Moderator Informants Interaction Within Focus Group Sociology
- Theoretical Model
- Focus Groups: Moderator-Informants Interaction Roles
- The Influence of Age, Social Power, and Gender on Moderator-Informants Interaction
- Influence of Social Power on Moderator-Informants Interaction
- Influence of Age on Moderator-Informants interaction
- Influence of Gender on Moderator-Informants interaction
- Decision and Research Implications
With the moderator-informants interaction within focal point group interviews context, both moderator and sources possess some features and properties, being homogenous or heterogenous that influence their functions and behavior, and serve to hold some impact on the content of the informations generated for research intents. This article aims at catching the extent to which societal power, age and gender influence moderator-informants interaction and content of the information generated within this focal point group interviews. Underpining this article is the theoretical model of interviewer effects, societal distance and symbolic interaction theory positions. Negotiating and fiting some of the moderator and group features is recommended and the treatments are interwoven with the available relevant research in this spectrum.
Qualitative research harmonizing to Flick ( in Barbour, 2007 ) is “ in recent old ages, has enjoyed a period of unprecedented growing and variegation as it has become an constituted and respected research attack across a assortment of subjects and context ” ( xi ) . In qualitative research, Flick ( 2007 ) dichotomises between two attacks ; informations roll uping or bring forthing informations in qualitative research such as Making interviews, Making Ethnographic and Observational research, and Focus Groups and informations analysis attack such as Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research, Practices of Coding, of Comparing and of Using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data analysis, Making Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis
Focus groups, one of the informations collection tools on which this theoretical paper centred was among the most widely used research tools in the societal scientific disciplines and Focus groups antecedently called “ focal point ” interviews ( Merton & A ; Kendall as cited in Stewart et Al. 2007 ) and this technique came into being after 2nd World war and has been a portion of the societal scientist ‘s tool kit of all time since. Focus groups emerged in societal scientific discipline research as alone member of the qualitative research household and the popularity and position of focal point groups among behavioral research workers has receded and flowed over the twelvemonth, with typical forms in peculiar Fieldss ( Stewart et al. 2007 ) . For case, in qualitative selling surveies, the usage of focal point groups has developed increasingly since 1970s, and today, concern outgos on focal point groups are estimated to account for at least 80 % of the $ 1.1 billion spent yearly on qualitative research ( Wellner as cited in Stewart et Al. 2007 ) . There has been confusion even with respect to the definition of what constitutes a focal point group, with the term ‘group interview ‘ , ‘focus group interview ‘ and ‘focus group treatment ‘ sometimes being used interchangeably ( Barbour, 2007 ) . “ One of the earliest and most often cited texts ( Frey & A ; Fontana as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) uses the term ‘group interview ‘ but describes an attack that is more commonly analyzing interaction between participants, instead than inquiring the same inquiry ( or list of inquiries ) to each group participant in bend, referred to as the ‘group interview ” ‘ ( p.2 ) . “ ‘Focus group interviews ‘ is an challenging intercrossed term and suggests, at least that the object of the exercising is to interview a group, which is seen as keeping a consensus position, instead than the procedure of making this consensus via interaction a in a focal point group treatment ” ( Flick, cited in Barbour, 2007, p.2 ) . The definition that is assumed to be truly wide to cover all of the aforesaid uses is that “ Any group treatment may be called a focal point group every bit long as the research worker is actively encouraging of, and attentive to the group interaction ” ( Kitzinger & A ; Barbour, 1999, p.20 ) . Bloor et Al. ( 2001 ) argue that focal point group interviews are the method of pick if the intent of the research is to analyze group norms, group significances and group processes. As Wilkinson ( 1999a ) suggests, concentrate group treatments can supply a window on procedures that otherwise remain concealed and are hard to perforate. She posits that, in focal point group treatment, “ corporate sense is made, significances negotiated, and individualities elaborated through the procedures of societal interaction between people ” ( 1999a, p.225 ) . However, Morgan ( 1988 ) has besides noticed that “ Focus groups are utile when it comes to look intoing what participants think, but they excel at bring outing why participants think as they do ” ( p.25 ) . Harmonizing to the societal constructivist attack in focal point group interviews, research workers have to accommodate to the function of moderators and non instructors ( Bauersfeld, 1995 ) . During moderator-informants interactions, semi-structured and open-ended lead inquiries severally are asked ( Barbour, 2007 ) . In this interaction, both moderator and sources posses and necessarily convey into interview context, some features and individualities that influence that influence their behavior and service to legalize their functions within this context ( Numkoosing, 2005 ) . Such interpersonal features and individualities that research workers in this country have focused includes gender, societal power and age etc that influence the functions, behavior and responses of the moderator in their interactions ( Davis et al. , 2009 ; Flores-Macias & A ; Lawson, 2008 ) .
