Running head: Sex and Self-Disclosure

This work was supported by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Grant # 1-R34-
DK076663-01A1

Sex and Self-Disclosure: Methodological Issues of Mixed Sex Focus

Groups in Arab American

Stephen J. Sills, University of North Carolina of Greensboro,

Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

Nicole R. Pinelli, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Linda A. Jaber, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Dr. Stephen J. Sills, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina of Greensboro, 320
Graham Building, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 USA, sjsills@uncg.edu, Tel: +1.336.792.1191

Nicole R. Pinelli, Pharm.D., Department of Pharmacy Practice, Wayne State University 259 Mack
Avenue, Detroit, MI, 48201. NickiPinelli@wayne.edu

Linda A. Jaber, Pharm.D. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Wayne State University 259 Mack Avenue,
Detroit, MI, 48201. ljaber@wayne.edu

Stephen J. Sills, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina
Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.

Nicole R. Pinelli, Pharm.D., M.S., is an Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Practice at Wayne State
University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.

Linda A. Jaber, Pharm.D. is a Professor of Pharmacy Practice at Wayne State University, Detroit,
Michigan, USA.
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 2

Abstract

Demographic and cultural shifts in the United States have resulted in the need to re-evaluate some

common social-scientific methodologies and tailor them to the cultural needs of immigrant populations.

Focus groups have been used to identify the barriers to translation, to frame appropriate health messages,

and to design culturally relevant strategies for outreach and diabetes prevention. In our study, exploring

diabetes prevention in Arab Americans, methodological concerns arose regarding the impact of sex

segregation and gender norms on mixed-sex focus groups. A research design was adopted in which

participants were assigned to one of three conditions: a male only group, a female only group, and a

mixed group. Transcripts from these groups were compared using measures of verbosity and turn-taking.

In addition, post-focus group surveys were administered to explore issues of self-disclosure. By all

measures, men were found to speak more than women. Analysis of post-focus group survey data showed

that Arab American women withheld their comments and felt more comfortable in same-sex groups.

Keywords: focus groups, ethnicity, culture, qualitative methods

 Sex and Self-Disclosure 3

Introduction

According to the Census Bureau, America’s population is now over 300 million (U.S. Census

Bureau 2009). Much of the recent population growth may be attributed to the influx of immigrants which

has both diversified the population and changed its cultural landscape (Pew Hispanic 2006). These

demographic and cultural changes have resulted in the need for new methodological approaches in health

research that emphasize the importance of culture in shaping health outcomes as well as a re-evaluation of

some of the commonly used data collection techniques (Orlandi et al. 1992; Pumariega 1996; Salend and

Taylor 2002; Hazel 2004; Conner 2004). A ‘one-size fits all’ approach to data collection is not

appropriate in this culturally pluralistic society. Culturally sensitive and methodologically appropriate

techniques should be developed and standard methodologies refined to take into account the cultural

characteristics of new communities being studied.

This paper examines concerns that arose in conducting qualitative health research regarding

diabetes prevention among Arab Americans. In designing culturally specific health interventions,

qualitative approaches are often useful for identifying key components and major barriers to

implementation. Yet, the very qualitative method used in the study, namely focus groups, may present

challenges due to sex segregation and gender norms within the traditionally male-dominated Arab

American community. As we know, the social context of a guided discussion makes a difference in the

quality and quantity of data that emerges. According to Peek and Fothergill (2009) Arab American

women may withhold information in the context of mixed-sex focus groups. Thus, a series of pilot tests

were conducted to determine the degree of silencing, or lack of self-disclosure, that may occur as a result

of gender differences in group interactions.

Focus Groups in Diabetes Health Research

The focus group, or group interview, is a common methodology that has been used as a means of

data collection in the social sciences for at least a century. Focus groups gained popularity in the 1930s

and 40s with Robert K. Merton who used them as a tool for gauging reactions to wartime propaganda
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 4

materials (Morgan, 1988; Hollander 2004). Since then, the methodology has been employed in a wide

variety of research settings that call for a deep understanding of a groups’ perspective on a particular

issue. It is through the synergistic, collaborative, and interactive atmosphere of the focus group that

participants are influenced to express many ideas that may have been more difficult to express

individually (Morgan 1988).

