Thomas Charles Rohleder Tcha@itu.dk www.curly-‐tom.com
Fly on the wall versus Focus groups Amount of characters: 7649 + one images amounting to 500 characters = 8149
Table of Contents FLY ON THE WALL VERSUS FOCUS GROUPS
1
1.1. INTRODUCTION 1.2. OBSERVATION 1.2.1 FLY ON THE WALL 1.3. FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS 1.4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 1.5. PERSPECTIVE 1.6. LITERATURE
1 1 2 2 3 4 5
1.1.
Introduction
In this paper I will look at the differences between the two qualitative data gathering techniques Fly on the wall observations and Focus groups. I find this very intriguing because it is two very different methods of data gathering. In the first method the user is passively observed in their natural settings, while in the other the user is actively engaged into a group debate through out the focus group interview. This is very relevant for my later co-‐design process in dealing with our target group of football fans and their media usage.
1.2.
Observation
Observations are practical for data gathering at different stages of a design process. In the early stage observations can serve to understand the users context, task and goals. In the later part it may serve for evaluation of how well a given prototype supports the aforementioned. Observations can be done in the field (Fly on the wall) or in a controlled environment such as in a laboratory (usability testing, Focus groups etc.) (Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011, p.321). In this paper my focus will be on the Fly on the wall observations versus Focus group interview.
1
Thomas Charles Rohleder Tcha@itu.dk www.curly-‐tom.com
1.2.1 Fly on the wall Fly on the wall is a method for observing the user in their natural settings without any form of intervention (Raijmakers, Gaver & Bishay 2006, p.230). Doing a fly on the wall observation the researcher follows the user doing the activity that the researcher needs to collect data about, either recording what is going on or taking notes. Doing a Fly on the wall observation the researcher needs to be as unnoticed as possible. Observations are very useful hence it can be very difficult for people to explain what they do to achieve a given task accurately doing an interview. (Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011, p.323) Ethnographic observations are a good way of uncovering people’s real desires; by gaining insight into the subject’s life world. (Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011, p.330) The type of data gained from ethnographic observational studies such as Fly on the wall can be categorised into categories such as space, actors, activities, objects, acts, events, time, goals and feelings. (Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011, p.325) Critique point of the fly on the wall method; at least when it comes to filming, could be that no film is entirely objective. On the other hand Fly on the wall is very useful when the design team needs a subjective understanding. (Raijmakers, Gaver & Bishay 2006, p.230)
1.3.
Focus group interviews
The Focus group interview method is very useful in the initial phase of the iterative design cycle. It is a social research method, which swiftly and inexpensively can be used to gain knowledge about a group of users relationship to a product or a social context. Practically a focus group consists of some members of the target group and a moderator or two and perhaps some observers. It is difficult to define which size a focus group should have, according to Krueger the size is determined by the relationship between everyone having the opportunity to express insight and the group being large enough to produce divers usable data.
2
Thomas Charles Rohleder Tcha@itu.dk www.curly-‐tom.com “Focus groups must be small enough for everyone to have the opportunity to share insights and yet large enough to provide a diversity of perceptions” -‐ Richard A. Krueger (Kuniavsky 2003, p.156) According to Kuniavsky six to eight people is a very useful number when it comes to examining user experiences. In much marketing they would use a larger number of participants. (Kuniavsky 2003, p.156) One of the goals of the moderator is to make sure that the people who are partaking in the discussion feel comfortable thus they will reveal their inner thought and feelings about the subject. Also it is the moderator’s job to guide the discussion in the direction of focus for the research. It can be necessary to conduct several focus groups, but rarely more then four. The true purpose of the focus group interview is not to generalize but to provide insight to how people perceive a certain situation. And perhaps to how they relate it to the real world. (Kuniavsky 2003, p.150) this is different from the Fly on the wall method; which is conducted in the real world. Also the focus group is useful to conduct research about social interaction. One of the critique points of focus group interviews is the fact that a careless moderator can influence the participants.
1.4.
Comparative analysis
The two aforementioned methods have both differences and similarities. They are similar in the sense that both are conducted as observations. Also neither requires the participant to have any design experience nor is the workload of the participants very big. They differentiate on a few levels. First of all fly on the wall is conducted in real world settings whereas focus group interviews is conducted in a safe and comfortable environment; such as a meeting room. Secondly the researchers role is very different during the two methods, during Fly on the wall the researcher needs to be as invisible as possible whereas the researcher has an active role as moderator during the focus group interview. Also the output of data is very different. In the focus group the output is usually opinions, feelings and social dynamic. Whereas the output of the Fly on the wall method is more concrete in the sense that the researcher gain access to the precise actions and work practices of the participant. The Fly on the wall observation is much more 3
Thomas Charles Rohleder Tcha@itu.dk www.curly-‐tom.com time-‐consuming when it comes to both data gathering and analysis then the focus group interview which is very handy in the beginning of the design funnel, hence the researchers can quickly and inexpensively gain access to large amounts of qualitative data about the user and about the context.
(The Dynamics of the Design Funnel, Buxton 2007 p.138)
1.5.
Perspective
In dealing with our target group of football fans, between the ages of thirty and forty. Both methods have been very beneficial for us. We used Fly on the wall observations on a sports-‐bar and at a football match in the beginning of our teamwork to pinpoint how football fans behave in certain situations, and to examine the jargon between people watching a football match. We used the data collected through this method to figure out the direction we wanted our focus group interview to take. We conducted a focus group interview because we needed to lay a foundation for a future workshop, which we are planning to conduct very soon. The data gathered from the focus group interview informs us on a very broad level about how the participants access statistics and data about Danish football in particular, but also on how they use this data in social contexts.
4
Thomas Charles Rohleder Tcha@itu.dk www.curly-‐tom.com
1.6.
Literature
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, J., 2011, Interaction Design 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Kuniavsky, M., 2003, Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco Raijmakers, B., Gaver, W. W., and Bishay, J. 2006. Design documentaries:inspiring design research through documentary film. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing interactive Systems (University Park, PA, USA, June 26 ‐ 28, 2006). Buxton, B., 2007, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco
5