UFTgroupdiscussion

8/8/2019 UFTgroupdiscussion

1/12

G r o u p

d i s c u s s i o n s

What does this technique do?Group d iscussions help to summ arise the ideas an d informat ion th at a

group of informan ts m ay come to h old as a group, rath er than t he

in formation held by the individual members. The general idea is thateach participant can act to stimu late ideas in th e oth er people presen t,

an d th at by a p rocess of discussion th e collective view becomes greater

th an th e sum of the individual parts.

When to use themGroup discussion s can be used to serve a variety of pu rposes, and m ay be

used to assist in p roblem identification , in clarifying th e issues relevan t

to a particular topic, an d in th e evaluation of prod ucts. Groupdiscussion s form a part of such t echn iques as Brainstorm ing an d Focus

group s, an d th ese will be d iscussed in turn . Group d iscussions are very

comm on in th e User requiremen t stage of product developm ent.

Brainstorming

Brain storm ing is an essent ially creative exercise, wh ere group s of

participan ts are brough t togeth er to explore a comm on issue and to

look for possible solution s. Th e idea of a brainstorm exercise is th at

each participan t is allowed to be creative in t heir ideas, and th at oth er

participan ts are no t allowed to criticise others con tribution s. Th e ideais th at such loo se ideas m ay spark some association in t h e m ind s of

oth er participan ts an d th at as a result some creative solution s to a

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools79

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Mental impairment

Hearing impairment

Sign users

Lip readers

Blind/ visually impaired

Mobility impaired

See Sources of Further

Information


2/12

problem m ay be iden tified. Brain stormin g is com mo n ly used at th e

early stages of design in order to explore possible development

opportunities (see the specific section on Brainstorm in g).

Focus Groups

Focus groups bring t ogether p articipan ts to discuss a particular topic,

an d differ from brainstormin g session s in th at th e objective of th e

m eetin g in n ot n ecessarily to be creative, but rather to com e to some

agreemen t regardin g a particular to pic or issue. For exam ple, focus

groups h ave been u sed in th e assistive techn ology field to iden tify th e

im portant features that a product should have, and to evaluate how

successful a particu lar produ ct is likely to be. A variation on th e use of

focus group s is to com bin es th e charact eristics of ind ividu al

in terviews with group based techniques. A researcher might first

in terview a n um ber of participants on a particular topic, to th ensumm arise th ose person al interviews, and th en u se th e results as a

basis for further interviews or a group discussion with the original

participan ts. Th e idea behind t his is th at th e individual interviews

allow each p articipan t to con tribute to th e en suing discussion, wh ere

th e collective opinion s can be explored in mo re detail.

Who can use them

Th ere are no specific requiremen ts for th e participants, apart from themh aving som e knowledge of th e discussion area. For com plex issues it can

be useful to h ave discussion groups wh ich are m ultidisciplin ary, so that

different perspectives and viewpoin ts can b e aired, wh ilst for oth er

pu rposes relatively ho m ogenou s groups m ight be preferred. Whatever

th eir com position group discussion s n eed to be carefully led, and n eed a

facilitator or leader wh o ensures that th e group co n tinu e discussing th e

topic of interest and t h at all participant s con tribute. Th e quality of th e

discussion s depend on how th e group is led an d it is importan t for th e

leader to have participated in similar group s. However th is shou ld n ot

prevent an organisation from a rranging its first group d iscussion .

What resources are neededGroup d iscussions are com m on ly arranged to last for two or th ree h ours,

exten ding up to a cou ple of days for complex issues. Sh orter m eetings

can often be m ore effective th an longer ones as m an y people have

difficulty in fin ding th e time or m aintaining concentration for m ore

th an two or t h ree hou rs. Th is is true for th e fully able participan t, an d

for certain disability groups even shorter sessions will be required, and anu m ber of short d iscussions rather th an a sin gle large one m ight need to

be con sidered. Th e preparation for a group discussion can also take tim e,

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools80


3/12

particularly if a num ber of peop le have to be consulted regardin g their

availability to take part. A discussion group com m on ly n eeds a coup le of

person d ays for preparation , an d sim ilar resources are needed for

sum m arising th e results of th e discussion an d prod ucing a report .

Expen ses coverin g th e room an d refresh m ents may also be needed and

in some cases accommodation and the travel expenses of participan ts.

Discussion group s can be run with large n um bers, bu t to be effective it is

better to h ave sm all group s. Experience sh ows that between six and eigh t

participan ts is easy for a single facilitator to m an age, an d t h at such size

group s allow all participan ts to con tribu te. If larger group s are desired it

can b e a good idea to break th ese down int o sub groups of between six

an d eigh t m emb ers an d for each sub group to h ave its own facilitator.

