Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Moderating styles, group dynamics, and data quality in focus group research

A meta-methodological analysis

Bibliographic Data

ID23310822
AuthorsVladan Vidicki (0000-0003-4737-0087, University of Novi Sad), Snežana Stojšin (0000-0002-8707-6117, University of Novi Sad), Vesna Lukić (0000-0002-3839-8638, Institute of Social Sciences)
Year2026
Pages1-16
Publication date2026-07-23
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueQualitative Research Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1443-9883 • E-ISSN: 1448-0980
PublisherEmerald (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1108/qrj-02-2026-0072
OpenAlexW7169830299
LanguageEN
References cited33

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a meta-methodological analysis of how moderating practices in focus group discussions shape interactional dynamics and, consequently, the quality and interpretative potential of the data obtained. Design/methodology/approach The study analyzes transcripts from three focus group discussions with six participants per group (18 in total), conducted within a project on international student migration and identity reconstruction. Each group was treated as a separate case and examined through quantitative interactional indicators generated in MAXQDA 24 and through qualitative analysis of moderating practices, participant interaction, and data characteristics. Findings Three analytically distinct moderation patterns were identified: structured and restrained, supportive and less directive, and flexible, active, and dialogical. Structured moderation supported comparability and thematic clarity, while more facilitative and dialogical approaches fostered interaction and interpretative depth, although they could also produce uneven participation or reduced structural consistency. The amount of moderator participation alone did not determine whether moderation was dominant or facilitative. Research limitations/implications Transcript-based analysis does not fully capture non-verbal and paraverbal interaction, while word counts provide only partial insight into participation dynamics. Given the small number of groups and the context-specific design, the findings are interpretative rather than generalizable. Originality/value By integrating qualitative analysis of moderating practices with interactional indicators and data characteristics, the study shows how configurations of moderation and group interaction are associated with variation in the depth, balance, comparability, and interpretative potential of focus group data.

Comparability · Dialogical self · Focus group · Moderation · Qualitative property · Qualitative research · Quality (philosophy) · Thematic analysis · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics

  • Focus Groups in Migration Research

    Annalisa Frisina•2018

  • Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher

    Open Access•Jennifer Cyr•Focus Groups for the Social…•2019

  • Doing Focus Groups

    Rosaline S Barbour, Rosaline Barbour•Doing Focus Groups•2007

  • Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research

    Open Access•Lawrence Leung•Journal of Family Medicine and…•2015

  • Collecting and analysing qualitative data

    Open Access•Joe Sims, Julius Sim•Journal of Advanced Nursing•1998

  • Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects

    Andrew K Shenton•Education for Information•2004

  • Focus Groups as Qualitative Research

    David Morgan, David L Morgan•Focus groups as qualitative…•1997

  • “It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things”

    Open Access•Deborah J Warr, Deborah Warr•Qualitative Inquiry•2005

  • Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data

    Kaye Wellings, Patrick Branigan et al.•Culture Health & Sexuality•2000

  • Optimizing the Epistemological Potential of Focus Groups in Research on a Contested Issue

    Open Access•J K Coetzee, P Conrad Kotze•Qualitative Sociology Review•2014

  • Focus groups and the collective construction of meaning

    Open Access•Rebecca Kook, Ayelet Harel-Shalev et al.•Women s Studies International Forum•2019

  • Enhancing the Potentials of the Focus Group Discussion – Engaging Frequently Neglected but Essential Situational Factors for Analyzing Data

    Open Access•Ning Xuan, X Ning et al.•International Journal of…•2024

  • How to Analyze Focus Group Interactions - Development of a Coding Scheme

    Open Access•Veronica Hermann, Fatumo Osman et al.•International Journal of…•2024

  • Validity in Qualitative Evaluation

    Open Access•Vasco Lub•International Journal of…•2015

  • Healing, the Patient Narrative-Story and the Medical Practitioner

    Open Access•Richard B Hovey, Richard Hovey et al.•International Journal of…•2007

  • Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

    Open Access•Janice M Morse, Michael Barrett et al.•International Journal of…•2002

  • Photographs and stories

    Open Access•Quaylan Allen•Qualitative Research•2012

  • Focus groups as social enactments

    Open Access•Bente Halkier•Qualitative Research•2010

  • The Researcher's Facilitating Role in Stimulating a Constructive Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews

    Open Access•Gunhild Marie Roald, Sandra Schruijer et al.•Qualitative Inquiry•2025

  • Qualitative Quality

    Open Access•Sarah J Tracy•Qualitative Inquiry•2010

  • Talk Is Cheap

    Open Access•Colin Jerolmack, Shamus Khan•Sociological Methods & Research•2014

  • The methodology of Focus Groups

    Open Access•Jenny Kitzinger•Sociology of Health & Illness•1994

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae