3 ms·
Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led. Ages ago I worked in qualitative market research. Which is like a game where the
by edoceo 1mo ago
Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led.
Ages ago I worked in qualitative market research. Which is like a game where the researcher is trying to find the truth. But in focus groups, for all kinds of reasons, some participants dominate the conversation. Answering first and forming a box for other respondents to fit in. And next thing you know the whole group loves blue pants. Even when they don't, because particatjng is not just voicing your opinion but also engaging with dominant-Steve who's trying to be the center of attention and curry favour with the researcher (and Steve ruins the whole FG)
- throw432196 1mo agoWhat’s the benefit of asking the questions to a group at once (other than time)? Ask them individually, isolated.
- edoceo 1mo agoYes. The IDI is preferred. Time and location constraints are why FG exist. And a robot researcher is almost preferred. Humans are social creatures, so part of the challenge of research is to get the respondant to be open/Frank. Edit: IDI is InDividual Interview; FG=Focus Group
- edoceo 1mo agoToo late to edit but IDI also is used as In-Depth Interview by some researchers. Either way, it's a 1-on-1. Not a group. The way all founders should do their first 100 customer-problem-fit primary research.
- watwut 1mo ago> Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led. Many do not want to be led, dont insist on leading others and find the above guy trying to make decisions for everybody killing their enjoyment of the game. The kind of game OP described does not lead to happy players enjoying to being led. It leads either to them checking out or to a conflict between players. It is not "human condition" just a bad design.