Section 2: Designing Remote Qualitative Studies: Participant Populations

Remote methods can facilitate greater geographic, cultural and socioeconomic diversity by opening up a larger ‘pool’ of potential participants including those who would have been unreachable face-toface (Wilkerson et al., 2014, Keen et al., 2022, Lathen and Laestadius, 2021) and those who are ‘location bound’ (Fritz & Vandermause, 2018), such as carers, people with certain health conditions, people in conflict, or pandemic-affected settings. Remote methods can also make research more accessible to researchers with disabilities or health conditions, as well as those who have caring responsibilities at home or for whom travel is a barrier. Supporting diversity amongst researchers as well as participants is important to the overarching goal of inclusive research (Brown and Boardman, 2011).

However, it is important that remote research is not positioned as the answer to constraints on the research (e.g. access to participants, finances, time). The research question should be the guide for the sampling and recruitment, rather than the available technology, and researchers should resist the temptation to have a very wide sampling frame if this does not fit with the research design.

Below, we offer some insights around specific participant groups, drawing on available evidence. The list is not exhaustive but suggestive of how the needs of specific groups can be considered. Moreover, the groups are also not mutually exclusive, and the influence of intersectionality and how this can be integrated into research design are presented.

Remote methods facilitate the inclusion of people (both participants and researchers) with disabilities and health conditions that would otherwise preclude their participation. This may include participants and researchers who identify as neurodivergent (Oliffe et al., 2021), have mental health difficulties, those living with fatigue or pain, those who have caring responsibilities (Henderson & Moreau, 2020), mobility challenges or those with clinical vulnerabilities, e.g. people with cystic fibrosis who are advised not to have close contact with others with the same condition (Sy et al., 2020, Oliffe et al., 2021, Nicholas et al., 2010). Indeed, for research involving people with rare conditions, who are small in number and geographically dispersed, the use of remote methods can significantly reduce travel for both participants and researchers. It is important to consider, however, that whilst remote data collection may meet the needs of certain groups of people with particular disabilities or health conditions remote methods may, simultaneously, exclude those with other types of impairment (Wilkerson et al., 2014). For example, using videoconferencing platforms without cameras on may heighten difficulties for those with communication impairments, e.g. those who rely on lip reading (Saarijärvi and Bratt, 2021, Enoch et al., 2023), but be preferable for some people who are neurodivergent as it removes an additional, potentially distracting, flow of information. If focus groups are to be included in the research design, this possibility of conflict between participants’ needs should be carefully considered and may necessitate a change of technology/method or the introduction of a face-to-face method. Indeed, some of the challenges faced by people living with specific types of health condition or disability simply cannot be overcome by technology (Carter et al., 2021), and in these scenarios, face-to-face methods are a necessity. For example, as noted by Xia Ang et al. (2022), d/Deaf participants’ needs are not well met by videoconferencing platforms, particularly those who use sign language, as the spatial and directional aspects of the language is lost within its two-dimensional images.

In addition, disabled people are more likely to experience technology deprivation. People with learning differences or disabilities have been digitally marginalised and excluded from research. Additional work may need to be undertaken to appropriately engage this group e.g. support with the technology, providing funding for a trusted support worker, ensuring the research is on the participant’s preferred platform rather than the researcher’s organisation’s preferred platform (security of data may have to be weighed against the greater inclusivity or choosing an accessible platform) as well as through the provision of appropriate adaptations of the study information, such as large text, easy read information leaflets using images and symbols (e.g. photosymbols) and videos where appropriate (source: interview with researcher; Gómez-Carrillo de Castro et al, 2023).

