Checkman 1989 - Focus Group as Theater

8/8/2019 Checkman 1989 - Focus Group as Theater

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/checkman-1989-focus-group-as-theater 1/9

DAVID CHECKMAN

Focus GroupResearch as

Theater: How ItAffects the Players

and Their AudienceThe focus group one-woy mirror is key in shaping the reiationship of viewersond group participants. This architecturai feature, meant to ai iow the discus-sions to be observed without disturbing porticipants, has its own power tocause a d isturbanc e. Its effe ct is to c rea te a n environm ent very much likethe theater, where parties operate as "audience" and "performers." This ef-fect can compromise the vaiidity of the research technique.

Since the time when sociologists originated a techniquecalled the "focused interview" (Merton, Fiske, and Kendall1956), it has taken root as an important marketing researchtool. However, comments on and critiques of focus groupinterviewing have been limited mainly to its output and ap-plicat ions. Some at tention has been given to what happenswithin the interview itself—for example, the dominating par-ticipant (Bean 1988), proper group size (Merton, Fiske, and

Kendall 1956; Smith 1972), and moderating styles (Karger1987)—yet much more needs to be thought about. Focus groupdiscussion is principally an interaction rather than a straight-forward "data machine."

This article pertains to an aspect peculiar to the focus group:its participants are self-aware observers of their own inter-action. They are not there merely to produce or exchangeinformation. W hat they do "in the mean tim e" can lead ei therto trustworthy and meaningful or to manufactured f indings.

The ever-present one-way mirror plays a crucial role here.It is not its direct effect on participants but its indirect con-

sequences that can do the greatest damage. Group memberscan soon forget the presence of the mirror. However, themirror also serves to separate viewers and participants, setsup boundaries between them, and even promotes a relat ion-ship between the parties that neither may be fully aware ex-ists. ' •"

Focus group interviewing involves a paradox. The archi-tectural feature that is meant to allow the discussions to beobserved without disturbing par t icipants has i ts own powerto cause a disturbance. By becoming aware of this effect,viewers in particular can minimize the chance of its happen- David Checkman is with Research Ap

cations Grou p, New Haven, CT.



The emotionality ofthe discussion helpsto underline what is

significant.

Being "Viewable" Versus "Natural"

Viewing arrangements might seem incidental to the reissues surrounding this research technique. However , whwas not foreseen and is not often fully recognized is thensconcing viewers safely behind the mirror causes a subtshift in the relationship of viewer to participant. Their phyical separation brought about largely for convenience gofurther in its effect on viewers and participants alike. Its efect is to create an environment very much like the theate

where par t ies opera te as "aud ience" and "per formers . "Simply observing behavior , whether for a research pu

pose or not, does not make a theatrical occasion. The neessary ingredient is that the parties expect that they haveduty to "reach" or an enti t lement to be "reached" by thother. (The application of the audience-performer model the study of various forms of everyday interaction was poneered by the sociologist Erving Goffman 1959, 1967, 1972Focus group observers feel that they have a legitimate enttlement to be reached by the activity on the other side of thmirror. The participants' discussion should come at them wia kind of " transparency" so that the motives, speech, an

other behavior of these actors are fully accessible.

The stakes are high. Marketing decisions often are madon-site. The inputs for these decisions are, in part, what paticipants say. The other part is the emotionality of the dicussion, which can help to underline what is significant ancan suggest whom and how much to bel ieve. Catching a dicussion's significance on the fly has become common as thcentral interpretive task has shifted to on-site viewers anaway from followup written reports based on a careful review of audio or video tape recordings. Discussions that seemalive and animated are also a help on a more personal leve

Successive hours of viewing discussions can be tiring. It is relief to watch sessions that are lively and engaging.

This viewer orientation has become so much a part of focugroup research that it seems to be unexceptionable. It is takefor granted. The problem is that participants can take part ia discussion that feels spontaneous and natural and yet doenot seem terr ibly "viewable." Somehow their natural style oconversation is not good enough to come fully alive to viewers . Part icipants discover this f rom the moderator .

The issue is not whether, in fact, all discussions are reallbright and engaging; we know they are not . I t a lso make

no difference whether viewers know^ they are behaving lika theatr ical "audience;" the thought probably never occurto them. What matters is that viewers and focus group membeoccupy different zones which (from the viewer's side) are not iperfect touch with each other. Part icipants hardly expect whethey start that, in any significant way, they have an unseenaudience to whom they are accountable. But these core factshape the entire t ransaction.

A significant distance separates focus group observers andgroup members. I t is measured in more than the inches dividing their two compartments. This fact does not entirely

escape viewers ' awareness, though i t is not given the im



portance it warrants. We recognize that as observers we misssome sense of the immediacy of the discussion, which par-ticipants know hest. Nevertheless, it is difficult for partici-pants to serve two masters, both other members of their groupand their audience.

