FGDNOGRAPHY (Discussing a Topic in the Atmosphere of the Topic)

Abstract

The conventional method of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) often takes place in an artificial, formal setting that can trigger response bias, making participants' comments less authentic and less experientially meaningful. To address these limitations, the ethnographic approach offers an alternative through the Detail, Natural, and Authentic (DNA) principles, which support the collection of natural qualitative data. This study presents a new approach and method, called FGDnography, based on six basic principles and its methodological stages. With the main idea of discussing topics in the atmosphere of the topic, this method combines focus group discussions, participant observation, and organic discussions in informants' natural environments. The research is organized into three phases: pre-FGDnography (mapping natural locations and recruiting based on issue relevance and social homogeneity), during-FGDnography (conditioning a fluid atmosphere and using environmental stimuli), and post-FGDnography (compiling instant field notes, triangulation, and ethnographic thematic analysis). Its success rests on six interdependent aspects: discussivity, interactivity, naturalness, responsiveness, meaningfulness, and experientialness. This study can enrich methodological literature and expand applied ethnographic approaches as references for contemporary academic research. In practice, FGDnography can generate a deeper, more honest understanding across various sectors. It is effective for mapping consumer insights in business and marketing, stakeholder and community insights in corporate communications and public relations, audience insights in media and mass communications, public and citizen insights in public policy formulation and government communications, and voter insights in political communication.

To cite this article:

Wijaya, B. S. 2012. FGDnography: Discussing a Topic in the Atmosphere of the Topic. Journal Communication Spectrum, Vol. 2(1), 31-42. DOI: 10.36782/jcs.v2i1.2483