Conducting remote research in developing countries, in remote/rural locations and with potentially vulnerable participants e.g. indigenous populations (Gratton & O’Donnell, 2011) poses several barriers. Technologies such as mobile phones are not always available or may be shared with others, and levels of digital literacy may vary widely (Cook, 2012). Participants in rural settings may have slower internet speeds, or no internet at all (Afrobarometer, 2022) as well as poor network coverage which can stilt the data collection (Pocock et al., 2021, Sevelius et al., 2020, Lathen and Laestadius, 2021, Rahman et al., 2021; Singer et al., 2023; Hensen et al., 2021). Some people may have to pay to borrow, and charge, a phone as electricity is not always available in villages or informal urban settlements, and the technologies that are available may not be in full working order. However, Reñosa et al. (2021), found that despite these limitations, they were able to recruit participants living in remote areas of Uganda and India, and the snowball sampling of those with mobile phone access facilitated inclusion. Cultural, religious and linguistic factors may also preclude participants speaking to a researcher remotely, so alternative methods of both data collection and recruitment will need to be considered in these scenarios (Nyemba- Mudenda & Chigona, 2017). In addition, people living in remote and rural locations are more likely to belong to tight-knit communities which can pose threats to both their anonymity and privacy, as well as potentially exposing them to stigmatisation or ostracization (Epp et al., 2022).

Remote research in conflict/crisis affected or insecure locations can circumvent risks to both researchers and participants and enables diversity of perspectives to be included in the research. It also affords the participant anonymity that would not be possible if data collection was conducted face-toface. This anonymity can be particularly important in contexts of political oppression and where the research focuses on ‘restricted topics’ (Fardousi et al., 2019:11). However, there are a range of considerations to ensure research with conflict/crisis affected or insecure populations is not ‘extractive’ or exposes participants to additional risks (Douedari et al., 2021; Humphries et al., 2022); these include developing trust, having a nuanced understanding, and sensitivity to, the politics of the local context as well as a good understanding of the technological resources (internet connection, devices, software) available to potential participants. Indeed, platforms that are often used for remote qualitative research, such as Zoom, are currently restricted in certain countries or regions (Syria, Ukraine, Cuba, Iran and North Korea) due to them appearing in the US ‘sanctioned countries’ list. Data security is of paramount importance for this population, and it is important to consider whether research data, even if encrypted, are exempt from government surveillance (Endeley, 2018) and whether they can be passed over national borders (Marlowe and Allen, 2022). The emotional impacts of research with participants who are in high risk and/or distressing environments - while the researcher is not - have been highlighted in the literature, particularly in terms of researcher guilt (Humphries et al., 2022), and strategies to manage psychological distress on both sides of the research exchange need to be considered within the research design.

Engaging busy professional groups can be a challenge for all qualitative researchers, whether using face-to-face or remote methods (Singh et al., 2022; Vindrola-Padros et al., 2020). Remote qualitative research methods can offer advantages over face-to-face methods due to their flexibility. Humphries et al. (2022), in their remote ethnography of health care professionals’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that doctors were able to respond to WhatsApp questions when they had time, increasing the inclusivity of the research, although, it could result in one-word answers (Humphries et al., 2022). Professional groups are more likely to be familiar with remote methods of communication, however, they may need to engage outside of typical working hours which can present challenges for researchers who wish to contain the research (Humphries et al., 2022). MORE INFORMATION Remote methods can also extend the geographical reach of qualitative methods, which can facilitate the inclusion of highly specialised professional groups who might be geographically dispersed, and for studies involving international comparisons. Retention can be challenging in remote qualitative studies, particularly asynchronous text-based methods which often take place over extended time frames. For busy professional groups, the time commitment of asynchronous remote methods can result in high attrition rates, particularly those who are already at higher risk of ‘burn out’ (Humphries et al., 2022).

It is important that research does not reproduce pre-existing inequalities in research and society by excluding already underserved populations (Mikulak et al., 2022). Indeed, remote methods can be used positively to facilitate the inclusion of underserved populations by, for example, removing travel costs for participants (Lathen and Laestadius, 2021) and where trust is an issue, as the researcher may be less threatening when physically removed (Adler and Zarchin, 2002; Fox et al., 2007).

However, despite this capacity for inclusivity, researchers have emphasised that distrust can often remain, with underserved communities more likely to feel unsafe sharing information about themselves remotely, particularly around sensitive issues such as immigration status (Parkin et al., 2021; Barbosa and Milan, 2019). For economically, socially and digitally disadvantaged groups, privacy concerns are one of the major reasons for not using the internet generally and translate to greater reluctance to engage in videoconferencing (Boland et al., 2022a). Remote methods can also be seen as more ‘formal’ especially if the invitation to participate in the research comes through the NHS (National Health Service) or another well recognised public body. (source: consensus conference). These factors can result in ‘digital disengagement’, which refers to lack, or only very limited, use of the digital world due to personal or motivational factors, for example, around trust or confidence (Romanowski & Lally, 2024). It is closely aligned with digital exclusion and digital poverty, where there are barriers to participation in the digital world, for example, a lack of technologies or skills, or accessibility barriers (Allmann, 2022).

