Rapport has long been considered a hallmark feature of productive qualitative data collection. There are instances where rapport with participants may not be achievable, or even desirable (Schmid et al., 2024) due to its potential for exploitation when used as a tool to ‘extract’ data from disempowered participants through ‘simulated friendliness’ (Duncombe and Jessop, 2012). In most scenarios, however, researchers aim to cultivate a relaxed, supportive, respectful and ‘safe’ environment in which participants feel able to share their experiences and views (Seidman, 2006; Horsfall et al., 2021), a model more akin to ‘allyship’ (Musesenga, 2024). Remote technologies used to gather qualitative data may introduce new barriers as well as facilitators to building interpersonal trust with participants, and it may be challenging to distinguish between the impact of the technological 30 Section 5: Collecting Qualitative Data Remotely medium itself and other influences on rapport, such as the topic, method, or influence of the researcher.

For participants, connecting from their own familiar environment can help them to feel comfortable, which is conducive to rapport building (Boland et al., 2022). Remote data collection reduces the pressure of physical presence for the participant (no perceived need to tidy the house, no visible recording equipment, no researcher physically present) which can increase the ease of the participant so that rapport can be more easily established (Weller, 2017). The researcher can also support rapport-building by making their environment visible (Boland et al., 2022) and demonstrating reciprocity. It is important to consider, however, that although some participants may find this reassuring, others may find this distracting or inappropriate (source: consensus conference).

Evidence about technical difficulties (e.g. weak internet connection, screen ‘freezing’) is contradictory. While this can be disruptive to data collection and reduce rapport by interrupting important initial greetings and small talk (Weller, 2017), the shared experience of sorting out technical issues has been purported to help build rapport in some instances by impacting power imbalances between research and participants (Boland et al., 2022).

Using remote methods of data collection inevitably means the removal of some of the rituals of faceto face data collection: removing coats, seating, setting up the audio-recorder. Whilst these activities do not constitute part of the data collection itself (indeed there is an ethical imperative to not report these aspects if the participant has not provided consent), they can nevertheless function as a space for researchers and participants to mentally prepare for, and later decompress from, data collection. Some of these activities have remote equivalents (checking mics, camera position etc.), but these may be better placed in a separate meeting with the participant prior to data collection as they may take longer to complete, and any problems not identified in advance can derail the data collection event altogether (source: consensus conference). MORE INFORMATION The absence, or shortening, of this ‘set up’ space, directly before data collection can make remote rapport harder to establish (Amendah et al., 2014). t’Hart (2021) argues the opportunity for ‘deep listening’ is lost online, which in turn negatively shapes the interaction:

I argue that deep listening occurs in the emotional connection that is fostered largely by allowing both interviewer and participant to sit together in silence and communicated via the physicality of body cues. I argue that it was particularly this layer of communication that was [negatively] affected by the transition to an online presence(t'Hart, 2021: 292)

A lack of deep listening may particularly affect research on sensitive topics MORE INFORMATION (e.g. post-abortion narratives), reducing the detail and quality of the story told (’t Hart, 2021). However, for those uncomfortable with silence (both participants and researchers), this can be experienced as oppressive and uncomfortable, and it can make it hard for participants to anticipate what is coming next (source: consensus conference), particularly for those who identify as neurodiverse (source: PRG). Indeed, by avoiding the ‘physicality of bodily cues’ (t’Hart, 2021) remote data collection methods may enable inclusion and participation from people who find bodily cues hard to read, who feel anxious or upset by silence or ‘closed in’ if someone is too close physically (e.g. people who have experienced trauma, those who are neurodiverse) (source: consensus conference; PRG).

Some rapport-building activities used in face-toface data collection, such as providing a hot drink can be replicated somewhat in remote contexts (e.g. allowing time for both parties to prepare a drink and bring it to the research space as previously noted by Engward et al, 2022) to make participants feel more comfortable and relaxed as they are co-engaged in a quasi- social activity with the researcher (Harvey et al., 2023). Other researchers have couriered snacks for participants to consume during data collection (source: interview with researcher). Whilst this is not always appropriate (e.g. religious fasting periods, participants with eating disorders), it can be experienced as an ‘equalising’ experience and contribute to flattening power relations (source: consensus conference). MORE INFORMATION Some participants, particularly those from marginalised populations, feel more comfortable if a trusted supporter can be present for interviews (Piacentini et al., 2022), and their presence can facilitate the development of trust and rapport.

