A source of consternation during my dissertation research was the lukewarm reception that focus-group participants gave story-based job-search media, such as resumes (especially resumes), cover letters, and interview responses.
Perhaps, as Seth Kahan posits below, my focus-group participants were reacting in a “conventional” way — as opposed to a storied way. These terms come from a taxonomy of explanations proposed by Charles Tilly in his book Why?, which has gotten some buzz this year.
Here’s Kahan’s take on focus-group responses:
I think, as I gather you do, that how we feel about a brand, and which products and services we choose, is usually explained by a fantastically complex set of factors: the brands our parents used, the brands we see people around us use, the image of the brand, our personal experience with it, a sale, a half-remembered ad from 10 years ago, and so on. This is probably best explained as a story – we may both buy Tide, but there’s a different narrative that brought each of us to pick it up.
But in market research, the answers people give sound more like
conventions: “It’s a good value”, “my family likes it”, “it tastes
good.” And it seems that because of the artificiality of the situation, the perils of introspection, etc, most market research actually encourages people to answer in conventions, and doesn’t encourage the telling of stories. Many of these stories are probably complex and deeply buried such that they are hard to consciously access anyway.
Now, I’m not sure there is as much of a story behind a focus-group participant’s choice of, say, laundry detergent, compared to a resume, but it’s still an interesting point to ponder.