Facilitating Focus Groups

Facilitated and written by: Andrew Rixon PhD Illustrations by Simon Kneebone

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Contents Our philosophy on learning facilitation ...................................................................................................3 History of Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................................4 Styles of Focus Groups ............................................................................................................................5 What are the key elements of a focus group? ........................................................................................7 Common uses for Focus Groups .............................................................................................................8 Common Design steps for Focus Groups ................................................................................................9 Uncommon Design steps for Focus Groups ..........................................................................................10 On Questions .........................................................................................................................................13 Types of Questions ............................................................................................................................13 Strategies for Questioning.................................................................................................................14 Making sense of the Data......................................................................................................................15 On Validity and Rigour...........................................................................................................................16 Convergent Interviewing and the Dialectic Data Engine.......................................................................17 Focussed Conversations through ORID .................................................................................................18 Facilitator Hot Spots and Tricky Bits......................................................................................................19 General Notes........................................................................................................................................21 About the Author ..................................................................................................................................23

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Our philosophy on learning facilitation Appearing in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book “A Brief History of Time” there is the story of: “A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" Similarly, the common solar system model for learning the skills of facilitation is that there are skills, which are informed by theories which are impacted in-the-moment by the values that you as a facilitator have. In a somewhat counter view we believe that there are skills and models which inform the learning, doing and being of facilitation and that these skills and models go all the way down….

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

History of Focus Groups There have been three main areas of historical contribution to how Focus Groups are conducted. 1. Sociology and Social Psychology Here the focus is on the individual rather than the group as a unit of analysis. The sociological and social psychology perspectives have seen focus groups used to explore group behaviour topics such as decision making, leadership, social power and productivity. An uptake of focus group research was seen around exploring the effectiveness and persuasiveness of a particular communication, and in particular this saw a branch of work emerging within the radio research and broadcasting industry. 2. Clinical Psychology Here the emphasis is on interactive group discussions and activities. Saw examples as early as Jacob Moreno in the 1930’s, with his psychodrama and play therapy. Generally uses more indirect ways of asking questions. The interactions among participants in clinicial group therapy facilitates individuals’ treatment processes 3. Marketing Research The successful use of focus groups in evaluating the WWII morale and training films chartered by Robert Merton were widely picked up by industry. Examples saw the use of focus groups to explore the design of products and services as well as obtaining consumers’ perceptions of prices, brands etc. The application of focus groups to marketing research appears widely and well known. For further reading see: Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., and Rook, D. (2007). Focus Groups- Theory and Practice 2nd Edition. Sage Publications.

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Styles of Focus Groups Based on the history of focus groups, a tension can be identified as to the different styles of conducting focus groups.

What style do you naturally gravitate towards? What style would be a stretch for you?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

What would be the advantages and disadvantages with the: A. Sociological/Social Psychological style?

B. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapeutic style?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

What are the key elements of a focus group? 1. Focus groups have a focus 2.

Group Interactions: Use of group rather than individuals to allow observations of how and why individuals accept or reject other’s ideas etc.

3. In-Depth Data Incremental answers that go beyond the level of surface explanation. There has been a suggestion of decline in ‘in-depth data’ from focus groups probably because: a. A tendency to include too many questions b. A tendency to use exclusively direct questions and verbal responses to them. In contradiction to the findings of recent neuroscientific research that concludes the vast majority of human thought is visual, metaphorical and emotional, and resides deeply in neurological substrata. Access to these mental zones typically requires more subtle, indirect approaches to asking questions, and it suggests and validates the value of using non-verbal techniques that involve visualisations or role-playing (see Zaltman 2003). 4. Humanistic Interview: Emphasis on meaning as opposed to measurement

For futher reading see: Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Krueger, R. (1998). Moderating Focus Groups-Focus Group Kit 4. Sage Publications.

