Editor's note: Jim Spanier is president of James Spanier Associates, a New York City qualitative research firm.

Have you ever listened while two people each gave their own account of what another person said? They both listened to the same words, but each may have heard something very different.

A vivid example of this phenomenon occurred some years ago in one of my college psychology classes. Unbeknownst to the rest of us, the professor asked two of his 25 students to stage a mock argument at the start of the class, over who had the right to a certain seat. After the incident, he asked several students to tell what had happened and what was said. As you might imagine, students reported everything from a little name-calling to an out-and-out slugfest. Why?

Focus group listening

When we listen to someone or observe something, we tend to bring along our own experiences and prejudices as we assimilate and interpret the situation. The resulting subjectivity is often particularly pronounced during observation of focus group discussions.

For example, respondents may have seen a new product concept or several advertising executions and had mixed reactions - some thought the concept or the ads were great, while others were only lukewarm. In that situation, the creator of the concept or the creative team who wrote the ads may very well "hear" more of the positive comments than the other observers do. They're not being disingenuous; they truly hear more of the positives.

Role of the moderator

Meanwhile, the focus group moderator is in a unique position to hear what respondents have to say. Physical proximity to the respondents helps, but it's not the only reason. The moderator does not bring along all the involvement of creation to the listening experience. Moreover, his or her career is not on the line if the respondents don't react positively. Thus, the moderator can listen with less built-in bias than certain observers behind the glass may have.

To take advantage of the moderator's unique perspective, consider asking the moderator what he or she heard before stating what you heard. This can increase your learning by assuring that both the positives and negatives are exposed before anyone can put a positive spin on the results. (This approach may take some courage, however, especially if you are with an advertising agency whose client needs to be convinced your copy is great!)

Three steps to increased focus group learning


The following steps are one way to approach broadening the learning you can glean from each qualitative research exercise.

  • Brief on issues as well as information needs. The best preparation for the job of listening is proper briefing of the moderator. Tell the moderator in advance what particular issues you are wrestling with, so that his/her hearing can be directed more specifically to those areas. The moderator will then be better equipped to interpret what respondents say in the context of the issues you consider important.
  • Ask the moderator what he/she heard. If you've already made up your mind about what respondents said when you observed the groups and aren't open to receiving the moderator's input, you aren't getting full value from the research. Don't set up a situation where any disagreement would be adversarial; get the interpretation without trying to lead the moderator. You wouldn't want the moderator to lead the respondents, so why should you lead him or her?

    You may very well find you agree with the moderator, and you could get some additional insight besides. Moreover, you will always have the final say if you disagree with the moderator.
  • Encourage others to volunteer what they heard. Qualitative research differs from quantitative in the interpretation of the findings. In quantitative research we accept the findings and debate their meaning and implications; in qualitative research we often debate the findings themselves, since everyone present heard them.

Discussing the findings with others helps clarify just exactly what they were. If you can agree on an accurate set of findings, you are more likely to agree on the implications of those findings.