Qualitative Research: Focus Groups vs. Interviews
Within the market research industry, having access to both focus groups and in-depth interviews as a way to obtain targeted insights is very valuable. The methodologies are similar in that both are forms of qualitative research, meaning that they rely on human interactions rather than on numerical data. That said, they each have characteristics that differentiate them from one another, making them more or less useful in particular circumstances.
With a seasoned moderator, focus groups can be a great resource for clients who are hoping to gather diverse, interpersonal perspectives from larger, consumer samples. With this cost effective and efficient research format, clients can ask questions and quickly receive answers. They are also made privy to insights that span beyond the questions that they pose. With keen attention to detail, a moderator can see the interactions between participants; these behaviors are often subconscious and, sometimes, they speak more than the words themselves. With these positive aspects in mind, it is important to note that, like all things, focus groups have pitfalls. Focus groups rely heavily on the ability of their moderator to steer the conversation; inexperienced moderators can be choppy and disruptive with their insertions whereas experienced moderators tactically adjust the course of the discussion to minimize topics that burn time and maximize those that yield the most information. Without proper moderation, it is possible for conversations to be overtaken by more opinionated and outspoken participants, which can lead to limited opportunities for others to share their thoughts. Additionally, some focus groups may have more soft spoken participants, highlighting the importance of using a moderator that can help the conversation flow.
Unlike focus groups, in-depth interviews are a one-on-one encounter. This research methodology is very effective because it provides interviewers with the opportunity to speak with experts about their field in depth, diving into the nitty gritty details of their expertise. While the interviewer may not be exposed to the telling interpersonal interactions that they often see during focus groups, they are able to ensure that they hear everything that one person has to say about a topic. Interviewers are also able to ensure that the person they are speaking with has not fallen prey to the group thinking that often occurs during larger group discussions, helping to improve the validity of the research.
Some important things to consider when deciding whether to use a focus group or an in-depth interview are time restraints, cost, and the flow of the conversation. Focus groups allow researchers to speak with more people in less time, whereas with in-depth interviews, interviewers only get the perspective of one person during their allotted time. Likewise, focus groups are more cost effective because the client gains insight from multiple people with one payment. That being said, when it comes to the quality and depth of the insight, it may be worth considering the scope of one’s research and whether fewer insights from many people are more or less valuable than many insights from one person. Finally, the amount of people taking part in the conversation directly impacts its flow. In a group setting, individuals will naturally feel more comfortable whereas one-on-one, they may feel more vulnerable and nervous, causing the conversation to be less organic.
Understanding the primary positive and negative components of both focus groups and in-depth interviews is helpful in that it allows clients to make more informed decisions when it comes to picking the best qualitative methodology for their research needs.
Written by: Sadie Estey
