, with naïve reportage and simplistic interpretation.We must go forth and mingle; meet consumers in the act, capture the moment of decision, not the tired old story fished out of failing memory some months later.
Peter Cooper replied that trial by ‘focus group’ has become a term of abuse, much bandied about by those who have no knowledge or experience of ‘proper’ focus group research. The group is the sacred circle, fundamental to knowledge-sharing through the ages. Ancients who huddled around the camp fire sharing knowledge are not fundamentally different from the circle of consumers in a focus group. Knowledge is created in the dynamic interaction of the group, however seemingly trivial. The present is always fed by reconstruction of the past and anticipation of the future, but it is still the ‘now’.
Caroline Hayter Whitehall, of Acacia Avenue, and Chris Forrest, of The Nursery, continued the theme of ‘focus group –friend or foe’, but in a more seemly manner. They argued for focus groups as a considered choice; tailoring the location, the number in the group, the length of time, the activities, to the research problem at hand. And they criticised the ‘sexing up’ of research, through the use of novel techniques, fashionable notions of ‘herds’ and co-creation and so-called Research 2.0 techniques. Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these research approaches, they warned against the dangers of becoming obsessed with gimmicks – toys for boys – ignoring the importance of good old fashioned analysis and thinking.
Click here for the pdf file from the British Psychological Society.
These are useful perspectives and we need both.
Practitioners of a craft are always challenged by changing tools. It is critical that we retain sufficient quality without loosing touch. I often find myself going back to some of the earlier writings by leading qualitative researchers. As we increasingly need to address busienss issues - Wendy Gordon’s comment is still pertinent:
Loved your insight!! For once someone got everything correct!! Would you mind if I put a blogroll link back to your post?