For me, it’s about arithmetic. If I speak to one person
for just 15 minutes, I’ll get more from them than I will from any of the 12
people I speak to for 90 minutes. I’ll have the chance go deeper and explore
more with them – and possibly to deviate a bit more from the interview guide.
But the chief down-side is arithmetical too. It takes a lot more
time to speak to as many people. In those 90 minutes, I can talk to a maximum
of 6 people one-to-one (and realistically fewer than that). It’ll create more
transcripts, which will take longer to administrate, to analyse and to report.
There are the benefits of being able to get more quickly
and further into people’s heads. That can really help to understand what may initially
seem like and alien organisation. And people may be willing to be even more
open one-to-one. And, of course, you only have one person to manage. That’s,
usually, manageable.
But there are downsides too. To some extent your
interviewee may be devious, truculent and unreliable. They may have their own
agenda and - particularly if they’re more senior – may be rather good at bringing
you round to their opinion. You need to guard against this. Or they might not
really want to take part and - taking your call between meetings - there’s only
you to jolly them along.
And of course, there’s no-one but you to challenge them
or introduce new ways of thinking - and it may not be appropriate for you to involve
yourself like that. You can give them a good experience and make them feel
valued, but you’re the only person that will learn anything new from the session. Sometimes focus
groups can gain their own internal momentum, which can be very powerful.
So, you need to make sure you’ve got the best use of
budget and time. Don’t put your eggs in one type of research – and I can help
you strike the right balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment