Tag Archives: focus groups

400+ focus groups of voters shows human nature of voters?

Posted on by

After conducting hundreds of focus groups with voters in the United States, one commentator describes the participants:

Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels.com

Since that moment, I’ve conducted more than 400 focus groups with thousands of voters across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, this is the largest and most consistent qualitative study of voter sentiment during the Trump era. Here’s what I’ve learned: People are wild. They are full of contradictions. They lament our deep political divisions while raging about their political enemies. They believe in grace but cut their Trumpy brother out of their life forever. They’re married to an immigrant but voted for the guy who wants to deport millions of people who have the same immigration status as their wife. They hate the government and want to lower the national debt, but they also want the government to spend more to help them and their communities. They call themselves pro-life but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I could go on.

This suggests voters have multiple motivations and opinions. They are not necessarily consistent in their principles and actions. They react to both what is immediately around them and broader social forces and changes.

In other words, the voters are people. They are doing their best to make sense of the world around them. Translating those beliefs and responses into neatly packaged political party platforms or bundles of issues that candidates consistently talk about is not easy.

With all that said, listening to voters can be helpful:

Listening to voters is a cheat code for understanding politics—democracy, after all, is the collective will of the voters—yet few people in politics do it. If you’re running a campaign, you might do a series of focus groups with voters in your district or state. If you’re a politician, you might go on “listening tours,” chat with people at the state fair, or host campaign events. But rarely do politicians and campaigns take the time to talk in-depth about why people feel the way they do.

The reality is, the closer you get to institutional politics, the further you are from the people whom politics and government are supposed to serve. Washington is less a swamp than a bubble, inside of which the rest of America becomes an abstraction.

Where is there room to find common ground or interests? Are there ways to connect with what people are experiencing or care about beyond providing talking points and political tactics?

This could also be linked to the reasons Americans often like local politics and government: these are potential neighbors who have more of a stake and interest in day-to-day community life. Go up to the regional or state or national level and it can be hard to connect to all the experiences and concerns voters have.

Focus groups examine home designs in a warehouse

Posted on by

Pulte recently put together some new home designs in a Chicago area warehouses to see how consumers would respond:

Basically, it was the latest incarnation of the company’s ongoing experiment: walking focus groups of consumers through full-size prototypes of floor plans of homes that Pulte intends to build, and asking for reactions before the first shovelful of earth has been dug. The consumers’ input enables the builder to tout the homes as “Life Tested.”

So on this September day, in an 88,000-square-foot warehouse in suburban Franklin Park, nine Chicago-area homeowners were life-testing “houses” framed in lumber and covered with sheets of Tyvek house wrap to simulate walls.

Pulte brought in a team of carpenters to do the framing for 11 houses and the fixtures within, such as kitchen islands and bathroom sinks, which were covered in corrugated paper and marked — in case you weren’t sure what you were looking at — “island,” “sink,” etc…

Total silence ensued — they weren’t supposed to speak to one another, so as not to influence opinions — as they wandered from room to room. Then they moved “upstairs” (that is, next door) to do the same thing.

This sounds like a helpful approach to getting feedback about particular interior features, even if the features aren’t fully constructed. However, I wonder how valuable this feedback is without situating a home within a particular neighborhood. I assume Pulte would say the neighborhood is another important factor and that they build attractive neighborhoods that only enhance the individual homes.

It is also interesting to see that Pulte’s designs are then said to be “life tested.” Pulte has built enough homes over the decades to legitimately claim this for established featuresbut can they really say this for new designs?

Combining quantative and qualitative data collection on the Internet

Posted on by

I’ve quickly seen some recent mentions of a new project out of Princeton called All Our Ideas. Here is how the creators describe the project:

All Our Ideas is a research project to develop a new form of social data collection that combines the best features of quantitative and qualitative methods. Using the power of the web, we are creating a data collection tool that has the scale, speed, and quantification of a survey while still allowing for new information to “bubble up” from respondents as happens in interviews, participant observation, and focus groups.

Of course, one of the problems with surveys is that they force respondents to fit their responses to the questions that are asked. If you ask bad questions, you get bad results or if you don’t provide the options respondents want, you don’t really get the kind of data you want. Qualitative data, on the other hand, tends to be limited to a smaller sample because it takes more time to interview people or conduct focus groups.

I will be very curious to see what emerges out of this website.