A group psychoanalytical perspective

More of the theory later but Bion, the psychoanalytically trained group moderator, might answer some of the questions posed this way:

He’d offer a reminder of unconscious processes and our need to gain more understanding (any hope of mastery would be hubris). Building ‘depth’ thinking in to the initial proposal may be one way forward. Working out separations between rational/emotional questions and techniques with which to analyse the gaps between claimed and actual behaviour may be another. We need to offer clients some guidance as to when and why we accept/reject consumer comment.

He’d provide a perspective about what is invested in us as moderator-leader within a group setting by respondents and the weight carried by the role. The pressure to “keep everyone talking and involved” can lead to a role that is less than optimal – father/mother/ best friend/child, that takes the group further away, rather than nearer, to any state of reality-testing – however good it may look from behind the screen.

He might suggest the idea that if we are to have viewing facilities then we should use them to our analytic advantage. As in systemic family therapy, we can use a second ‘moderator’ behind the screen and outside the cut and thrust of interviewing, who can objectively look at what the ‘group’ is about and what it may or may not be avoiding. And he might recommend moderator training to develop professional detachment and interpretive skills – how to stand back.

And perhaps he’d offer the thought that when the moderators use ‘splitting’ polarising language (“tell me what is positive and what is negative”, “can you help me separate x from y”, etc.) he/she, rather than gaining insight, might be aiding a flight from reality in the respondents and hindering their ability to access deeper less conscious material on the subject of the study.

He might offer a reflection on recruitment and group structure. There is now a widely accepted assumption that the fantasy of the group-as-mother is strongest when members first join or create the group. When faced with unfamiliar settings and people, group members’ behaviours towards each other tend to be driven by transference. Individuals must make some assumptions about who the others are. This extends to how the group will function and what role the leader will play – and the only source of information which they have is past experience.

Impact of the unconscious

The one thread running all through these topics is the impact of the unconscious. Indeed, academics now believe that up to 95% of decision-making, human action and reaction emanate from it. Qualitative research differentiates itself from quantitative research largely by its promise to understand ‘depth’ material. Its very antecedents are a direct line from Sigmund Freud through to Ernest Dichter, with the Tavistock Clinic, the high altar of psychoanalytical thinking, undertaking focus groups for commercial clients (Unilever among them) in the 1950s.

It may seem commonplace to us that products act as a symbol of self-actualization and self-fulfilment, but we should remember that qualitative research’s central authority rests with the ‘understanding’ of the unconscious.

The era when qualitative fought for recognition and understanding beside quantitative research seems to be over, the time for qualitative research to sharpen, explain and develop its practice is here.

Bion laid out the considerable challenges for any moderator in setting up a ‘work group’. And if, as is most likely, you have a ‘basic assumption’ group, it is probably better to understand what that assumption is and how you can understand the dynamics behind it, and the results that may ensue.

In some ways, it is ‘easy’ to take a focus group. Hardly surprising, then, that there are many examples of clients attempting it themselves. The obedience, absence of real conflict and affability of the majority of focus groups are often not remarked upon.

‘Easy groups’ may give relief to the junior researcher and become an accepted convention for the senior researcher. But they can lead to complacency and an industry whose key demonstrable skill is replicable by clients and management consultants alike.

The ‘good group’ is not talkative, obedient, conflictridden, or difficult. It is a group whose moderator can properly stand back with the skills to reflect upon “what really was going on this evening.”