There are many advantages to using focus groups in health-related research as they provide an

effective method for assessing needs, identifying barriers, framing appropriate health messages, and

designing relevant strategies for outreach (Garfield, Malozowski, Chin, Narayan,Glasgow, Green, Hiss,

and Krumholz 2003). Vincent, Clark, Zimmer, and Sanchez (2006) note that focus groups are an

“efficient method of obtaining information about an underserved population’s experience” (96). Focus

groups produce more in-depth information than quantitative research methods. However, the value of

focus group research is largely dependent on how well the focus groups are designed and executed and

how carefully the data are collected and analyzed.

Investigators have used focus groups to explore diabetes care and behavior change issues among

various cultural groups. Past research has demonstrated the effectiveness of the focus group technique in

identifying important health beliefs and nutrition practices of urban Caribbean Latinos and Native

Americans with diabetes (Quatromoni, Milbauer, Posner, Carballeira, Brunt, Chipkin 1994; Hosey 1993).

They have also been used to identify diabetes care issues for urban African Americans (Anderson,

Satterfield, German, and Anderson, 1996) and Latinos with diabetes (Anderson, Goddard, Garcia,

Guzman, and Vazquez 1998). They are especially useful in studying the cultural, psychosocial, and

contextual influences on self-care practices relevant to diabetes prevention (Anderson 2001). Focus

groups can help identify culturally specific health beliefs and which health beliefs are amenable to

change.

Focus groups have often been used when conducting research in ethnic or immigrant

communities especially when developing culturally tailored interventions or instruments (Willgerodt

2003; Rice, Weglicki, Templin, Hammad, Jamil, & Kulwicki 2003). Health-related focus group studies in
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 5

the Arab American community have included investigations of tobacco use among adolescents (Rice et al

2003), elders' views about health and social support (Ajrouch 2005), cultural considerations for mental

health counseling (Nassar-McMillan and Hakim-Larson 2003), ways in which to enhance health services

(Kulwicki, Miller, and Schim 2000), and on the importance of culturally and linguistically appropriate

health interventions (Shah, Ayash, Pharaon, and Gany 2008).

Arab Americans in the Detroit Metropolitan Area

Arab Americans, both foreign born and native born, are a steadily growing population in the

United States. Between 1990 and 2000 this population grew by 38% (de la Cruz and Brittingham 2003)

and, while temporary visitors from the Middle East have dropped in recent years, the number of

individuals permanently immigrating from Arabic-speaking countries has remained constant post 2001

(Kayyali 2006). This is not a new phenomenon. Arab immigrants have been settling in the United States

since the late nineteenth century. According to the United States Census Bureau estimates for 2008, there

were about 1.6 million individuals who claim Arab ancestry in the US (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

However, it is recognized that this figure is inaccurate and well below the actual total. According to the

Arab American Institute the true figure of those who have Arab ancestry is at least 3.5 million (Arab

American Institute 2009a).

Michigan is home of the largest Arab population in the United States and the second highest

concentration of Arab settlement outside of the Middle East. The Arab American community represents

the third largest minority population in Michigan. About 400,000 Arab Americans live in the Detroit

Metropolitan Area (Arab American Institute 2009b). A previous cross-sectional, population-based study

of Arab Americans of Dearborn, Michigan found that the community is largely homogenous with striking

uniformity in cultural identity based on commonality of the spoken Arabic language, the Muslim faith,

and adherence to traditional values and practices. Most (95%) were immigrants with a mean length of

stay in the US of only 11 years. The majority were Lebanese (65%) followed by Yemenis and Iraqis. A

large proportion came from rural areas of the Middle East. Approximately 69% of men and 49% of
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 6

women had completed a high school education. About 80% of men were employed compared to 19% of

women. Acculturation, measured by multiple factors including age at immigration, language proficiency

and preference, friends’ ancestry, and socioeconomic status, was low in men and women (Jaber, Brown,

Hammad, Nowak, Zhu, Ghafoor, and Herman 2003; Jaber, Brown, Hammad, Zhu, and Herman 2003).

