Background and Reason for the Study
The evolution of new networked technologies has opened up exciting new options for focus group researchers. Where “traditional” focus groups require the moderator to bring together participants in the same place at the same time for a face-to-face discussion, networked technologies call this assumption into question in exciting ways. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are flattening the world and simplifying communication across large distances (Friedman, 2001). Online focus groups allow for conversations between participants who would otherwise be separated by distance or time constraints. And yet, not unlike online distance learning environments, online focus groups must address the question of how to create productive, information-rich social spaces in novel ways that do not rely on “traditional” face-to-face interactions. Market and social researchers have started innovating in this direction (iTracks.com, Goodmind.net) but much still remains to be discovered about the unique potential online platforms offer to connect focus group participants in ways that were not possible before the advent of Web 2.0. The emphasis of our research, then, was not in replicating a face-to-face environment within an online setting, but to define the situations in which online focus groups would be most appropriate and to modify pre-existing networked technologies in ways that facilitate information-rich social interactions.
After conducting focus group for over 30 years, Dr. Richard Krueger, with the help of Dr. David Ernst, Director of Academic Technologies, organized a course around the idea of testing various online platforms’ strengths and weaknesses for hosting focus groups. The project involved 10 other co-investigators at the University of Minnesota, all with a strong background in conducting focus groups and using technologies in innovative ways. The group analyzed potential platforms for online focus groups in terms of their cost, information privacy, administrative requirements, ease of navigation, hardware requirements, data capturing process, and other criteria. Our goal was to come up with cost-effective solutions for translating the anatomy and the essence of a face-to-face focus group to an online environment.
Why/How is this a Focus Group?
“Focus groups [are] a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (Morgan, 1997). Focus groups facilitate various forms of information-rich social interactions that are absent from individual interviews and other qualitative research methods. A focus group includes the selection of a small homogeneous group of information-rich participants who respond to a number of focused questions in a non-threatening and permissive environment (Krueger & Casey, 2008). Using a systematic and verifiable analysis, a focus group provides researchers, and their intended audience, with key insights into a series of important questions that can be best answered by small homogeneous groups interacting in a social environment. When constructing a successful online focus group, our process carefully considered the replicability of key design elements of a focus group and how to best represent them in an online environment. To this end, it was also helpful to examine some of the literature on distance teaching and learning to inform our construction of these online focus groups (see, for example, Aragon, 2003; Beaudin, 1999; Zvacek et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the question of whether these online platforms “feel” like a socially rich focus group environment will rest largely on participants’ comfort level with the technology and the moderator’s ability to facilitate a comfortable virtual meeting space. The savvy online moderator will never stop questioning whether she is creating a sufficiently comfortable and functional virtual space to facilitate rich information exchange.
Our Research Process: Conducting A Series of Online “Focus Groups about Focus Groups”
Exploring focus groups through the use of our own online focus group platforms was an integral element of our research design. Following an initial brainstorming session, the research team categorized various online social platforms based on their strengths and weaknesses. Some tools discussed include: Facebook, Google Docs, Desire to Learn (D2L), Moodle, Free Forums, Co Meeting, Google Groups, VoiceThread, Listservs, Skype, Ning, and Adobe Connect, among others. These tools were then classified according to whether they allowed for real-time (synchronous) interaction, or allowed participants to log in at different (asynchronous) times to participate. Other variables that were considered included: cost, security, data ownership, ease of use, data capture, ability to participate anonymously, additional “bells and whistles,” multimedia capabilities, bandwidth requirements, and the platform’s visual appeal.
The team focused its exploration by settling on a “short list” of online social platforms for further testing, and representing both synchronous and asynchronous options (see Table 1). Research team members divided up the roles of moderator and participants, modified each platform to fit the purpose of a focus group, and used each other as “test subjects” to try out the various platforms.
Table 1. Platforms tested by the research team
Synchronous |
Asynchronous |
Skype |
Adobe Connect |
Google Groups |
Ning |
Synchronous test platforms: Skype and Adobe Connect
Asynchronous platforms that allow for voice and video chat are perhaps the most “literal” translation of what it feels like to be in a face-to-face focus group. Online environments are increasingly capable of supporting voice and video through technologies such as voice over IP (VoIP). Synchronous voice and video chat technologies have the advantage of transmitting relatively nuanced facial expressions and emotional cues, although their success as focus group platforms depends largely on good bandwidth availability and active moderation to set participants at ease.
Skype, one of the best known VOIP companies, has over 663 million users, and has provided various communication services at reduced cost for its users since 2003, with many other applications increasingly working to provide similar feature-rich voice and video chat services (Telecompaper, 2011). As a low cost, multi-platform service, currently owned by Microsoft, our group tested Skype as an example of what a well-permeated, free or low-cost multimedia chat platform can provide to potential focus group researchers. Skype, however, presented some moderation problems, as it is structured to function as a tool for communication between friends or peers, rather than a more structured conversation, with a pre-defined moderator, as is the case within a focus group environment. Skype’s privacy settings were not very transparent to our test participants, and it was not possible to guarantee anonymity through this platform--both factors which can unsettle participants. Skype does offer a range of communication modes: from text chat, to voice chat, to video and file share. Unfortunately, voice, video, and file share require more bandwidth, and may be impractical or frustratingly slow for participants with limited internet connections. In order to take advantage of the rich visual and emotional cues that video and voice provide, moderators should ensure that participants will have access to high-speed, and preferably hard-wired, connections. With good bandwidth, however, along with a good moderator introduction to set participants at cease, clear details on how communication will take place through Skype, and a good set of questions, Skype can be a useful tool for synchronous online focus groups.
