Requirements for focus group participants. Focus groups as a method of qualitative marketing research

Bella Naneishvili, Chief Project Manager, Qualitative Research Department
MAGRAM MR

A focus group is an interview conducted by a specially trained interviewer-moderator in the form of a natural and informal conversation with a group of people who meet the criteria set on the basis of the objectives of the study.

Characteristics of focus groups

The specifics of market research focus groups and their difference from other group discussions can be better understood if their key characteristics are disclosed.

Focus group- this is an interview, which implies the presence of an interviewer (moderator). The main task of the moderator is to get answers to the marketing questions posed during conversations with people.

Many focus group publications emphasize the importance of choosing the right moderator for the success of the project.

Most importantly, what is required of a moderator is to establish a trusting relationship with a group of strangers within a short time and encourage them to talk about topics that may often be uninteresting to them, unpleasant, about which they do not think, or often they simply find it difficult to articulate their thoughts. .

The moderator has to control the processes of interaction in a group of people (encourage timid participants, calm down too active, dominant ones), make sure that the discussion does not deviate from the intended direction, notice "rationalized", learned, or socially desired answers and break through them to genuine opinions of the participants.

There are "hard" and "soft" styles of grouping. The "hard" style is characterized by the moderator's authoritarian style of behavior: pressure on participants, strict time limits for answering questions, provocations of participants or attempts to catch them on contradictions in their answers. The "hard" style has its uses, but most moderators run groups in a "soft" style, showing a genuine interest in other people, creating a welcoming atmosphere for discussion. This does not mean that the leader aims to achieve conflict-free and complacent mood of the group members, some conflicts, contradictions, sharp moments are inevitable and necessary. But at the same time, participants should feel that everyone's opinion is equally valuable, interesting to the moderator and other respondents, because it allows you to take a fresh look at familiar things.

As a rule, questions to the participants are asked by the moderator in the most general and neutral way ("What do you think about this?", "What are your impressions of the video you watched?", "What do you pay attention to when buying products in this category?"), in order to minimize the influence of the moderator on the answers of the respondents. Otherwise, people will simply agree with a detailed question containing a hint (“You always pay attention to the manufacturing company when buying confectionery?”), Or, having felt the mood of the moderator, give those answers that, in their opinion, want to hear from them.

If neutral questions do not work in a number of other cases, the moderator can use guiding questions with varying degrees of pressure on the respondents.

Forcing a moderator's opinion in one way or another (by way of asking questions, treating respondents whose opinion differs from that of the moderator, non-verbal reactions) poses a serious threat to the validity of focus group results.

A focus group focuses on discussing certain topics.

Although the moderator's questions and respondents' answers are not structured, the conversation is not free in content and is based on a discussion of a number of topics of interest to the customer.

The moderator knows the true goals of the study, which are reflected in the group's plan (discussion guide, guidelines). The group plan is an approximate set and sequence of topics that should be discussed with the invited people in order to collect the most complete and adequate information for the purposes of the study.

As a rule, when drawing up a conversation plan, the "direct funnel" principle is used - questions are asked from broader questions that encourage respondents to talk, speak spontaneously on the issue under discussion, to more private and specific ones, drawing people's attention to the details of the problem under study. So, for example, when testing a commercial, it is common practice to first ask about general impressions: "What do you think / What are your impressions of what you saw?", the first associations, and then move on to questions about individual elements of the video - characters, packaging, sounded phrases .

Sometimes the "reverse funnel" principle is also used, when closed questions are followed by open ones. This sequence is used if the researcher is primarily interested in clear answers to specific questions.

At the same time, the moderator should not strictly adhere to the wording and sequence of questions that is reflected in the plan. An experienced moderator should be flexible, improvise, make changes and additions to this plan in the course of the discussion, depending on what and what language the respondents speak. The fact is that the discussion guide reflects the research needs and logic of the moderator, while the logic of respondents belonging to other social strata and professional communities can differ significantly from the views of both the customer and the moderator. The task of the moderator is to capture these points of inconsistency and allow the participants in the discussion to express what they consider important on this issue. Otherwise, the study can remove only a layer of superficial information and lose sight of its significance, relevance to the conceptual structure of the respondents. Therefore, when conducting groups and analyzing statements, preference is given to personal statements based on individual experience and feelings.

A focus group is not just a few people gathered in one place for the convenience of the survey.