Having face-to-face contact with the researcher/s during recruitment can assist members of underserved communities in their decisions about whether to participate in remote research - they can question the researcher directly and assess whether they feel they can be trusted (Lathen & Laestadius, 2021). Participants are less responsive when researchers ‘parachute’ in and out (Tarrant et al., 2023; Archer-Kuhn et al., 2022; Douedari et al., 2021; Lathen & Laestadius, 2021). Investing time and energy into face-to-face recruitment in community spaces used by underserved populations may also be considered a signifier of respect and sincerity of intention, but this investment in relationship building can be at odds with the institutional and funder demands of research, which can focus more on rapid data collection and outputs (Dahya et al., 2023) and limit geographical range of research. In the absence of this face-to-face contact with the researcher prior to remote research, trusted gatekeepers (e.g. community/advocacy groups) can have an important role to play in facilitating relationship-building and also providing information on the best ways to engage different groups.

It is important to consider that language barriers can be amplified by remote research, which can make non-English speakers and those for whom English is an additional language (disproportionately immigrant and refuge-seeking populations), less likely to engage or be recruited into studies in the first place. Telephone interviews in particular, due to lack of visual cues, can make understanding unfamiliar accents or dialects harder (Parkin et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2015). However, use of remote methods can facilitate the employment of an interpreter, or another researcher fluent in the language spoken by the participant, without needing to factor in travel and locations, which can make identification of convenient times for participant, researcher and interpreter easier (Englund et al., 2022).

Underserved populations are more likely to live in digital poverty which means they may not have email addresses for study documentation to be sent to, they may not have access to apps (such as WhatsApp) for instant messaging, they may not have exclusive use of a smart phone or computer, or have to rely on non-secure publicly available wifi, which affects their privacy (Stone et al., 2020), but also any technology they use may not be upto- date enough to download any apps required by the research (Strong et al., 2020). Indeed, in 2024, Ofcom estimates that 6% (1.7 million) of UK households do not have internet access of home (Ofcom, 2024). This lack of access and result in a skills deficit which is a significant barrier to participation (Lobe et al., 2020) and may only serve to reinforce distrust and scepticism regarding the value, relevance and trustworthiness of the research. Given this range of barriers, it has been suggested that for studies where incentives are offered for research participation (e.g. gift vouchers), greater incentives should be offered to research participants from lower socioeconomic groups as compared to higher socioeconomic groups, on the basis that additional effort is required, and there are larger obstacles to participation (source: consensus conference; Nicolaas et al., 2019). Moreover, any incentive offered needs to be relevant, accessible and also not affect any welfare benefits (NIHR 2024).

Remote methods can support the inclusion of people who belong to ‘hidden populations’, for example, people with stigmatised, marginalised or criminal identities. Examples of hidden populations where remote data collection has been done include: men who have sex with men (Neville et al., 2016; Hammond, 2018), young drug users (Barratt, 2012), people with sexually transmitted infections (Cook, 2012), people who identify as transgender (Cipolletta et al., 2017), indigenous communities (Gratton and O’Donnell, 2011; Chávez et al., 2024), parents who have experienced intimate partner violence (Alderson et al., 2022; Woodyatt et al., 2016) and ‘rough sleepers’ or those of no fixed abode (Parkin et al., 2021).The increased capacity for complete anonymity associated with remote methods vis-à-vis face-to-face methods can make research participation less threatening to these groups (Wilkerson et al., 2014; Matthews and Cramer, 2008; Heath et al., 2018). Furthermore, the unbounded geographical reach of remote methods can support the inclusion of populations not anchored to particular locations, for example homeless, displaced or traveller populations. However, group data collection methods with these participant groups may also bring up the possibility of them being identifiable to others who belong to the same population. This needs to be made clear to prospective participants from the outset

