Public/Nonprofit Approach
At about the same time that academics were beginning to use focus groups, another group became interested in the focus group methodology. The public/nonprofit approach began to emerge. In the academic approach, the intent was to develop theory or to contribute to a body of research in a particular area. In the public/nonprofit approach, the purpose was usually more immediate and practical.
Some were concerned about how well they were doing, how to improve, how to attract more members, or how to keep members. Some wanted to know how to improve their community. Some wanted to know how to design a policy or program so people would use it. The studies were sometimes called needs assessments, formative evaluations, process evaluations, climate studies, or customer satisfaction studies. The purpose was not to develop theory but rather to make decisions, improve services or programs, and be responsive to customers. These groups had some similarity to the market research focus groups, except the product had changed.
Religious groups began to ask about what their members wanted. Interesting questions emerged, such as, "What is worship?" "How can a religious group add meaning to your life?" "How can the church help you?" "What would it take to get you to participate in religious activities?" In some ways, this was a switch because many of these religious organizations historically told participants the answers to such questions instead of listening to their members.
Public health professionals were among the first to embrace focus group interviewing. Those working in prevention campaigns or in the emerging field of social marketing were quick to see the potential of focus groups. They borrowed many strategies from consumer marketing and adapted them to new products, services, and audiences. It was these public health professionals who were most aggressive in reaching new audiences. Academics had made some inroads, but it was the public health professionals who went into the neighborhoods, schools, WIC clinics, and migrant worker camps and listened. The driving force was need. Low-income, disadvantaged, young, and other marginalized populations were included when new programs were designed. Public health professionals now listen widely when they design programs to increase breast-feeding or vaccinations or to prevent tobacco use, teen pregnancy, and violence.
Educational and service organizations began to use focus groups to determine what customers or potential customers wanted. How do adults want to learn? What topics are important? How should the agency deliver its services or products?
Government agencies began to use focus groups. Sometimes the studies related to employee satisfaction, such as when the postal service was concerned about employee morale. Other times, a unit of government wanted insight into customer satisfaction. In other situations, focus groups were helpful in developing policies, rules, guidelines, and laws that were understandable and reasonable to the public. There is nothing more expensive to enforce than an unreasonable or ambiguous law. Focus groups provided ideas about what would work.
Some organizations were interested in designing new programs or services and wanted to understand how potential participants saw the issue. Or they wanted to pilot test ideas for programs. "What do you like about this idea?" "What don't you like?" "What will it take to make this work?"
These public/nonprofit groups are different from market research and academic focus groups in several ways.
These groups are smaller than traditional market research focus groups. Instead of ten to twelve participants, the groups tend to have six to eight participants. Smaller groups allow each person a greater opportunity to talk. It allows for more in-depth conversation. Also, living rooms and dining room tables are more suitable for six to eight people as opposed to a dozen people.
The moderator changed. Instead of a professional moderator or an academic, the moderator is often an internal person with skills in evaluation, group process, or interviewing. Sometimes it is a volunteer from the community who is trusted and respected by the participants. Regularly, in these groups, the most critical moderator skill is to develop a trusting environment. On sensitive topics-how I feel about merit pay, morale within the organization, or how I deal with a health problem-participants are often more comfortable with a moderator who seems like them or is someone they trust.
The locations were typically within the community. One-way mirrors don't work with these topics. These focus groups were not a spectator sport. They were trusting, confidential sharing experiences in a small group.
The time spent on analysis ranges from the quick market research approach to the academic approach, depending on the audience and purpose of the groups. Often these groups want to know what the five to seven most important things are to pay attention to. This usually doesn't require detailed analysis using specialized computer software. But because those using the information to make decisions often don't get a chance to see the groups (no one-way mirror), they do want a report that provides enough evidence to make the findings credible.
These groups are usually quite open. Researchers let the participants and the community know the results of the study and the subsequent action steps. Care is taken to ensure confidentiality of each participant, but findings are freely shared.
BACKGROUND
If you would like to read more about focus groups using a public/nonprofit approach, you might consider the following:
Debus, M. (1990). Handbook for excellence in focus group research. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (Eds.). (1998). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.