Dialogue by discussion - The growing popularity of ‘not-quite-Focus Groups’

Here’s a conversation we are having increasingly frequently. No doubt it’s partly prompted by the launch of our Registered Facilitator Scheme, but it’s been a consistent theme in recent months. It goes like this:

We need help to learn how best to facilitate discussion groups. We don’t want to do proper Focus Groups, because they’re too elaborate and expensive, and we are trying to cut costs very visibly. But we need to talk to lots of people, and need to make sure we do this properly and professionally....

In many ways this is a genuinely common-sense approach. The pendulum is swinging from over-elaborate, formalised dialogue mechanisms towards more informal techniques. Part of this is the inevitable response to reduced headcounts and budgets, but, to some, it also feels wrong to be seen to spend too much money on consultation at this time.

So the idea seems to be this. Let’s gather around us all those whose views we need, and let’s talk to them as informally as possible, using the best facilitation skills we have available. By avoiding the term ‘Focus Groups’ or organising structured deliberative events like Stakeholder conferences, it may be possible to deflect criticism and deflate the expectations of a more formal process. There are other advantages. They include speed, flexibility and maybe a reduction in paperwork. In addition, some public bodies have established procedures for the payment of participants, and presumably these can be avoided when using more informal methods.

But there is a counter-argument. At times when the subjects of consultation become more contentious, indeed painful, there is a case for increased not decreased rigour in the methodologies being used. Stakeholders or citizens, who in more relaxed times might give a consultation exercise a miss, can now appear on the scene demanding their right to be heard. Disappointed campaigners may rally more support to their causes, and, as we know can go to the Courts to challenge decisions they dislike.

An experienced facilitator can, of course elicit the views of people in any number of formats, and there is no necessity to observe the full disciplines of focus groups at all times. But look carefully at those disciplines, and one can see the point. Much of the value lies in the way they are structured – in the care that has to be taken to plan them in a way that ensures that all relevant voices are there to be heard. It’s not just the discussion – it’s who’s there, how they got there and what happens afterwards.

What really matters is how these discussions fit into the wider consultation. Too frequently it is unclear, to participants in dialogue, how that involvement is going to have any influence. Discussion groups help consultors set the agenda, understand the arguments and assess the strength of feelings. But they are not the whole story, for there are times when we need to measure the views of far more people and we know that consultations often work best when quantitative and qualitative methods are blended and used together.

Over the years the quality-led approach to surveys and questionnaires has led to a precise science of sampling and the operational disciplines to accompany them. It costs money; the Place Survey itself cost many millions, and gave us important baseline data even if it did not always produce the most useful insights. Yet is there a danger that in the rush to save money, we abandon the search for defensible samples in favour of a cheaper, looser sequence of discussions which might tick a box in the short-term but provide less valuable long-term input?

In reality, there is a very legitimate use of informal discussion groups. Here are some of them:- • When defining the scope of a consultation – deciding what’s there to be influenced • At pre-consultation project planning, seeking the views of potential participants and other stakeholders about the forthcoming exercise and possible methods • Bringing together opposing views to explore consensus opportunities • Finding new ideas or shaping new services (e.g. co-design workshops) • Afterwards - considering consultation output, and debating what it means

In all these processes, good facilitation will always help, and public bodies – as well as a host of other organisations - should ensure they have access to this important skill

Trigger points

• How well equipped is your organisation with facilitation skills? And are they used to the optimum effect?
• Consider enrolling in the Institute’s Registered Facilitator Scheme.
• Some of the issues in this Topic will be considered in the Legal Challenges to Consultation seminar, on April 13th in London.

This is the 183rd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement