Focus Groups With Existing Groups and Organizations
Although the focus group process is robust, there are several situations
in which additional caution is needed. One area requiring caution is in
using focus groups with existing groups, especially workers within an
organization. In these environments, participants not only know each other
but are often familiar with the values, habits, and interests of their
colleagues. Focus groups with these existing work groups present several
challenges. The first challenge is to create an environment where employees
are willing to openly share their concerns, anxieties, and suggestions.
The organizational climate may restrict open communication and discourage
or even punish alternative points of view. Also, although knowing one
another may promote sharing with one group, it may inhibit sharing in
another group.
Despite these difficulties, focus groups can be used effectively in existing
organizations and even in work groups.
TIP
Focus Groups With Existing Groups and Organizations
1. Control the sampling strategy.
2. Use care when placing participants in groups.
3. Be aware of environment and recent history.
4. Select the right moderator.
5. Provide adequate confidentiality.
6. Provide benefit to participants.
7. Do a reality check after each group. 8. Analyze with group dynamics
in mind.
Perhaps the foremost problem facing the researcher is the manner in which
participants are selected. Convenience samples-that is, selecting people
because they are easy to recruit-are dangerous with internal groups. In
the same vein, another dangerous practice is relying on insiders to select
people by memory, past experiences, or other criteria. Memories are faulty,
and bias can easily creep into the selection. The researcher should develop
a sampling plan specifying the screens or criteria for participation in
the focus group and follow it carefully. We suggest using the old standby
process of developing a "pool" of people who meet screening
requirements and then randomly selecting from this pool. Often the researcher
is unfamiliar with the organization and must rely on insiders to provide
advice on sample selection. In some situations, this insider insight can
be of great benefit, but in other situations, there are inadvertent biases.
Care should be exercised when placing participants into groups. In general,
avoid power differentials. This can vary by organization and tradition,
but the participants should feel that they are in a group with people
of equivalent position. Avoid situations in which supervisors and subordinates
are in the same focus group. In addition, the researcher should be aware
that preestablished small groups are more difficult to analyze. For these
groups, communication is exceedingly complex. Instead, if possible, place
people with other colleagues. This forces participants to explain their
comments more fully and completely and to rely less on the cryptic communication.
Learn the organizational environment and recent history. Outside researchers
are often unfamiliar with the culture, traditions, and communication styles
within organizations. To what extent is this an organization where people
openly share ideas? Do they value the insight of others, and are they
respectful of divergent views? Interestingly, sometimes even internal
staff may not be aware of these messages (regarding respect, tolerance,
valuing opinions of others, listening, openness to new ideas, etc.) that
are informally communicated within the organization. Here are some views
that we've found within organizations that limit focus group usage.
"If you see the problem and say something about it, then you are
expected to find the solution. Therefore, don't mention the problem."
"Management says they want advice, but they've already made the decision."
"It's OK to be critical, but only with certain other insiders. Certain
topics are so sacred that they are talked about with only the closest
of friends."
Perhaps the most effective way to become grounded in the organizational
climate is to conduct individual, informal interviews with a variety of
staff as the study is being designed. By chatting with employees, the
researcher can get advice about a number of logistical aspects of the
study, test potential questions, and generally discover what is needed
to make the study a success.
It regularly takes extra effort to create a nonthreatening, permissive
environment in internal groups. Employees need to feel comfortable with
the study. We go to extra lengths to let people know "who asked for
the information," "what prompted the study," "what
kind of decisions are going to be made based on the information,"
and "who is going to listen to the tapes." Avoid creating the
impression that the organization will do what one group suggests. Participants
are reminded that information is being gathered from a number of groups
of employees, and then these aggregated perceptions will be shared with
those who will be making decisions.
Know the limits of focus group research. In these organizational environments,
it may be impossible to create the necessary focus group conditions. Know
when to avoid focus group research. If participants don't trust the sponsor
or their colleagues, see the study as a threat, or are unwilling to listen
to views of others, then focus groups are unlikely to work.
