In 2020, the sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced health and social care researchers to rapidly convert to remote methods of data collection (i.e. methods of collecting research data when the researcher and participant are not together in the same space).

For those conducting qualitative research, where context and rich communication are critical, this abrupt conversion was particularly significant. A body of work exploring the impact of remote methods on the quality of qualitative data predates the pandemic. However, this literature had never been systematically appraised and synthesised to form an evidence base, which contributed to concerns about data quality amongst qualitative researchers as they were forced to adopt remote methods in 2020.

As pandemic conditions endured, qualitative researchers produced a new wave of remote qualitative publications, using a range of methodologies and technologies in a variety of health and social care research areas, and beyond. These publications often included reflective papers on the qualitative research process when remote methods are used. Now that we find ourselves in a new context, researchers across the world must make active decisions about when and how to use remote and in-person methods of data collection.

The QRDC (Qualitative Remote Data Collection) study was conceived in response to a call for research that explores the quality of remote qualitative data as part of the ‘Better Methods, Better Research’ scheme, supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [grant reference: MR/ W021161/1]. Undertaken between July 2022 and July 2024, the study was designed to harness the experiences and expertise of both past research participants and researchers to produce guidance to support high quality, and inclusive, health and social care research. The guidance provides input on the type of remote data collection methods that are most appropriate across the broad spectrum of qualitative methods, technological mediums, topics, social contexts and population groups within the field of health and social care research.

Our working definition of ‘remote’ in the context of qualitative data collection was developed with our public reference group (PRG):

technologically-mediated and interactive methods of qualitative data collection where the researcher is physically removed from encounter/s with participants, and where there is a face-to-face equivalent method

Our efforts were geared towards supporting researchers to make decisions between face-to-face and remote options. We therefore excluded already well-developed remote qualitative methods, such as diary methods or autoethnography although these may include remote communication technologies (e.g. audio diaries) (Mupambireyi & Bernays, 2019). Using this definition, qualitative data collection methods are included where the researcher prompts participants to share verbal, visual or written data whilst being physically absent from their environment. Extant or ‘naturally occurring’ data collection methods (Mare, 2017; Hensen et al, 2021), for example, gathering unprompted data from websites, social media posts, chatrooms, forums etc. which were posted for reasons other than research participation and without researcher influence, were excluded due to their lack of face-to-face equivalents.

Remote data collection methods using our definition occur in various ways:

• Synchronous audio, audio-visual, reaction emojis, captions and text exchange, or a combination of audio/audio-visual and text
• Asynchronous exchange of text, audio, visual, or a combination. The time between each exchange can vary (hours/days/weeks/months).

Asynchronous data collection is often undertaken over a longer time period than synchronous data collection such as an interview or focus group. We distinguish this from longitudinal data collection as follows:

• Collecting data asynchronously over time has the aim of enriching the data for deeper understanding.
• Longitudinal data collection has the aim of identifying and exploring change.

Scoping review

We conducted a scoping review (Aromataris & Munn, 2020) to map the available evidence comparing in-person and remotely collected qualitative data. Full details of the method can be found in the scoping review protocol (Boardman et al, 2022).

The review identified 58 articles that compared in-person and remotely collected data within one study, published between 2001-2024. The review found that remotely collected data is often shorter (measured by duration or word count) but analysis generates similar topics and themes. Non-verbal data, such as body language and contextual cues, is less available remotely and focus group participants may interact less, potentially resulting in less depth of data. For sensitive topics, the relative anonymity and distance created by remote methods may facilitate rich data, although within some communities there may be distrust of the confidentiality of online communication. We argue that the implications of remote data collection for data quality and inclusion are likely to depend on an interaction of research question, participant groups and epistemology. Further research is needed to extend understanding of how these factors interact. The scoping review will be published separately. Papers included in the scoping review were carried forward to the realist review.

Public involvement

Public contributors have a valuable role to play in methodological research (Burke et al, 2023). Although researchers are the primary audience for the guidance, the perspective of (potential) research participants were important throughout the project. We recruited eight members of the public to the PRG, mindful of the need for a range of perspectives. Members represented a range of ethnicities, genders, ages, disabilities, caring experiences, neurodiversity, and different experiences of contributing to research. We also recruited participants for their diversity of views on use of remote or face-to-face methods. The breadth of these views was particularly important in maintaining lively and critical engagement with the research topic. Meetings were structured around key steps in the project: an introductory overview, scoping review findings, study design for interviews, realist review findings, draft guidance and dissemination plans.

Realist review

Building on the findings of the scoping review, a realist review (Pawson et al., 2005) was conducted to iteratively identify the mechanisms and context in which high quality remote qualitative data collection occurs. This involved identifying programme theories on what works for whom, where, when and why (context + mechanism > outcome, hereafter CMOs) and testing these theories against published evidence and expert opinion (Wong, 2015; Pawson et al., 2005). The realist review drew on papers identified in the scoping review, interviews with researchers and research participants and the wider literature to develop the CMOs.

We interviewed 17 qualitative researchers and 10 research participants with experience of qualitative research about health and social care between 31st May 2023 and 16th April 2024. All interviews were conducted remotely. Interviews explored what worked well remotely and what was more challenging and asked participants to reflect on emerging programme theories. CMOs in the data were coded. Participants were also asked about what they would like to see in the guidance being produced by the QRDC study. We brought together our CMOs from the literature, interviews and discussions with the PRG and grouped them into themes.

