the consensus group technique a users'...

The Consensus Group Technique

A Users' Manual

Dennis List

Original Books

Wellington, New Zealand

2005

Consensus Groups Manual

Original Books

Head office:

POBox 6637

Marion Square

Wellington

New Zealand

Publisher:

Niel Wright

email:

[email protected]

Quick Guide to Audience Research

ISBN 1-86933-726-3

Edition of September 2005

copyright © Dennis List, 2005

author's email:

[email protected]

International distributor

Audience Dialogue

1 East Tee

Nailsworth

Adelaide 5083

South Australia

email:[email protected]

3

The Consensus Group Technique: A Users' Manual

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................. 5

Recruitment phase

Stage 1 Choose sampling points 8

Stage 2 Organize a venue 9

Stage 3 Prepare a screening questionnaire 11

Stage 4 Find participants 14

Discussion phase

Stage 5 Set up discussions 18

Stage 6 Introductions 23

Stage 7 Agenda-setting 24

Stage 8 Main discussion 25

Stage 9 Establish the level of consensus '" 30

Consolidation phase

Stage 10 Consolidate the findings 34

Stage 11 Reporting 35

Further information 37

Appendixes

Notes for moderators and secretaries 38

Checklist of materials needed 40

Example of preliminary questionnaire 41

4 Consensus Groups Manual

Introduction

This simple method, originally developed for audience research,uses verbal skills (as commonly possessed by media staff) ratherthan the numerical skills needed for traditional survey research. It ismidway between a focus group and a public meeting. It includeselements of other techniques: nominal groups, search conferences,the Delphi method, citizen juries, and consensus conferences.

How does a consensus group differ from a survey?• In any survey, the questionnaire ensures that everybody is asked

the same questions. The only variation can be in the number ofpeople giving each answer to each question. Therefore, thoughsurveys begin with words (questionnaires), the results are alwaysexpressed in numbers.

• Consensus groups work in the opposite way: the numbers remainroughly constant, but instead of questions there are statements. Indiscussion, the wording of each statement is adjusted until eitherthe great majority of participants agree - or it becomes clear thatthey can't agree.

And how does a consensus group differ from a focus group?• Focus groups normally have a moderator, but no secretary.

Consensus groups need both.• Focus groups work best with about 7 or 8 participants. Consensus

groups work best with 10 to 12.• A focus group resembles a large (sometimes unruly)

conversation. A consensus group is more like a small meeting - alittle more formal than a focus group.

• With a focus group, the moderator is firmly in control - of boththe agenda and the interpretations. With consensus groups,participants help set the agenda, and vote on preferredstatements.

• Results from a focus group are based on the moderator'sperceptions. Results from a consensus group are decided by theparticipants: the organizers have much less power.

Though this manual uses radio audience studies as an example,consensus groups can be used for any kind of population. Themethod has also worked well in assessing the adoption ofinnovations, and in determining priorities for voluntaryorganizations.

Consensus Groups Manual 5

A common misunderstanding about consensus groups is that theyare a means of building consensus. This is not so. The consensus

group technique is primarily a research method, not a conflictmanagement method (though it can serve that purpose, indirectly).The purpose of the method is to find out to what extent consensusalready exists - to detect consensus, not to create it. As the methoduses representative sampling, there is no point in using the groupprocess to create a consensus among a tiny proportion of apopulation. If this were done, the findings would no longerrepresent the population.

The technique has three main phases: recruiting participants,holding discussions, and consolidating findings But beforeparticipants are recruited, the same strategic concerns apply as withany other social research method. In short, the organizers mustdecide exactly what is to be covered, and among what population.Once the scope of the study has been decided, three main phasesfollow: recruitment, discussion, and consolidation. Within thesethree phases are ten stages of the process:

Recruitment1. Within the area to be studied (e.g. a radio station's coveragearea), three sampling points are chosen, contrasting as much aspossible.

2. At each of the sampling points, a venue is arranged. All youneed is a suitable room.

3. A short screening questionnaire is prepared. The purpose of thisis to find people eligible to take part in the consensus groups.

4. At each sampling point, people are interviewed using thescreening question-naire. These interviews find people who are botheligible and willing to attend a consensus group.

Discussions5. The group meets, either immediately after the interviewing, orup to several weeks later. This meeting will run for about two hours.At each meeting, there would be approximately 12 participants and 2organizers: a moderator and a secretary.

6. At the beginning of the meeting, each participant brieflyintroduces himself or herself to the others, giving some basicinformation about their habits - e.g. radio listening.


7. Possible sub-topics are discussed, and everybody votes on theirlevel of interest in each topic.

8. The chosen topics, in descending order of popularity, arediscussed by all participants. The moderator steers the discussionaround the arranged scope of the study, and the secretary takesnotes.

9. In the final stage of the meeting, consensus is determined. On awhiteboard (etc.) the secretary writes down statements which mostparticipants are expected to agree with. Statements are modified,depending on what participants say. When each statement is ready,participants vote on it. Typically, around 30 statements are agreed onby most of the participants. This list of statements is the mainoutcome of the meeting.

Consolidation10. After three meetings have been held (one for each samplingpoint found in stage 1), the three lists of statements are compared.Any statements shared by at least two groups are the outcome of thestudy.

11. Report on the findings.

Now let's look at each of the above stages in more detail...


Stage 1. Choose sampling points

A sampling point is simply a geographical area, where a smallsurvey can be carried out. It can be either a group of homes, or apublic place where passers-by are recruited for the study. Forconsensus group sampling to work effectively, at least threesampling points are needed. They are chosen to be as different aspossible. For example, if your study is being done on behalf of aradio station, the population will probably be all people who live inthat radio station's coverage area. Within this area, you shouldidentify three contrasting localities. For example, if the station coversa city and outlying rural areas, you might choose:

• An inner-city area• An area near the outer edge of the city• A rural area.

Another way in which localities often vary is in wealth. Therefore itwould be useful to choose one wealthy area, one poor area, and onemiddle-income area.

Sampling points need not be geographical. Where the population isclustered, and prior information is available - e.g. a database ofclients - three distinct groups of potential participants can be definedfrom that prior information. For example, in a recent study we did,planning a community information system, the three groups wereinformation providers, information end-users, and intermediariesbetween the other two.

Sometimes, people of different age groups and genders may inhibiteach others' responses. When that is likely to occur, groups can beseparated by age and gender - as in a study we did with Aboriginalpeople in central Australia: the groups were of younger men,younger women, older men, and older women.

