I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

First - I apologize if I got that danged Michael Jackson song in your head, but it is a perfectly appropriate title for this blog. Since I started my education in clinical psychology, I quickly learned to hate the dreaded, oversized and exceptionally obvious one-way mirror. Every time I see one I shudder. And for the longest time, I thought it was a necessary evil - until recently - I finally came across a simple methodology that gets me past the man in the mirror.

Before I indicate my methodology, let me tell you why I hate the mirror. There are likely a lot of moderators getting ready to perch themselves on their boxes and are about to tell me how they overcome the mirror, and how their results are just fine in a standard room. They'll tell me how they acknowledge the mirror in their introduction and let participants know that there are people behind it observing the process. They'll say that if we are up-front about the mirror people will be more comfortable with it.

To me, this is psychological and existential BS - people may accept the explanation and their level of comfort may even improve with the explanation, but no amount of words can remove the fact that the mirror is there - period. On top of that, it's a honkinly big and imposing presence in the group. It physically separates the participants from the observers, and in my opinion it fundamentally changes how people answer and perform.

Some simple examples will suffice. First, people react differently when they are being observed. Have you ever been at a stoplight, and you start singing to the radio only to stop when another car pulls beside you, or when you notice that other people are looking at you? This is a prime example of people acting differently when they are observed. While this is a different situation than being in a focus group room, it illustrates our human nature - and believe me, no words of explanation can fully obliterate what is thousands of years of human evolution.

As another example, say that you are in a restaurant and you notice an exterminator's truck in the parking lot. Will this change your opinion of whether you want to continue eating there? Say as a further example that the Maitre D' is upfront with everyone saying "Yes there are exterminators, but no worries - they are behind the doors in the kitchen. They're there so they won't disturb you while you are eating, and you won't be able to see them. In fact there has never been a problem in this restaurant, which is exactly why they are here to begin with." Will your comfort level reach what it was before you knew the exterminators were there to begin with? Will you change your order from a full dinner to just a sealed bottle of wine even though you have been given a satisfactory explanation? If you do stay, will your comfort level vary throughout the night? Will you be a little more likely to examine your food when it comes to your table? Will you chew differently? These self-examining behaviours are human nature, and will occur despite a satisfactory explanation.

These examples show that explanations, regardless of their truth, may not completely put respondents at ease. The fact is the mirror is there. The fact is participants are being observed from behind it. A mirror in a focus group creates what Martin Buber calls an I-It Relationship, where participants in the room feel distant, observed and alienaited from the larger process.

Now, my goal is not to imply that mirros in focus group facilities completely skew results - the fact is they don't, and they won't. However, if you are looking to probe deeply held feelings or engage participants in worthwhile conversation, I do believe the mirror has a fair potential of limiting optimal results. As such, for certain types of research projects, I do not use standard facilities anymore - rather I invite participants for dinner in a restaurant and secure a private spot or room within it. The details of the methodology and its benefits are described below:

1) After recruiting, I send-out a dinner invitation on fancy paper - after all, they are attending a dinner, and not a research session. If we are researching the general attitudes and opinions of a specific audience, I can observe how they dressed for the occasions and probe on that factor to uncover information about them.

2) I prefer to tell the participants who the client is. I know this is a massive no-no in many traditional research sessions (and I certainly do not give out information about the client if they, or the research methodology would be compromised - for example, I would not reveal the brand or topif if I felt that in so doing participants would drop-out of the dinner). However, I want participants to get an open feeling and that there is nothing to hide. If some participants come prepared and others don't, I do not see this as a significant problem. Research leaders are called "Moderators" because they do exactly that - they level the playing field for participants in the group and "moderate" opinions and group situations to get the most information. Clients coming prepared tells me a lot about the participant and the brand itself.

3) I get the client sitting right at the table with the participants - and I introduce the client as such. I instruct the client to keep comments to a minimum, and encourage them not to take copious notes. If they do take notes, I encourage them to do so when I am talking and not when others are talking. I can easily defer to the client when there is a question that I cannot answer, and this makes for a very fluid group. Moreover, I can use a wonderful projective technique with the client there. For example, if the client is from Ford, I can ask people to look at the client and ask them if they would have been able to guess that the client was from Ford - what is it about the client and about the brand that are the same and different? It is a wonderful experience for a client to see how participants think they personify the brand.

I also ask the client to avoid answering questions or responding directly to participants. What matters most is to observe how participants communicate with someone who they feel represents the brand. The fact is, in the real world, my client himself or herself will not be communicating back to the participants - it will be the client's brand, logo, advertising, customer service reps, etc... In the group process, it is important to realize that in some instances we will learn more about a person if there is less interaction than if there is more of it. With less interaction, the participant has the opportunity to express more of their real feelings and emotions, as opposed to simply "reacting" to different stimuli. After the group session is over, I encourage the client to address any unfinished discussions with participants directly, so this way participants will still leave knowing that the client still cares enough to address their issues directly.

4) I choose an approrpriate restaurant. If I have a group of suburban housewives, I may choose a Kelsey's or The Keg. If, however, I have urban hipster 20-somethings, a downtown hot-spot would be better (say the back room of 7-Numbers on Danforth). The point is that the environment should make participants feel more comfortable than a typical focus group facility.

5) I find the best application of the dinner methodology comes when a client wants to understand the thoughts, ideas, hopes, fears, language, attitudes and outlook of a particular group so that they can develop communications or products. On a fundamental level I belive that if you want to learn about a group of people, you should observe them in environments in which they feel familiar and comfortable. Focus group facilities do not give this feeling the way a good restaurant does.

I belive that if we fully humanize the entire process of gathering qualitative data, we will achieve better results. Focus group rooms have a lot of benefits, and I continue to use them with many clients and for many topics. However, I have also taken a good look in the mirror and realized that in certain instances it definitely pays for me to get out from being infront of it.