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Common uses for Focus Groups Some of the common uses for focus groups include but are not limited to: 1. Obtaining general information about a topic of interest 2. Stimulating new ideas and creative concepts 3. Diagnosing the potential for problems with a new program, service or product 4. Interpreting previously obtained quantitative/qualitative results 5. Learning how respondents talk about a topic of interest 6. Generating impressions of products, programs, services, institutions or other objects of interest

What are some specific application areas you’re looking to apply Focus Groups too?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Common Design steps for Focus Groups The most commonly known steps in the design of focus groups are: 1. Problem definition / Formulation of the research question 2. Identification of sampling frame – Preparation of the invitation 3. Designing the interview guide 4. Conducting the focus group 5. Next steps including analysis, interpretation, report writing, decision making and action

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Uncommon Design steps for Focus Groups Based on our experience, here are three areas of tension that can impact the design and facilitation of focus groups.

Based on your current experience and facilitation style, what choices in design (and action) do you tend to make? How would you decide on adaptation based on the group, project and client?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

What relationships are there between the three ‘slider-bars’ of “facilitating the group dynamic”, “content and focus” and “questioning” ?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Chris Argyris has discussed the notion of Espoused theory versus Theory in action. That is, the difference between what people say they do and what they actually do. How can we be mindful of this gap in the design of focus groups?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

On Questions Types of Questions There are many different types of questions: 1. Leading Questions: Moving toward deeper meaning and discussion 2. Testing Questions: Testing the limits of a concept or statement 3. Steering Questions: Moving the direction of a discussion 4. Obtuse Questions: Allowing a slight change in direction by backing the discussion off by 1 level of abstraction 5. “Feel” Questions: Touching on how people feel and their emotional responses and interpretations 6. Anonymous Questions: Getting a group talking. About anything. (Eg. Picking a card and then inviting participants to talk about it) 7. Silence: Often it is simple silence which is most revealing

What other types of questions can you think of?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Strategies for Questioning Here are three strategies for Questioning. A. The Funnel Approach – Begin broad and become narrow : Strength- Gives time to warm participants up for the specifics B. The Inverted Funnel Approach – Begin narrow and become broad: Strength- Motivates participants to talk more freely C. The Quintamensional Design Approach (Gallup 1947). This is a 5 step approach with questions designed to elicit: 1. The degree of awareness 2. Uninfluenced attitudes 3. Specific attitudes 4. Reasons for these attitudes 5. Intensity of these attitudes

What other strategies can you think of?

For further reading see: Strachan, D. (2007). Making Questions Work- A Guide to How and What to Ask for Facilitators, Consultants, Managers, Coaches, and Educators. Jossey-Bass.

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Making sense of the Data After having worked through all the elements of designing the focus group, and then running the focus group, there is the final element of ‘making sense of the data’. This could see the focus group outcomes being written up in a report, or further analysis to get to decision making and actioning. Here are some common approaches to making sense of the data: 1. Issue Order – Looking at the occurrence of issues elicited within the focus group 2. Issue Absence – What issues weren’t brought up? Why? 3. Time spent on an issue 4. Intensity of expression 5. Participatory Analysis – Running another focus group with the purpose being to ‘analyse’ and ‘make sense of the data’

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

On Validity and Rigour Drawn from Bob Dick’s exploration of validity: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/sofsys2.html Most conventional research methods gain their rigour by control, standardisation, objectivity, and the use of numerical and statistical procedures. This sacrifices flexibility during a given experiment -if you change the procedure in mid-stream you don't know what you are doing to the odds that your results occurred by chance. In action research, standardisation defeats the purpose. The virtue of action research is its responsiveness. It is what allows you to turn unpromising beginnings into effective endings. It is what allows you to improve both action and research outcomes through a process of iteration. As in many numerical procedures, repeated cycles allow you to converge on an appropriate conclusion. The validity of any assertions that experimental science makes depends on evidence and arguments that support the universality of its results. This is usually done by reducing the variables which they study to those that they can manipulate or measure, preferably under controlled conditions, to establish evidence of strong causal links. The variables that they can treat this way may or may not be the important ones in a specific situation. It is left to those applying the knowledge to adjust it to local circumstances. Experimental science chooses to mount arguments about universal principles at the expense, if necessary, of arguments for specific usefulness. The validity of any assertions that ethnography makes depends on evidence and arguments that support the accuracy of the explanation of a complex social situation. This is usually done by interviewing a wide range of people in that situation and attempting not to interpret the data but to allow patterns of behaviour to emerge from the interview data. The trade off can be at the expense of comparing between groups or comparing the data with some existing theory to add to the body of knowledge about human behaviour in general. Action research aims primarily to achieve action and understanding in one complex social situation at the same time -- action to inform the understanding which informs the action. There is a secondary interest in gaining knowledge about human nature in general and methods for exploring it.