In addition to Skype, we also decided to test a more regulated and “stylizable” environment--Adobe Connect. As webinar software, Adobe Connect allows for different authorizations or rights to given to different participants, permitting the moderator to remove a non-cooperating member or silence their account temporarily. The environment allows for participants to raise their “virtual hands” before speaking, and allows the moderator to pre-arrange multimedia “pods” into different layouts and guide participants through multiple different user experiences, all within the same virtual meeting space. Adobe Connect features currently include: customizable meeting rooms, breakout sessions within a meeting, meeting recording, screen sharing, polling, notes, chat, virtual whiteboards, sophisticated user permissions management, and audio and video conferencing, among other functions. Our research team started out testing the text chat room feature, but quickly grew frustrated with the volume and speed of the text flow, and the fact that it tended to reduce participant content to trivial answers. We also tested the voice and video chat feature, which required all participants to have their cameras and microphones activated simultaneously and was relatively taxing on bandwidth and resulted in some frustration for participants with slower connections. The whiteboard feature was, perhaps, the most serendipitous and successful discovery: by providing participants with a drawing task and asking them to take turns sketching and narrating their ideas, this feature was perhaps the most richly interactive, but also low-stress element of the environment. Overall, the primary advantages of Adobe Connect are its robust user permissions controls, and the vast amount of control it gives the moderator to stylize the look and feel of the participant experience. At a current cost of $55/month, Adobe Connect is also still an accessible option for research groups with limited budgets.
Figure 1. Moderator greeting participants during the start of the Adobe Connect online focus group.
Asynchronous test platforms: Google Groups and Ning
There are a number of useful asynchronous platforms available online, including openly available forum technologies, listservs, and free websites such as Google Groups. Our team settled on Google Groups and Ning as asynchronous platforms, as they allowed for relatively simple modifications to make them suitable for conducting focus groups. At first glance, however, these platforms may not look like focus groups. They do not seek to replicate a real-time, face-to-face interaction in the same way synchronous platforms do. Instead, for our tests, we decided to set up discussion threads in each platform and to share a new question with the participants every day for 3-4 days. Participants were asked to provide answers for each day’s focal question, and to comment on other participants’ responses as they felt compelled to do so. Bandwidth requirements were negligible in both platforms, and participants were able to post comments at their leisure.
One of the biggest advantages of the asynchronous platforms was that they allowed participants to be more expansive and detailed in their answers, as they had a much longer amount of time to consider and post their responses. The delayed response time can increase the richness of the data when involving highly motivated participants with available time to participate, and can also be more accessible to participants with different native languages and different physical and technological ability levels. Another key advantage is that Both Google Groups and Ning allow participants to be anonymous, if necessary.
One of the biggest challenges of asynchronous focus groups is attrition. The moderator does not have the luxury of having a time and (virtual) space set aside for conducting the focus group. Instead, it falls on participants to take time out of their own busy schedules to participate and engage in back-and-forth commenting. A skilled moderator online must be aware of the ease of tuning out or ending one’s participation, and the time commitment required to read and comment on lengthy comment threads. Especially within an asynchronous environment, it is very important for participants to be engaged by the moderator and encouraged to elaborate on their answers (see also Zvacek, et al., 2011). Without active moderation, an asynchronous, primarily text-based environment may not naturally encourage conversations. This makes it particularly important to keep online focus groups small--limited to about 5 participants.
In our trials, the design of both Google Groups and Ning environments supported a minimalist approach. The team members determined that very clear, minimalist design with limited input options was easiest for asynchronous participants. Google Groups was simple in this regard. The major disadvantage with Google Groups, though, is that it can be tricky to collaborate between participants with regular Google accounts and participants with institutionally-supported Google accounts (such as university-sponsored Google Apps systems). In addition, Google Groups messages typically show up in participants’ regular e-mail inboxes, which can be frustrating for participants who prefer not to receive these kinds messages in their inboxes.
The Ning platform, on the other hand, offered bells and whistles that can be distracting when setting up an effective focus group environment. Ning required initial modifications to remove the standard blogging, video, and social media tools it provides. A major strength with a relatively robust platform like Ning, however, is that it allows the moderator to customize the environment to increase its visual appeal. And while Ning is primarily an asynchronous environment, it also allows for some limited synchronous text-based chatting. The chat is not only helpful for including a synchronous element to the focus group, but also for troubleshooting participants technological problems. Ning, then, strikes a good balance between robust, expandable features and a user-friendly, customizable design. Ning does entail a current cost of $24.95/month, but is still a relatively economical option for research groups.