Whatever the basis on which the three (or more) groups are selected,the main goal is to make them as different as possible. This is a typeof maximum-variation sampling.

Three sampling points is a minimum, but there can be more. Wehave· found that each additional sampling point adds less and lessvariation in the statements. However, in some situations, more thanthree sampling points are needed to adequately cover the variance ina population. For example, a technique we have often used comparesthree groups of a station's potential listeners with three groups of itscurrent listeners. This requires choosing two groups at each


sampling point. If both the sampling points and the type of personinvited to a group are different, you cannot make clear conclusionsabout the causes of any differences in the results - hence the need fora lot more groups in this case.

Stage 2. Organize a venue

A venue for a consensus group is a space that will hold about 15people and is free from interruptions. It need not even be a room; inPapua New Guinea we held some groups outdoors, with noproblems.

In Australia, many hotels have rooms available for hire for meetings,and we often use these. We have also used clubrooms of voluntaryorganizations, office areas after working hours, schools, libraries,restaurants, shops, and so on. Another possibility is to use a privatehouse, paying the owner a small fee for the use of their room. It isusually best not to use the premises of the organization sponsoringthe research, as people may be reluctant to criticize an organizationwhen they are on its premises. For example, if your research is for aradio station, avoid using its studios as a venue. But this depends onthe type of people attending, and on the organization.

Here are some factors to take into account when choosing a venue:

• We usually provide something to eat and drink for theparticipants - it helps them to relax. This is a factor should beborne in mind when choosing a venue: hotels and restaurantshave an advantage here.

• A venue should be easy to find, specially for people who havenever been there before. Places such as hotels are usually wellknown to people living in the area.

• A venue should not be a place that some people would not wantto visit. In some cultures, for example, women will not go tohotels.

• A venue should be fairly quiet, particularly if the meeting is to berecorded on audio tape. Noisy air-conditioning can be an

unexpected problem, making voices much more difficult tounderstand - even when participants are hardly aware of thebackground noise.

• And of course, the venue must be close to the area from whichthe sample is drawn.


We have found that people are often reluctant to travel for more thanabout ten minutes to a group discussion. When distances are large,some people don't turn up, and others (disruptively) arrive much toolate. Sometimes you may have to change a sampling point, becauseno suitable venue can be found nearby.


Stage 3. Prepare a screening questionnaire

The main purpose of the preliminary screening survey is to findparticipants for the consensus groups. They must be both eligibleand willing to participate. If, for example, you are assessing theprograms on a radio station called FM99, you may decide there islittle point in inviting people who don't listen to the station. In thiscase, the key question on the screening questionnaire would be

"Do you listen to FM99 at least once a week?"

(This is better wording than asking simply "Do you listen to FM99?"If no time limit is included, people who listen only very rarely to thestation would answer Yes, and would not be able to discuss theprograms in detail.)

If you are interested in increasing the station's audience, you maywant to speak to potential listeners to the station. There are severalways to define potential listeners on a questionnaire. Our ownstudies have found that when a station increases its audience, this isusually because people who already listened to the stationinfrequently began to listen more often. So most of your potentiallisteners are probably listeners already - but not very often. In ascreening survey, you could ask

"How often do you listen to FM99: at least once a week, veryoccasionally, or never?"

All those giving the middle answer would be considered potentiallisteners.

If you are trying to assess the audience to something that does notyet exist (such as a planned new radio station), you will need todefine the potential listeners in another way. This can be done fromtwo starting points:• A demographic group, such as "rich people living near the city."

If these were defined as the target audience, the purpose of thestudy would be to find the kind of radio program that mostappealed to these people.

• A program concept, for example "a radio station specializing injazz, blues, and reggae." In this case, the purpose of the studywould be to estimate how many people are interested, what typeof people they are, and exactly what program content wouldmost interest them.


When you have found a respondent who is eligible to take part in aconsensus group, the next step is to find out if they will attend. Wenormally use wording like this...

"With the answers you've given, you're eligible to take part in a group

discussion, to talk about news and current affairs in more detail. We'd like

to invite you to come to this discussion next Tuesday night, the 15th of

October. We're holding it at the Flinders Lodge, in Dequetteville Terrace,

Kent Town, starting at 7 pm, going for up to two hours. People usually find

these meetings very interesting, and if you attend we'll pay you forty

dollars to cover your expenses. Would you like to come along?"

D Not interested

D Interested, but can't come

D Agreed to come ~ (get name and address, and say we'll send a

letter)

Name .

Address .

The essential points included in the above question are:• Invitation to attend• Very approximate description of the subject• Date, time, and place of meeting• Maximum duration of meeting• Incentives, such as payment to respondents, offer to feed them,

meet interesting people, and so on.

The third type of question that can be included in a screeningquestionnaire is the demographic question: their sex, their agegroup, and perhaps their occupation and other similar data. Thereare two reasons for obtaining this demographic information:• To help ensure a proper balance of sexes, age groups, etc. in the

consensus groups.• To help find out the differences between the type of people who

attend the groups and those who do not.

As a screening questionnaire will have few questions, you can savepaper by not having a separate sheet of paper for each interview.


Using a single page, with a few lines for each person's answers, canbe more convenient.


Stage 4. Find participants for the discussions

The soundest method of finding participants is to carry out a randomscreening survey on the population to be studied. However, this isnot always possible, so other recruitment methods may need to beused. Though many informal selection methods work well, it'sessential to avoid any method in which only a tiny proportion ofthose contacted volunteer to take part (such as a mail survey). Suchan outcome almost guarantees that the findings will not be typical ofthe population.

Unless the group discussions are to be held as soon as enougheligible respondents are found, it is best to use only one or twointerviewers at each sampling point. Because you will be aiming for12 participants in each group, a large number of interviews will notbe required - unless those eligible to take part are only a smallpercentage of the population. In order for 12 people to turn up, youwill probably need more than 12 to agree. In Australia, even whenwe send a letter to confirm the details of the discussion, andrecontact each participant the day before the discussion, usually 10%to 20% of those who accepted fail to turn up. Therefore, we usuallyget acceptances from one more person than we really want: if wewant 12, we obtain 13 or 14 acceptances.

In other countries, the proportion that fails to turn up may bedifferent from the 10% to 20% figure we have experienced. InAustralia, we have found that unless we confirm each person'sattendance (by a follow-up letter and/or telephone call) many morethan 20% do not turn up. We have also found that people who saythey "might" come hardly ever do.