To get the maximum return and use all the advantages of this method, it is necessary that the interviewees unite for the duration of the conversation into a certain community, a group in the socio-psychological sense of the word, which has its own goal, rules and norms of interaction, stages of development. The norms of interaction that a "good" group should develop include respect for the opinion of each participant and recognition of differences, the value of the individual experience of each, benevolence and open-mindedness.

Focus groups, like individual in-depth interviews, are aimed at obtaining "in-depth" information.

Here, "deep" information is understood as a more complete and detailed discussion and explanation of behavior compared to what is available at the level of everyday understanding.

Most of everyday life takes place at the level of habits, automatisms, long-learned stereotypes, so respondents have to make efforts to reflect on their daily behavior, including the purchase of groceries and consumer goods. It often turns out that the simpler and closer the topic of discussion (margarine or toothpaste) is to the respondents, the less intelligible their answers are. The moderator should not take all the statements on faith, he should try to penetrate the layer of superficial judgments (habit, like, affordable, etc.) to the real motives of behavior and those ideas that led to the development of the declared habits and preferences.

Benefits of Focus Groups

The strengths of focus groups include:

the variety of information on the issues raised that can be obtained from several participants;

"snowball effect" - the remark of one respondent causes a response from another, prompts him to some considerations or memories;

stimulation - with a successful group move, the respondents have a desire to express their thoughts and feelings;

a sense of security - there are several respondents and they are all in the same conditions, which reduces their fears of appearing ignorant;

spontaneity of reactions - respondents express themselves in a free form, and do not answer specific, clearly formulated questions. What they say and what they are silent about, what words and intonations they use, in what sequence they touch on certain issues - all this reflects the subjective significance of these moments and can be a useful source of information in the analysis of groups;

flexible structure, the ability to linger on the discussion of unexpected interesting points or those issues that caused difficulty or bewilderment;

the speed of data collection (compared to interviews);

the differences between the respondents are clearly visible and it can be assumed what caused these differences (social status, professional affiliation, income, cultural level);

focus groups can be observed and accessed to real consumers, their problems, emotions, language.

Disadvantages of the focus group method

Some disadvantages are inherent in focus groups per se, while others are due to their misuse.

Focus groups are not very suitable for obtaining information in the following cases:

when it comes to topics that people are unlikely to discuss frankly in front of other people (intimate topics such as personal hygiene, contraception, or financial matters);

when an understanding of the complex behavior associated with making a series of responsible decisions is required - the purchase of expensive items such as real estate, furniture, cars;

when there are strict social norms that regulate and prescribe certain views and actions in any area (parental behavior);

a deep understanding of complex social roles is needed, or it is necessary to turn to the biography of the respondent, an analysis of a single case, in order to identify possible factors that influenced the formation of his ideas;

individual opinion on any issue is of greater interest to the researcher than clearly articulated, but formed under the influence of discussion with other respondents, the opinions of focus group participants;

the respondents are small and difficult to reach, it is difficult to gather them into a group (users of a rare brand, specialists, business people who spend a lot of time on business trips).

A serious threat to the correct use of the focus group method is:

blurring of the received data, which sharply increases the subjectivity of perception;

ignoring the descriptive nature of qualitative methods and trying to generalize findings to the entire population;

as well as the difficulty of finding qualified moderators who can competently lead the group, analyze the notes, and combine the respondents' statements, their impressions and conclusions into a coherent report.

Types of focus groups

Focus group is a generic concept that includes a large number of species, subspecies and modifications depending on the objectives of the study. All the variety of focus groups can be classified for different reasons. We have tried to single out the most frequently used types of focus groups (Focus Group Discussion) in the practice of marketing research.

1. Duration

The duration of the group discussion depends on the objectives of the study and the characteristics of the sample.

Standard groups

A standard focus group usually lasts about 1.5 hours (sometimes up to two hours). Typically, a standard group begins with a discussion by respondents of their experience with the product category under study, their familiarity and preference for certain brands, what they like or dislike about those products / brands. This stage not only allows obtaining factual information, but also reduces the anxiety of the respondents, instills in them a sense of confidence in their competence, the ability to cope with the work ahead. The conversation then moves on to project-specific questions—why consumers reject a new brand of cigarette, or why heavy advertising is not remembered and does not lead to increased brand awareness.

Short groups

Discussion of a limited set of topics (testing one or two stories for commercials, packaging options) or working with children involves holding short (up to 1 hour) groups.