For each theme, a member of the research team read the relevant CMOs and the source data (literature, interviews, PRG discussion) and then conducted a search for related literature to confirm or refute each CMO and to develop the CMO into guidance statements to support decision-making in the research design process. Where we identified gaps, either through work with our PRG, or using our knowledge and experience as qualitative researchers, we looked for published evidence to support recommendations to fill the gap.

To further test these CMO based guidance statements, we held the QRDC consensus conference on 30th January 2024. Attendees comprised a diverse group of 52 researchers, research participants, community research engagement group representatives, funders, and our public reference group. Working in small groups, and with two plenary sessions, we reviewed and refined our CMO based recommendations with their supporting evidence. We noted participant reflections, new CMOs and additional evidence and used these notes to refine the CMO based guidance statements.

Finally, the statements were grouped and mapped chronologically to the research process . This provided the structure of the sections for the guidance. Further detail of the research method will be published separately.

The QRDC guidance was developed to support researchers to make design decisions regarding the use of remote data collection methods in qualitative research. It is organised into sections that map across the research process. To ensure readers can refer back to the guidance in an ad hoc manner, as well as read it as a full document, themed recommendations can appear in multiple sections. Links have been inserted to help you trace themes across sections.

The QRDC guidance was written assuming that the reader has a research question and/or a theoretical approach in mind and a commitment to using qualitative or mixed methodologies. The guidance can guide decisions about different combinations of methods and technologies according to participant group, within the broader research design.

When working with the QRDC guidance, please bear in mind the following points which have determined the scope and remit of this guidance:

1. It is important to remember that the QRDC guidance is focused on remote qualitative data collection alone. This means that other aspects of the research process (e.g. analysis, dissemination) are beyond its scope. However, they are considered where the remote nature of data collection directly impacts them. For example, the use of text-based interviews introduces new forms of data to be analysed (e.g. emojis); or, undertaking concurrent textbased interviews may obstruct the crosspollination of interviews typically used in grounded theory approaches.
2. This guidance sits within an extensive and rich qualitative methods literature. Research considerations that pertain to all qualitative data collection are excluded from this guidance, in order to focus specifically on those unique to remote. For example, whether transcripts should be returned to participants for checking and approval is a consideration for all qualitative researchers and so falls beyond the remit of this guidance.
3. This guidance has been designed to support researchers to critically appraise remote communication technologies, with qualitative data collection and their participant populations in mind. As such, these recommendations pertain to all current and nascent communication technologies that could be used for qualitative research. Various digital communication technologies are referenced in the guidance but as illustrative examples only. The guidance is not designed to direct researchers to specific Section 1: What is the QRDC guidance, and how was it developed? 7 technologies, nor to endorse them. These technologies and their ‘research relevant’ features will continue to evolve and change rapidly over time, however the underlying principles outlined in the guidance remain the same.
4. The QRDC guidance has been written with a UK research audience in mind. It is assumed that the researcher is working within a UK research infrastructure, although it includes literature and examples drawn from across the globe. We recognise that the infrastructure available to support remote data collection varies globally, and this needs to be considered when using the guidance to inform research design decisions. Despite this, it is likely that the QRDC guidance will have transference to non-UK contexts.
5. The QRDC guidance was developed using diverse sources of evidence. These include the extant published and grey literature, the contributions of our PRG, empirical data derived from interviews (with qualitative researchers and participants), and the findings of our consensus conference, which brought together a wide range of research stakeholders. MORE INFORMATION These data sources are cited throughout. Where a CMO came from our consensus conference, this is cited in-text as (source: consensus conference).
6. It is also recognised that some research designs will use remote qualitative methods in combination with face-to-face qualitative methods, and that in some instances, the line between face-to-face and remote methods can be somewhat blurred (e.g. ‘in-person WhatsApp focus groups’ Singer et al. (2023). Combinations of remote and face-to-face data collection methods, or hybrid designs, are considered in the guidance, but with a focus on the implications for the remote aspects of the data collection.

While researchers may wish to read the guidance in full, it has been organised in such a way that it is possible to ‘dip into’ individual sections to assist with particular decisions or scenarios. Worked examples demonstrating how the guidance can be used to inform these decisions are included in appendix 4. These include a researcher designing a remote qualitative study on disability and social care, a remote qualitative study on shared decision making in maternity care and a researcher’s reflections on their decisions regarding use of remote qualitative methods and field notes in their study of health management in a resource constrained setting.

To support ease of use of the guidance, each section contains a summary which draws out key themes covered. It also contains a list of ‘researcher prompts’. These prompts are questions to guide research teams as they think through the translation of the guidance to their specific study. Whilst directed towards researchers, the section summaries and researcher prompts would benefit from input from public contributor groups at each stage of the research process to support the co-development of a research design that meets the needs and preferences of the participant population under study.

To being using the guidance for a study, firstly consider:

1. Is it important for your study to have group interaction between research participants OR individuals (potentially with a supporter) who interact with the researcher, OR a combination of these approaches?
2. Is the population of interest, or some members of it, underserved, hidden, stigmatised or otherwise marginalised in any way? If so, why/ how?
3. Is the topic sensitive or not? If sensitive, in what way, and why? If not, does it have the potential to be sensitive for some participants?
4. Are there any particular advantages or disadvantages of different data formats (text, audio, visual or a combination of these) for your analysis approach?

For each consideration, keep the research question at the forefront of your mind. Your answers to the four considerations listed above will support your learning as you work through the guidance.