One of the worst things you can do when organizing a group is toextend a weak invitation to a lot of people. As this is very easy, itmay seem tempting. If you are running a radio station, you maythink "Why not advertise on air that we are doing a research study,and invite listeners to come along?"

The problem is that you have no control over the number of peoplewho turn up. It could be nobody, and it could be hundreds. We havefound that 12 people is about the ideal number for a consensusgroup. With fewer than about 8 participants, there is too muchdanger of the responses being atypical - one very persuasive personmight influence the others. With more than about 15, the groupeither runs on for far too long, or else it is abbreviated so much thatmany participants don't have a full chance to offer their thoughts.


In Australia, usually less than 50% of people eligible to attend a

group will agree to do so. Bearing in mind those who are not eligible,the eligible people who do not want to come to the group, and thosewho say they will come but do not, sometimes it takes a lot ofinterviews to fill one group of 12. For example, if one person in 10 iseligible, and a third of those attend a group, that's 30 interviews foreach person who attends, or 360 interviews to fill a group. It istherefore a good idea to make the eligibility criterion fairly broad.Another step you can take to reduce the number of interviews is tooffer an incentive to attend. If you can persuade two thirds of theeligible people to attend instead of one third, only half as manyinterviews will be needed. Therefore if you pay participantsgenerously, this can greatly reduce the total cost.

We normally do the screening surveys between one week and twoweeks before the discussion. If given more than two weeks' notice,people tend to forget. With less than a week's notice, many peoplecan't attend, because they have already made plans to do otherthings at the time.

But it is not essential to wait that long. Another completely differentapproach is to hold consensus groups on the spot. For example, in atraining session at Hanoi, Vietnam, a number of trainees were sentout to recruit people in the street outside the venue. All people whomet the criteria and had an hour to spare were invited to a groupdiscussion then and there. It took only about 10 minutes to findenough participants. Of course, this only works when a largenumber of eligible people are nearby, but if your organization is onethat has a lot of visitors (such as a museum) this could be an easyway to find participants.

Affinity groupsThe above description of screening questionnaires involves aseparate questionnaire for each person. People are interviewedindividually. In the resulting groups, each participant will usuallynot know any of the other participants - except in small towns,where many people already know each other. In some waysunfamiliarity can be an advantage, because participants will notoffend their friends by giving opinions they feel the friends mightdisagree with. But in other ways, it can be disadvantageous to hold adiscussion among strangers: participants may feel unwilling toreveal their opinions to people they do not know and cannot trust.


Which of these two disadvantages is the stronger will vary fromcountry to country. In Australia, my experience is that when the

participants in a group already know each other well, they tend toexpress their feelings more freely.

Sometimes it is best to restrict each group to similar people - notasking all eligible persons to attend, but only some of them. Forexample, when obtaining opinions of listeners to a radio station, in acountry where, men and women do not mix socially with strangers ofthe opposite sex, you might need to organize four groups instead ofthree: two of men only, and two of women only.

Sometimes it is better to have separate groups of younger and olderpeople. In some countries, it may be best not to mix supporters ofdifferent political parties (or different religions) in the same group.This separation can be done partly by careful selection of samplingpoints, and partly through screening questionnaires. Just bear inmind that the purpose of restricting a group to a particular type ofperson is to enable the members of a group to speak more freely.

It's usually best to dissuade husbands and wives from comingtogether. They tend to inhibit each other. Often only one of them willparticipate in the discussion. As each group is quite small, it wouldbe better to invite two people who would give separate opinions.

A completely different approach, which can also work well, is toorganize a discussion among a group of people who already knoweach other, such as members of a sporting club, a group of peoplewho work together, or a group of students. And of course, thegroups need not have a common purpose: they can simply be groupsof friends or neighbours. However, I advise against using a groupmade up of members of a family. There is too strong a chance thatthey will not be typical of the population, because the entire studywould then be limited to a few families. These groups (of peoplewho already know each other) are called affinity groups.

When affinity groups are used for a study, each group needs to be asdifferent as possible from each other (replacing the three samplingpoints). For example, don't choose three sporting clubs, or threegroups of neighbours: This type of sampling is most effective whenthere is largest possible contrast between the types of person ineach consensus group. '

_:'..: : .:;- :~, ':;_ ' ' :1

One problem which restricts the use of affinity groups is that noteverybody in an affinity group may be eligible. If a radio station is

studying its listeners, it does not matter if a few people in an affinitygroup are not listeners, but if most participants are non-listeners, thegroup will not provide useful information. Also, if people are notinterested in the topic being studied, they are likely to disrupt thediscussion by talking among themselves. Therefore affinity groupsare best when all or most people in the population are eligible to beinterviewed.


Stage 5. Set up the discussions'.

Each group needs a discussion leader, or moderator. This person(preferably not a broadcast presenter, in whose presence people maywithhold criticism) feeds the group with stimuli, or material to reactto, as well as encouraging the reticent to speak up, and discouragingthe talkative from dominating the proceedings. And when the topicis radio, one essential function of the moderator is to occasionallyremind the participants to stop talking about television!

Each group should have a second person from the organizing team,to act as secretary. Though it is (just) possible for an experiencedmoderator to fulfil both functions, it is valuable to have a secondorganizer present, so that opinions can be compared after theparticipants have left. But if too many people from the organizingteam are present, participants are likely to feel inhibited. If there are12 participants, there should not be more than 4 organizers presentat once. Apart from the moderator and secretary, the otherorganizers should hardly speak at all. These other people who maybe present include:• a video-camera or tape-recorder operator.• somebody to provide drinks or food for the participants.• an observer or two from the client organization.

Choosing a moderatorIdeally, the moderator should have some experience with facilitatingsmall groups, as well as a good understanding of the topic area. Agood moderator will balance the pressures of keeping to time againstthe value of bringing out new viewpoints. If one participant is beingdisruptive, a good moderator will be able to silently enlist the otherparticipants to put pressure that participant. A good moderator willalso encourage everybody to join the discussion on equal terms.People with extensive experience at chairing meetings often makegood moderators.

Choosing a secretaryThe qualities of an ideal secretary include being able to write in largeletters neatly and quickly, but above all to interpret vague statementsinto clear and unambiguous wording. These qualities are rarer thanthose found in a good moderator. We've found that teachers and exteachers often make excellent secretaries.

Preliminary questionnairesIt hardly ever happens that all participants in a group arrive at thesame time. Even when we ask people to be sure to arrive at the


advertised starting time, some usually arrive ten minutes late, andothers arrive much too early. As soon as they arrive, participants are

keen to know what will be happening- - but it can be tiresome torepeat this over and over again, as each new participant arrives aminute apart, while you're getting ready for the discussion.