Expanded Groups

On the contrary, a large amount of work, when within the framework of one project it is necessary to collect data on the lifestyle and aspirations of the target audience, on attitudes towards certain goods or advertising, extended group discussions lasting 3-4 hours are generally used.

ECGD (Extended Creative Group Discussions) - extended creative group discussions with extensive use of projective and other auxiliary techniques. These groups are used in those cases when it is necessary to develop a new approach to the problem, a new non-standard vision, in particular, when a product is so studied by traditional qualitative and quantitative methods that they do not provide an increment of useful information. For example, to understand how a consumer might be attracted to a new brand of familiar products such as margarine or mayonnaise, it may be useful to run several extended groups using collages, role-play, personalization, and other techniques.

Two sessions (Two sessions group)

Also in marketing practice there are two-session groups, when the same participants gather in groups 2 times with an interval of several days, usually a week. Very often, at the first session, participants are given some goods / products (it can be washing powder, toothbrushes, tea or instant soup) for testing at home, and during the second session, respondents share their impressions, make comments and suggestions , discussing positioning strategies or advertising concepts.

2. Number of respondents

standard group

The average number of participants in a standard group discussion is 8-10 people, sometimes the boundaries of ordinary groups are defined more gently at 6-12 people.

Mini group

Mini-groups (mini FGD) are transitional between individual interviews and a regular group. The number of respondents in a mini-group is 4-5 people, which allows you to work out the topics discussed at a deeper level than in a standard group, while maintaining the advantages of group work.

3. Number and role of moderators

standard group

In the overwhelming majority of cases, one professional moderator talks to the respondents. But some research projects may require derogations from this rule.

Groups with two moderators

A number of group conversations are held with the participation of two moderators, whose work can proceed both in the form of cooperation and in the form of external competition.

dual moderator group

In a pair of cooperating moderators, one is responsible for developing group dynamics and the smooth running of the group, while the second ensures that all substantive aspects of the conversation are covered. The distribution of roles between moderators is useful if the subject of discussion is issues that require special training and knowledge (interviews with doctors, engineers).

dueling moderator group

In another case, two opposing moderators clearly hold opposing points of view and encourage respondents to consider both sides of the phenomenon being studied.

client-participant group

Sometimes the groups are attended by representatives of the customer, who can explain certain points that are incomprehensible to the respondents and answer their questions.

Discussion groups without a moderator

This is a rather specific and infrequent procedure in applied research: the group is given the task to do something within the allotted time, the progress of the group is observed and studied interaction patterns, the process of selecting a leader, the distribution of roles, and so on.

Temporary removal of the moderator can be used as a methodical technique during normal groups: either one of the respondents is asked to be a moderator to improve group dynamics, or the moderator leaves the respondents alone for 5-10 minutes (for example, with a set of stimulus materials) and observes their actions.

4. Type of respondents

Standard groups

Typical qualitative marketing research involves holding group discussions with typical consumers of products, selected on the basis of gender, age, income, marital status, use/non-use of certain brands.

Groups with specialists

As respondents to participate in the study, representatives of various professional communities can be involved - doctors, industrial equipment specialists, managers, computer scientists. Conducting such groups is associated with great organizational difficulties due to the selection and invitation of these people, as well as the need for additional substantive training of the moderator.

One of the varieties of focus groups with specialists can be considered Delphi-groups, the main task of which is to receive forecasts about the future from professionals in this field.

5. Sensitivity panel

In these types of groups, one of the basic recruiting rules is violated - to invite "naive respondents" to the groups who have never participated in this kind of discussion before, people with fresh perceptions and reactions. During the sensitive panel, people are trained to be respondents during the week, people get used to each other, build trusting relationships, get acquainted with the basic rules of group conversations, various game and projective methods. They prepare "professional respondents" with whom they then conduct a group on a topic of interest, without wasting time on rocking, developing relationships, removing prejudice and alertness, explaining what and how to do.

6. With the use of technical means

A rather conventional basis for distinguishing focus groups, which we used to draw attention to some techniques.

Standard groups

Standard groups are a set of participants gathered in one place, "round table", which are usually observed by representatives of the customer either from the next room through a one-way mirror / video link, or from their office using modern fiber optic communications.

Teleconferences (Telesession group)

Sometimes, and such groups are often practiced in the West, it is advisable not to gather respondents in the premises of a research company, but to arrange a teleconference with all participants using a telephone (it looks like a conference call).

Bilateral groups (Two-way group)

An interesting way is when one group of respondents (for example, doctors) observes the progress of another group (patients talking about the treatments that their doctors prescribe, as well as what they expect from doctors), and then discusses what they saw.

