Moderating styles, group dynamics, and data quality in focus group research
A meta-methodological analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23310822 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vladan 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) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-16 |
| Publication date | 2026-07-23 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Qualitative Research Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1443-9883 • E-ISSN: 1448-0980 |
| Publisher | Emerald (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1108/qrj-02-2026-0072 |
| OpenAlex | W7169830299 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 33 |
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
Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher
Doing Focus Groups
Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research
Collecting and analysing qualitative data
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
“It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things”
Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data
Optimizing the Epistemological Potential of Focus Groups in Research on a Contested Issue
Focus groups and the collective construction of meaning
Enhancing the Potentials of the Focus Group Discussion – Engaging Frequently Neglected but Essential Situational Factors for Analyzing Data
How to Analyze Focus Group Interactions - Development of a Coding Scheme
Validity in Qualitative Evaluation
Healing, the Patient Narrative-Story and the Medical Practitioner
Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Photographs and stories
Focus groups as social enactments
The Researcher's Facilitating Role in Stimulating a Constructive Group Climate in Online Focus-Group Interviews
Qualitative Quality
Talk Is Cheap
The methodology of Focus Groups
| Highly cited | No |
|---|