Therefore, the research inquiry that this article aims to catch is, ‘to what extent do age, societal power and gender of sources and moderators influence their functions in the focal point group interviews context? With regard to this, three theoretical models of interviewer effects, societal distance and symbolic interactionist positions will be used and strongly reflected upon how age, societal power and gender influence moderator-informants interaction procedure and responses of the sources. The treatment would be based on available relevant research on age, societal power and gender and their influences on focal point group interviews.
The issues associated with moderator-informants interaction attack and group interviews are related to the theoretical position on interviewer effects, societal distance and symbolic interaction theory position. Interviewer effects harmonizing to Dohrenwend et Al. ( 1968 ) can be divided into two inquiries: which types of interviewers consequence affect which types of respondents? What is the way of the biasing consequence on what subjects? With the first inquiry, they concluded that societal category disparity produced prejudices in responses, and subsequently, Hyman and his co-workers ( as cited in Dohrenwend et Al. 1968 ) showed that disparities in race, age, faith, or gender besides produced such consequence. With regard to the 2nd inquiry, they assumed that the general inclination is for respondents to bias their replies to conform to what they believe to be the norms and outlooks of the interviewer. The significant literature on interviewer effects is critical to understanding of the function of the focal point group moderator ( Fowler & A ; Mangione as cited in McDonald, 1993 ) . The effectivity of any interviewer is the map of personal features and situational factors ( Stewart & A ; Shamdasani, 1991 ) . Personal features include age, personality, and gender. Educational background and preparation screen formal schooling and preparation in a specific subject such as psychological science or sociology. Situational factors include the nature of the subject, location, interaction and compatibility with participants in the interview. In connexion to interviewer effects, higher order is placed on generalizable traits such as age, gender, and personality features are associated with experimental accomplishments ( Boice, 1983 ) . It is besides believed that “ among practicians of focal point group research, there is a broad divergency of sentiment about the making a moderator should possess ” ( McDaniel 1979, McDonald 1980 as cited in McDonald 1993, p. 162 ) .
Conversely, the societal distance perspective postulates that both respondent and interviewer features most adequately besides account for interviewer effects and non merely interviewer features in peculiar. This theory suggests that response redaction is associated with increased differences in societal group designation between respondent and interviewer ( Freeman & A ; Butler, 1976 ; Landis, Sullivan, & A ; Sheley, 1975 ) . Previous research work frequently relies on societal distance theory ( Allan Williams, 1964 ) to explicate these interactions. The greater the societal distance between respondent and interviewer, the more likely a answering alters her reply to conform to the interviewer. Social distance is normally measured in footings of differences or similarities in the societal individualities of interviewers and respondents ( Johnson et al. , 2000 ) . “ For case, the societal distance of an interviewer and a respondent with different genders is greater than when an interviewer and a respondent are of the same gender ” ( David 2009, p.3 ) .
Finally, symbolic interaction theory links itself up to the human interaction procedure. “ Symbolic interaction is based on the premiss that individuality involves shared important symbols ( or shared significances ) that emerges in the procedure of interaction with others ” ( p.296, SW 420 symbolic interaction theories ) . Harmonizing to the theory, focal point groups provide an chance to bring forth informations that are conformable to analysis within the symbolic interactionist attack, which emphasizes the active building of significance ( Barbour, 2007 ) . This attack harmonizing to Blumer ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) , supposes:
… that human society is made up persons who have egos ( that is, make indicants to
themselves ) ; that single action is a building and non a release, be built up by the
single through observing and construing characteristics of the state of affairs in which he acts ;
that group or corporate action consists of the aligning of single actions, brought
approximately by the persons ‘ interpretation or taking into history each other ‘s actions. ( p.37 )
Other author such as Burr ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) , in an effort to research the potency of societal constructionism have proceeded to stress the function of political orientation in associating the single and group interaction processes to wider societal concerns and procedures, thereby turn uping subjectiveness in its societal context. Callaghan ( as cited in Barbour, 2009 ) argues that “ concentrate groups can afford participants the chance of at the same time pull offing their single individualities and doing a corporate representation to the research worker, thereby supplying valuable penetrations into the building of significances and their impact on action ” ( p.29 ) . She farther explains that ‘careful selected focal point groups can entree knowledge which embodies the “ habitus ” of the wider community ‘ . The term ‘habitus ‘ was coined by Bourdieu and refers to ‘disposition ‘ or lenses through which persons view the universe, which are ‘socially constituted ‘ and ‘acquired ‘ ( Bourdieu, 1990 ) .