Young people face barriers in attending face-to-face data collection, these can include lack of access to travel, constraints on independent decision-making, privacy concerns and an unwillingness to speak to an unknown adult, particularly if the research is on a sensitive topic. Remote methods can overcome many of these barriers to participation (Gibson, 2020), MORE INFORMATION However, recent research suggests that 45% of households with children in the UK are digitally excluded, meaning they lack access to technologies and skills (e.g. setting up email addresses and accounts) to participate in ‘digital society’ (Skopeliti, 2024). Despite this, as ‘digital natives’, it has also been reported that young people are better equipped than previous generations to protect their privacy in remote settings as they have greater familiarity with technology (Bolin et al., 2023) and are often more confident in their digital skills (Halliwell and Wilkinson, 2021). The type of technology used needs consideration in terms of the preferences of young people and this is likely to change over time and by geographical location. Access to different social media platforms that can be used for research (e.g. Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, TikTok, Wink) have minimum age requirements (usually 13+) that can differ by country. Similarly, videoconferencing platforms (e.g. Zoom) have minimum ages for the establishment of an account (16+). Privacy and confidentiality may remain concerns when access to, and use of, devices are monitored by parents or school (source: consensus conference).

Despite these restrictions, the inclusion of asynchronous and remote creative methodologies (e.g. using stop start animation, drawings, photographs, emojis) can help engagement, build rapport and place children’s perspectives at the centre of the research (Lomax et al., 2022; Fane et al., 2016), and researchers should explore existing resources used to engage these groups (e.g. GenerationR), as well as the full range of social media platforms and means of communication that children and young people use, which may change more rapidly than for other groups.

Older age is the strongest predictor of being a non-user of the internet, with lack of skills and fears about privacy being amongst the key reasons (Stone et al., 2020). With this in mind, it is often assumed that older adults cannot engage effectively with remote methods and that they have persistent difficulties accessing the digital world (Bolin et al., 2023). Recruiting through social media for remote qualitative studies, for example, has led to older adults being under-represented as social media users are younger (and have higher educational status than non-users) (Mellon and Prosser, 2017). These differentials in technology have been linked to differences in access to technologies and connectivity, support, digital skills, as well as challenges around cognition, physical dexterity and vision when compared to other social groups (Hewitt et al., 2019; Huxhold et al., 2020). However, there is evidence that when tailored to their needs, remote methods can be an effective method of data collection with this group (Melis et al., 2021; Vergouw et al., 2020), and that remote methods may be preferred over travel or hosting a researcher in one’s home (Teo et al., 2019).

Familiarity with the platform has been found to have more of an influence on acceptance of remote methods than the age of participant (Sedgwick and Spiers, 2009). This is supported by research that suggests that, post-pandemic, older adults are continuing to use technologies to communicate with family and undertake consultations with GPs (Boland et al., 2022b). There is also evidence that older adults engage with communication technologies in ways similar to other social groups, e.g. use of emojis (Fritz and Vandermause, 2018). Use of remote methods, however, does risk excluding, or creating additional burdens for, participants who do not feel competent with any given technology (Carter et al., 2021b; Harvey et al., 2023). Conducting a pre-data collection briefing can help participants understand what to expect and ensure they are comfortable using any required technologies and platforms (Carter et al., 2021b). Remaining flexible about the choice of technologies and allowing participants to select one that suits their needs and competencies can support inclusivity (Enoch et al., 2023; Harvey et al., 2023).

While there is some evidence that a gender divide exists in relation to access, and use, of mobile phones and other communication technologies, particularly in developing countries (Manji et al., 2021), there is also evidence suggesting that appropriate use of remote methods can support greater gender inclusivity. Examples in the literature include where men have been found to talk more freely in remote settings than face-to-face and so are more likely to participate in research where this is an option (Tarrant et al., 2023; Oliffe et al., 2021). Transgender participants may also find that non-visual remote data collection, can remove the body (which is often experienced as a site of public surveillance and personal and political tensions) from the research encounter, whilst remote data collection with video can facilitate particular presentations of the body and identity (e.g. through filters/photos), and may allow participants to express themselves more freely and comfortably (Cipolletta et al., 2017). Giving participants on videoconferencing platforms the option to include their pronouns next to their name, should they choose to, can also reduce the chances of misgendering. The possibilities for anonymity provided by remote research may be particularly important for gender non-conforming people within countries where this is regarded a crime e.g. Republic of Zimbabwe (Mavhandu-Mudzusi et al., 2022).

