The Practical Litigator | 9

Dorothy K. Kagehiro, Robert D. Minick, and Kasey R. Herrera

Both approaches have advantages, so choose the one that is right for your case.

According to a Harris Interactive survey, about 80 percent of American adults go online, spending an average 11 hours per week on the Internet. Reuters Staff Poll: Nearly 80 Percent Of Adults Go Online (November 6, 2007), available at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21645536); data memo, Internet Penetration and Impact, available at www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf). This compares with 95 percent of U.S. households with telephone service. United States Telecom Association (Mar. 2008) Telecom Statistics, available at www.ustelecom.org/Learn/TelecomStatistics.html. To date, most online research (surveys and focus groups) have concerned special-interest target groups, such as medical professionals, who are reluctant to sacrifice their time to attend in-person focus groups. Patricia Rhinehart, Personal E-mail Communication, Research Strategies, Inc., contact at rsincorp@bellsouth.net. But greater Internet penetration has encouraged in-house counsel to consider using online services for jury research. We compare traditional focus group research conducted in market research facilities with the online version.

Dorothy K. Kagehiro, Ph.D., and Robert D. Minick, Ph.D., are Jury Consultants, and Kasey R. Herrera is a Director of Research Technology, with TrialGraphix/Kroll Ontrack; all three are based in Washington, D.C.

Traditional versus Online Focus Group Research

Robert D. Minick

Dorothy K. Kagehiro

Kasey R. Herrera

10 | The Practical Litigator July 2008

Formats There are two basic forms of online “focus group” research: “bulletin-board” discussions and real-time chat-based discussions. Jonathan Hil-land, Best Practices for Real-Time Online Focus Groups, 5 QRCA Views 35 (Spring 2007), reprints avail-able from jhilland@mindwaveresearch.com. Most bulletin-board studies occur in multiple phases. Participants answer an initial set of questions; their responses are reviewed, and then they answer the next set of questions. In a variation of the chat-based format, some online providers offer tele-phone conference calls with the participants after the chat-room discussion (a telephone bridge). The conference call can probe and clarify points as well as pick up on voice indicators.

duration Traditional jury focus group research exercises can last several hours or several days. Most online sessions are 90 minutes to two hours in length; online providers have found that participants more readily commit to sessions no longer than two hours. Bulle-tin-board groups typically occur over several days, giving participants more flexibility as to when they choose to post their responses. This format may at-tract a wider range of participants (since they de-vote smaller segments of time to their participation per session) and allows them to respond to a longer survey or to questions that may require detailed responses. The disadvantage of this format is that participants may conduct independent research on the subject matter between sets of questions, and the spontaneity of their responses is lost. The length of time for the set-up process (re-search design, questionnaire construction, recruit-ment of participants, etc.) and back-end process (data analyses and report write-up) are comparable for traditional and online focus group research.

demonstrative Exhibits Traditional jury focus group exercises can uti-lize various media (hard-copy handouts, boards, computer-based presentations) to display support-ing exhibits. Most chat platforms designed for focus groups permit the moderator to “drive” content to the participants’ desktops (i.e., demonstrative ex-hibits in graphic format) with no loss of quality due to differences in connection speed. However, when streaming video content (i.e., multimedia that is continuously displayed to the end-user while it is being delivered by the provider) or when directing participants to a Web site or Web-based program, it is recommended that all of the participants have high-speed connections; otherwise there is a signifi-cant delay for participants with dial-up versus those with high-speed connections.

data Data collection in traditional jury focus group research can consist of multiple-choice items in writ-ten questionnaires, written responses to open-end-ed questions, and oral comments in facilitator-led focus sessions or spontaneous mock deliberations. Online focus group research offers comparable data collection. A questionnaire with multiple-choice items, scaled questions with aggregated responses, and written responses to open-ended items can be displayed for the moderator and clients in real time. There are two formats for online focus group dis-cussions. In one format, participants type in their answers at the same time, ensuring independence in expressed opinions (no cross-participant bias) and shortening the time spent on each issue. In the phone bridge option, cross-communication among the moderator and participants is possible. Howev-er, the ability to observe nonverbal behaviors (such as facial expressions and posture) is lost.

Quality of discussion Some online providers claim (based on profes-sional experience) that focus group participants are

Focus Group Research | 11

more truthful (i.e., less motivated to give a socially desirable response) because of their greater per-sonal anonymity. Hilland, supra, Best Practices For Real-Time Online Focus Groups, QRCA Views, 5(3), 35-39. (Reprints available from jhilland@mindwa-veresearch.com). The validity of this claim appears to be untested. But since actual jurors have to de-fend their positions to their fellow jurors, the face-to-face situation of traditional jury research is more reflective of the real-life situation. Thus, a claimed advantage of avoiding cross-participant bias may not be an advantage in online jury focus groups.

recruitment of Participants/Sample Size There are two sources for participants in online research. Online companies are aggressively solic-iting participants to create databases that they in turn sell to online research firms. They advertise that individuals can make $5-$75 per online sur-vey or $50-$100 per hour per focus group research (e.g., freepayingsurveys.com; onlinesurveyspaid.com; paidsurveysworld.com; surveyclub.com). Al-ternatively, online research service providers may directly solicit participants to create their own da-tabases. Either method raises several issues:

First, the same criticism sometimes leveled at • traditional focus groups conducted at research facilities—that participants are “professional” research subjects who have participated in nu-merous market research studies—may also ap-ply to online research participants;Second, available sample sizes for some rural, • low-income trial venues (e.g., Rio Grande Val-ley or Gulf Coast counties of Texas) may be inadequate for valid research;Third, online providers that advertise as spe-• cializing in jury research are soliciting research participants who know they will be acting as mock jurors. Participants who are aware at the time of recruitment that the research opportu-nity concerns jury research pose security risks, and such recruitment may attract participants

with “prior agendas” that may skew research results. When online jury research becomes widespread and public awareness grows, the risk increases that the process could be hijacked (e.g., members of a pro-environment group might register as mock jurors and then partici-pate in toxic tort cases to influence the verdict and damages outcomes).

Which brings us to a fourth concern: How do on-line companies verify participants’ identities? Tra-ditional research vendors require participants to show government-issued photo ID, and vendors can certainly tell if a 14-year-old shows up to par-ticipate as a mock juror. Online companies that sell databases to other online research firms often have privacy policies in place that will make it difficult for online jury research firms to verify the eligibility of participants. Some attorneys require the names and addresses of participants in mock trial or focus group studies. Online companies may be reluctant to provide juror researchers with this information. Indeed the current Internet “culture” is averse to disclosures of personal identity—often with good reason. Some Internet advertisements of paid survey participation have proven to be scams. See consumers-guides.com/paidsurveys-5 (November 5, 2007). Online providers that specialize in jury re-search typically do not describe their security/veri-fication process on their Web sites. In-house coun-sel and their outside attorneys who are considering online research services should discuss verification and related security issues with the vendors.

representativeness of the trial Venue Online providers have found it easier to reach adults under the age of 25 years. But some online providers report that they have had to design their surveys to be shorter in duration and more “black and white” in nature than in other types of surveys with complicated subject matter. Patricia Rhine-hart, supra.