Focus Groups: Moderator-Informants Interaction Roles
It is deductively and beyond doubt accepted that the effectivity of any group interactions are based on the quality of the moderator-informants functions and relationship established during interaction procedure, being in qualitative or quantitative research context. “ Group research chairing looks deceivingly simple, but requires both strong interviewing and experimental accomplishments, along with the ability to command and steer a treatment ” ( McDonald, 1993, p.1 ) .
Puchta and Potter 1999 ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) have highlighted the tenseness for focal point group moderators between ‘working at ‘ acquiring people to talk and promoting spontaneousness. They refer to this as a tenseness between ‘pestering the life daytimes ‘ out of participants and the ideal that group member should ‘answer every bit spontaneously as possible ‘ . They continue: ‘Put another manner, it is a tenseness between the license to give replies that are “ neither right nor incorrect ” and a demand on participants to really bring forth replies instead than “ I-don’t-know ‘s ” ‘ . ( 2007, p.110 ) . Much accent is placed on the open-ended nature of focal point groups as already indicated in comparing to other methods at our disposal – to research issues of saliency for participants instead than stiffly prosecuting the research worker ‘s docket. Focus groups are about brainstorming, whilst brainstorming Sessionss may be utile during the explorative stage of a research undertaking, Morgan argues that “ groups where the moderator does non take the function of directing the treatment are non focussed plenty to be called focal point groups ” ( Morgan, 1998, p.34 ) . Another school of ideas are of the position that, of class, the construction may be evident merely to the research worker, and a good focal point group moderator may be able to do it look as though the treatment flows effortlessly with small in the manner of way. Krueger ( 1994 ) pull our attending to inquiries that appear self-generated but that are, in fact, carefully prepared and placed the value of flying subject ushers and deriving pattern of using prompts. Contrary to advice from Krueger, who recommended that inquiries be limited to a individual dimension, Puchta and Potter ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) found, in the market research focal point groups they examined, that paraphrasing and reformulations of inquiries were permeant: ‘in our principal inquiries are routinely asked in a an “ luxuriant manner ” ‘ ( 2009, p.111 ) . They helpfully distinguish between three different uses of luxuriant inquiries. First, to steer responses and ‘head off problem ‘ , peculiarly when inquiring inquiries likely to be unfamiliar in the context of participants ‘ mundane interactions. Second, to inquire inquiries flexibly by supplying a scope of alternate points to which participants can take to react. And eventually, to train participants in bring forthing the sorts of responses that are appropriate to research studies.
With respect to this 3rd use identified by Puchta and Potter, societal scientific discipline research workers might, likewise, effort to promote participants to fall in them in speculating by presenting, for illustration, sociological footings or feeding back observations from preliminary analysis of earlier focal point groups ( Barbour, 2007 ) . Furthermore, Puchta and Potter ( as cited in Barbour ) argue that moderators can sometimes accomplish all these three occupations at the same clip ( 2007, p.111 ) .
Barbour ( 2007 ) once more argue that it is merely approximately moderator inquiring luxuriant inquiries, but ability in picking up on cues and postulate that the following extract illustrates the profusion of focal point group informations and shows the participants, every bit good as the moderator, believing on their pess is the capacity of focal point groups to supply entree to participants ‘ significances and conceptualisations as they interrogate and debate the issues raised. Barbour moreover, posits that as often happens during focal point groups, the participant who used the term ‘ethnic store ‘ goes on to supply an account for her pick of words and this affords a window onto the outside universe and other societal webs and exchanges that help to determine people ‘s positions and behavior. “ It is of import, nevertheless, to admit that this account might non hold been forthcoming if research worker has non been attuned to the usage of vocabulary and pick up on this ” ( 2007, p. 111 ) . Although they are speaking about one-to-one interviewers, Poland and Pederson ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) stress the importance of being paying particular attending to what our respondents are stating us, that when we train interviewers, possibly excessively much accent is placed on inquiring inquiries, when the existent accomplishments may be listening. Different moderators can bring forth informations that are different in content and signifier and Edward et Al. ( as cited in Barbour, 2007 ) remark that the usage of a general practician as moderator in a nurses ‘ focal point group may good hold given rise to ‘textbook-like ‘ responses, due to imbalance in primary attention squads, and which may hold led to nurses experiencing intimidated by such oppugning. Therefore, it is of import to take into consideration the likely impact of a peculiar moderator and the lucifer between this person ‘s features – or perceived features ( Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999 ) – and the group to which she or he is to be deployed.