Natural behavior in a group discussion requires that m em-bers develop a sense of security in the gathering they havejoined. One of the prime requisites is being able to feel thattheir group boundary is inviolable, that they are self-con-tained, and that what matters is "us" (including the mod-erator as a group member). They must feel no need to takeinto account anyone but each other. Illustrations are avail-able at any airport. Despite all the bustle and crowding, smallgatherings can be seen going about their own involvementsalmost as though nobody else is around. These people cankeep their group boundaries intact and feel protected be-cause they can, indee d, behave as though they were alone. Theirnatural behavior is a signal as well as a consequence of tak-ing only each other into account. Such groupings exhibit ap-propriate emotion and animation, but scaled for the con-sumption of those in their immediate group.

Focus groups are controlled by the same principle. At timestheir spon taneous exhuberance is adequate, or more than ad-equate, to reach and hold their viewers. But this is not al-ways the case. Not all subject matter is equally involving.Not all group members are equally verbal. Not all occasionswhen group members engage intimately in sharing their ex-periences are equally vivid.

We tend to take little time to find out the level of spon-taneous drama when a discussion starts. Moderators oftenintervene soon to fix an acceptable "performance" level. Theyusually are well aware of their audience and its desire to becaught up by the discussion. There is no mystery about howexpressivity can be heightened. The moderator can "super-animate" his or her own behavior as an impetus and modelfor the group. Moderators can jolly, charm, and even intim-idate desirable animation from group members. Confronta-tions among participants car\ be arranged. The moderator cancut pauses and silences that would slow the discussion's pace.These and even more subtle means are available. Here is howthe full "audience-performer" relationship comes into playin focus grou p resea rch. D iscussions of this kind become per-formances. They are, in various degrees, falsifications of thenatural tenor, and sometimes even the true feehngs and

opinions, of participants.

-? The Blunting Setting and ViewershipThe subject here is not the occasional insipid, slow, and

boring focus group discussion, which can be largely dis-counted. What is at issue is the productive one that simplydoes not have sufficient drama to compensate for the blunt-ing conditions of viewership.

Despite their fairly sensitive microphones and loudspeak-ers and large one-way mirrors, focus group viewing roomsimpose deficits in viewing. Even the most conscientious and

well-rested observer can be affected. Each of a series of con-

Moderators interveneto heightenjxpressivity

Focus groiip viewingrooms impose deficits



Moderators learn thatthe drama in a

discussion does notalways reach the

audience

difions takes a very small toll. Even coUecfively they do nmake a dramatic difference. However , the "screen" they impose requires a disproporfionate effort in the focus groudiscussion to make up for their effect.

First, simply being sequestered in an observers ' room prsents a temptation to its occupants to talk to each otheshuffle, move about, and do all those things involved in reognizing each other 's presence that distract attention frothe discussion. Second, the mechanical equipment in view

ing rooms has i ts own inherent l imitat ions. The loudspeakeprovide ei ther monaural sound or inadequate stereophonquality. Volume does not compensate for not being given aurinformation that would easily enable us to know which paticipant is speaking, particularly when there is a rapid intechange. The sound system is nondiscr iminating in anotheway. It magnifies and transmits chair screeches, coffee curattles, and side conversations just as well as the speech wwant to hear .

Third, there often are visual inconveniences. Usually noall participants are equally visible. A speaker may push bacor move forward at just the wrong moment. Depending o

where one sits in the viewing room, part of the group cabe obscured by other observers.

Fourth, the atmosphere in viewing rooms is of ten uncomfortably close to being at home watching TV. A kind of lulling effect goes with such a viewing occasion, especially aftean hour or more. There is the same darkened room, the samsnacks at hand, the same eerie effect of room illuminationissuing from a front "screen," and the same sound qualitcoming from that source. After a time, visual images seemto be coming from the mirror surface.

Some degree of fatigue and occasional boredom are well

known hazards for viewers. What tends to be overlooked isthe degree to which the set t ing can contr ibute to these s ym pt oms . Instead, we generally hold the myth that we have excellent seats and easy and almost transparent access to whaoccurs in a focus group discussion. We discount how muchour sense of the immediacy of a discussion actually differsfrom that of the participants. Even a focus group discussionthat holds the interest and sustained involvement of i tsmembers can come across as a somewhat pale affair, even atrifle dull.

Many a moderator has experienced this Rashomon effect .

Attention undoubtedly has often been called to these differ-ent perspecfives and percepfions. Typically, a moderator whohas just concluded a session that seemed to be a "good" dis-cussion in all respects will encounter a viewer who is in onlyqualif ied agreement, for whom that discussion seemed "notquite as l ively," the part icipants seemed "not quite as open,"and so on. Moderators tend to absorb the lesson that thedrama and/or productiveness in a discussion does not al-ways adequately "reach" i ts audience. Something extra isneeded. Probably they do not recognize the deficits that arepart of viewership. But the lesson is not lost that there is an"audience" (as opposed to a research) perspective to take into

account.