Methodological Challenges: Self-Disclosure and Silencing

Focus groups, though commonly used in health research and quite useful in developing culturally

appropriate interventions, may also present “methodological challenges” (Peek and Fothergill 2009). The

focus group is a social interaction in which customs and normative behaviors of a society may be

reenacted, limiting voice of some within the group. Smithson (2000), notes that some individuals tend to

dominate the discourse in the focus group setting resulting in the silencing of others. Hollander (2004) in

fact says that focus groups are less a methodology and more the site of social process that is being

observed by the facilitator. Hollander (2004) advises researchers to consider the social context of the

focus groups asking:

Who has status or power in the situation? Who speaks first in the discussion? What kinds of

thoughts, feelings, or experiences might be expected in the context, and what kinds might not be

expected? Are these expectations the same for all participants? What are the consequences (both

immediate and long term) for individual participants of disclosing sensitive information? What

are the potential rewards for conformity or nondisclosure? (627)

The achieved and ascribed statuses of focus group participants may determine the amount of

power and voice one has in the interaction (Peek and Fothergill 2009). The sex of the speaker (or their

gender identity) may play a significant role, in particular when discussing gendered issues. As Morgan

notes, "group interaction requires mutual self-disclosure, it is undeniable that some topics will be

unacceptable for discussion among some categories of research participants" (1996:140).

 Sex and Self-Disclosure 7

Some methodologists recommend segmentation of focus groups (separation on the basis of

gender or other attributes) as a solution to power imbalances or in the case of sensitive topics (Goldman

and McDonald 1987; Morgan 1996). Yet, as Bristol points out, “evidence in support of the gender

assumption is nonexistent” (1999:479). Hollander also notes that segmentation does not necessarily lead

to more disclosure though it may make some participants feel more comfortable (Hollander 2004). In the

case of research with Arab Americans though, many researchers have chosen to segment their groups.

While most researchers do not explain their rationale for gender segmentation, Peek and Fothergill (2009)

elaborate on how they decided to segment Arab women from men:

Some of the groups said it would be easier to meet as a mixed male-female group, while others

requested that the interview be conducted with an all-female or all-male group. One student told

Peek over the telephone that she did not think the Muslim women would be comfortable talking

about some of the issues they had faced in front of their male counterparts. Thus, Peek segmented

the groups according to sex in part at the request of the students, but she tried to conduct all-

female or all-male groups if possible because it became apparent that the students in the sex-

segregated groups seemed more comfortable and talked more openly about sensitive topics. (39-

40)

This report comes from a larger project entitled the Feasibility of Diabetes Prevention in Arab

Americans Project. Focus groups were a central component in the research design and were used to

identify barriers to participation in the diabetes prevention program and to demonstrate the feasibility of

recruitment and retention in a pilot test of a community-based, culturally-specific diabetes prevention

lifestyle intervention modeled after the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) (Knowler, Barrett-Connor,

Fowler, Hamman, Lachin, Walker, and Nathan, 2002). This program was being implemented in the

Dearborn, MI area. All participants provided written informed consent. The survey and consent

procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Wayne State University.
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 8

Before the start of the project, a series of tests were conducted to determine the degree of