• Economy

Keywords:

1 -1

Focus group refers to qualitative methods of socio-psychological research. It is a group, focused (semi-standardized) interview, taking place in the form of a group discussion and aimed at obtaining from its participants "subjective information" about how they perceive various types of practices or products of this activity, for example, mass communication materials, advertising and etc. The main methodological technique of the focus group can be considered a group discussion.

Group discussion underlies almost all group methods used by social psychologists. A group discussion allows you to clarify your own position of its participants, to identify the variety of approaches, points of view on any issue. She develops the ability to improvise, to act beyond the foreseen, overcoming distrust in herself and adherence to old models. The main efforts of the presenter (moderator) are aimed at creating and maintaining a general group atmosphere of trust, openness, inclusion of group-universal judgments such as “usually considered” to personal forms of statements “I think”, “I think”, etc. In addition, a group discussion requires the ability to treat one's own opinion as not the only possible one. The basic principles of organizing and conducting a group discussion are well described in the socio-psychological literature.

The researchers note that each discussion goes through certain stages of development. In socio-psychological terms, three such stages are usually distinguished:

Orientation in the problem and in each other;

Evaluation, comparison and even confrontation of ideas;

Consolidation of opinions.

In organizational terms, the development of a group discussion goes through the following phases:

Determining the goals and topics of the discussion;

Collection of information (knowledge, judgments, opinions, new ideas, proposals of all participants in the discussion) on the problem under discussion;

Organizing, interpreting and evaluating the information received during the discussion;

Summing up the discussion.

The focus group procedure as a whole goes through the same stages of development, with the exception of the stage of interpretation and evaluation of information by its participants. This is because the purpose of a focus group is not to reach consensus, but to gather information.

One of the essential socio-psychological characteristics of a group discussion is the presence in it of direct feedback, which is characteristic of any process of interpersonal communication. The focus group suggests that people may need to hear the opinions of others before they formulate their own point of view. Some opinions can be formed quickly and have absolute certainty, while others are dynamic and easily influenced from outside. The focus group researcher, given that the opinion of each member of the group can change, learns about how this change occurs, and studies the nature of the factors influencing it.

In a focus group, the key to success lies in putting patterns of group development at the service of the goals and objectives of the study.

In general, the success and effectiveness of the findings depends on the degree to which the participants feel comfortable in communicating their thoughts and feelings openly. A lot of work indicates that there are many variables that affect the "comfort zones" of the participants. Experts in the field of focus group research divide these variables into the following categories: intrapersonal (intrapersonal), interpersonal (interpersonal) and environmental (environmental variables related to the influence of the environment). This division corresponds to the classification adopted in the social psychology of small groups.

Peer review method

The essence of the method of expert assessments is that experts conduct an intuitive-logical analysis of the problem with a quantitative assessment of judgments and formal processing of the results. The generalized opinion of experts obtained as a result of processing is accepted as a solution to the problem.

The characteristic features of the method of expert assessments as a scientific tool for solving complex non-formalizable problems are:
scientifically substantiated organization of all stages of the examination, ensuring the greatest efficiency of work at each stage,
the use of quantitative methods both in the organization of the examination, and in the evaluation of the judgments of experts and the formal group processing of the results.

A special type of peer review method is an expert survey (a type of survey in which the respondents are experts - highly qualified specialists in a particular field of activity).

An expert is a competent person who has deep knowledge about the subject or object of research.

The method implies the competent participation of specialists in the analysis and solution of the problem under consideration.

In the practice of psychological and sociological research it is used for:
forecast of development of this or that phenomenon;
assessment of the existing state of any phenomenon;
collecting preliminary information about the research problem (probing);
assessment of the psychological and pedagogical characteristics of students;
team assessments;
staff appraisal (heads of the team, public organizations or a special attestation commission act as experts).

Advantages of the peer review method
When making decisions about a diagnosis, we usually assume that the information used to support it is valid and reliable. But for many pedagogical and psychological problems this assumption cannot be proved. Practice shows that the main difficulties that arise in the search and choice of solutions concerning various psychological situations are primarily due to the insufficiently high quality and incompleteness of the available statistical information or the impossibility in principle of obtaining it. Then the method of experts comes to the rescue, which allows you to look at the problem broadly and see a possible solution.

The reliability of assessments and decisions made on the basis of expert judgments is quite high and largely depends on the organization and direction of the procedure for collecting, analyzing and processing the opinions received. The results of a survey of expert groups differ significantly from the decisions formed as a result of discussions at meetings of commissions, where the opinion of authoritative or just “assertive” participants may prevail. This does not mean that the individual opinion of a particular specialist or the decision of such a commission is not significant. However, properly processed information received from a group of experts, as a rule, turns out to be more reliable and reliable.

This method cannot be applied when:
initial statistical information is not sufficiently reliable;
some of the information is of a qualitative nature and cannot be quantified;
in principle, the necessary information can be obtained, but at the time of decision-making it is not available, since this is associated with a large investment of time or money;
there is a large group of factors that may affect the implementation of the decision in the future, but they cannot be accurately predicted.

Requirements for the expert group
The reliability of a group expert assessment depends on the total number of experts in the group, the percentage of different specialists in the group, and on the characteristics of the experts.

A difficult problem is the formation of a system of expert characteristics that can significantly affect the course and results of the examination. These characteristics should describe the specific characteristics of the specialist and the possible relationships between people that affect the expertise.

The selection of experts, the formation of expert groups is a rather difficult task, the result of which determines to the greatest extent the effectiveness of the method and the correctness of the solutions obtained. The selection of specialists for participation in an expert survey begins with the identification of scientific, technical and administrative problems directly related to the solution of the task.

A list of persons competent in the required fields is compiled, which serves as the basis for the selection of experts. An expert in the full sense of the word is an active participant in scientific research. An attempt to hide from him the purpose of the study, thus turning him into a passive source of information, is fraught with a loss of his confidence in the organizers of the study.

“A bad craftsman who does not take care of his work.” It's sad, but modernity breeds more and more dull mediocrity and dullness in any professional field. This can be explained: the fleeting life offers more and more entertainment and pleasure, and there is practically no time left for love for one's work. What professional inferiority turns into when viewed “in a large cage”, we see every day. We are just marking time in helpless attempts to catch up with those who achieved success with intelligence, skill and patience, while relying solely on luck and natural resources. But it is precisely with the mind, skill and patience that humanity has done everything that it has today.

This article is based on an exemplary situation that took place in the real practice of marketing research. A renowned research agency, let's call it Absurd Research, recently hosted a series of focus groups commissioned by Europe's largest automotive concern. One of the methodological luminaries of qualitative research from another research agency, by the will of a natural case, was invited to participate in one of these focus groups. The chronicle of this event will be presented below. It will be presented with a deliberate emphasis on the fatal mistakes made, or rather, not mistakes, but deadly deviations from methodological requirements, each of which is capable of writing off the entire research project into the category of meaningless and dangerous for the customer's business. For the least dedicated readers, the text will be accompanied by comments explaining what exactly the mistakes made by the company are dangerous.

The subject of the study

There is the oldest European car brand, very common in Russia. Once it was a full-fledged in every sense "foreign car" of the middle class, but today we are more likely to recognize in it the closest alternative to the "Lada". At some point, this brand rushed so selflessly to master the mass market that today its style is characterized on the verge of poverty and ugliness. If the reader has not guessed what exactly is at stake - this is not necessarily at all. Let's just stop at the definition of "very low-class car brand", naming it conditionally "Despair".

Further. The sports division of this automobile company is in the process of making decisions on the release of a new sports coupe on Russian roads, positioned in the segment of 60-80 thousand euros. Quite a sound idea from a strategic point of view, especially after successful market experiments by other mid-sized manufacturers. The sports "Despair" is "aiming" at the audience of "cars for the egoist": Mercedes SLK, Audi TT, Porsche 911, BMW Z4, Jaguar XKR and other "luxury toys". Planning to transplant "egoists" from the listed brands to "Despair", the company commissions a research agency project aimed at identifying the attitude of this audience to possible concepts for a new sports car, features and characteristics that can put it in the listed alternative series. According to the plan, the owners of those very Porsche, Jaguar, Audi and others are invited to the focus groups. Let us leave it to the conscience of market strategists to try to introduce the habitually cheap brand into the luxury market and consider how research practice differed from a completely sound theoretical concept.

Involvement of focus group participants.

Finding participants in a group discussion is one of the most difficult tasks in qualitative research. When it comes to wealthy respondents, the complexity is raised to the degree of their high income. In other words, finding highly profitable respondents and inviting them to the agency's office for a couple of hours is an expensive and complicated business process. This problem is usually solved in two ways: by the "snowball" method with sources from the employees of the research agency, or by using the appropriate databases. The second method is applied to the high-income group by agencies specializing in luxury research. The first, chaotic and unpredictable method of recruiting wealthy respondents using the "snowball" method, is much more common in Russia.