Who should moderate? Moderators from outside the organization have the
advantage of being neutral, but they may be unfamiliar with the organizational
culture. External moderators may see things internal moderators wouldn't
because they have a chance to compare this environment with others. Internal
moderators are more familiar with the organization but need to be viewed
as someone who can listen, who can be trusted, and that it makes sense
they would be asking about the topic. For example, it would make sense
for someone from the human resources department to be asking about morale
or benefits. When selecting a moderator, weigh the advantages and disadvantages
of internal and external moderators.
Confidentiality is a sensitive issue with internal focus groups. Once
again, the concern over confidentiality will likely be triggered by the
topic, the organizational culture, and traditions. Does the organization
welcome divergent and different ideas? In the past, what has happened
to people who have been critical? No promise from the moderator will be
trusted if past promises haven't been held. The moderator should be clear
and open about the nature of the promise. It often begins at the planning
stage with decision makers who are requesting the study. Be absolutely
clear about who has access to participant names. This usually means that
those requesting the study will not have access to participant lists.
Confidentiality also needs to be respected by others in the focus group.
The moderator must be clear about what behaviors are expected in the group.
It defeats the purpose when the moderator promises confidentiality but
then a focus group participant later tells everyone they know what others
have said in the group. Consider including these things in your introduction
to the focus group:
* Describe the study. Include who asked for it and why.
* Tell who has access to the results.
* Describe how results will benefit participants or the organization.
* Give a general promise of confidentiality by the researchers, which
means no names are attached.
* Tell how audiotapes will be used. Who will have access to them?
* Request that the group also maintain confidentiality for each other.
* Explain that the moderator's role is to guide the discussion and keep
it on track. On some topics, the moderator may ask to talk to you individually
after the group.
* Explain that no names are wanted-so please don't mention names of colleagues.
* Tell them the moderator will summarize key points of the discussion
at the end and then ask for help to ensure that we've captured the most
important points.
Be able to describe the benefit of the study. In particular, describe
how the participants and their colleagues will benefit directly or indirectly.
In many cases, the benefit is for colleagues, neighbors, and friends.
"What is learned from the study will improve services to other veterans,"
"This study will help top management make decisions about merit pay
and employee benefits," or "This study will help us better serve
our patients." The promise must be reasonable and sufficiently specific
to be credible. Keep in mind that at the end of the study the researchers
should deliver on this promise by describing the results and showing how
they are linked to the goals.
Do a reality check after each group. At the end of the focus group, add
a few questions about the study. In our experience, we've found it helpful
to ask the ending questions, provide a brief summary, and ask for verification
and then turn off the tape recorder. But don't excuse the participants
just yet. Tell them that you are finished with the more formal part of
the discussion, and now you would like their advice on the process. Indicate
that this is just to help the research team improve later discussions.
Then, ask a few questions about the process. It could be as simple as,
"Well, what did you think of the discussion?" or "What
can I do to improve the discussion?" or "What can I do to make
people more comfortable?" If you suspect they may have held back,
you might ask, "Do you think people will hold back and not tell us
what they are really thinking?"
When doing the analysis, keep in mind that certain discussion patterns
are common to existing groups. Veteran analysts have noticed that when
all participants are members of the group, there is a tendency to be overly
harsh on the sponsoring organization or institution. If there is a mix
of insiders and outsiders, participants may be more restrained in their
criticism. In addition, insiders know more about how the organization
works, what has been promised, and what promises haven't been met. All
of this can fuel cynicism, provoke anger, and make participants skeptical
of the study's intent. Participants may have another agenda that they
wish to follow in the focus groups, such as persuasion, blocking, or promotion.
Because participants know each other and have developed relationships
with other participants, the discussion can be affected in a variety of
ways. In effect, the focus group participants are reacting to both the
ideas expressed and the people expressing those ideas. It may be difficult
or impossible to determine if the reaction is to the other person or the
idea. Be watchful and alert.
|