A Focus Group Discussion on Using Guide Dogs

Seven people, inclusive of one person’s sighted partner, took part in the discussion. Three participants were currently using a guide dog, one, who had previously used a dog, was temporarily using a long cane while waiting for a replacement dog, and two had chosen not to use guide dogs. Of these two, one’s preferred form of mobility was a long cane and the other did not use any mobility aids. The participating partner lived with a guide dog handler. The participant group included both sexes ranging in age from 26 to 56 years, with a mean age of 32.9 years. Experience with guide dogs varied. A total of six dogs were used from 1 to 14 years of use, which included successful and unsuccessful matches. All but one of the participants with vision impairment had been trained to use a long cane. Visual status was diverse in onset and severity.

Focus groups are reportedly most successful when they employ between 6 and 10 people (Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1988). Therefore, all participants were included in a single group and it was hoped that the differences between those who used guide dogs and those who did not would stimulate discussion (Kitzinger, 1995). During the discussion, the researcher acted as moderator and facilitator, and the second author as co-facilitator and note-taker of non-verbal behaviour and other dynamics not recordable on audiotape.

On arrival at the venue, participants and their guide dogs were welcomed and introduced. They were then seated around a circular table and refreshments were served. An audiotape recorder was placed at two peripheries of the table to record the entire discussion and the co-facilitator drew a map of where people sat to aid with recall on transcription of the tapes. An overview of the research design and issues of confidentiality and anonymity were discussed. Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions of the moderator at this time and were informed that questions could be asked at any time throughout the discussion.

The moderator’s role during the exchange was to help focus the discussion and probe unclear comments or issues (Asbury, 1995). Thus, a list of topics based on a review of the literature and consultation with guide dog professionals was prepared in case discussion did not flow. The participants were encouraged to discuss the factors they considered important for achieving and maintaining a successful match with a guide dog. However, as Carey (1994) held that ‘wandering’ from the subject matter may be an important concern for the target population, participants were also reassured that any area was worthy of discussion and that the goal of the activity was not consensus (Kitzinger, 1994).

To initiate all into the discussion, participants were asked, “What are your experiences with guide dogs and other mobility aids?” The discussion flowed spontaneously until participants had raised the issues they wished to - a process that took a little over one and a half hours. Input from the moderator was minimal and a relatively unguided approach was taken as all the topics on the list were covered. The tape recorders were then switched off and the participants were given another opportunity to ask questions.

Tapes were transcribed by the researcher shortly after the meeting concluded, while impressions were fresh. Pseudonyms were used in the transcript to maintain confidentiality and anonymity outside the focus group, and such phrases as [my dog] and [the instructor] were substituted for real names. The tape was transcribed in the manner suggested by Hawe et al. (1990), i.e., that qualitative data be verifiably analysed via a 4-step, systematic procedure. Therefore, the data were organised in a workable order, shaped into categories of patterns and themes, summarised and explained.

As there were guide dog handlers and non-handlers participating, the issue of why some people chose not to use a dog was raised. One non-handler felt that although he had contemplated getting a dog he travelled quickly with his long cane and, despite colliding with objects, thought that a dog would slow him down. He also believed that independent travel was a matter of confidence. The other non-handler stated that although he was “blind enough” to qualify for a dog, he did not need one as he had a lot of central vision useful for mobility and could see relatively well. However, if his vision worsened he would want one, albeit mainly for companionship. A handler commented that he believed he had too much vision when he applied for his first guide dog, and therefore would not be considered an appropriate candidate, but he was eligible and found that his vision worsened considerably during the years spent working with the dog. In this group, people who chose to use dogs initially did so primarily to improve their mobility and become more independent. One handler commented to another:

The issue of why only about 2% of New Zealand’s vision impaired population (N = approximately 12,000) at the time of this study chose to use a dog, when a third of the population were eligible, was discussed. It was speculated that so few people chose to use dogs because only one in eight RNZFB members were “truly blind” and because most members were elderly; the rationale of the group being that elderly people may not want a dog or that they would not benefit due to the kind of eye condition they probably had. This concept will be further discussed in a ‘Note on the text’ at the end of this article.

The issue of adjusting to vision loss was raised. This issue was probed by the moderator asking whether or not guide dogs might help people adjust? The response was that it depended on such individual circumstances as the type and duration of the vision impairment. Guide dogs were considered beneficial for mobility only if the handlers had significant functional deficits; otherwise, the dogs were considered to be just pets. Dogs were thought to be less likely to help people adjust if the handler had been blind a long time and thus were “good at being blind”.

