A comparison of outcomes from decision support centre groups with standard focus groups

Abstract

This thesis uses a qualitative framework to compare and contrast two data collection settings. These are the Decision Support Centre (DSC) and the focus group. The former is a relatively new tool primarily used in management and marketing, while the latter is a more well known and established one also used in social science. Using the form of a quasi-experiment, the thesis seeks to explore the meanings participant groups ascribe to the word "citizenship". All four groups do this while determining a definition of the word which they find acceptable. Two groups met in the Decision Support Centre environment. The other two met in focus groups for a comparison. The study seeks to find what sort of differences there are in the data generated in the two settings. In essence, this paper asks whether the Decision Support Centre is a useful tool for social science research. It elaborates on this question by investigating whether it can provide a setting as favourable (or more favourable) than the focus group. Data was gathered in one of two settings in parallel discussion, facilitated by Edward De Bono's "Six Thinking Hats". (6TH) This parallelism was introduced into the focus group to make the group conversations as comparable as possible to the parallelism of the Decision Support Centre. Deliberations were also facilitated by a question generating matrix devised for the occasion. Transcripts of group deliberations were analysed. First the notions which arose in initial definitions and considered definitions in each group were coded. Then the frequency of the notions was compared to establish what degree of change occurred within each group for the notions which emerged. Comparisons and contrasts were sought between results from both settings. Participants for the groups were drawn from one of two New Zealand political parties from opposing ends of the political spectrum. This aimed to control for any differences caused by the nature of the group rather than by the setting. In the Decision Support Centre it was found that ideas were primarily expressed in phrases or sentences and unlike in the focus groups seldom backed with examples or evidence. A breakdown of the data shows that in the Decision Support Centre about 20% of the notions raised shift in importance after "discussion". In the data from the focus groups there is more shift in opinions expressed from starting to considered definitions. In both groups the change in opinions was represented by 40% to 45% changes from start to finish. Feedback from participants indicated that there were expressions of approval in the anonymity provided by the Decision Support Centre and in De Bono's 6TH which were seen as a valuable focus for ideas, in both settings. There is room for further work which looks at the Decision Support Centre comparing the parallelity provided by Be Bono's 6TH in standard focus groups and as a tool in the repertoire of social science researchers. Previous work on how Decision Support Centres work evolved from management or marketing fields. Hopefully in future enquiries, when anonymity is regarded as useful, it will serve in social science research.