The Influence of Age, Social Power, and Gender on Moderator-Informants Interaction
A 2nd signature facet of a focal point group is the aim to better understand the group dynamics that affect persons ‘ perceptual experiences, information processing and determination devising ( Stewart et al. , 2007 ) . As already discoursed, both the moderator and the sources possess some features and attributes that influence their behavior and service to legalize their functions within the interview context ( Nunkoosing, 2005 ) . However, these features can act upon the positive or negative attractive force and feeling direction ( between the interviewer and the respondents ) and the subsequent result of the interview ; they are believed to find the attitudes of participants engaged in societal interaction ( Allan, 1964 ) . In the positions of Allan ( 1964 ) these features can be categorised into two: position features over which the individuals have small or no control ( e.g. , sex, coloring material, societal power ) ; and features over which the individual can, to some extent, exercising control. In the words of Stewart et Al. ( 2007 ) , focus group should avoid struggle that might originate from differences in participants ‘ age, societal position and even gender. Focus groups are inherently societal phenomena, and it is of import to understand the composite and dynamic societal context in which group questioning takes topographic point ( ibid. )
Influence of Social Power on Moderator-Informants Interaction
Pulling from the societal distance theory which suggests that response redaction is associated with increased differences in societal group designation between respondent and interviewer ( Freeman & A ; Butler, 1976 ; Landis, Sullivan, & A ; Sheley, 1975 ) . Previous research frequently relies on societal distance theory ( Williams, 1964 ) to explicate these interactions. The greater the societal distance between respondent and interviewer, the more likely a answering alters her reply to conform to the interviewer.
However, differences in societal power within group interaction ever act upon the information generated through focal point groups. Social power is the possible or ability to influence others in a group puting ( Emerson, 1964 ) . Many research workers have pointed out that work forces have greater entree to societal power than adult females do ( Depret & A ; Fiske, Johnson, Kanter, Lips, Lorber, as cited in Linda, 1999 ) . By and large, societal power has been identified as holding the possible to act upon or command others ( Gallic & A ; Raven, Henley, Johnson, as cited in Linda, 1999 ) or holding control over valued resources or results. These presuppose that power emanates from the structural and external advantages of one group or person over another has serious effects of the consequences the group treatments. Work force by nature have more power than adult females do because work forces by and large are more likely to possess those advantages than adult females are ( Linda, 1999 ) . Harmonizing to outlook provinces theoreticians, adult females are considered to be less competent than work forces, and as a consequence, in group interactions, people give work forces more chances to talk than adult females, openly agree more frequently with work forces ‘s parts than with adult females ‘s, and greatly postpone more frequently to the sentiments of work forces than those of adult females ( Berger, Fisek, Norman, & A ; Zelditch, Wagner & A ; Berger as cited in Linda, 1999 ) . Eagly ( 1987 ) posits that adult females ‘s lower power occurs due to the different societal functions assigned to work forces and adult females, with work forces busying the worker function more whereas adult females busying traditional functions in the place more than work forces ( as cited in Linda, 1999 ) .
Gallic & A ; Raven ( 1959 ) developed a typology of societal power that has peculiar use for understanding gender differences in societal influence. This theoretical account specifically delineated different beginnings of societal power as bases by which people exert societal influence. Harmonizing to this theoretical account, the extent to which a individual, A, may be influenced by another person or group, B, in a group treatment, depends on the relationship between the two persons and, in peculiar, the manner A perceives B. In the theoretical account five beginnings of power were presented: wages, coercive, expert, legitimate, and referent. With regard to honor power, it is when others believe that he or she can supply people with coveted wagess and coercive power is when they believe that he or she can penalize them. People busying higher place in work, would hold both wages and coercive power over their subsidiaries because of their sensed ability to supply wagess, such as giving workers rises and publicities, and to supply penalties, such as bumping workers. Such people are perceived to hold expertness or cognition, in a specific sphere or more by and large, possess adept power of which they them during focal point group interviews. For case, Doctors typically have adept power compared to their patients and attorneies compared to their clients, at least in footings of their cognition of medical specialty and jurisprudence, severally. An single possesses legitimate power to the extent that others believe that he or she has the right to exercise influence over others. This has serious reverberation on the consensus edifice on the thoughts of the focal point group treatment and this largely may happen because the single holds a peculiar societal function that commands regard or authorization or because others feel a certain duty to postpone to that person. Priests or curates typically have legitimate power relation to members of their folds. Finally, referent power refers to an person ‘s or group ‘s likeableness or societal attraction to others. Friends have referent power in relation to each other and a societal group may hold referent power with regard to an stripling who would wish rank in the group ( Linda, 1999 ) . It is obvious that societal power influence moderator-informants interaction and Stewart et Al. ( 2007 ) insisted that “ It is an of all time present phenomenon that has of import deductions for small-group interaction and public presentation and an apprehension of the nature of societal power and how it can be used to the advantage in the context of focal point group interviewing is an of import constituent of planning and carry oning focal point group research ” ( p.28 ) .