Participants from particular religious and cultural backgrounds which emphasise gender segregation in public life (e.g. Muslim communities) can find that remote spaces facilitate interaction across gender lines that would otherwise not have been permissible face-to-face (Piela, 2016; Nisa, 2013). Muslim women may prefer telephone interviews over audio-visual options because they do not require them to dress modestly (Alsagaff and Coyne, 2023).

Due to its nature, a significant amount of research in health and social care could be described as ‘sensitive’. Sensitive topics can be understood as those that are particularly intrusive, intimate, distressing or morbid (Silverio et al., 2022), many of which would fall under the remit of health and social care research, such as bereavement, health, illness and disability - including life-limiting conditions (Chambers et al., 2019), sexuality and reproduction, family life, trauma and abuse (Roberts et al., 2021). Our scoping review (Boardman et al., 2022) found that participants may talk more about sensitive issues in a remote context where they feel more anonymous (although this is not the case where participants distrust the confidentiality of Internet-enabled communication). It is important that researchers consider the sensitivity of their research topic at the point of design, as participants with difficult or traumatic experiences will have specific needs and sensitivities that should be considered early on. Some research topics are more clearly sensitive that others, but researchers should consider the possibility of trauma for all. Qualitative research in particular, due to its depth, is more likely to uncover disclosures of trauma or abuse than other research methodologies (Silverio et al., 2022). The difficulties of ‘cross-over’ between qualitative data collection and emotional support or therapy have long been documented (Holmes, 2017), and the potentially protracted nature of remote data collection may augment the risk that the distinction becomes blurred.

Remote methods can empower participants through the heightened opportunities for participant autonomy, swifter exit routes and the possibility of participants choosing the timing of their engagement in data collection (e.g. email and instant messaging). MORE INFORMATION Methods for managing distress need to be planned in advance, both on the part of the researcher as well as the participant. However, given the heightened opportunities for anonymity in remote qualitative research, researchers need to carefully consider how safeguarding, may operate in this context. MORE INFORMATION Researchers should support participants to choose the place and timing of their participation in a way that reduces physical and/or emotional risks as far as possible and allow flexibility in data collection to support participants to manage their risk. Researchers also need to consider the dynamics of data collection if this is to occur in a group or individually, and importantly for this population, whether or not a camera will be used.

Intersectionality is a way of conceptualising identity and its various relationships with power (Abrams et al., 2020). Participants will likely have multiple aspects of their identities that intersect to create their individual needs. It is vitally important that researchers avoid homogenising any participant group and consider intersectionality and the way this impacts engagement with research and the support needs and research experiences of participants. For example, a disability or health condition should not be viewed as the ‘master category’ of identity. Instead, the researcher should consider its interface with other aspects of identity including ethnicity, migration status, age, gender identity as well as their socioeconomic, cultural and environmental circumstances. Abrams et al. (2020) highlight various ways that this can be enacted

1. In conceptualisation of the study design, differences and similarities between the identities of researchers and participants should be considered, particularly in research team composition and research question formation. Training participant members to join the research team, reflexive journaling and public and patient involvement have been suggested as means through which power imbalances can be identified. Indeed, ensuring that the research team is aware of how their own identities, and the privileged aspects of those identities, place limits on their understanding of their participant group’s intersectionality is critical.
2. In considering the participant group in the research, researchers should ‘critically examine the role of marginalisation and the social forces that drive inequities’ (Abrams et al., 2020:4) and how they produce the participants’ experiences of the research topic. This might include considering how racism, sexism, homophobia, disablism, ageism, stigma and classism combine to produce power relations that inevitably frame participants’ experiences and views, and how these can be factored into recruitment means and methods, as well as the creation of data collection tools such as interview guides.
3. During data collection, researchers should be particularly attentive to ethical concerns such as anonymity, privacy, confidentiality and informed consent as these can involve greater risks for those with multiply marginalised identities. Appropriate training of the research team, collaboration with ethical review committees and close working with members of the participant population can support this process.