To give participants something to do, we usually have a preliminaryquestionnaire, which they can fill in as soon as they arrive. Thosewho arrive late can fill in their questionnaires while the discussiontakes place.

As well as giving participants something to do while they arewaiting for others to arrive, these questionnaires can collect usefulinformation.

The other use of preliminary questionnaires is to help settle theagenda. This can be done either directly ("In this meeting aboutFM99, what topics would you like to discuss?") or by askingquestions which the people can think about and discuss later, such as"If you could make one change to FM99, what would it be?"

These questionnaires should be short and simple. I try to restrictthem to a single sheet of paper, with questions only on one side. Assome people prefer to communicate in writing, we let participantskeep their questionnaires throughout the discussion, and invite themto write their thoughts and comments on the blank back of thequestionnaire, and hand it up at the end.

Seating arrangementsA table is not essential, but very useful. The best type of roomarrangement is normally a large table (or several smaller tablespushed together), around which the participants sit in chairs. Thetabletop is useful for filling in questionnaires, and for food, drink,and microphones, and also serves as a kind of psychologicalprotection for participants from the organizers.

In some cultures, specially in Asia and Africa, people prefer to sit onthe floor. This is no problem, but if the participants are going to fill inquestionnaires, you will need to provide writing surfaces, such asclipboards.

Displaying dataAn essential part of the consensus group technique is the displaywall, on which all the results from the group are displayed.Originally we used butchers' paper, but later found it more


convenient to use many small sheets. On these, the secretary writesthe findings of the group, in large letters so that all participants canread them. (If some or most are illiterate, symbols can be used aswell as words.) It's also possible to use a blackboard or whiteboard,but sheets of paper are best because they can be taken away and keptas the record of the discussion.

This diagram shows a room layout that works well:

Wall of statementsSecretary

Moderator

Participants

The secretary needs a small table, on which to write statements, andshould be close to the wall, for modifying statements whennecessary. The moderator should not have a table, to reduceformality and seem more approachable. The participants arearranged in a slight semi-circle, so that they can see each other, withthe wall (covered in statements) easily visible. Any observers shouldsit behind the participants, to keep out of the way. The minimumspace required for this layout is about 5 metres deep, and 8 metreswide - but (in Australia) that's a tight squeeze.

Electronic recordingFor later reference, the whole discussion should be recorded, eitheron videotape or audiocassette - though this is not necessary, becausethe whole proceedings of a consensus group are recorded on paper.

Video has many advantages, but it also has the disadvantage ofrequiring a camera operator. Though it is possible to set up a videocamera and simply point it at a group of people sitting in asemicircle, most detail is lost unless there's an operator to zoom in oneach person as they speak, and to film the reactions of others.

You might expect that a video operator would greatly distract theparticipants, but we have found this doesn't happen. After the firstfew minutes, participants usually stop noticing the video camera.


(You know this when replaying a video recording, becauseparticipants hardly ever look directly at the camera.) Of course, thevideo operator should intrude as little as· possible, and stand back ata reasonable distance. Bear in mind that, to focus on a whole groupof 12 or more people, you will often need a larger room than youmight expect - or a camera whose lens can zoom out to an unusuallywide angle.

If a video camera is not available, the next best thing is to record thediscussion on audiocassette. This does not require a separateoperator - the secretary or moderator can work it. Somerequirements for successful audiotaping are:

•

•

•

With a video recording, you can see who is speaking, but withaudio, many voices may sound the same. To help identify voiceson the tape, the moderator should address participants by nameas often as possible. The moderator may also need to describeother things that are happening which will not be recorded on thetape. For example, if a participant shows the others a printedadvertisement, the moderator should describe what is happening(and explain why, to the participants).

A high-quality microphone is essential. After muchexperimentation, we discovered the PZM microphone, alsoknown as a boundary microphone. These are made by severalmanufacturers, and look like a flat, thick piece of metal, about thesize of a person's hand. It sits on a tabletop or other flat surface,and records all sounds reaching that surface. The microphonesbuilt into cassette recorders are usually of too Iowa quality topick up voices dearly, specially when several people are speakingat once, and the microphone is more than a few metres away.PZM microphones work well up to about 10 metres range, aslong as there's not much background noise. Two microphones arebest, because then you can record in stereo (making it easier toidentify voices based on where people were sitting), and if onemalfunctions you still have the other.

Double-check, before anybody arrives, that everything isworking! There are many ways to go wrong with a taperecording. Batteries go flat (in either the tape recorder or themicrophones), plugs may not be inserted fully, the tape can be setto "pause" and forgotten, the volume control can be turned rightdown, the machine can be switched to "play" instead of "record",and so on. I prefer a tape recorder with an indication of thevolume (flashing LED lights or a VU meter), and a clear window


22

so that you can check that the tape is turning. If the light isflashing and the tape is turning, the recording will probably beOK.

Consensus Groups Manual

'.Stage 6. Introductions

When almost all participants have arrived, the discussion can begin.In this stage, the moderator asks each participant in turn to introducehimself or herself. Here we are looking for factual information whichwill help others understand the opinions which will be stated laterby that person. For example, if the topic is a radio station, I find ithelpful to ask participants to describe their households, their dailyroutine, and their radio listening habits. The other purpose of thisstage is to help each participant gain confidence in speaking to othersin the group.

Not a lot of detail is needed here. I have found it best for themoderator and secretary to introduce themselves in the style needed,as an example, before asking participants to do the same.

Each participant is given a voting card - a bright coloured piece ofcardboard, about the size of a playing card. These are used whenvoting in the final stage (easier to count than hands that are halfraised), but are also used to indicate agreement with what thecurrent speaker is saying.

This introductory stage usually takes between one and two minutesper person, or 15 to 20 minutes for a group of 12 people.

Identifying participantsWe often use name tents to help identify the participants to eachother and to the organizers. A name tent is a folded piece ofcardboard, on which is written the name of the participant sitting atthat place on the table.

If the name tents are put on the table in advance, this can be used asa way of planning where people sit. If several of the participants arefrom the same family, they are likely to distract the other participantsby whispering if seated next to each other, so it's a good idea toseparate them.

If the participants are not sitting at a table, an alternative to usingname tents is to draw a map of the seating arrangements, markedwith all the participants' names - similar to the diagram above. Thiscan be displayed on the wall for all to see.


Stage 7. Agenda-setting

Participants will already have been told the broad topic of thediscussion. On the preliminary questionnaires they'll have had achance to think about what they want to discuss, within that broadtopic.