The application of these methods in the project under consideration led to the following results. The first two planned focus groups, according to the moderator, did not take place due to a shortage of respondents. The selection criteria were quite simple, but very strict: the respondent must own a sports coupe class car purchased from an authorized dealer in 2006-2008. The list of alternatives is limited to two dozen specific car models. Accordingly, the Absurd Research agency managed to assemble a focus group of four people from the third time. Actually, “Succeeded” is not quite the correct definition in this case. And that's why.

Of course, the customer wanted to communicate with rich “hedonistic egoists” who could talk about what quirks of character and personality they were driven by, leaving 100 thousand euros for a very impractical trinket on huge wheels. In the end, they got the following: a small entrepreneur in a 2001 Mercedes convertible, a teenage major in the same convertible, a quiet girl in an ancient Hyundai Coupe, and a professional explorer. By the way, the agency had a chance to assemble an effective focus group, since about 15 invitees arrived at the agency's office by the appointed time. Unfortunately, the wait for the start of the discussion dragged on for an hour and a half, and five candidates left without waiting for attention to them. We are talking about the most suitable, at first glance, to the requirements of the selection of people. Other invitees were "rejected" for obvious non-compliance with the selection criteria.

Comment. None of the invited participants met the selection criteria set by the sponsor of the study, since none of them was a representative of the target audience on the basis of income. Only the researcher fully met the requirements of the customer, but he could not take part in the focus group due to professional training. The moderator of the group was informed about this fact, but did not exclude the researcher from the group and, in addition, asked him to hide his profession in case of verification. Thus, initially the composition of the group did not meet the requirements of the study at all.

Preparing for the start of the focus group.

The beginning of the discussion was scheduled for 19:00 of the working day, but it began at 20:30. At the entrance, the invitees were "greeted" by a woman, muttering under her breath "Go straight ahead", without taking her eyes off the magazine. During the entire hour and a half of waiting, people sat in the foyer, becoming more and more disappointed with their visit every minute. As mentioned above, five invitees left this silent meeting without waiting for the event. The “scammers” patiently waited for the verdict, and the participants in the discussion, on their last breath, got to the end of the “preparation” for the focus group, each for their own reasons. The Explorer's professional interest also surpassed the extreme annoyance of the long wait.

It is worth noting that the amount of the appointed remuneration for the participants in the discussion was 6,000 rubles, which is quite a lot for such events. The explanation for the high compensation was the planned duration of the meeting - about 3.5 hours. Together with the waiting time, this is more than a flight from Moscow to Barcelona. Accordingly, by the beginning of the discussion, the participants were “charged” with so much negativity that it was just right to cancel it. But, nevertheless, the focus group took place.

Comment. Qualitative methods of marketing research are aimed at identifying deep motivations, opinions, attitudes of respondents to the topic under study. Deep cognitive and emotional contexts are revealed in the psychological plane, so mutual disposition, trusting and friendly environment are critically needed in such processes. Otherwise, the researcher will receive automatic, socially acceptable, or defensive statements rather than the respondent's true attitude. Moreover, collective discussion implies a lot of mutual transactions, and can be effective only in the case of a positive atmosphere of discussion. Creating such an atmosphere is the task of the moderator and his assistants, and two-thirds of this work should fall on the preparation stage. While waiting for the start of the event, moderator assistants should enliven the audience, unite them around any interests and topics, set them up in an easy friendly way. "Abandoned" respondents usually accumulate irritation, especially if the focus group is scheduled on weekdays, especially in the evening. It is pointless to expect constructive cooperation from destructive respondents.

Acquaintance of participants.

Inviting four selected participants to the focus room, the moderator (let's call her Ekaterina) asked them to introduce themselves and tell a little about themselves, their education, place of work, position and other details that the speakers would consider important. Having received the floor in turn, the participants told their stories, of which such a social portrait of the group that it was just right to cancel the event. But it took place. The focus group, filled with representatives of diametrically opposed social segments, was given the right to life by the organizers from Absurd Research, once again discrediting this research method.

