The Complexity of Contexts & Truths in the Focus Group Discussion

I find myself often thinking and writing about qualitative research design because, well, there is a lot to think and write about.  While there is a multitude of books, articles, experimentation, debates, and forums on the efficacy of various quantitative approaches and techniques, there is very little on qualitative design in the marketing research world.  This partially stems from the fact that there are many qualitative researchers who shun the idea of design issues, resting their case on the notion that a focus group discussion is simply an informal gathering of people where any “tool” that elicits a response is good and where design principles have no place.

Until marketing researchers (and their clients) are willing to address the implications of their qualitative designs, it is left to others to delve into these pesky issues.  Jocelyn A. Hollander, a sociologist from the University of Oregon, is one such person.  Dr. Hollander published an article in the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography in 2004 titled, “The Social Contexts of Focus Groups” where she argues that the focus group environment presents a complex interaction of situations that shape the “truths” we hear from participants.  She goes on to say that participants do not harbor one single truth to a discussion topic but instead respond with only the truths that develop from the contexts (the complex group environment) the participant finds him/herself in.  These contexts can arise from demographics (e.g., the gender, age, and racial makeup of the group), associations (e.g., the relationship of group participants to one another), and conversation (e.g., the person who first responds to a moderator’s question).  These within-group contexts create demands on participants that ultimately impact the discussion outcome.  According to Dr. Hollander, group participants’ “responses are being shaped by the context, composition, and facilitation of the group” and that participants strategically select “the narratives from amongst the multiple possibilities to fit the perceived demand of the situation.”  So the moderator might ask, ‘What truth am I hearing now, or is it a truth at all?’

The impact of contexts and the idea of multiple truths paint the picture of focus group participants as not “uncomplicated information storage facilities” but rather “contradictory mosaics” deserving greater considerations in our qualitative designs and analyses.  Dr. Hollander asserts that we need “a more nuanced understanding of the contexts of focus groups” including more emphasis on the composition of our groups and a willingness to include a discussion of group dynamics – e.g., the order in which participants responded, the association of one group member to another – in our written reports.  By understanding and analyzing the “interactional forces” of the group situation, we can more clearly appreciate how our participants are sharing truths, withholding other truths, or manufacturing new truths for our (and their) benefit.

Within the current flood of discussions on techno-centric “innovations” in research design, it is unlikely that the qualitative researcher will divert attention to study the complex social microcosm of the focus group or other qualitative design issues.  But maybe there will be a time when marketing researchers will stop standing on the periphery grasping at the latest gadget for their bottomless toolbox and turn their efforts on finding the truth in their designs.  One can hope.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s