Of course, the organizers have a say in this too. They will haveprepared their own list of topics in advance, writing these on a largesheet of paper. The purpose of dividing the subject into topics is tohelp ensure that nothing is inadvertently overlooked. There don'tneed to be a lot of topics - 10 is usually more than enough (though 5is often too few). For example, in a discussion about the radio stationFM99, the broad topic announced to participants would simply be"radio in your area." All would have been selected through ascreening questionnaire as being either current or potential listenersto FM99. The topics initially listed could be:

o quality of receptiono information about programso music on radioo news on radioo announcerso advertising and promotion on air.

The moderator would ask each participant in turn if there wasanything they wanted to discuss that wasn't covered in that list oftopics. Anything that could be included within an already-listedtopic is written next to that topic by the secretary. Anything notalready covered is added to the foot of the list. When eachparticipant has had a chance to nominate more topics, the agenda isvoted on.

Before voting, the moderator points out that there will not be enoughtime to .cover all topics, so participants should not vote foreverything. This vote is the first use of the green cards. Themoderator announces each topic in turn, asking participants to raisetheir cards if they would like to discuss that. The secretary counts thenumber of votes and writes that number beside each topic.

The number of votes then becomes the sequence of the agenda. Notopic is specifically excluded, but those with the fewest votes are

most likely to not be discussed if time runs out.2


Stage 8. Main discussion

After the introductions and agenda setting, the moderator begins themain discussion, by introducing each topic in turn. The moderatorneeds to keep an eye on the clock, so that all statements that themajority of participants want to talk about can be covered.

If the participants don't already know which organization isconducting the research, it may be best not to tell them just yet, sothat their opinions will be more unbiased. In some cultures (much ofAsia, for example), when participants know who the research is for,they may be reluctant to criticize it in the presence of people fromthat organization. But even if they're not told the organization'sname at the beginning, they'll usually work it out later. This meansthat the early parts of the discussion may be the only opportunity tohear unbiased opinions.

When participant take turns to speak, round-robin style, this ensuresthat everybody has a say, but using this method for an entire sessioncan make conversation very awkward. My preference is to begin andend the discussion phase by asking each participant in turn to speak.For the rest of the discussion phase, anybody can speak, as theywish. Sometimes the moderator may need to intervene to preventone or two people from dominating the discussion, or to encouragethe shyer participants to have their say. Participants can beencouraged to make notes on the back of their preliminaryquestionnaires.

The organizers should not be drawn into the discussion. If aparticipant asks the moderator "what do you think of this matter?"the moderator should answer "it's your opinions that are importanthere, not mine. I don't want to influence you."

The purpose of the meeting is for the listeners to provide informationto the organization that is conducting the research. But sometimesparticipants try to reverse the flow of information, and beginquestioning the organizers in detail. If this gets out of hand, much ofthe meeting time can be wasted. The moderator should handle suchquestions by stating that there will be a "question time" at the end ofthe meeting.

The discussion itself can be either structured or unstructured (thedifference is explained below), and will typically run for between 30minutes and 2 hours. The duration can usually be controlled by themoderator. While discussion takes place, the secretary notes down


statements that most of the participants seem to agree with (e.g. ifseveral are waving their voting cards, or indicating agreement withtheir body language). These statements are not posted on the wallyet, but kept on the secretary's table. Posting statements on the walltoo soon seems to stop participants from thinking further about atopic. If anything is posted on the wall at this stage, it should be aquestion or a topic, not a tentative conclusion.

Unstructured discussionsAn unstructured discussion is one in which the moderator merelyintroduces the broad topic, and sits back to let everybody else talk.The advantage of this approach is that participants feel unfettered byrestrictions, and may provide useful and unexpected insights. Thedisadvantage is that much of the discussion may be irrelevant, andwill not provide useful information. Therefore it is normal for themoderator to interrupt when the discussion drifts away from thestated topic (for example, if the stated topic is radio, the discussionwill often drift onto television).

An unstructured discussion will often cover most topics on theagenda, without the moderator having to introduce the topics one ata time. In that case, the moderator should check off the topics as theyare covered, by ticking them on the list on the wall. Towards the endof the discussion period, the moderator can ask specifically abouthigh-priority topics that have not been discussed.

Structured discussionsWith a structured discussion, the moderator introduces topics one ata time, and asks the participants to discuss them. The moderatorneeds to avoid asking the participants any questions which can beanswered Yes or No. (If this is the type of information you need, it'sbetter to do a survey.) In fact, it's best not to ask questions at all.Instead, the moderator should say things like:

- "Tell me some of the things you like about the breakfast program on

FM99."

- "Why do you no longer listen to that program?"

Both the above prompts are the type that seek detailed responses,and are loose enough to allow for unexpected answers. If thequestions asked are too specific, you risk not finding out the keyfacts.

Another type of structured discussion is one that involves playingexcerpts of programs from a prepared tape. Reactions to specificprograms are often more useful than generalized comment. For this


purpose, we usually prepare tapes of 10 to 20 short program extracts,each around one minute - just long enough to illustrate a particularpoint, or jog the memories of people who are not sure whether theyhave heard or seen a program before. Play one item at a time, thenlet people talk about it for a few minutes.

Many participants in consensus groups have a tendency tovagueness, making comments such as "I'm not very impressed withthe news, on FM99." Such statements are not useful, and need to befollowed up with questions from the moderator ("What are thethings that you don't like about the news?") or asking them to recallsome specific examples. Doing this a few times near the beginning ofeach discussion will show the other 'participants what sort ofcomment is wanted.

The Devil's AdvocateSome societies, particularly in south-east Asia, place a high value onsocial cohesion. People strongly want to agree with each other, andparticularly with participants of high status. This was particularlynoticeable in the small city of Bogor, Indonesia, when one participantwas a retired general. Most other participants were young, anddidn't dare disagree with him. Whatever he said, everybody agreedwith. So after that, I created a Devil's Advocate role. In each group,some innocuous-seeming person, often the youngest woman, wasgiven a poster of an ugly monster (a chupacabra, or Mexican goatsucker) taped to a ruler.

She was told that her role would be to notice when something wasnot being said, or some obvious point was being glossed over - "theelephant in the living room" as some have called it. In such a caseshe would brandish the chupacabra, and state the overlooked point not necessarily agreeing with it, just stating it. When she spokewithout holding up the chupacabra, that was as herself, not in theDevil's Advocate role. The moderator assists by stoppingproceedings to let the chupacabra speak. This tactic turned out to bevery successful: when assigned that power, meek girls became fire-


breathing chupacabras. After hearing observations from the Devil'sAdvocate, a group will often swung around to a different viewpoint.

