Sindre - as i see it - focus groups should only have one interviewer (if that is what you mean by moderator). There can be 'assistants' i.e. those memo-ing, taking field notes, technical assistants etc (but they are not usually interviewing) - but I can't see that a group of interviewers relative to a small focus group would work. The more there are - the more intimidating it is to the group - and the less likely that you are to allow them to 'open up'. Alongside that, focus group methodology is best served whereby the interviewer is in the 'background' - just starting the process and then prompting and prodding when needed. It sounds a flawed process to me.

Thank you for the answer Dean.

The roles as you describe them for moderator and co-moderator/assistant (a common practice in the focus group interview process) mirror our interview sessions (it should be noted that an assistant or co-moderator can also provide suggestions). We also introduced open-ended questions (core triggers) and let the participants pursue these in their own way. Only when we deemed it appropriate, such as when there was a lack of discussion or when discussions drifted too far off-topic, we elaborated on the core trigger with the more specific “additional triggers.” Overall, this encouraged free flowing discussions during our sessions. However, the most important thing, I believe, in addressing the reviewer's concern, is to emphasize that the moderator/assistant-participant ratio is less significant as long as we adhere to the focus group methodology and also achieve free flowing discussions. Perhaps these discussions could be even more free, if the ratio is changed, but this becomes speculation. Once again, thank you for the answer.

- Sindre

The practice of using "dual moderators" with somewhat different roles is common practice in focus groups. I know I mention it in my volume on "Planning Focus Groups" in the SAGE Kit and I know that Krueger and Casey mention in their book. I personally have done dual moderating without any issues (although, not in any of my published papers).

I myself have never heard anyone mention a "moderator to participant ratio," so I'm not surprised you didn't find any references to it.

One question on your specific case is whether one moderator was taking notes while the other was more active. If so, you could say something like, "The two moderators alternated between the roles of note taker and group facilitator."

FYI, at the lower end of ratios, my colleagues and I have been doing "dyadic" interviews where there are two participants and one moderator, and those have been quite successful (see the attached article).

Ultimately, the bottom line with any moderating strategy is whether the result was a free-flowing discussion among the participants -- as opposed to the moderator(s) dominating the discussion.

Dear David, your clarification on the issue and also the very interesting article on the dyadic interviewing technique/approach are deeply appreciated. I have incorporated your suggestions in the rebuttal notes and revision, and am now confident that we have adequately addressed this issue. Thank you so much.

Don't forget to say something like, "Reviewer A raises a very interesting issue which has undoubtedly received too little attention in the literature on focus groups, however in our particular case..."

I used to be frustrated by how much ass kissing reviewers required, but now that I do so much reviewing myself, I probably fall into the same category. Sigh...

I do not know any literature on a moderator participant ratio. Generally, the ratio of moderators' intervention and group members talk should be kept as low as possible and as high as necessary. If a group discusses an issue on themselves, It could be a very strong moment of a group discussion, considering that the purpose is to make emerge diverse opinions which can be positioned one against the other. Its important, to be sensitive enough, to find out when it is helpful to close one's lips. Practically, I have made good experiences with a moderator/co-moderator setting, defining different roles, but giving the co-moderator an opportunity to interfere, especially when the moderator gets stuck. An essential requirement is the preparation of moderator's interventions opening a round (very view are necessary, but these must be thoroughly planned and thought over. Welcoming and debriefing are important moments, we often had a drink and a snack ready. Two moderators can easily manage a group. The discussion after the recorded part may sometimes be important. So field notes should be taken on this and made a part of the final transcript. a non-directive commuication behavior may have a slightly ambivalent status, because you have invited the group. So it might be a way out, that the facilitators function as hosts and that they admit from the very beginning that they are interested in the knowledge members would like to share and in the support they are ready to give them.