Editor's note: Judith Langer is president and Naomi Brody is vice president of Langer Associates, Inc., a New York qualitative research firm. Langer was the first president of the QRCA and serves on its board. This article is based on a presentation to the QRCA's 1999 Annual Conference.
Here's a quick quiz about focus groups. How often is it a good idea to mix these types of people in a focus group?
Men and women:
always ( ) sometimes ( ) never ( )
Different ethnic groups:
always ( ) sometimes ( ) never ( )
Young adults and "seniors":
always ( ) sometimes ( ) never ( )
Upper-level executives and clerical workers, same company:
always ( ) sometimes ( ) never ( )
People with $150,000 and $20,000 incomes:
always ( ) sometimes ( ) never ( )
The answer to all these questions, we believe, is a firm, unequivocal "sometimes" or "it depends." Let's talk first about why this matters. One of the very first questions that has to be dealt with in planning a focus group study is the composition of the sessions - who to put together with whom. It is rare that a study involves only a clear-cut, narrowly defined market target group - such as:
- middle-management types in the same industry, in a ten-year age span, all the same gender, or
- magazine readers who are parents of children under six years old, all earning about the same income (the parents, that is), and in the same ethnic group.
While clients have a target in mind, there is usually a range of businesspeople or consumers to whom they are, or would like to be, marketing their products. As a result, the question often is how wide or narrow to go in structuring the focus groups.
On one extreme, some clients believe that there must be separate sessions for different demographic groups. A client we once spoke to said they divided sessions by age, gender, occupation and marital status within each of the four regions of the U.S., ending up with 16 sessions per project. They were very surprised when we suggested this is unnecessarily complicated and expensive, and that their research issues could be easily handled in fewer groups. More typically, focus groups end up being diverse on at least some demographic variables for practical as well as research reasons. If there are separate sessions by age, for instance, the groups may be mixed ethnically and/or on income (within a range). Or the groups are divided by product usage (users vs. non-users), mixing a range of demographic groups.
Important challenge
Deciding how to divide the focus groups is an important challenge which plays a major role in the success of a study. A request for proposal we recently received stated that the client wanted one focus group conducted with consumers who use wireless communication products with this age and gender mix: four males 14-18 years old, two females 14-18, two females 19-25. Another recent RFP wanted one focus group including men and women between 15 and 25 years old. In both instances, we recommended strongly against these combinations; in the first case, we even went so far as to say we would not conduct a focus group with such a mixture (or mish-mash). On the other side, we conducted a successful focus group recently with men and women whose ages ranged from 30 to 72 years old.
For a study on arthritis, most of the focus groups had a fairly even mix of men and women. In one case, though, when 10 women and only one man showed up for the session, we decided to pay and send the man home. Around the same time, a session with eight male and two female executives talking about technology went smoothly. And, in a study of registered nurses, several sessions in which there was only one male nurse also worked well.
"Mix or match" decisions, we believe, should be based on the combination of two key factors: respondent type and the subject to be discussed.
There are instances in which it is a bad idea to put certain people together, whatever the topic. However, in a number of cases, the two factors have to be considered together. When the subject of the session is directly related to a demographic characteristic, it may be best to keep respondents separate. When the subject is shared by diverse people (an interest like the love of crafts; a problem like arthritis), without sensitive issues involved that concern their differences, then segments can readily be put together. In fact, the mixture can enrich the research. In the crafts study, respondents themselves remarked on the generational differences in their attitudes, going on to discuss the reasons.
Certain types of respondents might work beautifully together on some subjects but bomb out on other subjects. It's often hard to know in advance what will work, though, because so much depends on the chemistry among that particular group of respondents. Here's an example of a time when an apparently odd combination turned out in our favor. In an employee study for a media company, a television newscaster agreed to attend the group, to our surprise. All of the other respondents were under 35 and had worked for the company less than five years; none held high-level positions. When the newscaster, a man in his 50s, arrived 10 minutes late (the subway was stalled; he wasn't trying to make a dramatic entrance), the other respondents looked slightly startled. This situation might have made the younger, lower-level respondents clam up or defer. Thanks to his low-key style, though, the newscaster expressed his views gently without intimidating the rest of the group, serving as a valuable catalyst in bringing out their feelings.