Types of statementThe secretary will be looking for a mixture of statement types:

• Statements of attitude - often including the word should.

• Statements about behaviour, such as participants' habits.• Statements about knowledge and awareness.• Statements about characteristics of participants.

Some statements of type 4 are more easily collected as question in thepreliminary questionnaire - e.g. "Do you have a radio at home?" Thestrength of consensus groups lies in negotiating statements, andstatements so simple that no negotiation is needed are not a good useof the group's time.


A breakBy now, discussion will have been going for an hour or so. Toconclude stage 8 (the longest) it's time-to take a break of 5 to 10minutes. During the break, participants can have refreshments, whilethe secretary and moderator post the statements on the wall. Here'san example of how the wall might look...

(This was after the voting, which is why the statements have countssuch as 9/9 at the lower right.)


Stage 9. Establish the level of consensus

The final stage of a consensus group involves finding out to whatextent consensus exists on the issues discussed in the second phaseof the session. Taking each statement on the wall in turn, themoderator first asks participants if they understand exactly what it issaying:

"Does everybody clearly understand what this statement means, sothat you are able to say whether you agree with it or not?"

Participants vote by displaying their cards. If even one personexpresses doubt, that probably means a lot of others are alsodoubtful, but don't like to admit it. So unless the vote is unanimous,the moderator now calls for suggestions to clarify the wording. Thisoften results in a statement being split into two. After the clarifyingvote, the real vote takes place.

The purpose of this type of research is to describe any consensus thatexists: in other words, a statement phrased in such a way that thegreat majority of participants are able to agree with it. Statements inthe form initially offered will often need to be altered somewhat sothat as many people as possible can agree with them.

We regard it as consensus if no more than two people in a group (ofup to 12) don't agree with it - this corresponds to around 80%. If onlya few people do not agree with a statement, they are asked why."Could you agree with it if a few words were changed?" themoderator will ask.

The principle is that when a statement receives too few votes, itneeds to be softened. If a statement expressed in an extreme way iswatered down a little, more people will agree with it. This is usuallypossible. For example, not many participants might agree that:

People who do not listen to FM99 should have a loudspeaker set up

in the street outside their home and be forced to listen to FM99 all

day.

A few more might agree that

People who do not listen to FM99 should be given a free radio thatreceives FM99.


And even more might agree that:

People who do not listen to FM99 should be informed that it exists.

Participants sometimes ask, "What exactly do you mean by agree? Doyou mean mild agreement, strong agreement, or what?" One answer:if you're not sure whether you agree or not, then you don't agree.Agreement is meaningless unless it is positive and fairly strong.

When consensus has been found, the secretary writes the modifiedstatement on the poster, together with the numbers who agree.

For about a quarter of the statements (on average) it is not possible toreach consensus, and the group will divide into two sections, with nocommon ground. In such a case, try to get two statements, each withas many as possible agreeing, and record both statements, withappropriate annotation.

After the secretary has finished going through the statements she orhe noted down during the discussion stage, participants can beasked to add statements that they feel most others will agree with.Each of these statements is then modified and voted on in the sameway as the others - but usually this happens much more quickly.Finally, the secretary asks the moderator to offer further statementsfor evaluation.

Also at this stage, participants in each group can be asked to vote onstatements from previous groups. The second group can vote onstatements agreed in the first group, and the third group onstatements from the first two groups. Because the wordings of thesestatements have already been argued over, such voting is normallyvery quick.

The success of consensus groups depends very much on the qualityof these statements. There are some statements which most peoplewill agree with, yet which offer no insight into a topic. For example,everybody may agree that the sky is blue - but how does that help?With experience, the moderator can steer the group towardsstatements that are on the border of being controversial. That is,statements with which most people agree, but they only just agree.

When a statement is agreed unanimously, this may mean that it istoo weak, and needs to be strengthened. So if 12 out of 12 agree thatthe sky is blue, that vote stands, but the moderator can suggested atightened version - perhaps "the sky is always blue." To save


rewriting a statement, the secretary can use a different colour pen tomake minor changes to wording, and write (also in that new colour)the revised vote.

Imagine all possible statements being spread out, as if on a map. Anirregular shape on this map might define the statements with whichmost people agree. At the centre of the map are the statements whichare so obvious that they are hardly worth stating. For example, allregular listeners to a radio station might agree with "I usually likewhat I hear when I listen to FM99." (Otherwise, they probablywouldn't listen.) Towards the edge of the irregular outline on themap are the borderline statements, at the boundaries of agreement ofthe station's listeners. An example of a borderline statement might be"Though I usually listen to FM99, I listen to other stations when Idon't like the FM99 program." These borderline statements tend tobe more interesting, and less obvious.

The consensus-seeking stage of the discussion will typically lastbetween 30 minutes and one hour, depending on how manystatements are offered for discussion. Sometimes a group will splitinto two factions, which hardly agree on anything. When thathappens (which is rare) the consensus stage will take much longer.

Why separate the discussion and consensus stages?You may wonder why discussing issues and reaching consensus arepresented as two separate stages of the discussion. Wouldn't it bemore efficient to take each topic one at a time, reach consensus onthat, then move on to the next topic? I have tried this, but found itseverely impedes the flow of discussion. Also, returning to a topic atthe consensus stage gives people more time to gather their thoughts,and consensus seems more easily assessed after a time gap.

The exception to this sequence is when the discussion is structured,by being divided into a number of clear parts - for example, when alot of short program excerpts are being played to the participants,and they reach agreement on each one separately.

Insights at the endSometimes the most difficult part of running a consensus group ispersuading the participants to leave at the end of it. With somegroups, nobody wants to go home, and most participants may sitaround and talk for an hour or two longer. I find these late sessionsvery useful. By that time, the participants know each other (and theorganizers) much better and may offer insights that they did not


mention in the formal session. So if you are recording the session,don't turn the tape recorder off until the last person leaves. -

Format of statementsThe outcome of each group is a set of statements. Typically, there arebetween 20 and 40 statements, each written in large letters on aseparate sheet of paper - as shown in the photo on page 29 above.

Each statement should be a single sentence, avoiding the words and

and or, no more than about 20 words. It's OK for the statement to bequalified in some way - restricting its applicability - but it should becompletely clear and unambiguous - very much like a question in asurvey. Below the statement is a number, showing how many people(out of those present) agreed with it.

