Why use Focus Groups?
Focus groups provide qualitative data that helps answers questions such as ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘who’. They can be used as the basis for gathering more rigorous data on particular subjects, or to enrich, broaden or contextualise existing data. For example, Focus Groups are particularly useful in exploring the meanings of survey findings that cannot be explained statistically. Focus groups also provide valuable opportunities to observe discussions and to gain insights into behaviours, attitudes, language, feelings etc. of a particular group.
Advantages
Focus Groups are relatively quick and easy. They usually stimulate rich responses that you might not get from one-to-one interviews. They may take less staff time than in-depth in-person interviews. They provide flexibility to make changes in process and questions. They allow us to explore different perspectives.
Challenges
Analysis of data can be time consuming. Focus Group participants might not be representative of the group (see MEL Guidance Sheet on Sampling). There is a risk of bias in interpreting the data, and the risk of the group being influenced by the facilitator or dominant members of the group.
When to use Focus Groups?
Focus groups can be useful at any stage of the programme cycle. For example:
· Contributing to a better understand the setting in which you are working, including local terminology;
· Forming part of a needs assessment;
· Supporting the formulation of a programme’s ‘theory of change’ during the planning stage – or helping to confirm (or refute) an existing ‘theory of change’;
· Helping to assess initial reactions among particular groups to either planned or existing programme activities.
· Discovering more about programme outcomes, such as how participants have used what they gained, what barriers they faced, or what changes they would make in the programme.
· Contributing to monitoring studies and formative evaluations
· Exploring impacts on relevant groups.
Who should participate?
Focus Groups are typically small, usually between 6-12 people. In a larger group, there is a danger that:
- Speaking time will be restricted and dominant people will speak most
- The facilitator will have to play more of a controlling role
- Some members of the group will become frustrated if they cannot speak
- Participants will start talking to one another rather than to the group as a while
- The group may stop focusing and start talking about something else
Participants should have certain characteristics in common that relates to the topic of the focus group. They may share a particular problem, or be unable to speak up at larger meetings (eg. younger people, women, or minority groups), or are people only peripherally involved in the community, such as nomads. This will help facilitate group interaction – notable differences between individuals can result in hostility or withdrawal by those who are lower on those dimensions.
What do you need?
1. Shared understanding and agreement about the purpose of the discussion
2. Comfortable, safe surroundings where the group will not be overheard or interrupted
3. An experienced facilitator: a native speaker who can lead, draw out the people who are not talking, and stop others from talking too much
4. One, sometimes two, people to note in writing what is said
5. A common language
6. Ground rules, for example: everyone has a right to speak; no one has the right answer; please don’t interrupt
7. Permission from the group to take notes (or maybe use a tape recorder)
8. About one to one-and-a-half hours and some refreshments
What Happens?
· The facilitator makes sure everyone has a chance to speak and that the discussion stays focused
· The note-taker writes notes
· At the end of the session, the facilitator gives a brief summing up of what has been said in case someone has something to add
· The facilitator checks that the written record has captured the main points and reflected the level of participants’ involvement in the discussion.
Traditional focus groups
In traditional focus groups, a screened (qualified) group of respondents gathers in the same room. They are screened to ensure that they are part of the relevant target market and that the group is a representative subgroup of this market segment. There are usually 6 to 10 members in the group, and the session usually lasts for 1 to 2 hours. A moderator guides the group through a discussion that probes attitudes about a client's proposed products or services. The discussion is loosely structured, and the moderator encourages the free flow of ideas. The moderator is typically given a list of objectives or an anticipated outline. He/she will generally have only a few specific questions prepared prior to the focus group. These questions will serve to initiate open-ended discussions. Client representatives observe the discussion from behind a one-way mirror. Participants cannot see out, but the researchers and their clients can see in. Usually, a video camera records the meeting so that it can be seen by others who were not able to travel to the site. Transcripts can be created from the video tape. If the participants speak a different language than the clients, a simultaneous interpreter may be used. Researchers examine more than the spoken words. They also try to interpret facial expressions, body language, and group dynamics. Moderators may use straight questioning or various projective techniques, including fixed or free association, story-telling and role-playing. Focus groups are often used to garner reaction to specific stimuli such as concepts, prototypes and advertising. It is often suggested that respondents feel group pressure to conform and this can contaminate the results. Others hold that by using trained and experienced moderators who appropriately manage the discussion, this potential problem can be mitigated. Further, despite the potential for groupthink, marketers and sociologists find that group dynamics are useful in developing new streams of thought and covering an issue thoroughly.