Best judgment
All we can do, then, is use our best judgment and past experience in deciding the mix-and-match issue. One of the great values of the QRCA is that members frequently exchange views and give each other excellent advice based on their studies.
Guidelines we use in resolving the "who-goes-with-whom" issue include:
- Inter-respondent comfort. Status, hierarchy, power relationships are among the factors that affect respondent comfort. So does respect or at least tolerance. A painfully uncomfortable focus group we conducted in Manhattan, with men talking about what it's like to be a man today, included some urban gay college students and some Wall Street brokers who are married and live in the suburbs. These guys didn't approve of one another's lifestyle choices, had nothing in common, and simply could not relate to one another.
Although men and women from age 30 to 72, a more than 40-year span, can talk about cars together, it probably would be a bad idea to hold the group just mentioned with men and women 15-25, a span of just 10 years, no matter what the topic. Teens are usually inhibited in the company of adults, even young ones; adolescent girls and boys are either highly ill at ease or flirtatious.
In a number of areas, the way qualitative research is typically conducted has gone from "match" to "mix." Years ago, focus groups in the South did not mix African-Americans and whites; now, this is done routinely without problems. Years ago, some prominent researchers opposed the idea of mixing men and women, declaring that women would be deferential; now this is done routinely. Times (thank goodness) change.
- Real-life ratios. The two women in the high-tech focus group and one man in the nurses group, in the examples mentioned earlier, were comfortable because they are accustomed to unbalanced gender occupations. We were worried that the lone man who showed up for the arthritis session, however, might feel out of place surrounded by women and that they, in turn, might feel more constrained with him around. The same applies to ethnic groups: a successful session with information technology managers was very diverse ethnically, just the way the profession is.
This doesn't necessarily mean that focus group composition has to mirror the real world exactly, however. One way to increase respondent comfort, when possible, is to recruit at least two people who might otherwise feel "odd person out": at least two single women in a focus group of married women discussing home-related products, for instance; at least two people in their 20s in a focus group that consists mainly of people 40+, on any topic. Singles and younger people (as well as other demographic segments) may feel awkward when they are greatly outnumbered in a focus group, worrying that others may look down on their way of life and attitudes.
- Free expression. Will respondents speak openly in front of each other without fear of offending or being embarrassed? Affluent people may be concerned about sounding like they are showing off in front of people with very modest means when vacation spending is discussed; the lower-income people might feel embarrassed, too. Mixing income groups is usually not a problem for inexpensive items like dental floss, for instance. Younger and older women had a great time discussing their love of crafting, but they might have felt uncomfortable talking about a subject like skincare and wrinkles. Younger women don't want to insult older women about looking old, and older women don't want to draw attention to their aging concerns. Although racially mixed sessions are typical today on a wide variety of topics, there are, of course, some racially-charged subjects on which this would be undesirable because one or both segments would feel inhibited. If, on the other side, the study touches on a sensitive area only tangentially, the ethnic groups might be mixed for budget reasons without sacrificing much information.
- Research clarity. Sometimes the "mix or match" question concerns the respondent/observer rather than respondent/respondent relationship. It can help researchers and clients to see different types of respondents separately. It may be useful to divide sessions by age, for instance, just so we can more easily keep track of the differences - or, perhaps, learn that there really aren't major differences after all.
Experience helps
Mix or match - or mismatch? While there are not as many hard-and-fast rules as we would wish for simplicity's sake, past research studies and real-world experience can be helpful guidelines in deciding the "who-fits-with-whom" issue that is so important for a successful qualitative research project.