Hi Malcolm J Fraser,

If the are from the same agency, I'd ask them to create the type of questions they are willing to ask each other and the type of questions they would not like to have asked of each other. Then this becomes fitting to the collaborative work you are doing. Also, you can reflect and base your assumptions later on with the ideas that come out from this kind of interaction and the actual involvement of the members of the different agencies.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Ibrahim Garba, the issue is they are from different agencies and I am worried they will clam up if someone from a different organisation is in the room.

I am conducting a participatory action research project that involves participants from across the global and local food systems (non-profit, global for-profit, small, entrepreneurial for profit, public and private sector investors, and so on). The objectives are to test collaborative change outcomes. I was expecting that significant power dynamics would be problematic and was prepared to use Mutch's (2015) field theory framework to facilitate power sharing as needed. I began the first focus group with questions about the participants' values. It turns out there were many shared values and that building respectful relationships was more important to everyone (without exception) than forcing their personal power. In short, the issues I anticipated didn't manifest. My learning from this experience is that the cross-sectoral participation produces richer focus group data than single sectoral and that embedding "collaborative principles" into the framing of the questions is beneficial given that focus groups are a dynamic data collection method.

I think the key word in your description is "contentious." In general, it is considered wise to avoid conflict within focus groups, since likely responses are reliance on stereotypes to respond to perceived threats, and one side or the other simply shutting down rather than engage in a war of words.

This is the classic reason why focus group researchers usually "segment" stakeholders into different categories, so that each can feel comfortable expressing their views. So, I would recommend staying with your original design, and explaining to the group in question that you wish to treat everyone in the same way, and give everyone the same chance to be heard in a way that assures their privacy. I imagine that you have an ethics board approval, and if necessary, you may need to rely that as requiring you to conduct separate groups.

My ethics board approval does not require "segmentation" of stakeholders. Doing so would significantly limit and perhaps distort collection of data on cross-sectoral power relationships. There does not need to be conflict, depending on how the focus groups are organised and conducted. If "privacy" is an issue, do you think that focus groups is the best data collection method?

I meant that Malcolm J Fraser's ethics board approval probably specified segmentation, because that was part of his initial design. I certainly did not mean that there should be any universal requirement of that particular design.

I agree with David Morgan - stick with your original design. Go to the literature for a justification for having a FG in the first place if you think you need to justify the design. If there's one group that is insistent on attending, perhaps offer to have a 4th, mixed FG as a form of member checking after you've had the first three and done an initial analysis.

Thanks all and in particular Charlotte, will look to put that suggestion on running an additional mixed FG if the need arises.

MJ

My sense is that when you are working with groups that may have very different and opposing views, it might be most useful to schedule a series of focus groups with each relatively homogeneous group. You should get more depth that way, and you can examine the conflicts by comparing results from each group.