Who are the informantsDepen ding on th e specific area to be und erstood, th ere several kinds of

in forman ts th at m ay be considered. In som e cases one would choose to

have a hom ogeneou s group, in oth ers one would try to include

participan ts from a variety of backgroun ds and experiences. On e sh ould

decide wh ich of th e followin g categories shou ld participate.

Users, actual or pot ent ial

Very often it is th e users th at are th e m ost relevant p articipan ts in

discussion groups, as they are th e experts in dealing with th e disability

th ey have, an d h ave the direct experience of using th e produ cts designed

to supp ort th em . However, if a n ew product is bein g developed it can be

very difficult for pot en tial users to exp ress th eir n eeds, or to visualise

h ow a n ew product idea m ight h elp th em . Th is is less of a problem wh en

n on inn ovative developm ents are bein g considered, and if an existing

produ ct is being imp roved, users opin ion s are very valuable.

If you wan t to in clude users in a discussion grou p, it is imp ortan t torem em ber th at in a discussion group it is difficult to get a represen tative

sample. You shou ld th erefore decide whether you wan t to in clude some

typical u sers, or peo ple wh o represen t th e extremes of a user group

pop ulation . For examp le a discussion group m igh t be con structed to

include t h ose users wh o h ave discarded existin g techn ical aids, wh ilst

an oth er m ight con sist of expert users of a produ ct. Decisions regard in g

membership of groups depends on the objectives of the investigation,

and also u n fortun ately to som e extent o n the availability of relevan t

participan ts and t h eir willingn ess to take part in th e stu dy.

In an y case, it is difficult to be con fiden t th at a groups opinion s are

representative of th e wider population , and th erefore oth er methods are

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools81

Actual or potential users

usually have valuable points

of view on new products.


4/12

often used t o supplement information gained in th is way e.g. int erviews

and question naires.

Users m ay also be d ifficult t o iden tify, an d for some disability groups

difficult to obta in in an y nu m bers. Good sources of poten tial

participan ts can often be iden tified by user organisations or by

contacting schools or institutions in your area.

Users helpers

Th ese m ay be som eon e close to a user, such as a paren t or a n urse. Th e

h elper may be th e users voice in th e group, or may be a secon dary user

of th e product th emselves. On e shou ld be aware that a h elper may n ot

always be sure wh en t h ey are expressing th eir own or th e users needs.

Users represent at ive

If you r prod uct (or service) is affected b y legal or eth ical issues it m ay be

particularly relevan t to con tact a user organisation in ord er to have on e

of th eir represen tatives in th e group. Matters that m ay seem straigh t

forward to a d eveloper, may be seen qu ite differen tly from a u ser

organisations perspective.

Developers and d esig ners

Th ese group s may h ave very valuable experien ces in a given field an d

can assist a group in un derstand ing th e tech n ical feasibility of m any

ideas discussed in a group sett ing. Th ey m ay also be included in

discussion grou ps because th ey are th e users of the in format ion p rovided

by th e discussion an d are likely to ben efit from th e experience of talkin g

directly to en d u sers. However care is n eeded n ot t o allow th e developers

to assum e th e role of expert wh ere their opin ions are perceived as

being m ore relevant or imp ortant th an other participan ts.

Dom ain expert s

Experts on th e user group, th e services in volved or th e techn ology

involved, m ay have valuable information regarding th e design of the

produ ct. Th ey are usually foun d in u n iversities, research organ isation s,

institutions an d comp etence cen tres for disabled p eople. Again care

sho uld be taken wh en putting dom ain experts in groups with th ose with

less form al qualification s, as th ere is likely to be a ten den cy for such

experts to dom inate d iscussions. Th is can be a particular problem when

m ale experts join discussion groups with fem ale participant s who are

perceived to be of a lower stat us. Und er th ese circum stan ces it can bebetter to run separate discussion groups and th en sum m arise th e findin gs

from both groups rather than attempting to run one large group.

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools82

Users "helpers" are of ten

secondary users of t he

product .


5/12

Special considerations

General

Organising a group discussion m ay call for a con siderable amou n t of

preparation, such as gettin g all th e participan ts gath ered at th e sam e

time. One m ay have to be prepared to pay th em for participation or at

least to cover th eir expenses. On e sh ould start t o m ake appoin tm ents

early , but on e sh ould also be aware that som e participan ts such as

dom ain experts and ot h er professionals may h ave particular difficulties

in making appointments at short notice, and conversely for others e.g.

end users it m ay be difficult to m ake appointm ents a long tim e in

advance. Makin g appointm ents for a long time in advan ce can be

particularly problemat ic when dealing with certain types of disability

wh ere the person s con dition m ay deteriorate rapidly, or wh ere th ey mayhave reoccurring p eriods of illn ess.