Figure 2. Focus Group Minnesota, a simplified Ning website modified for hosting asynchronous online focus groups
Lessons Learned
Through a process of conducting several focus groups, the group came up with a list of lessons learned, summarized in the table below.
Environment
|
Technology
|
Make it Welcoming – Take some time to think through the way your online environment looks. Is it inviting? Is it user-friendly? Create a brief introductory video to introduce the moderator(s), the purpose of the group, and the features of the online platform.
Personalize It – Allow your participants to personalize their presence. Even in an anonymous group, you can have participants pick fun profile pictures or write a brief personal bio.
Simple Layout and Design – Make it easy to find things on the site, build in some navigational redundancy, and avoid clutter. Make sure you only have on the site what is necessary for conducting the focus group. |
Teach the Technology - Participants will come with varying levels of technology expertise and anxiety, and it is important to get them more or less on the same page before starting the focus group. Try creating a “how-to” guide or filming an introductory video that introduces the platform, and ask participants to look at it prior to joining the focus group. Consider incorporating a “test run” or a “warm-up” activity at the beginning of the focus group to introduce and test out the features of your focus group platform.
Stay Behind the Curve – Choose platforms and features that participants have the maximum amount of familiarity with. Remember: focus groups are about getting rich information--not about demonstrating the latest technology.
Keep the Technology Support “Quiet” and Omnipresent – Good planning helps the technology remain as invisible as possible. Build in multiple avenues for troubleshooting, and be explicit about how participants can request help if something breaks down. If a participant’s computer breaks down altogether, have a phone number or e-mail address available to participants for “last ditch” tech support. |
Participants
|
Moderator
|
Keep the Group Small – Somewhere around five participants is ideal. This reduces the amount of reading for asynchronous text-based focus groups, and reduces the bandwidth and troubleshooting issues for synchronous voice/video focus groups.
Know your Audience – Make sure the platform you choose and the features you use will resonate with your participants. There are some generational and even gendered patterns in the ways people prefer to engage with technology that may be helpful to consider when selecting a platform. To get a sense of what you might reasonably expect from participants, you may want to look at the Pew Internet &er; American Life Project’s work on technology user types (see Horrigan, 2007).
Consider How You Recruit – Recruiting for an online focus group can be very different than a face-to-face group. You have to consider motivations and ability. Do the people you are recruiting like communicating online? What is their level of technology sophistication and will they have sufficient access to the technologies and bandwidth you require?
Furnish the Right Incentives - Incentives help participants stay engaged throughout the online focus group. The incentive could be intangible (e.g. “You are helping the community.”) or tangible (e.g. a gift card from a popular store or a movie ticket). If the incentive is intangible, be sure to describe the benefit. Don’t assume that it is obvious. |
Establish Expectations for Engagement – Social norms vary much more online than in a face-to-face environment. Being explicit about how and how much you expect participants to engage will help avoid “culture clashes” and confusion. In synchronous environments, you’ll want to spell out clear expectations of who should talk and when, or even try calling on people in turn. In asynchronous environments, you can communicate guidelines for how and how frequently participants should comment on each others’ contributions. (For more strategies to encourage effective engagement, see Van Patten, 2011).
Be Socially Present – As a moderator, it is important to appear present in the conversations--perhaps more so than in a face-to-face environment. Online environments can feel impersonal, so you may want to make particular effort to address participants by name. In synchronous environments, you may find you need to more actively moderate and “fill in the gaps” in conversation. In asynchronous environments, you can create daily summaries and bullet points to highlight key ideas in the discussion and guide further discussion for participants who don’t have time to read all the posts.
Have Multiple Moderators – Having two or more moderators is important. You may want to divide roles into “talk-moderator” (to guide the discussion) and “tech-moderator” (to help with troubleshooting and tech questions). |
Table 2. Summary of lessons learned through testing four online focus group platforms.
Acknowledgements
This chapter would not have been possible without the extensive contributions of every member of the online focus group research team. Led by Richard Krueger and David Ernst, the results of this research team came from the collaborative effort of the authors and co-investigators, and all members of the group provided valuable contributions to the success of this study.
References
Aragon, S.R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Dimensions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.
Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41-53.
Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Picador.
Goodmind. (2012). Goodmind website. Retrieved from http://www.goodmind.net/
Horrigan, J. B. (2007). A typology of information and communication technology users. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/A-Typology-of-
Information-and-Communication-Technology-Users.aspx
iTracks. (2012). iTracks website. Retrieved from http://itracks.com/
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2008). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research [plastic comb]. Newbury Park: Pine Forge Press.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Telecompaper. (2011, March 8). Skype grows FY revenues 20%, reaches 663 mln users. Telecompaper. Retrieved from http://www.telecompaper.com/news/skype-grows-fy-revenues-20-reaches-663-mln-users
Van Patten, L. (2011). Rules of engagement: Ten proven methods for creating and sustaining participant involvement in asynchronous online research. QRCA Views, Winter 2011.
Zvacek, S., Albright, M., Simonson, M., & Smaldino, S. E. (2011). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.