Fly or Flop - The Role of the Moderator

Week 6 | Getting to know your audiences: Interviews & focus groups

During this week's tutorial, the class was divided into 3 groups. In our groups, we had to prepare a structure which we would use to manage a focus group. Upon reflection, I considered a number of things. Firstly, what we could have done better; secondly, the role of the moderator and how that influenced the general focus group dynamic and lastly, I realised that we were almost a part of a focus group double-layer. Pre-assigned students played moderator roles, then Veronica re-assumed the moderator's role during group-to-group transitions. It was nearly (or was) a focus group within a focus group!

What we could have done better:

- Stacks and Michaelson (2010) say that questions need to become more specific as time advances. I recognise now that this would have enabled us to draw more relevant answers from the group. In turn, this would have allowed us to accurately fulfill our objective.

- The responses made it apparent to me that our questions were based in our own bias'. We had formed questions that depended on price as the factor which influenced student spending habits the most - when it turned out to be quality which most affected their decisions to buy food on campus.

- The seating. I regret that I didn't ask to pause our time so that we could reformat how we were seated. I am well used to circular seating and I understand how fruitful it is because of my history with drama and acting. The difference was significant once we were all seated in a circle.

The Role of the Moderator:

Some moderators addressed the group briefly but others remained as the prominent moderator figure. In no particular order, I picked up on these things:

- Moderator A was very definitive. Discussion was always kept on topic and within scope. Overall, the process was clear, highly coherent and flowed logically from start to end. It was evident that this was due to the moderator's focus. Austin and Pinkleton (2015) have identified that focus is a key to refining information, which is why of all the moderators - I believe moderator A would be the one to produce the best information.

- Moderator B posed a thought provoking question but it unfortunately stunted discussion. I suspect that the reason for this is because moderator B had been taking notes and analysing responses in depth. Therefore, moderator B was more deeply involved than most participants. This may have caused the question to seem like it came from nowhere. Perhaps a short recap could have helped contextualise the question before asking it. This would have given most, a chance to 'catch up'.

- Moderator C was able to expand on the question swiftly when faced with a barrier. Participants did not know how to respond to a very general question. Moderator C was able to elaborate without giving away the details that would lead to the development of preconceived notions on the topic. Moderator C talked too much, however. It should have been 80% participants and 20% moderator speaking.

- Moderator D was very passive and softly spoken. It enticed people to contribute. Some of the quieter students spoke up the most for moderator D. The moderator was prompt in moving to the next question but to some extent it impeded conversation. This moderator also carried the least expression while speaking. A combination of tone and promptness made it seem like our responses were to some extent - unimportant.

- Moderator E had a very conversational tone, which made them approachable. They were very relaxed in posture, and the informality caused their question to seem like one based in interest - when in fact it was fundamental to their objective. This seemed to work in their favour though since we all felt comfortable responding honestly. I would be curious to see moderator E facilitate a controversial topic.

- Moderator F was very expressive in tone and was good at drawing insightful responses from the group. Moderator F conveyed a definite air of direct questioning. Consequently, individuals tended to address their answers specifically to moderator F, rather than engaging with each other. Maybe this is how it is supposed to be? Dialogue is one of the advantages of qualitative research, after all (but I can't remember which reading mentioned it).

In summary, I have seen first hand how a moderator affects group dynamic. The success or failure of a focus group really depends on the moderator's skills. In future, if I ever find that I do not have the budget for a highly experienced moderator, then I am confident that I can hire one based on what I need and the moderator's personal attributes.