Focus group moderating styles
By Stacy Graiko
May 15, 2010
I had the honor of attending a workshop by master moderators sponsored by the Philadelphia / Delaware Valley chapter of the QRCA yesterday. The event’s theme was simple: bring in 3 expert moderators who between them have moderated over 30,000 focus groups in a combined 100+ years of experience, and let professional moderators observe from behind the glass while they moderate groups with real respondents. The three moderators: Bob Harris, Pat Sabena and Judy Langer – have different approaches to moderating focus groups, making the day thought-provoking and educational. Here are the three styles that were demonstrated:
The Conversational Approach in which the table could have been removed from the room; it was as if the focus group was taking place among friends in a living room or at a table in a restaurant. The conversation was personal, humor was used, and the moderator maintained an even tone throughout the group. Contrast that with the School Teacher style, in which the moderator directed respondents through a series of tasks: mind-mapping, word association, and fill-in-the-blanks, which she was quick to point out are not “projective” techniques, but useful exercises to get participants thoughts out quickly, to enable the bulk of the group’s time to be spent on probes that enable story-telling. The third and final style was harder to categorize: the moderator was definitely directive, yet conversational as well, even sharing her personal feelings to encourage others’ – ex. “”I know what you mean,” and using self-deprecating humor – “I’m going to scribble on the flipchart, probably illegibly..” to develop rapport with participants.
Three very diverse styles, from two women and one man, and all three groups arrived at the same insights, with slight variances in the language that was used to express them. This could of course be accounted for by group dynamics, and certainly the collective wisdom generated by the groups was useful to build upon as the day progressed (each moderator got to watch the other before him/her), but it really underscores the point that moderating styles can be vastly different and still achieve the learning objectives.
Thanks to the Philadelphia / Delaware Valley chapter of the QRCA for providing such a rich learning opportunity for our profession.
The Conversational Approach in which the table could have been removed from the room; it was as if the focus group was taking place among friends in a living room or at a table in a restaurant. The conversation was personal, humor was used, and the moderator maintained an even tone throughout the group. Contrast that with the School Teacher style, in which the moderator directed respondents through a series of tasks: mind-mapping, word association, and fill-in-the-blanks, which she was quick to point out are not “projective” techniques, but useful exercises to get participants thoughts out quickly, to enable the bulk of the group’s time to be spent on probes that enable story-telling. The third and final style was harder to categorize: the moderator was definitely directive, yet conversational as well, even sharing her personal feelings to encourage others’ – ex. “”I know what you mean,” and using self-deprecating humor – “I’m going to scribble on the flipchart, probably illegibly..” to develop rapport with participants.Three very diverse styles, from two women and one man, and all three groups arrived at the same insights, with slight variances in the language that was used to express them. This could of course be accounted for by group dynamics, and certainly the collective wisdom generated by the groups was useful to build upon as the day progressed (each moderator got to watch the other before him/her), but it really underscores the point that moderating styles can be vastly different and still achieve the learning objectives.
Thanks to the Philadelphia / Delaware Valley chapter of the QRCA for providing such a rich learning opportunity for our profession.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks