Problems That Arise When Groups are Categorized as Individuals
The difficulty of determining the extent to which group policy evaluation vs. individual evaluations differ is that context is the deciding factor, and contextual factors are always shifting. Therefore, a case by case analysis is required rather than a one size fits all universal evaluation. As Briggs and Helms (2015) explain, there are actors and roles and the inputs and outputs of each impact one another so that the relationship between parts, between groups and individuals is really a dynamic one.

One of the important points that Reich (2010) makes is that groups are not individuals and should not be counted as such, because it alters the character of the population when they are. He cites the decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, which led to the creation of the super political action committee (PAC). The super PAC now is permitted to spend without limits on election campaigns so long as the candidate is not involved. The group has been given the same rights as the individual and the effect is that the group becomes more powerful than the individual, as it has more influence.

This is problematic because one is evaluating policy based on group vs. individual differences and yet policymakers and lobbyists are being influenced by groups and individuals in different ways. As Briggs and Helms (2015) point out, both groups and individuals will have their policy entrepreneurs, who are “people willing to invest their resources in return for future policies they favor” (p. 22). That exchange, however, is the issue that Reich (2010) touches on: the more well-financed group will have an advantage of the less well-financed individual.

Another issue is that the small group may not represent the larger population’s interests at all, while a larger group might yet it will have less impact on policy. Policy evaluation itself can be undermined by the inputs of powerful groups, and so as Schaufele et al. (2010) note, it...…field, their voices and opinions can be used to move a group to accept the conclusion of the expert. Statistics are used in quantitative research and are typically seen as objective and conclusive so long as the research is valid and reliable. Statistics can help the group to discuss a problem without deviating into subjective experiences. Qualitative research focuses on exploring a problem and investigating it using in-depth methods such as interviews, focus groups, case study analysis or immersion into the field to experience firsthand what the subjects experience. The data collected is usually analyzed in a subjective manner. Quantitative research is more concerned with testing a hypothesis and identifying variables to see what their relationship is. It collects data that is more objectively analyzed via statistical analysis, such as t-tests or chi-square tests, and this shapes group vs. individual evaluations as well. While it is true that both qualitative and quantitative studies can have hypotheses, the reality is that quantitative studies tend to have testable hypotheses while…