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.
Vidicki et al. (Tue,) studied this question.