Influence of Age on Moderator-Informants interaction
Associating the influence of age on moderator-informants interaction to that of interviewer effects on gender and societal power, literatures on focal point group interviews wage less attending to age on response forms. Interviewer age may act upon both interviewer behavior and interviewee responses in the interview. Ugbah and Majors ( in, Delery and Kacmar, 1998 ) for case, found that older interviewers differed from younger interviewers in the importance they gave to different types of information obtained from sources. Harmonizing to the Krueger et Al ( 2000 ) normally, in state of affairs where grownups have control, and sometimes the regulations for behavior are ill-defined and as a consequence, immature people may be doubting of the moderator ‘s claims that all sentiments are wanted and that both negative and positive positions are appreciated. Young people on a regular basis find themselves in state of affairss where grownups apparently want feedback but so respond in an unpleasant mode when reverse or negative thoughts are expressed ( Krueger et al. , 2000 ) . Krueger et al moreover argue that when asked for sentiments in focal point group interviewing, immature people will hold fewer life experiences to pull on than grownups. “ I do n’t cognize ” can sometimes be the truly accurate reply and when listening to childs, one regularly hears phrases and constructs that truly sound like they came from parents, instructors or spiritual groups or are a contemplation of social values ( 2000. pp. 177-197 ) .
However, Ehrlich and Riesman ( in Johnson and Parsons, 1994 ) found a societal distance consequence among immature female respondents, who were more unfastened to interviewers with ages closer to those of the respondents. Because merely younger females were interviewed, though, it was non possible to govern out the possibility of interviewer effects, instead than societal distance effects, to interviewer-respondent age differences. An earlier survey by Benny, et Al. ( 1956 ) concluded that communicating was to the lowest degree inhibited between younger respondents and interviewers of the same gender, and that the most inhibited communicating was between people of the same age, but of different genders.
Influence of Gender on Moderator-Informants interaction
Harmonizing to the theory of symbolic interactionism, single act by exposing to themselves and to others the symbolic significance of their action ( Flick, Kardoff & A ; Steinke, 2004 ) . Most of the available research look intoing the possible position of group compatibility ; homogeneity/heterogeneity consequence has examined them in relation to group coherence and to the extent to which members of a group have similar personal features such a gender ( Stewart et al. , 2007 ) . Gender may be one of the most identifiable interviewer features, and it is likely that respondents invoke gender-based stereotypes when redacting their responses, peculiarly when studies query issues related to gender norms ( Davis et al, 2009 ) . Shaw ( 1981 ) in his positions contend that, concentrate group members may be heterogenous in footings of gender but incompatible in footings of socioeconomic position ( e.g. , income, business, societal position ) and on other manus, focal point group members may be homogenous in footings of gender and compatible in footings socioeconomic position. Although these two groups are homogenous in footings of gender ; the deficiency of socioeconomic compatibility in one of the groups may ensue in different interaction manners and act upon the degree of group engagement. Such differences in the interaction among members may change the consequences obtained from a focal point group ( californium. Ruhe, 1972 ; Ruhe & A ; Allen, 1977 ) and should be taken into consideration when recruiting respondents and mixed-gender groups.