Con siderable atten tion sho uld be paid to th e participan ts event ual special

n eeds, som e of which are discussed below. Also be aware th at som e users

m ay have medical needs that should be attended to during th e meeting.

Som e m ay have special n eeds regarding th eir diet, wh ilst others may h ave

lim itations in th e length of session s th ey can take part in .

The ability to participate in a group d iscussion is depen den t on th e

person s com m un ication skills. If you are design ing for peop le withsevere com m un ication problems, you should p robably look for other

in formation gathering m ethods, for examp le personal in terviews or

direct observation .

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools83

Opinions held by people

wit h severe communicat ion

prob lems may bett er be

recorded by other methods,

for example a personal

interview.


6/12

Mental impairment

First of all con sider h ow well the part icipan ts know each oth er. Ment ally

im paired users m ay feel embarrassed in a discussion with stran gers. One

could try to limit th e num ber in the groupdown to as few as four

participan ts. It is imp ortan t th at th e th em es discussed are specific an d

th at exam ples are sh own eith er as pictures or as proto types or mo dels.

On e would in som e cases involve both th e user an d a h elper. It is

im portant that th e discussion leader ensures th at it is th e m entally

im paired person s opin ion wh ich is expressed, rath er than th at of the

h elper. Th e men tal im p airmen t m ay be only one ch aracteristic of a

mu ltihan dicapped p erson. In th at case oth er consideration s sh ould be

taken in to accoun t as well. In som e cases one would p refer to use oth er

meth ods, for examp le a personal interview.

Hearin g im pairment

Other participant s who are not accustomed t o interactin g with people

with hearing impairment should be rem inded to speak with norm al

loudness. It is im portant t o h ave good ligh ting in th e room an d th at all

participan ts faces, and especially th e m out h , are easily seen b y the wh ole

group. Group m em bers should be explicitly in structed on th e

im portan ce of giving h earing impaired th e oppo rtun ity to lip read. Th e

meeting should be h eld in a quiet environ m ent, an d visual aids such as

overhead s used wh en approp riate. It is often a good idea to p repare som ewritten mat erial in advance for th e participan ts so t hat th ey do n ot h ave

to rely on h aving to listen or read a screen .

Th ere are several opt ions for techn ical aids to am plify soun d in a group

discussion and some kind of soun d am plification (either portable

in du ctive loop system s or FM systems) can be effective. User

organ isation s m ay be able to give advice on h ow to obtain such aids.

Sig n usersIf one wan ts sign users to participate togeth er with h earing persons, one

m ay need an interpreter. Th e discussion leader sh ould th en con sider

how t o in struct th e rest of the group in order to give time for the

in terpretation . In a m ixed group on e sh ould try to avoid parallel

discussion s where sign u sers and n on sign u sers don t in teract.

Lip readers

In a mixed group t h e discussion leader sh ould instruct t h e participan ts

to speak clearly, on e at th e time , and facing th e audien ce. Lip readersn eed sufficient op port un ities to h ave statem ent s repeated. If lip readers

are presen t oth er participan ts sh ould again try not to speak abn ormally

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools84


7/12

i.e. with exaggerated facial mo vemen ts. Rem emb er th at lip readers m ay

have particular problems when other participants wear a beard or have

th eir face obscured in som e oth er way.

Blind and visually im paired

It is very imp ortan t to realise th at th e participan ts need t o get fam iliar

with th e location wh ere the discussion is held. On e shou ld be prepared

to spend some time showing th e participants th e layout of the room ,

h ow to get to th e toilet etc. Th e participan ts sh ould a lso be asked if th ey

want guiding or som e other kind of h elp. Remem ber that th e participan t

will want to h old your arm rather th an you ho lding h is.

It is also importan t t o ensure th at th e lighting con ditions are adequate

for th e participant s vision. Ask in a dvan ce what requirem ents theparticipan ts have. Som e people need h igh in ten sities, wh ilst oth ers

prefer a dim light .

As with th e hearing im paired it is imp ortant to con duct such m eetin gs

in a quiet environm ent, and to limit th e amoun t of extern al noise.