Participant Falsifications

The goal of performance is to enliven a group's behaviorand thus make sure viewers are kept engaged. What results,from the standpoint of the audience, can be lively inter-changes, interesting emotional displays, and a swiftly mov-ing, energized discussion. Voices tend to be a bit louder thanin causal conversafion, speakers are roused to take their turnsfairly quickly, and the normal mishmash of real speech tendsto be expressed in more organized statements. The interrup-t ions, backtracking, elisions, pauses, and silences in a spon-

taneous conversation (Goffman 1983) are reduced.

Such discussions characteristically consist of a series of "floortakings," participants using the discussion as a pretext formaking discrete pronouncements and exhibit ing emotionaloverinvolvement. Not al l group members go along with thisperformance style. Some rebel with silence or truculence.Others simply are confused at feeling called upon to behavein such a way and so withdraw to some degree. More usu-ally performance has an infecfious quality. Group memberscan enjoy themselves at what they are doing and enjoy sus-taining that atmosphere.

From the inside, instead of being unselfconsciously im-mersed in their discussion, parficipants take an interest inhow well it is going, h ow it is com ing across, and w ha t effectit is having. The interaction, as a thing in itself, has their atten-tion. This atm osp he re ne ed not lead to any actual falsificationof feelings and opinions. They are simply being dramatizeda hit, which can be helpful.

Moderators alone, even if there were no viewer audience ,would be an audience to which parficipants could directthemselves in this way. When viewers are present , however ,the stakes are raised. Moderators become more likely to take

an acfive role in fostering performance rather than simplyaccepting it when it occurs. A consistent shift to group per-formance does not take place without the intervenfion of themoderator. In that case there can be no such thing as a clin-ically detached, neutrally involved, permissive, and sensifivelistener role for the moderator. Whether by design or in-sfinct, moderators often become "stars" of a sort. The resultis to turn group members loose, to dislodge them from theirmoorings in their group. Group cohesion suffers as perfor-mance becomes a priority. To a degree, the parficipants ceaseto matter to one another. Each becomes a free operator whocollaborates with the others, if at all, in sustaining the per-formance.

A feeling of "groupness" is important , not just because i tgives members the security to interact with each other andto express themselves honestly, but also because it enablesthe group to serve as a moral community—to make i t lesslikely that members will lie or dissemble as they talk abouttheir shared experience. Who would know better than mem-bers of the group when exaggerafion, implausibility, or out-right lying is going on? This cohesion breaks down m per-formance. The possibilifies for falsificafion radically increase.Members feel freer to make statements largely for effect, to

manufacture or heighten their enthusiasm, and to take up

Cohesion breaksdown in performanceand the possibilities

for falsificationincrease



Excessive reliance oiviewability of

iscussions is a trap!

i r relevant issues and make them seem central to their owexperience. They can pretend a false consensus as well carry on mock disagreements and confrontat ions.

We need the moderator to protect the group from itself—

to direct their turn-taking in the heat of discussion, to try avoid premature closing of discussion on a topic before aviews have been heard, to be sure dissenters have a chancto take and hold the floor, and so on. As we know, groupressure can have its own negative effects (Shaw 1976However, a group need not turn into a gathering of self-coscious, individual performers. The group can retain i ts senthat everything that is happening is internal to it and is nbeing staged for outside consumption. Otherwise, a gater ing of dislocated part icipants who are prompted to dramatize themselves and to sustain a certain style of discussiono matter how engaging the result may be, makes possibvarious kinds of misrepresentat ion.

Focus group viewability may even become a criterion later analysis. Some discussions, usually the most engaginand dramatic ones, tend to stand out in our minds when focus group study is over. They tend to carry more than the

actual weight in our thinking about a study's central findingand major issues. Such discussions become exemplars that cshape our view of an entire study. The idea is not that livelness and animation in focus group discussions are unwanteor to be automatically mistrusted . W e know their imp ortancin maintaining group involvement in hum-drum topics anin helping us to know how to take what speakers are sayinHowever, viewability should not be taken automatically evidence of a discussion's productivity or of the validity oits findings. Excessive reliance on this feature of discussionas seems often to be the case, is a trap that is almost inherein the way we practice focus group research.

Some Implicat ions

What matters most is how focus groups get to their levof expressivity . Whether they come through to viewers being a vivid experience is of less importance if the groupotherwise are functioning well. This position may seem to bsomewhat radical given the climate of expectations that tooften seems to surround focus group research. If it is acepted, i t would require some viewers (and some moderatoas well) to modify their expectations.

