Focus Groups Aren’t Dead—We Just Need to Use Them Better

By Taiye Akin-Akinyosoye – Senior Consultant at Truth, Market Research Society (MRS) Young Researcher of the Year.   

A few weeks ago, I spoke at the Advancing Research Conference—a space full of product thinkers, UX leads, and user researchers. It was a shift from my usual brand and marketing audience, and it allowed me to challenge how I think about qualitative research. 

Focus groups, one of my go-to methods, is highly mistrusted in this world. I decided to find out why. I read a particularly thought-provoking post by Nikki Anderson, MA, and it helped me understand that the friction isn’t about the method itself, but how it’s misunderstood, misused, or dismissed. My talk aimed to address these misconceptions and demonstrate that when used right, focus groups can provide value at every stage of the User Research journey—from exploration to validation. They are a powerful tool for understanding shared perspectives and collective narratives that would be difficult to uncover using other methodologies.  

To help bring UX researchers onboard, I started by unpacking their most common misconceptions one by one.  

The Group effect 

Let’s address the biggest criticism first—groupthink. There is a common perception among user researchers that the loudest voice in the room steer the conversation. This implies that people lack the individuality or courage to express their true feelings. But shared narratives do exist. Just because one person shares their thought doesn’t mean others don’t feel the same way. In addition, people may subtly agree or disagree through body language or expressions rather than using words. The key here is skilled moderation to ensure diverse perspectives are encouraged.

Here are a few ways to counteract the groupthink effect:  

• System 1 & 2 Thinking: Start fast, then go slow. Allow participants to write down and share their initial impressions before going into a deeper dive on the topic. If opinions shift, the moderators can investigate the reasons behind the change. 

• Non-Verbal Cues: Observing body language, such as frowns, nods, or hesitation, can reveal deeper sentiments than expressed in words.  

• Constructive Conflict: Disagreements if moderated right, can bring out real emotions and therefore richer insights  

• Rethink the Setting: Not every session belongs in a white room with a one-way mirror. Try dinner tables, game nights—even running clubs. The setting shapes the energy. 

• Contextual Analysis: Don’t just report what was said. Decode how it was said and what dynamics played out. That’s where the cultural nuance lives.  

The “Professional Respondent” Issue  

Another concern is that focus group participants may be ‘professional respondents'—people who join solely for incentives and ‘only say what they think you want to hear.’ This issue isn’t unique to focus groups. Bad recruitment exists in all methodologies. The key is to screen participants properly and treat people as individuals, not just data sources. In my experience most participants are genuinely there to share their true opinions.  

How to ensure authentic participants: 

• Attitudinal Screening: Go beyond demographics and use attitude-based screening to assess mindset and relevance before selecting participants 

• Pre-Session Warm-Up: Engage with participants before the session to assess their genuine interest and suitability. 

• Treat Participants as People: Not data points. When we connect on a human level, people show up with honesty.  

Insight vs. Ideation: Both Can Work!  

Some argue that focus groups rush into solutions rather than exploring motivations, barriers, and underlying needs. But that’s not a flaw in the format—it’s a design choice. When structured well, focus groups uncover can uncover profound insights into motivations, needs and frustrations that affect their decision-making. They also enable researchers to co-create and ideate with users, rather than just collect feedback. 

Here’s how to go deeper:  

• Pre-Task Ethnography: Ask participants to self-document behaviours or reflections before the session. That way, you’re starting with context.  

• Behavioural Framing: When someone offers a solution, dig into the “why.” What need or tension is driving it?  

• Strong Moderation: Set the tone early with clear house rules. Make space for reflection.  

• Rethink the Format: Who says it has to be 6–8 people in a circle for 90 minutes? Try duos, triads, repeat sessions. Mix in surveys. Flex the format to fit the story.  

A Way Forward: The Power of Collective Insight  

Focus groups remain one of the few methods that explore shared experiences in real time. They reveal social dynamics, cultural cues, and group behaviours that one-on-one interviews often miss. Diversity and inclusivity in research matter—along with shared narratives. Focus groups also enable researchers to tell more impactful stories by capturing insights from a collective group of voices. 

Focus groups are not just about putting people in a room and asking if they like something. They are about shared perspectives, diverse narratives, and inclusive discussions that help us understand behaviour in a broader context. This is why focus groups are not dead—poor applications of them should be.