“silencing,” or lack of self-disclosure, that may occur in mixed-sex, focus group sessions. Based on our

understanding of gendered roles and behaviors in the Arab American community, we contemplated that in

some instances women may feel less likely to disclose health© information, health beliefs, or provide

candied feedback when men would be present. We also examined if participants felt strong preferences

for delivery of the intervention and educational components of the project in single-sex or mixed-sex

settings. Thus, we devised a test in which focus groups were conducted with participants in three

conditions: a male-only group, female-only group, and a mixed-sexed group. The content of the pilot

script dealt primarily with diabetes awareness, perceptions of risk, diabetes health beliefs, and perceived

barriers to health care. Transcripts from these groups were compared using discourse analysis. In

addition, post-focus group surveys were administered to explore issues of self-disclosure. This strategy

has been a common technique for comparing individual level data to that produced in the group. For

example, Corfman (as cited in Bristol 1999) employed pre-and post surveys to “gather information on

member characteristics and reactions to the group” (479).

A total of three pilot focus groups were conducted. The groups ranged from eight to twelve

participants and from 90 minutes to 115 minutes in duration. The test compared the volume of linguistic

output and the number of turns taken by each sex in male-only, female-only, and mixed-sex focus groups.

Participants met in the clinic conference room at the Arab Community Center fro Economic and Social

Services (ACCESS), a well-established and well respected health and social service agency that serves

primarily Arab Americans. Groups were facilitated by an Arabic-speaking moderator. Up to two

additional staff members were present acting as note-takers and operating the recording equipments.

Participants were randomly assigned to a male-only, female-only, or mixed group. A short survey

was conducted after the group session to collect additional demographic information and to assess issues

with silencing and disclosure, comfort, and willingness to participate in future focus groups. Focus groups

were digitally recorded, transcribed, and then translated into English. Qualitative analysis was performed

using MAXqda2 software. The analysis included the generation of thematic codes and subcodes grounded
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 9

in the participant’s discourse. Content analysis was also performed using MAXDictio. All text was coded

as being generated by males or females. Character, word, line, and paragraph counts were made as well as

the number of turns per individual. Averages were computed per person per minute. Survey responses

were coded and entered into a spreadsheet. Simple descriptive and bivariate analysis was conducted with

the survey data using SPSS.

Characteristics of Participants

Twenty-nine participants (11 men and 18 women) participated in the three conditions. There were

fairly representative of the broader Arab American community. Based on the exit survey, a third (10 of

the 29) were from Lebanon, followed by four each from Yemen, Palestine and Syria, two each from

Egypt and Jordan, and a single person from Iran, Iraq, and the USA. Participants have lived in the USA

for “only a few months” to more than 37 years: “I came this country in 1970, [a] long time ago.” While

one was born in the USA, eight came within the last five years, nine around ten year ago, and five had

been here for ten years or more.

The focus groups were conducted in Arabic and the participants indicated that they primarily

speak Arabic in the home, though some indicated that their children spoke primarily English. At least one

participant showed difficulty in comprehension of Arabic. Most indicated having families in the USA (19

of 29 mentioned family in the warm-up). The majority of the women indicated that they were

homemakers (12 of 18). Of those who indicated that they work working outside of the home, nine were in

professional occupations (teachers, engineers, etc.), two were in business, and one was in a service

occupation.

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

Health-Related Findings

Overall participants showed a general understanding of definition of diabetes, many of the

symptoms of the disease, and some of the causes. Focus group participants understood that diabetes was

related to the pancreas and that it results in difficulty regulating blood glucose levels. Yet, there were
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 10

those who indicated that they still knew little about diabetes. Participants were knowledgeable of the

symptoms of diabetes, though many were confused of its causes. Answers touched on many of the factors

associated with increased risk of diabetes including genetics/family history, stress, high blood pressure,

diet, drinking alcohol, lack of exercise, obesity, and age. However, some participants also stated that

diabetes was linked to suddenly being startled or shocked, blood-pressure or cholesterol medications,

eating before bedtime, use of sugar substitutes, and sudden anger or sadness. For example, one participant

noted that, “if one of my sons has an accident, this will be like ‘volcano eruption’ and I might develop the

disease at once.” These myths and misperceptions will be further explored in our future research as they

present important implications to the design of health education programs such as the DPP.