The question of whether or not dogs help people adjust to vision loss is a complicated one. Other factors leading to adjustment were discussed and these included: learning orientation and mobility (O&M) skills, social support, and learning adaptive technology such as specialised computer software packages and daily living skills. One handler, whose vision had been lost suddenly, stated:

In addition to more enhanced mobility and independence, other advantages of guide dog use that were raised included: increased self-esteem, and companionship causing feelings of loneliness to abate - especially when travelling, and getting lost was deemed less likely, provided the dog was a “problem solver”. Another advantage mentioned was that when travelling with a human companion, the use of a dog enabled a more relaxed conversation than when travelling using the person as a guide. The latter enforces proximity.

Disadvantages raised included poor social behaviour such as scavenging, and having to consider the dog’s welfare. One handler said that, despite loving her dog, if she had enough sight to get by she would not have one, the care of which she likened to the responsibility of having a small child around. Those who had used dogs nearing retirement age found the dogs’ age-related reduction in mobility very frustrating. However, all who had used guide dogs indicated they would continue to do so.

Matching is the process by which a handler is matched with the most appropriate, available guide dog. While some people were satisfied with the input they had into their match, others requested more to do with “the black box that is the mystery of matching”. This included more consideration for lifestyle changes; in particular, for younger people who may be more likely to move location. A comment was made that if a dog was well-trained lifestyle changes should not be a problem, which was countered by another’s opinion that not all dogs are adaptable or robust enough to cope with all environments.

There was agreement that matching the dog’s walking speed to that of the handler was of paramount importance, but the dog’s personality also had to ‘gel’ with that of the handler. One handler was concerned about the way speed was gauged:

The issue was raised that family members were not sufficiently involved in the matching process. However, the partner present said that although he had not been included in the pre-matching discussions with the guide dog instructor he had not expected to be. Others believed that ‘significant others’ should be consulted on the ways a dog is likely to change their lives, and that their opinions be taken into account. More attention concerning existing family pets was also wanted. One handler had come close to returning his guide dog, as it was aggressive to his pet cat. In this case, the situation was resolved with the cat eventually dominating the dog. However, another handler’s cat dealt with the trauma of being continually chased by a new guide dog by moving in with the next-door neighbour, much to the handler’s partner’s distress, and thus highlighting a situation where other household members can be affected by the addition of a dog. It was conceded that if the instructor knew the handler well, there was less need for questions regarding lifestyle. This part of the conversation concluded with a story about someone who had received a German Shepherd Dog (a breed believed to be particularly sensitive to changes within the hierarchy) being jokingly told by the instructor “not to go changing partners as the dog was very fussy about who was in its pack”.

The length of time people spent waiting for dogs was discussed, and there was concern that the waiting list was growing longer. It was thought that waiting was more difficult if one was used to guide dog-assisted mobility, and that the lack of independence might force some people into accepting a less favourable breed that was more readily available. It was suggested that people should not set their hearts on a particular breed, in order to avoid disappointment and limit the waiting time, but that their preferences should be taken seriously.

Several handlers wanted their next dog to be a different breed than the current one, despite having a good relationship with the current dog, as they worried about comparing the two. The partner present also did not want his partner to have the same breed again due to the “social liability” factor of having a very greedy dog. This led to some amusing stories including one person’s dog who licked the pearls hanging round a solicitor’s neck, another’s who “washed” the ice-cream off the faces of babies who were being pushed past in prams, and the dog who “goosed” people from behind at the supermarket. It was also mentioned that the general public often made insensitive comments if, for example, the handler expressed a preference for a particular colour of dog: “Who cares about the colour… you can’t see it anyway”.

Issues concerning training with the guide dog and guide dog instructor (team training) occupied a large part of the conversation. Some participants felt that being trained to use the dog was stressful, the stress exacerbated if O&M skills were limited and/or by lack of empathy from the instructors. One handler had a negative training experience with the first dog, and believed that training had been “a psychological process designed to reduce a blind person to a gibbering jelly”:

Conversely, other handlers had different training experiences:

It was believed that a lot of time was wasted sitting in a vehicle while undergoing residential training (with others away from home) versus domiciliary training (one-on-one training from home). The overall opinion was that there had been many positive changes over the years regarding training, including the option of home training. Advantages of this were the availability of social support from being in the family environment, little disruption to routine and that one could train in familiar routes. An advantage regarding residential training that was not possible with domiciliary training was the opportunity to assess how well the dog worked with no unwitting input from the handler, which may happen if the handler is familiar with the territory. For example, the handler slowing when approaching a known down-kerb before the dog had made the decision to do so.

