Views from the Hills by R. E. Stevens, GENESIS II (The Second Beginning) E-Mail views@aol.com

Focus Groups and Other Options

I was recently asked how I felt about Focus Groups. My response was that I thought Focus Groups were one of the three most over-used and abused research protocols.

I have, and continue to use Focus Groups, but for their intended purpose. That is, for exploratory research and not for definitive judgment. Actually, I believe that you should come away from Focus Group sessions with more hypotheses, questions and options, than before the sessions. Focus Groups are an expansion and not a reduction technique.

Too often you will hear someone in the back room say, "It's a 9:1 win and that's significant." My response is, "No, it is at best a 1:0." I do not look at a group session as being made up of individual responses or positions. These are in no way independent judgments. We arrive at a consensus among a group of biased individuals (biased as a result of synergism). Further, the participants are made up of a very select group of individuals in an atypical environment.

The group of attendees are usually drawn from a panel or list which when created had a refusal rate of approximately 90%. When members of this list are called to participate in a Focus Group session, the refusal rate for the session will be about 65%, resulting in a very low representation of the larger population. The motivation for attending is usually the honorarium ($). The position we put the respondents in often results in role playing (not necessarily the constructive kind). In the Focus Group environment, the "Motherhood, God and County" syndrome usually prevails.

After what may appear to be a "knocking" of the technique, let me describe what I believe to be the purpose of a Focus Group. The technique is a qualitative method for establishing motivations, attitudes, feelings, and prejudices among a select group of participants. It is an efficient way to reach information which is vague, forgotten, difficult to articulate or embarrassing. The strength of the technique lies in the establishment of interaction between panelists which then often leads to creative ideas and hypotheses. However, it should never be a means to an end, but a starting point for further exploration and validation.

Two other qualitative techniques I have used in place of Focus Groups are In-Home Group Discussions and In-Depth One-on-Ones. The In-Home Group Discussion was a technique widely used in P&G that I found very appealing. It is very similar to a Focus Group in that the research team meets with six to ten respondents in a group setting. The respondents know one another, thereby reducing the role playing usually encountered in a normal Focus Group environment. The most intriguing factor is cost. While a Focus Group session will cost about $3,000, an In-Home Group Discussion will usually cost about $125.

In future Views, I will write more on both the In-Home Group Discussion technique as well as In-Depth One-on-Ones.


[Back][Index][Forward]