For remote qualitative research, an exploration of remote means of communication already used by participants, their specific needs in relation to the consent process, and expectations of the data collection encounter/s, are particularly important

There are emerging concerns in the qualitative research community about so-called non-genuine research participants. It has been suggested that participants who do not meet study criteria, and indeed may have no lived experience of the phenomena at hand, are volunteering for research studies, and that this is even more likely to occur when research is conducted remotely (Jackson et al., 2023; Reid & Reid, 2005). Including data from these participants, it has been argued, undermines research integrity and threatens data validity (Ridge et al., 2023). Indeed, the impact of disingenuous participants on data validity may be greater on qualitative study designs, where sample sizes are relatively small, compared to quantitative methods with larger sample sizes. Moreover, participation incentives, which have been linked to increased numbers of non-genuine participants, are also more likely to be offered within qualitative studies due to the time commitment and depth of data collection (Wilkerson et al., 2014; James and Busher, 2006). Remote qualitative studies, where the identity of the participant can be intentionally concealed (e.g. there can be no visual or personal indicators of identity) are arguably studies at highest risk of this phenomenon (Drysdale et al., 2023).

Solutions to this issue have been suggested including using platforms where names are linked to profiles including photographs, personal information and social relationships (e.g. Facebook) (Lijadi & van Schalkwyk, 2015). Snowball sampling, pre-data collection screening (Jackson et al., 2023), and using synchronous rather than asynchronous methods (i.e. where there is less opportunity to prepare a ‘dishonest response’,’ (Sipes et al., 2022 a:2)) have all been suggested as ways to overcome this threat to data validity (Patton, 2014).

However, there may be a risk that protective measures undermine many of the benefits of remote data collection and threaten inclusive research practice. For example, the additional screening of participants imposes additional burdens on participants, including genuine participants. Similarly, requiring participants to switch on their camera (Sansfacon et al., 2024), will exclude participants who prefer not to be seen for a variety of entirely valid reasons, as outlined above.

Some proposed indicators of inauthentic participants have been suggested in the literature. For example, short emails with blank subject lines, a focus on payment and a reluctance to provide personal data (Ridge et al., 2023). Superficial, short or vague responses during data collection have also been suggested as indicating that a non-genuine participant may have been recruited (Jackson et al., 2023).

Despite growing recognition of non-genuine participants, it is important that researchers are reflexive about the reasons they might be questioning the authenticity of their (would be) participants. Establishing trust and rapport with participants, and especially those from marginalised communities is vital to inclusive and rich data collection. For a researcher to approach potential participants with suspicion may be interpreted as suspicion of the whole community and threaten to undermine not only data collection but ongoing relationships with community partners (Drysdale et al., 2023). Researchers need to recognise that people’s reasons for volunteering for research studies when they are not eligible are likely to be complex, multi-faceted and influenced by wider socioeconomic factors. Researchers may therefore wish to reflect on these factors as they design ways to protect data integrity and validity whilst also recognising the need to support and maintain inclusivity.

Whilst it is important not to homogenise participant groups and assume everyone from a given population will have the same, or even similar, participation needs, this section should be used to prompt researchers to think broadly about facilitating research participation, particularly for population groups that are marginalised, digitally excluded and/or underserved.

It is critical that researchers consider that all participants will fit within several population groups (some of which may be invisible to the researcher), and as such, researchers need to be attentive to intersectionality and the way that power differentials can be cumulative. Being attentive to the fact that strategies put in place to include a particular social group may inadvertently disenfranchise another is particularly important as researchers consider the representativeness of their samples.

1. What is the likely level of trust between a potential research participant and you/your organisation? What are the reasons for this?
2. Whose voice is likely to be heard and whose will be missed if you choose remote methods?
3. What is the likely level of access to digital communication technology among your potential research participants, and how is this likely to vary?
4. How comfortable are your potential participants likely to be with using digital communication channels?
5. Is the research topic sensitive, or potentially sensitive? How will this be managed within remote research contexts?