An Alternative to Focused Groups

        An Alternative to Focused Groups:
            Avoiding Methodological Tunnel Vision
                               by
                              Richard S. Dorr

                 An Article Appearing in
                     Viewpoints-The Journal for Data Collection
                     Published by the Marketing Research Association
                     July, 1981

The Tunnel
One of the most stimulating sessions at the 1980 (Atlanta) National Conference of the MRA was called "New Research Techniques: Their Impact on Marketing Research." We listened in fascination as we heard how scanners, physiological techniques, television interviewing, and other innovations have added new and important dimensions to data collection.

The presentations clearly supported a need for continual improvement of research methodology if our industry is to maintain or enhance its stature in a swiftly changing business world. At the same time, there are some disquieting undercurrents in the present direction of research technology. It seems to be increasingly aimed at reemphasizing the importance of verbal interaction between researchers and respondents.

Has the process of direct communication between humans deteriorated to the point that it has decreasing applicability to research? Should neophyte marketing researchers be led to believe that the path to career success lies in developing better ways to avoid reliance on what respondents say? Must interviewers reconcile themselves to assuming the role of electronic technicians, who may even face total extinction as computers' conversational capabilities are perfected?

This article is a plea for more balance in our collective "state-of-the-art" developments in research methodology. We should place as much emphasis on enhancing the validity of researcher--respondent interaction as on methods that avoid or minimize such interaction. In the evolution of methodology, it is essential to maintain diversity. Researchers need to avoid the trap of selecting a technique because it is the only alternative or because it is a fad, rather than selecting a method because it satisfies research objectives.

A Possible Contributor to the Problems
The need to maintain diversity in the development of our methodological technology should not be interpreted as a simple entreaty for more qualitative research. The importance of verbal exchange permeates the entire qualitative-quantitative spectrum. In fact, it may be that the many criticisms of focused groups-a popular method depending heavily on verbal interaction-have contributed to a growing suspicion of direct respondent feedback in research. Consider the following concerns:

• The difficulty of enticing certain groups of people (e.g. the busiest executives or the most affluent homeowners) to participate in group sessions
• The lack of candor in group settings, particularly those involving sensitive or status-related topics
• The dominant respondent who seriously disrupts or biases the conversation
• Unqualified respondents who slip through the screening process
• The possibility that group members will try to say the "right thing" in ways that elude detection by the moderator
• The disparity of personalities in the group, making it difficult for the moderator to "strike a norm" in developing rapport, pacing the session, detecting insincerity or inconsistencies, etc.
• The problem of order bias when stimuli such as advertisements are presented to the group (only partly solved by written exercises)
• The unavoidable subjectivity of the moderator and analyst

In short, focused group interviews are heavily dependent on obtaining verbal feedback from participants. There are many reasons to question the validity of focused group interviews. It may follow for some researchers that there is every reason to question the value of any method that depends on direct verbal feedback from respondents.

Developing a New Perspective
It is suggested here that marketing researchers should make every effort to reestablish a concern for the importance of researcher-respondent interaction. If there is a movement toward circumventing this relationship in developing new research technology, the movement should be reevaluated.

An important step may be to curtail the widespread perception of focused groups as the only important method leaning upon nothing but conversation between those seeking information and those providing it. More specifically, one-on-one unstructured interviews (utilizing a topic guide rather than a structured questionnaire) may have broader applications and fewer complications than groups.

For many marketing research objectives, unstructured one-on-one interviews may be administered in much less time than the old term "depth interviews" might suggest-often as little as twenty minutes. Consequently, an alternate description is offered: "intensive interviews," implying that the researcher covers the necessary subject matter within a relatively short period.

The "art" of being a good intensive interviewer includes being able to elicit a maximum of feedback efficiently, but without making the respondent feel hurried. This need not be a difficult task, as more and more marketing researchers are discovering.

The nature of the one-on-one dialogue eliminates many of the problems associated with groups and is dependent mainly on the quality of the discourse, rather than on the dynamics of the environment. With intensive interviewing, there is little entertainment value to impress the client, and no opportunity for researcher or respondent to "take a mental vacation" while others carry the "conversational ball." Both parties focus on a topic and on learning how to communicate better with each other.

Obviously, the skill of the intensive interviewer is critical. Telephone intensive interviewing (gaining in popularity, particularly in executive interviews) places an even greater premium on the communication ability of the researcher, who receives no visual "cues" from the respondent.

Conclusion
Many researchers seem to be favoring methods that produce findings based on something other than the substance of respondent comments. While there are obvious applications for such methods, it is important not to overlook the value of direct respondent communication in research. Moreover, it is crucial that researchers strive to improve the quality of direct respondent communication, rather than simply finding ways to make the communication less necessary.

It is possible that the disenchantment of many researchers with focused groups has convinced them that all methods relying heavily on verbal input from respondents are of minimal validity. As one of what may be many steps in attempting to reorient researchers toward a blend of communication and technology in methodology, it is suggested that the research community consider the acceptance of unstructured, one-on one interviews.
This type of unstructured, one-on-on interviewing, which might be called "intensive interviewing" because it can be administered in a very time-efficient manner, places a strong emphasis on the quality of communication between researcher and respondent. An increased use of intensive interviewing, which has fewer inherent biases than focused groups and need cost no more, would serve to remind practitioners of qualitative and quantitative research that direct human communication is at the heart of good research and cannot be ignored.