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Convergent Interviewing and the Dialectic Data Engine Drawn from Bob Dick’s writing on convergent interviewing and his paper “What can action researchers learn from Grounded Theorists”. For more see http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html http://uqconnect.net/~zzbdick/dlitt/DLitt_P60andgt.pdf The essence of the process that sits within Bob Dick’s approach of convergent interviewing and using the Dialectic Data engine is to: Observe “emerging” data… Is there Agreement? Probe for exceptions… Is there Disagreement? Prove for explanations… Observe “emerging” data… In grounded theory the theory emerges from the process of constant comparison. The ‘engine’ which drives the process can be viewed as a set of decision rules: Compare a data set (for instance a set of interview notes) to another dataset, or (after early interviews) to the emergent theory. Note the overlaps between interviews (or between interview and emergent theory). These overlaps will consist of agreements and disagreements. An agreement is where both sets mention a topic and do so compatibly, for example ‘teamwork needs improvement’. A disagreement occurs when both mention the same topic but in ways which are not compatible. Both may mention teamwork, for example; one may identify it as needing improvement, and the other as a strength of the team. Where there is agreement probe for exceptions. This may occur in the same interview, or in the next interview. Note that the exceptions, when provided, then constitute a disagreement. Where there is disagreement probe for explanations. ‘Some say teamwork is good. Others say it requires attention. Help me to understand how this difference arises.’ The process can be viewed as a dialectic which uses the apparent disagreement to generate agreement at a deeper level.

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Focussed Conversations th through ORID ORID is a powerful model for holding a focussed conversation and also structuring experiential debriefs.

bjective step draws out the facts about the experience or event. The group recalls information The Objective and details that re-create create the event so that it’s clear in everyone’s memory. Eg. “What did we just do in this activity? What did you notice?” The Reflective eflective step allows the group to acknowledge feelings and emotions around the event or experience. Eg. “How did it make you feel?” The Interpretive nterpretive step invites participants to consider the meaning and value of the event or experience with regards to the significance for the group, allowing members to put the event into perspective and determine it’s impact. Eg. “How is this important for you as a group? What are some things we have learnt as a group?” The Decisional ecisional step invites the group to decide what decisions are necessary or what actions are required. Eg. “What might you do differently already as a result?”

Winning through participation: Meeting the challenge of corporate change For further reading see: “Winning with the Technology of Participation, The Group Facilitation Methods of the Institute of Cultural Affairs, Laura J. Spencer”

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Facilitator Hot Spots and Tricky Bits

What are some hot spots and tricky bits that you would like to explore in your work and interactions with groups?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

Gems, nuggets and learnings?

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

General Notes

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

http://www.babelfishgroup.com

About the Author With one of the first PhDs in Complex Systems and Complexity Science from the University of Queensland completed in June 1999, Andrew had the opportunity to move to Boston and work for a management think tank applying complexity insights to the world of organisations. The founder and director of the boutique management consulting company Babel Fish Group, Andrew works as a professional facilitator and change consultant and has experience in working with organisations both within Australia and internationally, in the USA, the Netherlands and the UK. Andrew brings a spirited dynamic presence as a professional speaker, change consultant and workshop leader. Principled, innovative and resourceful, Andrew enjoys living in Melbourne with his wife Sascha and dog George. Andrew can be contacted by email at [email protected].

http://www.babelfishgroup.com