Group m em bers with n orm al sight will often u se visual cues to in dicate

th eir wish to speak an d m ay not realise that th is is of no use to blind and

m any visually impaired people. It is imp ortant th at on ly one person is

allowed to speak at an y time, and th at t he d iscussion leader man agesth is. It m ay also be approp riate to h ave a simp le rule to ind icate when a

person wishes to speak i.e. raising th eir h an d for atten tion .

If you provide th e group with d ocumen tation, keep in m ind th at th e

participants with low vision usually would n eed enlarged fon t an d good

con trast between text an d pap er. For th e visually im paired 16 point fon t

shou ld be considered a min imu m , and even larger text is desirable.

Althou gh it is obvious th at pe rson s with visual imp airmen t will gain

little ben efit from th e use of visual aids, like overheads an d wh ite boards,oth er participant s in th e group m ay want t o use such aids. The

discussion leader should take th is up in th e group an d find a solution

th at is satisfactory for all participan ts.

Mobi l i t y impaired

Arrangement for transport to and from th e meeting sho uld be

con sidered to be the organ isers respon sibility. The accessibility of t h e

location m ust be con sidered in d etail before th e discussion is arran ged.

Rem em ber th at it is n ot on ly the room itself th at h as to be accessible,but also th e imm ediate environ men t e.g. th e toilets, the lun ch room and

th e table th at th e participan ts sit aroun d.

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools85

Try to avoid groups of

part icipants with different

communicat ion skills

engage in different

independent parallel

discussions.

Many participants will have

specific requirement s for the

accessibi lit y of the premises

where the discussion is held


8/12

ProcedureTh e procedu ral requiremen ts for doin g a group discussion are few, and to

som e exten t self evident . However th e specific techn ique used m ay

require several specific steps to b e taken durin g th e exercise.

Preparations

Th e first th ing to d o for the organisers is to agree upon th e participan ts

an d m ake a checklist of th ings to d o before th e meetin g, includin g all

practical arran gemen ts. Althou gh it m ight seem t rivial, th e success of the

discussion grou p is partly depend ent on th e participants feeling of

wellbeing an d con fiden ce in th e activity, and practical details are an

im portan t aspect of this. Participan ts also need con fiden ce in t h e

discussion group leader. Therefore the first cont act and th e arran gem en tswith th e participant s are preferably don e by the discussion leader.

In advan ce of th e meetin g th e organ isers an d th e discussion leader

sh ould have chosen th e relevant m etho ds and techniqu es and p rovided

th e relevan t m aterial for t h e exercise. Based on th ese decision s, a

timet able for th e session sh ould be prepared covering the th emes and

activities du ring th e discussion. This is of cour se depen den t on th e

purpose of th e m eeting, and th e particular techn iques used.

Role of di scussion l eader

In general th e discussion leader should b e active in form ulating th e

th em es for th e discussion , and sum u p th e results of th e discussion at th eend. It is imp ortant to distin guish between wh at is the consensus of the

group, and wh at is th e opinion o f the different participan ts.

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools86


9/12

Here are som e gen eral rulesofth um b th at th e discussion leader m ay

use as a guide:

create a good at mosph ere

suggest some rules for the discussion and enforce these rules

support th e participan ts in the formulation of th e problem, an d guide

participan ts when n ecessary

preven t destructive beh aviou r on th e part of specific participan ts

protect individuals, ideas and ideologies

d o n ot suggest solu tio ns t o t h e problem

avoid evaluat ing p roposed so lu t ions themse lves

en sure th at all participan ts get an opportun ity to contribute and th at

th e proceedings are n ot dom inated by an y one person or group

Resul t s

Th e result of a group discussion is usually a list of statem ent s which th e

group agrees upon . However, it sh ould also be rem em bered th at issueswh ere th e group disagrees are also imp ortan t to report. In addition to a

simple list of statem ent s, the discussion shou ld be reported as accurately

as possible for detailed an alysis after th e event.

It is also fairly com m on to in clude a short qu estion n aire after th e group

discussion h as taken place. Th is can in clude backgroun d inform ation o n

th e participan ts, but also asking th em to sum marise the opin ions on th e

issues raised during the discussion. This can be particularly useful in

en suring th at all participant s believe tha t th eir views have been listen ed

to, an d can be a useful supp lem en t to th e issues raised in th e discussion .See the tool section on questionn aires for more inform ation on h ow to

use this survey technique.

Sources of Further InformationGroup discussion s often involve bringing a variety of experts togeth er to

focus on a particular issue or problem . Th e idea is th at group s of

experts, e.g. con sum ers, care providers, expert s in geron tology, can be

brought together to h elp refine th e requiremen ts for products or toevaluate th em. Rebelo et al (1994) describes the u se of mu ltidisciplinary

focus group s, e.g., ergonom ists, rehabilitation en gin eers an d d octors, in

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools87

The discussion leader

should help to create a

good atmosphere, to

support and prot ect t he

individual participants.