Some research workers ( californium. Hoffman, 1959 ; Hoffman & A ; Maier, 1961 ) believe that heterogenous groups are by and large more effectual than homogenous groups because a assortment of accomplishments, positions, and cognition can be brought to bear on the public presentation of the undertaking. Ruhe ( 1978 ) found that mixed-gender groups were more effectual than same-sex group. Closely related to effectiveness in executing group undertakings are conformance and outgrowth of leading. There is some grounds to propose that there is greater conformance among members of mixed-gender groups than among members of same-sex group because of greater concern about interpersonal relation ( Reitan & A ; Shaw, 1964 ) . Therefore, the diverseness of sentiments expressed in a mixed-sex group may be smaller than in a same-sex group. Contrary to this, Dyson, Godwin, and Hazelwood ( 1976 ) found that leading traits are more likely to emerge in mixed-sex groups than in same same-sex groups. Harmonizing to them, leading behavior by and large facilitates nonsubjective undertaking achievement through the exercising of interpersonal influence and effectual communicating. This suggests that subject permitting, mixed-gender groups are more effectual in promoting engagement and work outing jobs than concentrate groups comprised of members of the same sex ( Stewart et al. , 2007 ) . Some research plants have systematically found differences in interaction manners of work forces and adult females associated with the gender composing of the group and Aries ( as cited in Stewart, 2007 ) found that work forces are more “ personally ” oriented, have a greater inclination to turn to single members ( as opposed to the group as a whole ) , and talk about themselves more frequently in mixed-gender groups than in same sex. To him, in all-male groups, work forces are more concerned with position and competition. By contrast, adult females in mixed-gender groups tend to be less dominant than in all-female groups. Such research suggests that the nature of the interaction and the quality of the informations obtained from focal point group is influenced by the gender composing of the group ( Stewart et al. , 2007 ) .
Moderator ‘s gender influence on focal point group interviews has been studied by some research workers, for case McDonald ( 1993 ) scrutiny of research aims and moderator influences showed that male moderator has 33 % whilst female moderator has 67 % influence on focal point group interviews. Boice ( 1983 ) argues that gender is a good established and powerful variable in experimental research and adult females are provably better perceivers than work forces. By deduction, female moderators may be superior perceivers to male moderator.
Decision and Research Implications
Dissembling illation from above treatments, it seems that moderator-informants age, societal power, and gender both act upon their interactions in the focal point group interviews state of affairs. Even though this is non through empirical observation tested, it could be deduced from this treatment that sources ( concentrate group participants ) gender, age and societal power have the most of the overall influence on focal point group interviews context compared to that of moderator gender, age and societal power. Based on the scope of literatures presented in this paper, it is nevertheless obvious that societal power and gender of the participants shared some commonalties of influence and to some extend exert more influence on moderator-informants interaction procedure, but it is someway hard to pull solid decisions about moderator gender and age consequence.
It has been identified by some research workers in this paper that focal point group treatments can be psychotherapeutic, particularly where convening focal point groups to discourse sensitive subjects and to touch on countries that seem to be more hard for some participants than others ( Barbour, 2007 ) . Other research workers ( californium. Hoffman, 1959 ; Ruhe 1978 ; Hoffman & A ; Maier, 1961 ) in reasoning in favor of heterogenous groups in focal point group interviews postulates that mixed-gender groups are more effectual than same-sex group in that a assortment of accomplishments, positions, and cognition can be brought to bear on the public presentation of the undertaking. On the contrary, research findings from ( Reitan & A ; Shaw, 1964 ; Dyson, Godwin, & A ; Hazelwood, 1976 ) revealed that there exist greater inclination of conformance and outgrowth of leading traits among members of mixed-gender groups than in same-sex groups. With these, fiting subjects allowing merely mixed-gender and merely same-sex groups is recommended in the state of affairs where the issues require diverseness of sentiments and other issue that require same-sex gender stereotype to be able to talk about themselves in focal point group interactions ( Aries, 1976, as cited in Stewart et al. , 2007 ) . Therefore, negociating and fiting some of the group dynamics become paramount as mentioned.
With the issue of moderator gender influence, some research workers such as Gray et Al. ( 1997 ) have reflected on the influence of the moderator gender on their research with schoolchildren on the subject of smoke and contended that the gender of the moderator has some impact on the content of the information gathered. Looking at the extent to which a female moderator might hold contributed to a portraiture of ‘hyper masculine signifiers of individuality ‘ by work forces who participated in her research undertaking, Allan ( as cited in Barbour, 2007, p. 50 ) concluded that “ the impact of gender on the information generated is far from straightforward, since other even more of import factors come into drama, such as showing sensitiveness and echt involvement on the portion of the research worker ” .
Suggestively, as it has been noted by some research workers such as Krueger and Casey ( 2000 ) , and Johnson and Parsons ( 1994 ) , small studied have explored the influence of and fit couple of moderator-informants age. It is suggested for farther and detail research to research how to fit and negociate moderator-informants age influence, peculiarly with kids in focal point group interviews context.