A senior couple using a tablet.In recent years, the use of remote methods by qualitative researchers has become commonplace. The COVID-19 pandemic forced researchers across the globe to rapidly convert their face-to-face methods to those that were socially distanced and technologically mediated. With pandemic conditions now abated, many of the adaptations it mandated – for example to the ways we work, communicate and participate in social life – have persisted and the research world is no exception.
Qualitative methods have long been defined by the depth of data they can achieve and are positioned in stark contrast to quantitative methodologies, which demand breadth and generalisability. Whilst this simplistic binary distinction has been, and is still, challenged in various ways (for example, though big qual data), trust and rapport remain key features of most qualitative data collection techniques. This central positioning of the relationship between researcher and the participant renders qualitative research particularly vulnerable to any negative consequences of remote methods, which are defined by physical distance between the two.
Despite initial concerns within the qualitative research community, studies conducted before, during and since the pandemic have nevertheless largely emphasised the similarity of remote qualitative data (both in terms of data quality and validity) when compared to face-to-face. This evidence of data equivalence, however, raises important questions: can remote methods simply be inserted into existing research designs, as an alternative, or additional venue for fieldwork? Can it be safely assumed that the long-standing gold standard of qualitative research – the face-to-face encounter – is now outdated?
Research conducted at the University of Warwick suggests the answer to both is no, or at least not entirely. This work, which I undertook with a team of colleagues, included two extensive literature reviews, interviews with researchers and participants, and a consensus conference (attended by relevant stakeholders). From this research, we developed a new tool, which we called Qualitative Remote Data Collection (QRDC) Guidance.
Providing support for researchers
Steered by a diverse group of public contributors, the guidance was designed to guide researchers in the field of health and social care, though is relevant to other fields of qualitative enquiry. It supports researchers to make decisions about their methods; from research conceptualisation and design, through to data collection and withdrawal from the field. At each stage, the guidance prompts researchers to consider the specifics of their research question, design and available resources to determine whether, and how, remote methods could best be employed.
Whilst the guidance is a practice-orientated tool, it is grounded in the research evidence. This evidence clearly highlights the benefits that can be achieved through use of remote methods. These include: heightened participant access and inclusivity, reduced resource demands (financial, temporal), reduced environmental harms, as well as increased power and control for participants.
Indeed, when remote methods are used, participants can exercise far greater autonomy over the conditions of data collection than has ever been possible in face-to-face equivalent methods. This includes the power to curate the information the researcher has access to, particularly that pertaining to identity and physical environment. This transfer of power, however, has also prompted ethical concerns, primarily regarding the corresponding responsibilities for privacy and wellbeing that are also assumed by participants, and the potential rise in so-called non-genuine participants. Notwithstanding these concerns, however, the new capacities of participants to exert influence in a space so long dominated by researchers is at the very fulcrum of inclusive research practice.
Identifying new, transformed and transferred harms
Given this range of benefits, the continued popularity of remote qualitative methods is perhaps unsurprising. However, with sustained usage, it is more important than ever that researchers are mindful of the risks and impacts these methods bring. Whether or not we plan to use them ourselves, remote methods continue to propel qualitative evidence generation in various ways, bringing them into the remit and repertoire of all qualitative researchers.
The QRDC guidance assists researchers in this endeavour, prompting them to identify new, transformed and transferred harms (such as physical, emotional, epistemological) that arise when qualitative methods are re-located to remote spaces. Disparities in relationships with technology (in terms of trust, access and skills), for example, remain widespread, and can place considerable limitations on who will engage with remote research, and how. Whilst amplifying the voices of certain social groups, use of remote methods, invariably, also silences others.
With this complex and evolving research landscape in mind, the QRDC guidance can help researchers as they navigate through their decisions about data collection whilst prioritising quality, inclusivity and the wellbeing of both participants and researchers. Most importantly, its recommendations call on researchers (as well as ethics boards, research funders, commissioners and publishers) to value reflexive and power-conscious decisions, which may ultimately produce decisions to use remote methods, to use them in combination with face-to-face methods, or even, to not use them at all.