Participants felt that diabetes was a common ailment in the Arab world that had recently become

more prevalent with changes in diet. The perception of personal risk for developing diabetes was high.

The general consensus was that the rate was above 50 percent among Arabs with most respondents

estimating in the 60 to 70 percent range. Of the 29 participants, two-thirds (19 of 29) indicated that they

were at personal risk of developing the disease.

Participants were well-versed in ways in which to prevent diabetes, yet indicated that willpower,

time, and other factors limited their attempts to diet and exercise. They listed regular walking and

exercise, healthy diet (including reduction of fried foods, portion control, reduction in sweets and

carbohydrates, and fewer “junk foods”), regular checkups, reduction in stressors, and increasing personal

knowledge or awareness. Many participants noted that while they understood that prevention was

possible and necessary, the issue became laziness, time, and/or lack of will power.

The major barrier to health care was lack of health insurance and the high cost of seeing a

physician: “many do not have medical insurance and so cannot see doctors regularly… they pay to see a

doctor.” This lack of insurance causes many to delay care until it is absolutely necessary. A male

participant noted that this problem is especially acute among recent arrivals who are searching for

employment: “When people come from the old country they do not find a job right away or find a job

without health insurance; most companies are now cutting back anyway. All things that relate to health
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 11

insurance such as the financial factor, the person does not find job.” Other barriers discussed included a

fear or dislike of doctors or medicine; a lack of awareness; negligence, laziness, or stubbornness, and

transportation issues. Language issues, while acknowledge to be a concern, were not seen as a true barrier

to care. About half of the participants expressed a preference for co-ethnic caregivers. It was seen that

most routine medical care was the domain of the wife/mother, yet there was sentiment for shared

responsibility between men and women, especially in making decisions about serious health issues.

Desire for Separate Interventions by Sex

About a quarter of the participants expressed a clear preference for same-sex intervention and

education groups. A little more than half of the men in the male-only group (5 of 8), and two of the

women in the women-only group seemed to prefer a separation of the sexes for informational sessions. As

one women noted; “possibly we can express ourselves more freely in women session.” Most of the

remaining 29 participants seemed to agree that mixed-sex groups were acceptable. A male participant in

the mixed group notes, “You should define the community you will deliver the speech to. As an example

in the ICD, we have mixed gender lectures where men and women are seated separately, but in the same

place, where they listen to the same lecture at the same time. However, there are separate lectures for

women only on Wednesdays at 1:00 PM that deals with topics important to women, so it depends on the

place and topic.”

Part of the Lifestyles Intervention Program includes consultation and courses on healthy food

preparations. There was a general consensus that cooking was the “women’s realm” and that many men

“would not be interested” in attending a course on healthy food preparation. One female participant

commented, “It is a part of the Arabic culture that men are not interested in cooking.” However, another

female participant also observed, “When men attend these sessions, they will communicate with us better,

listen and accept the meals we cook... I think you should invite women and their husbands.” Yet, this also

presented a problem for childcare. One father said, “In my case [only] one of us could attend because of

the children.”
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 12

There was an agreement among participants regarding same-sex versus mixed-sex exercise

classes. Most felt that separate classes should be offered. The only exception was in walking groups.

While there was debate over who walked faster, men or women, there was agreement that this activity

was not gendered and that mixed groups were fine: “Walking in groups around the neighborhood is

encouraging and supportive. It can be done in group with family, or friends, certainly.” On the other hand,

anything that involved “physical activities that require bending or movements,” were considered to be

best practiced separately.

