It is no secret that the field of user experience often favors objective, observational research methods over subjective, attitudinal methods. After all, when something is observed, with proof that it has actually happened, it can be hard to argue against it. However, it takes more than observational research to truly empathize and understand the full complexity of a person’s experience, which includes emotional experiences, mindsets, values, and belief systems. Since there is no other way to gather this data (at the writing of this article, mind reading with neural implants is not possible) researchers must use attitudinal methods to solicit the thoughts and opinions of target customers. A focus group is one of these methods.

In This Article:

What Is a Focus Group?

Definition: A focus group is a qualitative, attitudinal research method in which a facilitator conducts a meeting or workshop (typically about 1–2 hours long) with a group of 6–9 people to discuss issues and concerns about their experiences with a product or service. The term “focus” relates to the role of the facilitator, who maintains the group’s focus on certain topics during discussions.

Traditionally, focus groups have been a market-research method, used to get a sense of some aspect of a product, service, or concept. In these settings, the focus would typically be on certain words, graphics, videos, or other noninteractive media. All participants are presented with the media as a group and then prompted to provide their thoughts to the facilitator and the rest of the group.

Generally speaking, focus groups can provide useful information about your customers’ overall opinions and their impressions of a product or service.

Limitations and Risks of Focus Groups

Focus groups are notoriously problematic and often improperly used. Here are some of their limitations:

  • They do not provide detailed insights on usability. People will comment on what is shown or remembered and offer opinions, so, by their nature, focus groups cannot provide any objective information on behavior when using a product or service. Thus, they cannot provide detailed usability insights, which would be best found with a usability test or field study. Even if there are some usability insights uncovered when presenting a design, products are almost never used by a whole committee; they’re used individually.
  • People don’t always know what they will do or what will MOST benefit them in the future. In many focus groups, participants are asked whether they would use a particular product. But users do not always do what they say they will do. So, while it’s helpful to listen to customers’ concerns, preferences, or requests for features or product offerings — especially to uncover unmet user needs — the requests themselves are not always going to be the best solutions to address customers’ needs in a systematic and prioritized way.
  • As is the case with any self-reported data, human memory is fallible. Certain biases will limit the focus of participants’ accounts and make these an unreliable source of information about sentiment or satisfaction.
    • Negativity bias often results in people more readily recalling what was bad about an experience (particularly if it was not a great one), which can skew the discussion negatively for everyone else.
    • The peak-end rule can cause people to overly focus on the most memorable and most recent moments, at the expense of other possibly more-meaningful ones.
    • Priming can cause participants to overemphasize an aspect of their experience, because it so happened that someone else mentioned it and made them remember it.
  • Group dynamics may impact how much (or how little) people share. Strong personalities in the group may affect what and how much is shared. Depending on the focus group’s format, it may disproportionately represent the opinions of those who are more talkative or quick to answer. Groupthink is also more likely to occur in these settings if only verbal contributions are given attention. To paraphrase my colleague Sarah Gibbons: a poorly run focus group can be a great way to pay 9 people for the opinions of three.

Given these limitations, focus groups should NOT be utilized in the following contexts:

  • Evaluating a design’s usability 
  • Evaluating workflows
  • Creating a list of design requirements
  • Determining a UI’s impact on emotions
  • Quantifying satisfaction or other sentiments 

Benefits of Focus Groups

Despite these shortcomings, there are some good reasons to consider a focus group:

  • Participants with similar goals or perspectives can build on each other’s responses or recall experiences in greater detail. Sometimes during interviews, a participant might have trouble recalling all the details of an experience. However, hearing another participant mention something related may trigger the recollection of an important detail, which would otherwise get skimmed over in an interview.
  • They can help teams clarify users’ mental models and language (vocabulary) around the problem space during discovery phases, before conducting further research. While you should generally run a pilot study for most research studies anyway, a focus group can help researchers rework a research plan or facilitator guide with language that could be more user-centered.
  • They are a time-efficient method for the researcher. Rather than dedicate 9–12 hours interviewing 6–9 individual participants, a researcher can dedicate 1–2 hours to gather the perspectives of 6–9 people at the same time. It can be a quick way to learn from many people and perspectives (and certainly a 100% improvement to conducting no research at all). These can be especially time-efficient if the researcher is facilitating the focus group online rather than in person.
  • When run properly, they can yield rich qualitative insights due to a format similar to semistructured interviews. Unlike questionnaires — which can sometimes limit the level of detail covered — focus groups give facilitators the flexibility to explore topics in which the participants are interested. This format is especially useful if the team is still in early stages of product development and trying to discover new information about the problem space.

