Participant(s)

I had the unusual experience last night of being a participant in a focus group. This was unusual for me because I am always the moderator. From that vantage point I saw the limitations of qualitative (and really, quantitative, too) research firsthand.

The primary, unavoidable obstacle to insight, as I experienced it last night, is the internal struggle of the respondent to be truthful…not because they are inherently false or intentionally trying to deceive, but because it’s nearly impossible for the average person – even the rare extraordinary person – to answer consistently over time from one point of view. This is what I’ll call “the multiplicity of I’s” problem.

Within every person there is not one, but hundreds, maybe countless I’s. And each of these I’s has a distinct agenda. We spend every waking minute (and some sleeping) held hostage by these I’s as they battle to get their way. From the route we take to work, to the tenor and rhythm of our conversations, to the choices we make for dinner, each decision is a battle and the I that wins dictates what happens next.

In the group last night the multiplicity of I’s within me reacted and responded in turn depending on several key factors: the content of the question asked, the way the question was asked, the comments that preceded my turn to talk, the energy and dynamic of the group, and the overall storyline of the evening as it progressed. These were just the factors I was aware of…I’m sure there were more subtle ones: concerns about the way I might be perceived, sensual triggers, memories…

I found myself saying things that didn’t sound like me. I caught myself giving contrasting answers at different points in the conversation. I felt myself restraining information and trying to answer in a way that would “please” the moderator. I wanted to be helpful. I wanted the group dynamic to be positive. I, I, I. So many I’s were involved.

As a moderator, I have a lot of experience interviewing individuals and managing groups. Long ago I accepted the fact that over the course of a single conversation any research subject will seem to change their position many times on matters big and small. I used to think the longer I spent with the subject the closer we got to the truth. As they let their guard down and started to trust me and the conversation, they were more likely to answer honestly…or so I thought.

I felt it was my job to be aware of the inconsistencies and to work towards some kind of conclusion, some kind of solidarity of thought by the end of the session. Clients have pointed this phenomenon out in the back room of the focus group facility. Sitting safely behind the mirrored glass, they’ll catch a participant in an inconsistent response and point it out harshly as a sign of the person’s lack of integrity or as a caution about accepting that person’s opinion: they said they liked it before and now they’re saying they don’t…they don’t know what they want.

Of course, moderators are well-aware that the way a question is asked will influence the response so we formulate multiple phrasings for the same question. We know that context effects response, so we mix things up and change the order of the conversation. We know social dynamics come into play, so we help smooth over tensions and draw out the shier participants.

But, how can we manage for the multiplicity of I’s problem?

I’m not sure, but I intend to practice – and I do mean practice – some precautionary measures the next time I dig in to a set of interviews or a focus group:

• Listen harder
• Ask the question again
• Build a composite sketch of the participant based on the full range of his/her participation and use that sketch to put specific comments into perspective.
• Make sure clients are using research to the right ends…it’s great for gathering facts: the how, what, when and where of the consumer’s experience with a brand…but not so great for the why. Why must be assessed from an objective position.

The moderator’s  job is to be objective. This is just one more piece of information to build into my overall understanding of the dynamics at play as I try to quiet my multiple I’s. One more challenge – and I do love a challenge – to getting closer to the Truth.