Editor's note: Tim Huberty is advertising research manager at the Fallon McElligott advertising agency in Minneapolis. He is also an adjunct instructor in the MBA program at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul.
Most of us remember freshman literature classes. Usually, we'd diligently read those short stories by Melville, Hawthorne, James and maybe just a little Hemingway thrown in for good measure. We'd read them backwards and forwards, certain that by lecture time we understood every smidgen of symbolism hidden within them. Then, in class the next morning, we'd be blown away by the multitude of messages uncovered by the professor. It seemed we'd only uncovered one dimension of meaning by merely reading the author's words.
For the longest time, analyzing the results of focus group research has followed the same scenario. A moderator, sitting at the head of the table, would carry on a series of two-hour discussions with participants and then report her "findings" back to the people who had watched the entire process from behind a two-way mirror. However, most of the time, the moderator didn't have perspective of the observers when preparing her report. In her report, she stated what the consumer had said, but nobody else. Her report lacked the input of the people behind the glass. Clients would only get the dimension of meaning provided by a moderator reporting exclusively what consumers had said.
Meanwhile, as the focus groups were conducted, the observers behind the glass had had their own discussions. Unfortunately, these perspectives rarely were shared with the moderator. The moderator may have been given a very limited glimpse of what took place behind the glass through a short debriefing session at the end of the evening, but, usually, both parties--and their findings-went down parallel paths. Thus, when the moderator finally got around to presenting the results of the group, her findings seldom reflected any of the intense learning that took place behind the glass. Ironically, this learning was often more relevant and actionable, but unfortunately, most of it was forgotten by the time the observers went home for the evening.
Gold mine
Few moderators take advantage of the gold mine of learning which constantly takes place behind the glass. The moderator has "read" the consumer, at one level, but in the process, missed the interpretative brainstorming that took place behind her back. Quite simply, the observers "behind the glass" have pulled out the hidden messages and untapped myriad findings that the moderator can never hope to plug into.
A few years ago, I worked with a moderator who was conducting focus groups for one of the agency's newspaper clients. After getting some last minute instructions from the group, I walked her to the door of the room. The last words she said to me before going in were, "Take real good notes tonight. And don't write down what the participants say; write down what the clients are saying in the backroom. I can listen to the tapes anytime, but I never hear what they're saying in the backroom."
Over time, this conversation has evolved into a whole new way of doing qualitative research at Fallon McElligott. "Upfront" moderators have proven quite adept at tapping into the minds of their participants. Unfortunately, the moderators can only hear what those participants say. They are never able to tap into the true learning that is taking place, i.e. the learning behind the glass. That's why at FM we always use "dual moderators," - one to tap into the participants' psyches and one to harness and record the reaming that takes place behind the glass."
Some time later, I took my marketing research students from the University of St. Thomas on a field trip. For the first two hours, half of the students were "participants" in front of the glass, while the other half were "observers" behind the glass. After two hours, the groups switched places. The new backroom observers provided a completely new perspective on the discussion taking place in front of them. I diligently recorded their comments from the beginning. Before long, however, I found myself formally "moderating" the "backroom" group, steering the continuing discussion about what the "observers" were hearing in front of them. I realized that their insights were never going to make it on the audiotape, but had to be included on the final report.
Two moderators
Over time, we've formalized this process, to the point that we now attempt to employ two moderators on every qualitative project - usually an independent from outside the agency and a research manager or account person to "moderate" and record observations made by observers behind the glass. The backroom moderator usually writes the report since that person can easily listen to the tapes, while incorporating the vast amounts of learning gleaned from the backroom observers.
The use of dual moderators is equally adaptable for focus groups or one-on-one interviews. Recently, we conducted some one-on-one in-depth interviews for a client. As the "executive interviewer" (i.e., moderator) was busy exploring the personalities of each brand, I was behind the glass, "moderating" a "group" of my own. The people in the backroom had the same discussion outline as the interviewer, but we had the added advantage of listening - and reacting instantaneously - to what consumers were saying. This backroom discussion allowed us to change the discussion outline with each subsequent respondent. Never before has qualitative research been more of an evolutionary process.
Usually, a "backroom moderator" is present at the groups anyway. It could be a research manager, a research analyst or a brand manager. There is always that one person who has to be there to "tell the others what they are hearing;" that one person who prevents the executive vice president from changing the brand strategy because one single loud-mouth consumer shoots off his mouth during the group. All it takes it for one person to take the lead - usually the initiator of the project - and record the comments and learning in the backroom.
A little over a year ago, I did some qualitative work for one of the clients of an FM subsidiary. Unfortunately, a limited budget did not allow us to hire an independent moderator and take along appropriate account people. So, I conducted the groups and the account supervisor served as the backroom moderator. I don't believe we learned anything less. After all, account people usually know much more than a "hired gun" independent moderator. As the research professional, I presented the findings and wrote the report, but the account supervisor reviewed each of my drafts and all of my scripts.
Each observer cannot decide to be the "backroom moderator." One person must take charge. That person's expertise should be obvious to everyone else attending the session. At the same time, the people attending the group should be told of the new arrangement, whereby the "backroom moderator" is going to force them to consistently contribute and will be diligently recording their comments. Not only does this keep the conduct in the backroom more civil (observers tend to behave better, knowing that they will be expected to contribute), but it gives each of the observers a considerable amount of equity in the project.
For the past few years, I've given seminars on training people to conduct "quality circles." Each time, I recommend that dual moderating be used here also. I believe it is very important for one moderator to focus exclusively on what is being discussed and another moderator to record all of the extraneous information (e.g., facial expressions, independent discussions being carried on by individual members) that never gets on the tape.
Used by anyone
Dual moderating can be implemented and used by anyone. It's a quick and easy system and I'm surprised more people aren't using it right now. Perhaps the most overwhelming argument for trying it is to think back, once again, to freshman lit class, when you found out about all the hidden messages and meanings that your professor gleaned from Lewis, Faulkner or Steinbeck. Wasn't it overwhelming? Didn't it make the initial assignment all the more worthwhile--and relevant? There's nothing holding you back from experiencing this same type of exhilaration every time you set out to do some qualitative research.