Given these benefits, focus groups are BEST utilized in the following contexts:

  • Early discovery research to gauge customer familiarity or interest in a concept and initial impressions
  • Understanding users’ mental models and expectations
  • Cocreation workshops with sponsored customers

You Can Run an Effective Focus Group

It’s fair to say that focus groups are often unfairly maligned, considering the many benefits they can yield with relatively less time commitment compared to other methods. The key to reaping these benefits and mitigating limitations is to use a combination of other research methods (like other behavioral or attitudinal methods), and having a strong research plan.

Here are the key things to consider when planning your focus group:

1. Recruit participants that are representative of your target audience(s).

Who do you want to learn about? What specific segment of users are you interested in? Even if your user is “everybody,” use personas, archetypes, or jobs-to-be-done to identify key recruiting criteria. Recruiting is a tricky balance of finding similar user motivations and goals (not demographics) while inviting a mix of backgrounds to reduce bias from other sources — such as having an overly westernized sample when studying a global offering.

2. Note potential sources of bias from the focus group’s structure.

Note who is not included, and why, for consideration during analysis and when strategizing future research. Is it a different segment that’s intentionally excluded? Lack of response? Lack of interest/trust? Bias is difficult to totally eliminate, but awareness of sources of bias can help during analysis and might inform future research. For example:

  • With online focus groups, there may be potential participants who are excluded from participating (be it due to a poor internet connection, lack of a desktop device, or low literacy in certain digital tools). Thus, they may not be able join a video chat or, if they do join, they may be less likely to participate when using an unfamiliar online-meeting tool or whiteboard platform for the first time.
  • With in-person focus groups, it’s fair to assume that the study will only involve participants from the immediate commutable vicinity (i.e., within the city or state), especially if travel is not funded by the study or if insufficient notice is provided for those commuting from further distances.
  • Is your focus group accessible? This is relevant for both in-person and online focus groups. Can disabled participants get into the facility and participate readily? Can nonverbal participants contribute?

3. Treat your focus group like a workshop. Make participants comfortable with participating, verbally or nonverbally.

As you plan your agenda for the focus group, remember that most of your participants likely do not know each other and will be asked to speak honestly, potentially revealing information that may make them feel vulnerable or unlike others. Some people may do it, others may not. Consider having the following in your focus group:

  • Easy warmup activity (e.g. participants could write their first names on a folded sheet of paper) 
    Start your session with a low-stake prompt or icebreaker question that does not have “correct” answers. This serves two purposes:
    • It gives a structured way for participants to build rapport with the facilitator and with each other.
    • It builds participants’ confidence, in themselves and in the format (particularly if you’re using online-meeting tools or digital whiteboards).
      Note: Do not “break the ice” with highly personal or sensitive topics, which will likely cause participants to withdraw instead. (In fact, those types of answers are probably not going to come easily in a focus-group format, even with the most “warmed up” group. These types of questions are better suited to 1:1 interviews).
  • Both written and verbal participation opportunities
    As with any other UX workshop, offer multiple methods of engagement (verbal and nonverbal) to encourage maximum participation and contribution. This ensures that less vocal or nonnative speakers feel comfortable contributing. You can also use the diverge–converge technique to maximize participation while decreasing bias potential.
    Note: If covering sensitive topics, offer an anonymous way to contribute (or, again, consider a different, more-private method altogether).

4. Have a (written) plan and guide.

Construct your prompts in advance to avoid leading or biasing participants.  As with semistructured interviews, focus-group questions should use the funnel technique: be open-ended and broad at the beginning and progressively build detail and specificity with concepts as the conversation progresses. On a related note: remember to frame followup questions both positively and negatively to avoid leading participants, particularly when the conversation may naturally skew in one of these directions.

Conclusion

Focus groups don’t accurately predict future behavior. However, they can help gauge attitudes and guide future exploration, thus avoiding wasted research time. Still, they should be considered a starting point to further research, rather than a validation step. The good news? If your focus-group participants are willing, not only will you have their input to guide your further research, you may also have a group of customers willing and able to test what you create to further guide your design.