The “golden rule of training” seemed to be that “the dog is never wrong, always the user”. It was wished that the instructors would account for the fact that handlers most often did not know that their dogs had done anything wrong until it had happened, simply because they could not see. This is exemplified by the following comment:

Much was made of the fact that people liked the current instructor:

It was conceded that training was more difficult and frightening if the handler had poor or no O&M skills, and that the instructors should consider this and not rush individuals who were less confident. It took a while to get used to the feel of the harness handle and therefore what the dog was doing, and that having some experience with pet dogs before obtaining a guide dog was helpful. The more experienced handlers believed that training with subsequent dogs was easier and a one to two-week refresher course from home was adequate.

Although it was generally agreed that guide dogs improved social function by encouraging social interactions the minute the dog was used, the initial exchange was usually with the dog and not the handler, and the dog was often touched without permission. There was dissent on how much contact the dog could comfortably attract from the public; for example, children exciting the dog versus welcome attention. One person believed that if people asked if they might touch the dog then it was the handler’s duty to enhance public relations for the RNZFB’s Guide Dog Services and permit as much fraternising with the dog as time and mood allowed. Another preferred people to keep their hands off the dog altogether. All agreed that interference without first asking for permission and while working in harness was objectionable. However, the media were criticised for leading some people to think that they must never approach a handlerguide dog team, even when not working. This was illustrated by one participant’s experience with a shopkeeper who reprimanded an employee for attempting to pat the dog after requesting and being granted permission from the handler.

The following quote depicts how inappropriate notice from the public can lead to problems with the dog’s work:

Once it was realised that the dog was going to pay such notice to other people, the handler dealt with the situation by encouraging as many people as possible to fuss over the dog until the dog stopped paying attention. This behavioural modification technique, called ‘flooding’, was used when the dog was standing stationary in-harness, but not walking.

One of the handlers, who had an active social life, believed the dog’s presence and needs hindered her enjoyment in such crowded places as pubs and sometimes wished that she could “hang up the dog like a long cane”, but agreed that the situation may be different when she got older and had a different lifestyle. Another handler said that using a dog improved his social life, as he now frequented cafés due to the ability to smoothly negotiate tables; something he never had the confidence to do with a long cane since he had felt awkward and clumsy.

The following quotes, although told as amusing anecdotes, illustrate that inappropriate social behaviour of the dog is not only embarrassing to the handler, but can restrict social interactions:

Participants’ family and friends had mixed reactions towards guide dog use, from positive and supporting, to feeling rejected and undervalued. Some people in the group had been encouraged by family members to get a dog in order to be more independent, while others’ family and friends believed the dog to be competition and preferred to be the mobility aid when travelling together with the dog. Some friends, who had served as sighted (human) guides for years, were infuriated, as they perceived the acquisition of a guide dog to be a rejection of their goodwill and skills to keep their friend safe, and did not believe that a dog could do a better job. The dog was eventually accepted and liked. Another’s friends loved the dog from the outset and no importance was given to whether or not the handler was walking with them using the dog as an aid by way of the harness handle or by human guide (with the handle dropped). However, some dogs did not work well when there were others walking alongside as illustrated by the partner’s comment:

The group speculated that this was due to the dog ‘knowing’ it was not really needed and/or confusion about its role in making decisions.

It was observed by the participants who chose not to use dogs that some handler-dog teams seemed to “click”, while other teams did not, even if the dog seemed to be doing what was required of it. The handlers suggested that this might be due to a lack of trust on their part that the dog would keep them safe. It was noted that good relationships with dogs might take six months or more to achieve, but that perseverance usually paid off:

In this group, despite the problems with pet cats, only one of the six dogs used was deemed mismatched. This dog, the handler’s second, was returned after a relatively short period mainly for inconsistent speed. It was also too small, and while this did not negatively affect the handler’s balance, its short stride-length rendered it incapable of walking in front of the handler who felt constricted on the footpath. The dog was also described as “a nonentity of a dog, with no character whatsoever”. As it was apparent to the handler that his and the dog’s personalities were incompatible, he speculated that the dog was over-conscientious and/or worried, which may have led to its hesitant guiding. The group proposed that dogs could be rejected for many reasons, with social behaviour deemed as important as compatibility of physical attributes such as the dog’s walking speed. With the exception of the mismatched dog, handlers developed strong emotional bonds with their dogs. In some cases, the dogs also became attached to others, which some handlers found upsetting.

Two of the four handlers had experienced the end of a partnership. One “didn’t enjoy it” and the other, who had been mismatched and returned his dog relatively quickly, felt “relieved”. Another handler, whose dog was nearing retirement, was looking forward to a young, sprightly dog of an exotic breed despite dreading parting with her old dog, and the remaining handler, who had received his first dog fairly recently found the scenario difficult to contemplate. Concerning the issue of being asked how they might feel about receiving a subsequent dog, responses were divided on whether it was preferable to have a break between the dogs or to obtain the new one immediately.