Comparing Focus Group and Individual Responses on Sensitive Topics: A Study of Water Decision Makers in a Desert City

Abstract

Focus groups have gained a reputation for facilitating data collection about sensitive topics. However, we know little about how focus group methods perform compared to individual response formats, particularly for sensitive topics. The goal of this study is to assess how well focus groups perform when compared to individual responses collected using open-ended self-administered questionnaires for sensitive policy-making topics among water decision makers in Phoenix, Arizona. The analysis compares focus group and self-administered questionnaire responses among fifty-five decision makers for three types of sensitive topics: competence, risk, and gatekeeping. The results indicate that respondents (1) gave similar responses in group and open-ended self-administered questionnaires when discussion topics were only moderately sensitive, (2) volunteered less information in focus groups than in open-ended self-administered questionnaires for very sensitive topics when there did not appear to be a compelling reason for respondents to risk being stigmatized by other group members, and (3) volunteered more information in focus groups than in open-ended self-administered questionnaires for very sensitive topics when there appeared to be an opportunity to exchange important information or solve a pressing problem. The authors conclude that multimethod research—including individual and group response formats—may be the best strategy for collecting data from decision makers about sensitive policy-related issues.

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

“…Focus groups have been used as a stand-alone method to examine mental constructs of biodiversity (Fischer and Young, 2007), to learn about children's attitudes toward hunting (DiCamillo, 1995), and to explore beliefs underlying support or opposition of wildlife management methods (Dandy et al, 2012). They have also been used in combination with other methods such as individual interviews (Kaplowitz and Hoehn, 2001), key informant interviews (Mangun et al, 2007), and surveys (Kolinjivadi, 2012;Wutich et al, 2010) to examine perceptions of ecosystem services, perceptions of deer hunters, and water management concerns among decision makers. These studies found that focus groups used in concert with other methods revealed differing but complementary information.…”

Parental Experiences of Information Within Pediatric Oncology

“…The individual interviews also served to help us confirm the analysis of the focus group data (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008;Wutich, Lant, White, Larson, & Gartin, 2010). Most of the quotations in the text are from mothers.…”

Urban Ethnohydrology: Cultural Knowledge of Water Quality and Water Management in a Desert City

“…Phoenix water decision makers are sensitive to the city's water challenges (Wutich et al 2010), but the range of acceptable policy and management options available to them is constrained by public opinion, which in turn depends on how residents and other constituencies perceive causes and solutions related to water issues. Although some residents express concern that the city is incapable of sustaining current and projected levels of water consumption, garnering political support for policies that limit growth or promote water conservation measures has been difficult (Harlan et al 2007).…”