FOCUS GROUPS I214 March 31, 2010

What are they NOT group interviews Focused discussions, small group, physically co-present Used a lot in market research

What are they most useful for in-depth understanding – WHY Speculation (what you would like?) reaction to proposals, ideas, prototypes Can show them designs, have them try out prototypes group synergy

Participants Number: 5 to 9 Qualities of participants Outspoken enough (but not dominating) Homogeneous group, but heterogeneous views Beware of power relations For multiple types of participants need multiple groups

Recruitment People who have some tie to the service/system/product, producer, user – participants, users, members of an organization, people you know... Commercial focus group companies recruit for you From a general-purpose pool Craigslist Who ARE these people who are recruiting? Who are the respondents?

Logistics 1- to 1 1/2 hours (ask people to be there for 2 hours – need some slack before/after) Round table, chairs in circle Comfortable room, good sightlines, acoustics Food and drink (with care – they have to be able to talk) Videotape and/or note-taker (audio: too hard to figure out who’s talking)

Moderator – who? Someone not connected with the topic/organization BUT need to understand the topic well enough to orchestrate the discussion Good interpersonal skills: good at listening and synthesizing, at neutral questioning Non-threatening to participants Use 2 people if possible – one to guide, one to take notes and listen 3 people: one behind a video camera

Moderator’s role Content: Group process Introduce topics, questions Encourage discussion Move them on to new topics/responses, so they don’t dwell on something to exclusion of all else E.g. paraphrase discussion so far and then encourage new topics Bring out a variety of viewpoints Group process Encourage them to talk with one another not you Ensure safety Bring in people who aren’t speaking Reduce influence of people who dominate Keep discussion on track w/o stifling Allow silence Avoid premature closure

Caveats Be clear on whether you want: Opinions, reactions? Reports on actual actiity? Conjectures, forecasts of what they would do? They can address only what they can and will articulate Theirs may be the response in the moment – which may change over time Strong personalities are a hazard Groupthink

“Focus groups were used to draw out anecdotes and stories from villagers about how the telephone has brought improvements to their lives. Most often, these groups consisted of female Grameen Bank borrowers. Meetings were facilitated by a female interviewer in order to encourage more input from the women. Focus group facilitators kept track of the most interesting stories, and the team would take individual focus group members aside to have them tell their stories on videotape.” http://www.telecommons.com/villagephone/method.html

Guiding the discussion Know your objectives Don’t try to do too much – 2-4 major topics Have an outline of how you want to proceed BUT be flexible if need be – or rein in the discussion Stick to the time limit – 1 to 1 ½ hours

Challenges Need skilled facilitator Costly to schedule groups Hard to do! Anything you say has effect; vs methods where all you have to do is be quiet Costly to schedule groups Can be a logistical nightmare Sometimes people feel like they have to say something – talk about features haven’t tried, things they don’t really have an opinion about Groupthink

Criticisms of focus groups Participants not representative Dominated by few people or topics Participants influence one another Limited to what people can talk about May not represent people’s true opinions

On-line focus groups: technology Most often: web-based conferencing software Special-purpose technology

http://www.e-focusgroups.com/efg-respondent-view.gif

On-line focus groups - Synchronous Methods Real time, synchronous conferencing – appprox. 90 minutes Asynchronous conferencing over several days (or weeks) Benefits: Distant participants or otherwise hard to reach (e.g., ill, disabled, housebound) Convenient for participants Immediate transcript Easy to monitor (by anyone) Works for people for whom f2f is difficult: English as a 2nd language Hearing impaired Slower to think and articulate thoughts Difficulties Easy for people to not participate, multi-task, not take it seriously Typing vs talking The usual chat room problem of lag in responses, losing the thread Cannot easily include people without computer and literacy skills Lack of nonverbal signals

On-line focus groups - Asynchronous Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology. Purpose: to describe and evaluate the methodology of online focus group discussions within the setting of paediatric oncology. METHODS: separate moderated asynchronous online discussion groups with 7 paediatric cancer patients (aged 8-17), 11 parents, and 18 survivors of childhood cancer (aged 8-17 at diagnosis). RESULTS: All three participant groups could be actively engaged over a one-week period. Respondents highly valued the flexibility and convenience of logging in at their own time and place to join the discussion. Adolescent patients and survivors emphasized that the anonymity experienced made them feel comfortable to express their views in detail. The findings indicate a strong preference for online group discussions across all participant groups. CONCLUSION…may offer new opportunities to collect data in other hard-to-include populations…an opportunity to articulate their experiences and views in a way they might not have done in a traditional group discussion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pcj7QT0Abk8