For example, this statement was agreed with by 10 of the 12participants present:

The midday news onFM99 shouldhave muchmore local content

92 10/12

g2 at lower left means group 2 (of the three groups). When thefindings for all groups are being compared, it will be necessary todistinguish statements from the different groups. Group numberscan be added later, on the conclusion of each group. An alternative isto use different coloured paper for each group - as long as that colouris recorded somewhere!


Stage 10.CConsolidate the findings

After three group sessions have been held, you will have three sets ofstatements. One reason for holding at least three groups is that onegroup may develop its thoughts in quite a strange way, perhaps dueto one or two powerful personalities. With two groups, if theyproduce quite different findings, you won't know if one group isatypical. But with three groups, if the results from one are verydifferent from the other two, this will be obvious. As mentionedabove, three is the minimum number of groups: sometimes it'sappropriate to hold four or more groups.

When consolidating statements from three groups, a lot of paper isinvolved. As the average group produces around 30 statements,that's about 100 statements to compare. As this would need a verylarge wall, and only a few people are involved in the consolidation,it's more convenient to rewrite each statement on a small card, andwork with the 100-odd cards on a large table, laying them out in asequence that best aids understanding of the findings as a whole.When several groups agree on the same statement, those cards canbe overlaid.

Though three groups never come up with exactly the same set ofstatements, we have always found strong similarities. Anystatements that are substantially similar for at least two of the threegroups can be safely assumed to be representative of the wholeaudience sampled - provided that the third group didn't agree on anopposing statement.

No matter how differently the three groups are selected, we usuallyfind a lot of agreement between the lists of statements when thediscussions have been conducted in the same way. Observing thesimilarities will provide confidence that the results are true of theentire population studied, not only of the three disparate samplingpoints.


Stage 11. Reporting on the findings

At this point, one advantage of consensus groups over focus groupsbecomes very obvious. A typical focus group will last about 90minutes, but it usually takes a full day to transcribe the discussion,and another day per group to analyse the text and produce a report.Though unskilled moderators can usually manage to make a focusgroup work (after a fashion), high-quality analysis requires muchskill and experience. Much of the high cost of focus groups isincurred at the analysis stage.

Consensus groups are very different. It's only an hour or two's workto combine statements from three groups:

Have the combined list of statements typed out, and this will be thebasis of a report resulting from the discussions. Add a description ofany taped stimulus material, the criteria used for selecting listeners,and findings from the preliminary questionnaires, write a one-pagesummary of the process, and that should be sufficient.

If you have taped the discussions (whether on audio or videotape)you can extract relevant comments to illustrate each of the agreedstatements, and include these in a more detailed report - but that's alot more work.

Improving with practice

The consensus group technique, though simple, is not simplistic. Itcan be used even by highly experienced researchers, and analysed inthe same as focus groups. As people become more experienced atconducting consensus groups, these improvements occur...

o Moderators get better at teasing information out ofparticipants in the allotted time, ensuring that everybody's voiceis heard, and reducing disruptive conflicts between participants.

o Secretaries get better at writing out the agreed statements in such a way that these statements are more usable by theorganization which has commissioned the research, as well asbeing an accurate reflection of the group's ideas.

o The output need not be just a long list of statements: it canbe structured into a map-like format, showing (for example) theways in which people might change their behaviour - such asbeginning to listen to a new radio station. The 2004 article byMike Metcalfe and myself in Technological Forecasting and Social


Change (detalis in Further Information, page 37 below) explainsone way of doing this.

Extending the method

Consensus groups can also be used as part of a larger study. Oneextension of the consensus group to a broader situation is the codiscovery conference, which involves about 30 people, takes a fullday, and consists of a number of small-scale consensus groups. Thisis used for two groups of people - e.g. "staff" and "audience"- toinfuse a strong tacit understanding of each others' needs. Theimplicit message of a set of consensus groups (like a survey, or focusgroups, or almost any other "research" method) 'is "we, theorganizers, are researching you, the passive recipients." In contrast,the implicit message of a co-discovery conference "we are bothresearching each other, so that we can develop programs that satisfyus both." The first half-day develops mutual understanding, whilethe second half-day builds on that to plan mutually acceptableprograms. The method can also resolve conflicts due tomisunderstanding - as long as these are not strongly entrenched.Further details can be found in chapter 14 of my book Know YourAudience, and online at www.audiencedialogue.org/kya14.html

Conclusion

In summary, the consensus group technique is one that can be usedby inexperienced researchers with reasonable safety. It is moredifficult to draw misleading conclusions with this technique thanwith other types of qualitative research. And because consensusgroup statements are generated by the audience involved, consensusgroup findings can be more relevant and directly usable than arefindings from surveys.


Further information

OnlineThe Audience Dialogue website at www.audiencedialogue.org hasinformation on related methodologies - currently not a lot onconsensus groups that isn't already in this manual, but more will beadded in the next few months, including a page on the idea-spacemapping of statements from consensus groups.

BooksAudience Survey Cookbook, by Dennis List. ABC, Sydney, 1997 (out ofprint, but available in some libraries). Also available in Vietnamese,Khmer, and Lao translation. .

Know Your Audience, by Dennis List. Original Books, Wellington, NZ,2005. The earlier edition is available in Bahasa Indonesia asMemahami Khalak Anda, published by UNESCO, Jakarta, 2001.

Articles in academic journals"The Consensus Group Technique in Social Research", by DennisList. Field Methods, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 277-290.

"Sourcing forecast knowledge through argumentative inquiry", byDennis List and Mike Metcalfe. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 525-535.

Contact detailsEmail: [email protected] or [email protected] [email protected]

Mail: Dennis List, Audience Dialogue, 1 East Tee, Nailsworth SA5083, Australia

Telephone: +61882695321 or 0405983891


Consensus groups -notes for moderators,

The main duties for a moderator are1. Introduce the topics for discussion2. Manage the time available3. Encourage the least talkative people to speak4. Stop the most talkative people from dominating the conversation

Sequence of work

Welcome everybody and introduce the broad topic. Explain use of voting cards (holdthem up when you agree with the present speaker), as secretary hands them out.

1. Introduce everybody (about 10 minutes)Moderator begins by describing his or her own habits - about 1 minuteAsk each person in turn. If the first few people don't give enough detail, ask formore.

2. Select agenda. (Draft agenda is on wall.)Explain the draft agenda, then ask each person in turn to nominate an area ofinterest - something they want to talk about, that's within the broad topic, but notcovered in the draft agenda. [Secretary writes down new ones.]