Comment. What usually happens to a person who finds himself in a dense environment of representatives of a completely different social group? If we talk about a person of an average level of psychological “hardening”, of which there are a majority in Russia, he either closes himself to the environment, which he considers unfriendly by default, or takes one of the role states that dictate further behavior. In such states, aggression, cynicism and extreme pragmatism can be shown, or, on the contrary, infantilism or stupid playfulness. Any of these states prevents the sincere expression of thoughts and views. Also, the expression of truth is hindered by the desire for social acceptability of oneself and one's statements, which is the main problem of the productivity of group discussions. The moderator's mistake in this case was the public extraction of information about the social level of the participants.

The course of the discussion.

The research topic was quite close and interesting to the participants, but the unprecedented four-hour duration of the conversation plus the monotony of its organization made tangible adjustments to the result. Focus groups are not in vain and traditionally do not go beyond two hours: the physiological fatigue of the participants makes their answers automatic, dulls attention, and demotivates participation in the discussion. In our case, two hours after the start of the focus group, hungry participants thought only about food, smokers - only about a cigarette, sleepy - about their pillow. In the meantime, questions and tasks became more and more difficult, and the respondents had less and less energy for them.

The undoubted advantage of group discussions against the backdrop of personal interviews is the dynamics of the discussion, in which the true attitude is carved by the group, like a sculpture from stone. This fundamental advantage of the method is very easy to destroy with a boring routine scenario, when the moderator simply asks questions in turn to each of the participants, as if conducting a formalized interview using a questionnaire. Dozens of questions were asked during the focus group, and each of them could become a treasure trove of information for the customer if the moderator brought them up for discussion and clarified cross-opinions, arguments and counter-arguments, and not just “removed” the superficial judgments of the participants. In fact, in this discussion, the question “what?” was more often asked, while the question “why?” is much more consistent with qualitative research.

The other biggest failing of a moderator was the inability to control group dynamics. Sometimes the most "talkative" participant killed 10 minutes each on absolutely abstract topics that had nothing to do with the subject of the conversation. The moderator must stop such unproductive "bursts" that cause tangible harm to the results, distracting participants from the topic, diluting their attention, wasting extra time. In our case, the moderator Ekaterina patiently listened to each such eruption, without making any attempts to return the conversation to the thematic channel.

FOCUS GROUP METHOD The focus group method refers to qualitative methods of collecting information and is based on the use of the effect of group dynamics. The application of this method involves a group discussion led by a specialist (moderator). The main advantage of this method is the ability to quickly obtain the so-called in-depth information in a small group of respondents. The essence of the method lies in the fact that the attention of the participants is focused on the problem (topic) under study, in order to determine the attitude to the problem posed, to find out the motivation for certain actions. In addition, this allows the customer to monitor the progress of the study and draw appropriate conclusions. focus groups are relatively low (for example, compared to in-depth). Focus - can be used in combination with other methods (both quantitative and qualitative) and as an independent method of collecting information.
Distinctive features of focus groups
Unlike quantitative research methods (for example, sociological), which gives an answer to the questions 'Who..?' and 'How much..?', the focus group answers the questions 'How exactly..?' and 'Why.. ?' The second feature is the method of sampling and methods of collecting information. In a sociological (quantitative) study, the basic method is a survey (personal, telephone), in which respondents representing a certain category of consumers are interviewed according to a single scheme (questionnaire). In a focus group (qualitative research), methods of in-depth group interviews are used to “pull out” information from the respondent that does not lie on the surface, showing a wide range of attitudes to the problem.
Focus - group is a subjective method of research (in contrast to sociological research, which is an objective method of collecting and processing information). Most often, focus groups are used to achieve the following goals:
generating ideas;
hypothesis testing for quantitative research;
preparation of tools for quantitative research;
interpretation of the results of quantitative research;
the study of the characteristics of the behavior of individual groups of people.
The number of group members is from 8 to 12 people. Gender, income level, etc. are used as selection criteria for participants.

Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 .

Books

• Focus group method, S. A. Belanovsky. The focus group method or group in-depth interview is one of the so-called `flexible` or `qualitative` methods of sociological research. Currently in developed countries...
• Focus group method, Belanovsky S.A. The focus group method or group in-depth interview is one of the so-called "flexible" or "qualitative" methods of sociological research. Currently in developed countries...

The focus group method (or, as it is also called, focused interview) is a group discussion, during which the attitude of participants to a particular type of activity or product of this activity is clarified. The value of the information received lies in the fact that the participants in the discussion, having “cleared themselves” of ideological attitudes (verbal clichés) as much as possible, become free and uninhibited in their answers.