Types of focus groups
Variants of focus groups include:
- Two-way focus group - one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusions
- Dual moderator focus group - one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered
- Dueling moderator focus group - two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion
- Respondent moderator focus group - one or more of the respondents are asked to act as the moderator temporarily
- Client participant focus groups - one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly
- Mini focus groups - groups are comprised of 4 or 5 members rather than 8 to 12
- Teleconference focus groups - telephone network is used
- Online focus groups - computers and internet network is used
Traditional focus groups can provide accurate information, and are less expensive than other forms of traditional marketing research. There can be significant costs however : if a product is to be marketed on a nationwide basis, it would be critical to gather respondents from various locales throughout the country since attitudes about a new product may vary due to geographical considerations. This would require a considerable expenditure in travel and lodging expenses. Additionally, the site of a traditional focus group may or may not be in a locale convenient to a specific client, so client representatives may have to incur travel and lodging expenses as well.
The use of focus groups has steadily evolved over time and is becoming increasingly more widespread.
Online focus groups
With the advent of large scale computer networks, such as the Internet, it is now possible to link respondents electronically. Respondents share images, data, and their responses on their computer screens. This avoids a significant amount of travel expenses. It allows respondents from all over the world to gather, electronically, while avoiding countless logistical headaches. Like in-person focus groups, online groups are usually limited to 8-10 participants.
Such a system eliminates the logistical headaches and travel expenses associated with conducting focus groups. Many platforms even allow for a 'back room', so that clients can observe and talk among each other and with the moderator as the group proceeds, just like in-person focus groups, even though they are physically apart from the moderator. In this way, questions can be added in real time to further probe a particular response. Such a system prohibits participation on the different chat discussions based on the class of the participant (moderator, observer, participant).
In addition to the savings on travel, online focus groups often can be accomplished faster than traditional groups because respondents are recruited from online panel members who are often qualified to match research criteria.
Problems and criticism
However, focus groups also have disadvantages: The researcher has less control over a group than a one-on-one interview, and thus time can be lost on issues irrelevant to the topic; the data are tough to analyze because the talking is in reaction to the comments of other group members; observers/ moderators need to be highly trained, and groups are quite variable and can be tough to get together. (Ibid.) Moreover, the number of members of a focus group is not large enough to be a representative sample of a population; thus, the data obtained from the groups is not necessarily representative of the whole population, unlike in opinion polls. A fundamental difficulty with focus groups (and other forms of qualitative research) is the issue of observer dependency: the results obtained are influenced by the researcher, raising questions of validity. The issue evokes associations with Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle. As Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Indeed, the design of the focus group study (e.g. respondent selection, the questions asked, how they are phrased, how they are posed, in what setting, by whom, and so on) affects the answers obtained from respondents. In focus groups, researchers are not detached observers but always participants. Researchers must take this into account when making their analysis (Based on: Tjaco H. Walvis (2003), “Avoiding advertising research disaster: Advertising and the uncertainty principle”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 403-409). Douglas Rushkoff[1] argues that focus groups are often useless, and frequently cause more trouble than they are intended to solve, with focus groups often aiming to please rather than offering their own opinions or evaluations, and with data often cherry picked to support a forgone conclusion. Rushkoff cites the disastrous introduction of New Coke in the 1980s as a vivid example of focus group analysis gone bad.