To a degree, a theatrical metaphor applies to the focus grousituation. Viewers are an "audience" to the onstage eventLike any audience, they have a sense of entitlement to b"reached" and engaged by the behavior occurr ing onstagThe actors' job is to make their behavior accessible to us. Thpotential ly destructive consequences of this view have beediscussed. If things are to change, a shift must occur in hoviewers perceive their own roles despite all the conditions oviewership that work to support the status quo. Moderatowhose l ivelihood depends on viewer approval are less l iketo be adventuresome in modifying how they conduct focug roups .

The basis for change is really no more than a return to th



recognition that observing focus group discussions is a de-manding process. Back rooms are increasingly clogged withpeople. Focus group facilities compete by offering ever largerspaces to accommodate everyone. The disadvantages ofcrowde d viewing room s are well kno w n, but usually not wellenough controlled. Even a "need to know" standard may notalways be the proper basis for participation as a viewer. Amore appropriate standard is that viewership requires frontrow seats and close to complete silence. Any more than thenumber of persons who can be accommodated in this way

are attendees rather than full viewers.True viewers, who are able to function as such, often find

themselves caught up not so much by drama in the discus-sion as by the extremely difficult task of following a threadin the conversation, a theme that pops up only to reappearlater in some variant form and perhaps even in a differentcontext. To "get" what the discussion is about often requiresjust this sort of close and sensitive "tracking." Such view-ership is different from the kind that becomes energized asa result of the discussion's drama.

Desirable expressivity is likely to occur spontaneously if

some external practices are changed. The number of partic-ipants in a focus group has a bearing on its power as an "eyecontact" grouping with members who can relate easily to eachother, operate as a unit, and stimulate one another. In myexperience, six or seven participants is the optimal numberto achieve such group cohesion and to produce these effects.

Another concern is the length of focus group sessions.Spontaneity cannot always be sustained for the same lengthof time by every subject (or, perhaps, by all types of partic-ipants). Some subjects seem capable of engaging a group wellbeyond a two-hour l imit whereas others seem to "wear out"after an hour or so. We would do well to attempt to defineand to recognize these inherent limits and to tailor the lengthof discussions to the estimated involvement potential of thesubject matter. There is nothing sacred about the standardone-and-one-half to two-hour duration of focus groups. Pres-sures on participants to sustain a certain level of energy be-come an invitation to performance and falsification.

Subjects truly come alive in focus group discussion whenthe relevant "o the rs" w ho m atter to that experience in every-day life are present. A variety of topics are experienced andspoken of best within a specialized gathering (I am notspeaking of topics too "private" to discuss). We too often

take it for granted, for example, that the "purchaser" is theonly person who matters, at least in terms of focus grouprecruitment. More careful thought is needed about the mostrelevant social characteristics for assembUng focus groups onvarious topics. Family units may be most appropriate, for in-stance, when we want to hear about some snack products,convenience foods, or telephone usage.• Finally, how some moderators conduct themselves also has

the effect of reducing the group's involvement with itself asa unit and, in turn, can dam pen their interest and animation.A moderator may too often frame questions that do not referto potentially shared experience, but instead must be an-

FoUowing a thread lthe conversation is an

extremely difficulttask

Consider relevantsocial characteristicsin assembling focus

groups for certaintopics



swered individually ( the "When do you do so and so?" kinof question, for example). Another practice is regularly iserting a self-reference pronoun into the moderator 's comments: "I ," "I 'd ," "I 'm," and so on. The effect of both thetactics and others like them is to encourage the discussion take the form of a moderator-mediated interaction, with a sulting loss in participant spontaneity. Participants begin address each other by talking through the moderator , whbecomes the person who is continually spoken to . Group iterchange takes place through a kind of "eavesdropping."

Viewers must recognize the limitations of their access what participants fully experience on their side of the onway mirror . We should grant group members, more than wnow often do, the right to carry on as they would if thewere having a pr ivate discussion. For their par t , moderatoshould be held accountable for remaining "within" the dicussion and not trying to make it larger than life. To an important degree the validity of the focus group research technique has been compromised by what takes place on si te . is there that corrections should be made. •

References

Bean, Glynis J. (1988), "Don't Let a Dominator Spoil the Session fEveryone ," Marketing News (January 4), 6.

Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. GardeCity, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

(1967), Encounters. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.(1972), Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books, Inc.(1983), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Pr

Karger, Ted (1987), "Focus Groups Are for Focusing and for Little ElseMarketing News (August 28), 52-4.

Merton, Robert K., Marjorie Fiske, and Patricia L. Kendall (1956), The Fcused Interview. Glenview, IL: The Free Press.

Shaw, Marvin E. (1976), Group D ynamics: The Psychology of Small GrouBehavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Smith, Joan Macfarlane (1972), group discussions in Interviewing in Markan d Social Research. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Reprint No. MR141



Documents

Checkman 1989 - Focus Group as Theater