Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics: A study of water decision makers in a desert city

Amber Wutich, Timothy Lant, Dave White, Kelli Larson, Meredith Gartin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)88-110
Number of pages23
JournalField Methods
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2010

Fingerprint

desert
decision maker
water
Group
questionnaire
information exchange
group membership
reputation

Keywords

  • Arizona
  • Climate change
  • Policy makers
  • Qualitative methods
  • Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology

Cite this

Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics : A study of water decision makers in a desert city. / Wutich, Amber; Lant, Timothy; White, Dave; Larson, Kelli; Gartin, Meredith.

In: Field Methods, Vol. 22, No. 1, 02.2010, p. 88-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a5ff74107c8341479d3140da7f4123b4,
title = "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.",
keywords = "Arizona, Climate change, Policy makers, Qualitative methods, Water",
author = "Amber Wutich and Timothy Lant and Dave White and Kelli Larson and Meredith Gartin",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1177/1525822X09349918",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "88--110",
journal = "Field Methods",
issn = "1525-822X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics

T2 - A study of water decision makers in a desert city

AU - Wutich, Amber

AU - Lant, Timothy

AU - White, Dave

AU - Larson, Kelli

AU - Gartin, Meredith

PY - 2010/2

Y1 - 2010/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Arizona

KW - Climate change

KW - Policy makers

KW - Qualitative methods

KW - Water

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649315530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77649315530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1525822X09349918

DO - 10.1177/1525822X09349918

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77649315530

VL - 22

SP - 88

EP - 110

JO - Field Methods

JF - Field Methods

SN - 1525-822X

IS - 1

ER -