This method began to be applied in the middle of the 20th century. It was first used by American sociologists R. Merton and P. Lazarsfeld in 1941 to study the effectiveness of radio broadcasts on the population. Now this method is widely used in sociology, psychology, political science, economics, etc.

The method has the following characteristics:

groups are usually between 2 and 8 participants and usually do not exceed 10 participants;

the group is formed taking into account the purpose of the study. For example, if the effectiveness of electric shavers is being studied, then two homogeneous groups of men can be formed - “youth” and “older”. When studying the effectiveness of TV programs, presenters, commentators, it is advisable to form four groups, where participants of different ages are respectively represented in male (or female) groups;

the duration of the discussion, depending on the objectives of the study, ranges from 1 to 3 hours;

the discussion is moderated by an experienced sociologist or psychologist.

Group discussion provides for the creation of favorable conditions for communication for each participant and an atmosphere of goodwill and comfort for the group as a whole.

A focused interview, like any other sociological research, involves:

writing a program where the problem is formulated and substantiated, the goal, objectives, object, subject of research are determined, as well as the population being examined, the number and size of focus groups, tools for collecting and processing sociological information. Hypotheses are usually not put forward at this stage, as it is believed that this may predetermine the understanding of some problems;

preparation of a team, which consists of a moderator and assistants. One of the assistants makes an audio or video recording, fixing the features of the statements (for example, emotionality, non-verbal characteristics). Another assistant, if necessary, can provide silence, serve refreshments, etc.;

a set of respondents, which may be preceded by a preliminary test or interview. Focus group participants can also be selected randomly (for example, from a list of telephone subscribers) or by the "snowball" method, when one respondent names a candidate who meets the given criteria, and this candidate names another candidate, etc. It is impossible to use already established groups, since the system of established relations affects the nature of the discussion;

writing a guide (organized plan). It consists of a greeting, explanation of the basic rules, formulation of questions, divided into semantic blocks; the guide indicates the time and duration of the breaks. The guide ends with an expression of gratitude to the participants.

Before the discussion, when unfamiliar participants gather, the moderator and his assistants greet the incoming, create a relaxed atmosphere. It is important to ensure the following procedural points:

the room where the discussion is held should be spacious and comfortable (armchairs, carpet, soft light, etc.);

there must be a large table where the participants in the discussion could use notes, forms, drawings. At the table(s) during the break or before the discussion, participants are offered coffee, tea, soft drinks, etc.;

if the question of the quality of a product is discussed, then appropriate samples are provided.

At the beginning of the discussion, the moderator informs the participants of the goals and basic rules of the discussion, while noting for himself some of their personal characteristics. Then the discussion participants get to know each other.

The discussion, as a rule, begins with open-ended questions that reveal the nature of the participants, the diversity of their opinions. Closed questions are usually asked towards the end of the discussion, allowing the answers to be focused on specific aspects of the problem under discussion. During the discussion, the moderator is recommended to avoid evaluative remarks both in verbal form (“I agree”, “good”, “wrong”) and in non-verbal form (nodding, shaking the head, gesture of denial, etc.).

During the discussion, the moderator quietly controls the group, using 5-second pauses and “questions” such as: “Can you explain in more detail?”, “Can you give an example?”

At the end of the discussion, he recalls its goals, summarizes what has been said, thanks the participants and says goodbye to them. Subsequently, the recording of the discussion is transcribed and printed. Based on the received transcript, an analysis is carried out and a report is drawn up.

Advantages of the focus group method

favorable conditions for spontaneous manifestation of emotions by respondents, sincere expression of opinions.

the results of the discussion presented in the report are more understandable to the customer of the study

the focus group method is relatively economical and produces results quickly.

Method limitations:

materials are prepared by the moderator virtually intuitively

the difficulty is the selection of participants in the discussion, which is explained by the main requirement of the method: the participant must fully “open up”, be sincere. That is why focus groups should not be attended by experts in the field, close acquaintances of the moderator, or participants in previous focus groups.

participants must be rewarded - with money, a gift or a souvenir.

Despite the disadvantages, recently the method has been used quite often, as its speed, cheapness and quality are becoming more and more obvious.

The focus group is qualitative, i.e. a fairly flexible method of collecting sociological information, allows you to come to reliable conclusions and does not require serious time costs in application. The focus group method can be used alone or in combination with other methods. Often, focus groups are carried out at the final stage of research related to obtaining quantitative data.