Three Tests of Silencing

The primary goal of the series of pilot focus groups was to determine the degree of silencing that

may occur in mixed-sex Arab focus groups as a result of perceived male dominance. The pilot focus

group design was meant to create a test with male-only and female-only control groups and a mixed-sex

experimental group. However, several complications affected the research design. First, the groups were

not of equal size (one group of 12, one of 8, and one of 9 members), thus the measure (amount of text in

turns, lines, or words) was averaged by the number of group members. Second, the focus groups were not

of the same duration (the women-only group lasting for 1 hour and 45 minutes, the men-only for 1 hour

and 30 minutes, and the mixed group for 1 hour and 40 minutes). The mixed group was also imbalanced,

with only three males and six females. Finally, at one point about three-quarters of the way into the

discussion in the experimental mixed group, the facilitator may have biased the outcome by interjecting

that the men were not talking very much:

Facilitator- (talking to men) You thought that women are reluctant to speak when men are

present… well in this session, women are talking more than you

FG3-Man3- (Smiling) Good

FG3-Man1- Because we are outnumbered

FG3-Woman2- No no it is not about numbers. Women can express themselves freely in

front of men.
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 13

FG3-Man1- Excuse me I am just joking. ALL LAUGHING

None-the-less, two separate approaches to discourse analysis were performed to compare males

and females and the amount of text produced by each: one looking at turn taking, the other at the amount

of text or utterances produced (verbosity). By all measures, men were found to speak more than women in

all conditions.

Turn-Taking

On average men took 30 turns in the male-only group compared to 23 turns for women in the

female-only group. Men in the mixed group took 41 turns, while women took only 20 (See Table 2).

Thus, in the mixed group, where men were the minority, they spoke more than twice as often as women.

Individual analysis shows that several participants dominated the conversations in their respective focus

groups; particularly Man7 in the men-only group; and Man 3 in the mixed group. Women’s turn taking

was more equitably distributed, though some women clearly took fewer turns than others (see for

example Woman 10 and 12 in the female-only group, and Woman 6 in mixed-sex group.

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

Verbosity

Utterances could be measured by the number of words, characters, paragraphs, or lines produced

by a speaker. This quantifies the amount of language an individual contributed to the transcription. A rate

can also be computed based on the average number of words generated per individual per minute (See

Table 3). Using this approach we see that men in both the men-only as well as the mixed group produced

more utterances. In particular, men in the Mixed group contributed twice as much text to the transcripts

given that were half as many of them. Women’s utterances were, however, consistent in both the mixed

group and the women-only group.

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

 Sex and Self-Disclosure 14

A Test of Self-Disclosure

It is difficult for a focus group moderator to really tell if someone is holding back information.

Often, if the moderator focuses in on one person alone, the dynamic atmosphere of a focus group will be

lost. We determined that a brief post-focus group survey would be most helpful in determining if there

was information that was not disclosed during the focus group. Analysis of the post-test survey shows that

women were more likely to agree with the statement “I had things to say which I kept to myself” than

men (47.0 percent of women compared with 37.5 percent of men). Women were more likely to agree with

the statements “I could have said more than I did” (55.6 percent of women compared with 50.0 percent of

men), “I felt awkward sharing in front of the group” (27.8 percent of women compared with 10.0 percent

of men) and “I feel more comfortable in same-sex groups” (64.7 percent of women compared with 45.5

percent of men). Yet males were more likely to agree with the statement that “I felt others dominated the

discussion” (31.1 percent of women compared with 36.4 percent of men).

Within the mixed group, all three men disagreed with the statement “I had things to say which I

kept to myself,” while three of the six women agreed. Similarly, all of the men disagreed with the

statement “I felt awkward sharing in front of the group” while the same three women agreed. Four of the

six women agreed that “there were uncomfortable moments during the focus group,” while none of the

men agreed. Finally, all three men in the mixed group were neutral on the issue of feeling more

comfortable in same-sex groups; however, three of the six women strongly agreed that they would be

more comfortable in same-sex groups.

TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

Conclusions

Though we conducted only a single “test” of the control variable (sex composition of groups), the

triangulation of measures (turn taking, verbosity, and survey results) all indicated that Arab

American men were found to take more turns and to speak with more verbosity than Arab

American women. Speech in groups with men (male only and mixed sex), tended to be
 Sex and Self-Disclosure 15

dominated by a few speakers, while the female group was more equitable in the turn-taking and

amount of discourse per participant. Women were more reluctant to share in general, yet the male

domination of the mixed-sex group made the discussion even more awkward for the women and

limited their responses. Thus, the reluctance to self-disclose in mixed-sex groups may result in

loss of important information as women were more likely to talk less, more likely to feel

awkward, and more likely to keep information to themselves. Moreover, they indicate preference

for same-sex groups.

These finding have direct implications for future studies with Arab American populations using

focus group methods as well as for interventions that include male and female participants. It was clear

from the focus group participants that separate or segmented focus group sessions would work best so as

not to alienate a significant proportion of the Arab American community. The findings provide empirical

evidence for the current practices of many qualitative researchers in the Arab American community who

already gender-segment their focus groups.

 Sills Page 16

References

Ajrouch, K. J. (2005). Arab American immigrant elders’ views about social support. Ageing & Society,

25(5): 655-673.

Anderson, L. A., Satterfield D., German R., & Anderson, R. M . (1996). Using quantitative and

qualitative methods to pretest the publication Take Charge of Your Diabetes: A Guide for Care.

The Diabetes Educator. 22(6):598-604.

Anderson, R. M., Goddard C.E., Garcia R., Guzman J. R., & Vazquez F. (1998). Using focus groups to

identify diabetes care and education issues for Latinos with diabetes. Diabetes Education.

24(5):618-25.

Anderson, R. M. (2001) Qualitative research in diabetes: The role of stories in the culture of silence. The

Diabetes Educator. 27(6):718-808.

Arab American Institute (2009a). Arab Americans - Demographics. Retrieved from

http://www.aaiusa.org/Arab Americans/22/demographics

Arab American Institute (2009b). Arab American Population Highlights. Retrieved from

http://aai.3cdn.net/9298c231f3a79e30c6_g7m6bx9hs.pdf

Bristol, T. (1999). Enhancing focus group productivity: new research and insights. Advances in

Consumer Research. 26(1): 479-482.

Conner, R. F. (2004). Developing and implementing culturally competent evaluation: A discussion of

multicultural validity in two HIV prevention programs for Latinos. New Directions for

Evaluation, 2004(102), 51-65.

de la Cruz, G. Patricia and Angela Brittingham. (2003). The Arab Population: 2000 Census 2000 Brief.

United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-

23.pdf

Garfield S. A. , Malozowski S. , Chin M. H., Narayan K. M. V., Glasgow R. E., Green L. W., Hiss R. G.,

Krumholz H. M., (2003). The diabetes mellitus interagency coordinating committee (dmicc)
 Sills Page 17

translation conference working group. Considerations for diabetes translational research in real-

world settings. Diabetes Care. 26:2670-2674.

Goldman, A. E., & Mcdonald, S. S. (1987). The Group Depth Interview: Principles and Practice.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hollander, J. A. (2004). The Social Contexts of Focus Group. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography,.33(5), 602-637.

Hosey G: Talking circles: a community assessment method. Diabetes Educator. 32(1): 89-97.

1993;19(4):351.

Jaber L. A., Brown M. B., Hammad A., Nowak S. N., Zhu Q., Ghafoor A., Herman W. H. (2003).

Epidemiology of diabetes among Arab Americans. Diabetes Care. 26:308-313.

Jaber L. A., Brown M. B., Hammad A., Q., Herman W. H. (2003). Lack of acculturation is a risk factor

for diabetes in Arab immigrants in the US. Diabetes Care. 26:2010-4.

Kayyali, Randa. 2006. The Arab Americans. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Knowler, W. C., Barrett-Connor, E,. Fowler, S. E., Hamman, R.F., Lachin, J. M., Walker, E. A., &

Nathan, D. M. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or

metformin. New England Journal of Medicine. 346:393-403.