10/12

developing n ew wh eelchairs, an d Fern ie et al (1994) also reports th e use

of th e techn ique for designin g bath room s for elderly people. Barlow et al

(1994) also describes th e use of focus grou ps in t h e developm ent of

pictograms for use with ph arm aceutical products. Th ese were evaluated

usin g in dividu al questionn aires adm inistered to groups of respon den ts.

Such focus group s can also be used in order t o obt ain rap id feedback as

to th e an ticipated p roblems with p roducts. Verburg et al (1993) reports a

Canad ian p roject in w h ich consum ers with d isabilities, research ers, an d

in dustry are collaborating in th e evaluation o f h om e appliances an d

rehabilitation devices. Th ese groups review com m on appliances and

produce reports of features im portan t to d isabled people, an d th en share

th is informat ion with developers. Batavia and Ham m er (1990) also

describe th e use of a focus group ap proach to iden tify an d p rioritise

factors used by lon g term users of assistive tech n ology in assessin g th eirdevices.

Isaacs (1988) provides a description of th e work carried ou t at th e Cent re of

Applied Gerontology at Birmingham University, which uses panels of

elderly people to review produ cts, and highlights th e features that are

needed in n ew products. The centre h as obtained inform ation on what

features elderly people object to with m an y con sum er item s, and provides a

consultan cy service to ind ustry on h ow to imp rove their produ cts.

Wood (1993) provides a description of th e approach used at th e SpecialNeeds Research Un it at th e Un iversity of Northu m bria for evaluating

consu m er produ cts for elderly people, which also involves th e use of

user panels. Th ey develop co n venience ch ecklists of the p rodu cts that

are to be evaluated, wh ich covers all th e elemen ts of the p rodu ct, e.g.

docum en tation , ease of open ing do or of product, etc. Th ese lists are

evolved from a task an alysis and a lso from a con sideration of evaluation

criteria which includes ease of use, comfort of user, ease of

un derstan ding in structions, effort in volved, safety in use, ease of

clean ing, etc.

BARLOW MAGURNO, A., KOHAKE, J. R., W OGALTER , M. S.,

SNOW W OLF, J. 1994 , Iterative test an d developm ent o f ph armaceutical

pictorials. Ergon om ics an d design. IEA 94. Proceedin gs of th e 12th trienn ial

con gress of th e Intern ation al Ergon om ics Association . Vol 4, 15 - 19 Aug 1994,

Toront o, Canada. pp360 - 362

BATAVIA, A. I. & HAMMER, G. S. 1990, Toward the development of

con sum er-based criteria for th e evaluation of assistive devices. Jour na l of

Reh abilitation Research an d Developmen t 27(4) 1990 pp425 - 436

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools88


11/12

FERNIE, G., DOYLE B., HOLLIDAY, P. & TOP PER , A. 19 94 ,

Bath room s for th e elderly. Reh abilitation ergon om ics. IEA 94. Proceedin gs of

th e 12th trienn ial con gress of th e Internation al Ergonom ics Association , Vol 3,

15 - 19 Aug 1994, Toro n to. pp 185-186

ISAACS, B. 1 98 8, Profitin g from t h e 1000 elders. Scien ce an d Business

Sep/O ct 1988. pp 48-50.

REBELO, F., SILVA, C. & DUART E, J. O. 1 99 4, Ergonomics and specific

needs: design of a wh eelchair by th e value analyses meth odology. Ergonom ics

an d design . IEA 94. Proceedings of th e 12th trien n ial con gress of th e

Int ern ation al Ergon om ics Association , Vol 4, 15 - 19 Aug 1994, Toron to,

Canada. pp471

VERBURG, G., McPHERSON, S., BLANCHER, L. & BLANCHER, J,

1993 , Con sum er, researcher, in dustry collaboration , an app roach to d evice and

appliance evaluation. ECART 2. Proceedings of th e European conference on th e

advan cemen t of rehabilitation techn ology, 26 - 28 May 1993, The Sweedish

Han dicap Institu te, Stockholm , Sweden Section 30.2 3pp

W OOD, J. 1993, Simp lifying th e interface for everyon e. App lied Ergono m ics

24(1) Feb 19 93, pp 28 - 29

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools89


12/12

Tools & Techniques

Group discussions

u ser fit Tools90

Documents

UFTgroupdiscussion