Editor's note: Gavin Johnston is chief anthropologist for Two West, a Kansas City, Mo., design firm. This article appeared in the December 22, 2009, edition of Quirk's e-newsletter.
One problem that hinders the success and popularity of traditional focus groups is that they've become a fixture in the minds of consumers. They have clear cognitive models of what to do when they're part of focus groups, so responses can become canned and sterile. By changing the format of the focus group and drawing on an anthropological understanding of how human beings are hardwired to interact best, qualitative researchers may be able to reenergize participants. Employing a two-room focus group approach can provide a different atmosphere, staging and set of processes to put respondents into a more engaged, more creative state of mind.
Natural setting
Setting up the location is pivotal to the success of this research format. Rather than relying on a conference table and a two-way mirror, the goal is to produce a more natural setting to strike a balance between a living space and a professional space. The idea is to understand space in the holistic sense, as well as the cultural association we place upon space. It is the study of how an environment, at the interactive and interpretive level, is bestowed with meaning by people in daily life. When all these pieces are put together, the environment signals both a sense of inclusion and exploration that is lacking in traditional focus group settings. The two-room process uses one room for pre-discussion and another for the majority of the session.
In both rooms, furniture should be soft and result in collective interaction, meaning a mix of sofas and chairs. Traditionally, sofas are avoided in focus groups because the assumption is that having to sit on one infringes on personal space, making participants uncomfortable, but considering that the intention is to disrupt preconceived notions of what takes place in a focus group, participants typically become comfortable quickly. The psychological frame of what they are "supposed" to do breaks down, and they subconsciously see it as a chance to open up. This also means that the setting can take on a personality because of the cultural archetypes we possess about a given spatial frame. For example, the living-room archetype has specific elements of light; furniture and furniture placement; color; and wall decoration that signal the space is a living-room. Floor lamps should dominate the room (not overhead lighting), and colors should reflect a home-like atmosphere. These spatial cues are very different from what we expect in a boardroom setting, which is closer to what most focus group settings approximate.
Of course, this setting also impacts the size of the sample. The traditional method is to gather anywhere from eight to 12 participants. Changing the structure to a more conversational dynamic means reducing the sample to between six and eight participants per session. While the larger sample certainly puts more bodies in a room, it doesn't guarantee an increase in discussion or viewpoints if the dynamic is not conducive to conversation.
Part 1: The discussion before the discussion
Before the primary conversation begins, set the mood and get people relaxed with a brief pre-discussion, preferably around a meal. This is not just courtesy. Human beings are hardwired to respond to the act of sharing a meal. From our earliest ancestors, the act of sharing food has been a central component in establishing interactions that break down barriers to open discussion and collaboration of thoughts. In every society, gathering around food signals trust and intimacy, promoting honest, open interactions with each other. Beginning the focus group around a substantial meal (not simply snacks), people are more apt to talk freely. This is also a good time to start informally discussing the main topic of the evening. As an example of how this works, imagine conducting a traditional focus group with hospital employees. More often than not, issues of power run as an undercurrent and lower-level employees defer to doctors, even when the participants do not work in the same medical facility. The hierarchy that is present in the medical world is carried over to the group. With the introduction of food, especially if the cooking takes place with the participants present (or helping in the preparation), the dynamic invariably shifts and the rules of hierarchy become less relevant. Personnel become more willing to discuss the inner workings of the clinical setting from their vantage points because the shared setting of the meal has strong cultural implications of egalitarianism and diminished states of power. In addition to the conversation being more open at the table, the reactions afterward (be it a maintained camaraderie or a return to interactions dominated by rules of the hospital hierarchy) are points of data and tell the researcher volumes about how a topic is conceptualized in different contexts.
Introductions, personal stories and an overview of the discussion should be emphasized during this phase. It's okay if topics come up that will be revisited during the main discussion, but the moderator should redirect the conversation so that not all the information is revealed early on. Allowing the participants to start talking primes them to provide more expansive, clear and detailed responses during the main discussion.
During this initial phase, no camera is used because the goal is to get participants into a relaxed, conversational state of mind. By eliminating the camera, there is no threat of performance, and participants become comfortable with each other and the moderator. Since valuable information will no doubt begin to emerge at this stage, and since no camera is recording the event, it is imperative that the facilitator be a skilled note-taker. Because of the modern reliance on technology for capturing data, we often overlook the importance of this skill, but there are some added advantages to this method. It allows us to capture our own interpretations and thoughts as part of the group for later analysis. We often forget that at the end of the day, we are the instruments through which information is processed, and our reactions and thoughts are part of the analytical process. By relying on notes, as well as the camera, we can begin to account for our own biases, modes of group interaction and aspects of body language and power that might be overlooked when reviewing a tape.
Part 2: The main event
In the primary discussion area, changing the setting will alter how information is captured and relayed to the clients. There are no hidden cameras and no two-way mirrors. Cameras are set up in unobtrusive locations and addressed openly when the group comes together. Information is then broadcast to the clients/viewers. Once again, the reason is to be intentionally disruptive to the mental model people have about focus groups. The disruption is interpreted as an expression of honesty and the camera is quickly forgotten. The truth is that participants in traditional focus groups are already aware of and performing for the camera, even if they can't see it. If nothing else, the mirror is a constant reminder they are being watched.
Facilitation is done using a dual-moderator method, where one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered. In addition to ensuring all the material is covered and questions addressed, the dual-moderator process helps maintain the conversational tone by shifting the power of the group. Rather than a single person leading and everyone following, the second moderator (seated among the participants) redirects the exchange of information.
Part 3: The follow-up
The final step is to close the session. Once a typical focus group is over, there is usually a bit of time where some participants linger and offer bits of information they felt weren't expressed clearly or share stories with others. In this model, participants are actively encouraged to spend 20 minutes or so talking with the moderators with the cameras off. The end of a focus group represents an opportunity that is all too frequently overlooked. Keeping the participants for a post-discussion phase often captures pieces of information that go unspoken or unarticulated during the main discussion.
Open up and give real answers
Changing the structure of the focus group can be uncomfortable for both those moderating and those watching it. It appears much less structured than traditional methods because the focus is getting the target audience to open up and give real answers, not perform for the camera. Remember, the goal is to put participants in a state of mind where they feel in control, instead of simply telling the moderators what they want to hear. Changing the format to a more relaxed, expansive session means worrying less about data and more about generating creative thinking and new ideas. Give yourself license to think broadly!