Beyond Methodological Preferences: Rethinking In-Depth Interviews and Focus Group Discussions in Contemporary Communication and Media Research

Abstract

Qualitative research is increasingly central to communication and media studies because it enables researchers to examine experiences, meanings, perceptions, interactions, and social processes that cannot be adequately captured through quantitative measures. Within this context, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions remain prominent approaches, although their respective strengths, limitations, and methodological applications continue to generate debate. This article situates the debate within contemporary qualitative communication research and aims to critically synthesise foundational and contemporary scholarship on IDIs and FGDs while developing a context-sensitive basis for methodological selection. The study adopts a critical integrative literature-review model, drawing on foundational works by Brinkmann and Kvale, Merton, Morgan, Rubin and Rubin, and Seidman, alongside contemporary contributions by McLafferty, Onwuegbuzie et al., Rodriguez et al., and Thelwall and Nevill. A thematic synthesis was employed to examine epistemological foundations, methodological strengths and limitations, interactional dimensions, cultural considerations, and emerging research gaps. The results indicate that IDIs provide distinctive access to individual experiences, personal narratives, confidentiality, and interpretive depth, whereas FGDs generate valuable evidence through participant interaction, collective reflection, disagreement, and meaning-making. However, neither approach is inherently superior, as both are influenced by contextual, ethical, cultural, participant, and researcher-related factors. The review identifies insufficient communication- specific methodological theorisation and proposes an Integrated Context–Method Fit Framework based on the research problem, communication context, participant characteristics, knowledge required, and interactional dimensions. The article concludes that qualitative communication research should prioritise methodological fit, reflexivity, analytical rigour, and contextual appropriateness rather than methodological preference.

Keywords

References