Kulwicki, A. D., Miller, J., Schim, S.M. (2000). "Collaborative Partnership for Culture Care: Enhancing

Health Services for the Arab Community Journal of Transcultural Nursing," 11(1): 31-39.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology. 22: 129-152.

Nassar-McMillan, S. & Hakim-Larson, J. (2003). Counseling Considerations among Arab Americans.

Journal of Counseling and Development. 81(2): 150-159.

Orlandi, M. A. ed. (1992). Cultural Competence for Evaluators: A Guide for Alcohol and Other Drug

Abuse Prevention Practitioners Working with Ethnic/Racial Communities. OSAP Cultural

Competence Series. National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, Rockville, MD.
 Sills Page 18

Peek, L. & A. Fothergill (2009). Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and

Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research. 9(1): 31-59.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). From 200 Million to 300 Million: The Numbers behind Population Growth.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC, Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from

http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf

Pumariega, A. J. (1996). Culturally competent outcome evaluation in systems of care for children's

mental health. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 5(4): 389-397.

Quatromoni, P.A., Milbauer, M., Posner, B.M., Carballeira, N.P., Brunt M., & Chipkin, S.R. (1994). Use

of focus groups to explore nutrition practices and health beliefs of urban Caribbean Latinos with

diabetes. Diabetes Care. 17(8):869-73.

Rice, V. H., Weglicki, L. S., Templin, T., Hammad, A., & Jamil, H. (2006) Predictors of Arab American

Adolescent Tobacco Use. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 52(2): 327-342.

Salend, S. J., & Taylor, L. S. (2002). Cultural Perspectives: Missing Pieces in the Functional Assessment

Process. Intervention in School & Clinic, 38(2), 104.

Shah, S.M., Ayash, C, Pharaon, N.A., and Gany FM. (2007)"Arab American Immigrants in New York:

Health Care and Cancer Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs". Journal of Immigrant & Minority

Health. 10(5):429-36

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and Analyzing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities. International

Journal of Social Research Methodology. 3(2): 103–19.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Table B04003 Total Ancestry Categories Tallied For People with One or

More Ancestry Categories Reported. 2008 American Community Survey.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). U.S. POPClock Projection. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html.

Vincent, D.; Clark L. ; Marquez-Zimmer L.; & Sanchez J. (2006). Using focus groups to develop a

culturally competent diabetes self-management program for Mexican Americans. The Diabetes

Educator. 32(1): 89-97.

 Sills Page 19

Willgerodt, M. A. (2003). Using Focus Groups to Develop Culturally Relevant Instruments. Western

Journal of Nursing Research. 25(7): 798-814.

 Sills Page 20

Table 1

Groups by Condition

Frequency Percent
Female-Only 12 41.4
Male-Only 8 27.6
Mixed
Men 3 10.3
Women 6 20.7
Total 29 100.0
 Sills Page 21

Table 2

Analysis of Turn Taking

Men’s Women’s Mixed

Participants Group Group Group
Turns (N) Turns (N) Turns (N)
Men 232 (8) 122 (3)
Women 266 (12) 117 (6)
Total Turns 240 278 248
Average 30 23 28
mixed 41 (M)
mixed 20 (F)
 Sills Page 22

Table 3

Analysis of Text Units by Condition

Condition N Time (mins) Words Chara Para Lines Words per Words per Words per
min. person person per min
Men 8 90 6869 31902 320 712 76 859 10
Women 12 115 8952 41620 351 767 78 746 6
Mixed
Men 3 100 3992 18269 92 290 40 1331 13
Women 6 100 3478 15428 128 271 35 580 6
 Sills Page 23

Table 4

Select Post-Focus Group Survey Measures

Percent Agree or
Strongly Agree
Question F M
I had things to say which I kept to myself 47.0 37.5
I could have said more than I did 55.6 50.0
I felt awkward sharing in front of the group 27.8 10.0
I felt others dominated the discussion 31.3 36.4
I feel more comfortable in same-sex groups 64.7 45.5