When everybody has had a chance to add something, vote on priorities. Explain thatthis will mean that the least popular items will be discussed last, and may not bereached at all. Ask participants not to vote for everything. Time: about 10 minutes.

3. Main discussion. Introduce each sub-topic in descending order of popularity on theagenda. Ask each person in turn to comment, round-robin style. After several roundrobins, discussion can become more free-form. At the end of each sub-topic, doanother round-robin. Time: about 40 minutes to 1 hour.

BreakHave a 5 minute break, while the secretary and moderator attach the draft

statements to the wall where everybody can read them.

Voting (40 minutes to 1 hour)Point to each statement in turn, and read it aloud. Ask first: "Please raise your cardif you are sure you completely understand the meaning of this statement."

If everybody raises their card, vote on that statement. If even one person isuncertain, ask them how the wording might be improved (just to clarify it, not tochange the meaning). Everybody else can now discuss this. When the wording isagreed, the secretary changes it. Then vote again on (a).

When everybody agrees they know what it means, they can vote: "Now I'd like youto vote on whether or not you agree with this statement. Just hold up your greencard if you agree."


Consensus groups -Notes for secretaries'.

Introduction (about 10 minutes)Give each person a voting card. (The moderator will explain their use.)Make a simple map of the seats in the room, and write on the map the name of eachparticipant. Put the draft agenda on the wall.

Setting agenda (about 10 minutes)Moderator will ask everybody in turn to suggest a topic. If the topic is not already onyour list, add it to the foot of the list - large letters, so everybody can read it. If itcomes under an existing topic, write it beside that topic. When moderator asks forvote, write number of votes for each topic next to that topic. This forms the order ofdiscussion.

Main discussion (about 40 minutes to 1 hour)Listen to whoever is speaking but also watch everybody else. If 3 or more seem to beagreeing (e.g. holding up their voting cards, nodding heads, etc) summarize thestatement and write it in large letters on a sheet of A4 paper -one statement persheet. Try to limit statements to about 10-15 words. Make sure the statement isabout a single concept, and is not ambiguous. If it contains the words "and" or "or" itmight need to be split into 2 statements.

Break (about 5 minutes)Using masking tape, stick all the statements to the wall where everybody can seethem clearly. Use same sequence as discussion.

Voting (40 minutes to 1 hour)Discuss each statement in turn. The moderator first asks if there are any questionsabout the meaning of the statement. If so, everybody is asked to hold up their card.If even one card is not held up, the statement needs to be clarified. In that case, themoderator will ask for suggestions to improve the wording, then voting is repeated.

The secretary writes the changed wording. If only one or two words are changed, thesecretary crosses out the changed words and writes in new ones. If more words arechanged, it's usually easier to write a whole new statement.

When everybody is clear about the meaning, that statement can be voted on. Themoderator asks all participants if they agree - if so, they should hold up their cards.

Count the number voting for each statement, and write that number on the samepage as the statement, e. g. 11/12 means 11 out of 12 people present voted for it.

If a statement is weak and everybody agrees, you or the moderator can suggeststronger wording. If only a few words change, make changes with a different colourpen and record votes on the same sheet.

At the endWrite the group number or location on each statement sheet, e.g. at bottom left.


Materials that may be needed for a consensus group

o Blank sheets of A4 paper - up to about 100 of them. Can use a different colourpaper for each group.

o Thick marking pens, two dark colours (more than one pen of each colour - theydon't last long).

o Roll of masking tape, 15 to 30 mm wide.

o Voting cards (thin card, bright green· or other bright colour· about as big as thepalm of a hand - 1 per person, plus a few spare)

o Cardboard for name tents (4 name tents per A4 sheet - 1 tent per person)

o List of names of those who have agreed to attend (check off as they arrive)

o Preliminary questionnaires (1 per person, plus a few spare)

o Cheap pens (1 per person, plus a few spare)

Optional extras

o Ethics/privacy/data use statement (1 per person, plus a few spares)

o Information sheets for· participants

o Copies of stimulus material (1 per person)

o Recording sheet (1 per person, plus a few spare)

o A roll of small sticky dots for voting (can measure off a strip for each person)

o Money to pay participants

o Gifts for participants

o Envelopes for payment money

o Receipt/s to be signed by participants

o Clipboards to rest questionnaires on (if people aren't sitting at tables)

o Name tags (instead of name tents· if people aren't sitting at tables)

o Camera, and media for it (film, tape, or digital cards). Check batteries!

Recording materials (if session is recorded)

o Recorder- cassette, video, minidisc, or digital voice recorder. The secretary (orwhoever is operating it) needs to be thoroughly familiar with its operation.

o Microphone- omnidirectional, not unidirectional or cardioid. Safer to bring 2.Preferably boundary or PZM type, with flat metal base. Some video cameras haveadequate omnidirectional microphones built in.

o Battery tester (if recorder is battery operated • need to test batteries before eachgroup)

o Spare batteries for recorder and microphone

o Long extension leads- to allow for distant power outlets

o Recording medium (e.g. blank tapes): enough for at least double the expectedduration of the group discussion.


'.Example of preliminary questionnaire

Date ../ ../ .. Time ..... Place. . . . . . . . ... . . . Your initials ....

Please tick all the boxes that apply to you:

[] Male

[] Age 18 to 24

[] Working full time

[] Home duties

[] Female

[] Age 25 to 34

[] Working part time

[] Retired

[] Age 35 to 54 [] Age 55 or over

[] Not working [] Student

Which suburb or locality do you live in? .............................

In a typical week, about how many days do you read a newspaper?

Which newspapers do you read, regularly or occasionally?

Are there any particular aspects of newspapers that you'd like to bring up in

this discussion?

Any other comments you'd like to add?


Dennis List is principal of the communications

evaluation consultancy Audience Dialogue, as well as

being a Research Fellow at the School of Management at

the University of South Australia, where he has recently

completed a PhD. He has been working in media

research and associated areas for more than 20 years,

with the New Zealand and Australian Broadcasting

Corporations, and has done consulting work for

international agencies including the Swedish Media

Development Office, the Media Development Loan Fund,

and several other high-profile international

organizations.

He has published several books on media research

methods, including Know Your Audience: A Practical

Guide to Media Research (2002, 2005) and Participative

Marketing for Local Radio (2003), both available from

this publisher. The text of most chapters of those books

is available on the Audience Dialogue website,

www.audiencedialogue.org


the consensus group technique a users'...

Documents