Videoconferencing platforms are now widely used both within and outside of workplaces (e.g. Zoom, Skype, MS Teams). For research purposes, they arguably represent the closest semblance of a face-to-face interview (Archibald et al., 2019). They have many benefits for qualitative researchers including automatic transcription (of varying accuracy) (Epp et al., 2022), chat functionality (where participants may want to type something that they are uncomfortable about saying out loud (source: interview with researcher), MORE INFORMATION and easy exit routes should the participant want to leave abruptly. Moreover, there is growing evidence that similar levels of rapport can be built in an interview between participant and researcher whether remote or in-person (Harvey et al., 2023, Boland et al., 2022, Weller, 2017, Engward et al., 2022, Hanna and Mwale, 2017, Khan and MacEachen, 2022) including for underserved populations (Harvey et al., 2023, Jenner and Myers, 2019). Visual cues are still present and these help to build rapport and trust by assisting both researchers and participants with reading facial expressions, identifying distress or discomfort, supporting lip reading, gauging how engaged the other person is and providing contextual information (Gray et al., 2020; ’t Hart, 2021). Visual cues can also provide reassurance to participants because they can see the encouraging reactions of the researcher, interpret the direction of the conversation (via both positive and negative reactions) and demonstrate they are committed to the interview by not multi-tasking (source: consensus conference). Indeed, being able to see the other person can also assist with the participant’s focus (source: interview with research participant).

This heightened concentration and rapport can deepen the conversation, leading to more relaxed and longer interviews (source: interview with researcher). However, it is important to also consider that for some participants, seeing the researcher can be uncomfortable or distracting (source: consensus conference), and the researcher needs to be led by the needs and preferences of the participant. Use of videoconferencing can mean that the researcher gains access to a participant’s natural or chosen setting e.g. their home in the background, which can add contextual data, that might not otherwise have been available to them (source: consensus conference). MORE INFORMATION Indeed, being able to see (some) background behind the participant or researcher can change the tone and dynamic of the data collection (Oliffe et al., 2021) and the way participants interpret the encounter, for example, by dissolving professional boundaries because a researcher’s home environment is on display (source: interview with research participant).

Whilst reducing the ‘professionalism’ of the data collection, ‘intimate’ backgrounds, such as the researcher’s home, potentially complete with the interruption of pets or people (e.g. deliveries, children) or interruptions in the digital space (e.g. email notifications popping up on the screen), can, however, be experienced as empowering for participants. By humanising the researcher, the choice not to obscure their background can be a deliberate attempt by the researcher to ‘level up’ power differentials, support inclusivity and suggest reciprocity in ways that aren’t possible in faceto- face research encounters (source: consensus conference; Ollife et al., 2021).

Despite these various benefits of videoconferencing, however, there are a wide range of factors that researchers need to consider before adopting this method:

1. Technology: Not all participants will have access to a good quality (HD) camera (Digital Poverty Alliance, 2022). MORE INFORMATION It is important to consider the quality of the resulting video stream (specifically whether it will be suitable for detecting and interpreting visual cues), as well as the voices that will be silenced or excluded if webcam use is mandated.
2. Anonymity and Sensitivity: Use of cameras can reduce a participant’s anonymity as data collection is often recorded. This needs to be considered especially for hidden and underserved participants. A researcher may obtain richer descriptive data when participants talk about their experience (particularly in relation to a health problem) when they cannot see you as it creates psychological distance (Trier-Bieniek, 2012, Ward et al., 2015). However, there is also evidence that participants discussing sensitive issues sometimes prefer to see the researcher face-to-face for discussion of sensitive topics (Dempsey et al., 2016), underscoring the need for researchers to explore participant preferences prior to data collection.
3. ‘Zoom fatigue’: Zoom fatigue is a term used to describe cognitive, emotional and social tiredness that comes from communicating visually via technology online (Lee, 2020). Whilst a term originally tied to use of the Zoom platform, it is now used as a shorthand to describe screen fatigue across videoconferencing platforms. Nadler (2020), however, has argued that Zoom fatigue is not caused solely by staring at a screen – a behaviour we have been engaging in long before the pandemic – but rather by the complexity of mediating interpersonal interactions through video-specific spatial dynamics, which combine and ‘flatten’ people, their backgrounds and technology (2020, p. 1). For participants who use sign language to communicate (a visual, gesture based language), this ‘flattening’ can have a significant deleterious effect on the quality of communication (Xia Ang et al, 2022). MORE INFORMATION This embodied transformation requires ‘additional cognitive effort to interact with others through video conferences’ (Fauville et al., 2021b). Zoom fatigue has also been found to (more) negatively affect women (Fauville et al., 2021a, Ratan et al., 2022), ethnic minorities (Ratan et al., 2022), people who identify as neurodivergent (and so are likely to already be working hard to manage their responses and reactions (Yuruki & Inoue, 2023; PRG)) as well as those with cognitive challenges who may already be experiencing difficulties with episodic memory in response to the open questions that are typical of qualitative research (Norris and Maras, 2022; consensus conference). People who ‘…already experience heightened awareness of their bodies in interpersonal encounters’ (Osler and Zahavi, 2023), such as those with particular health conditions or disabilities, may also be more susceptible to zoom fatigue (source: consensus conference). There are consequently equity and inclusivity implications for data collection gathered through video platforms. While breaks have been suggested as a means to manage Zoom fatigue, the length and timing of this break may need to be carefully choreographed - five minutes may not be enough for participants with particular disabilities or health condition, requiring what Kafer refers to as a ‘reorientation of time’ to re-imagine expectations of what can be achieved within a given amount of time (Kafer, 2013: 27) Neurodiverse participants may also need breaks to fidget (source: consensus conference; PRG). Researchers should therefore check the support needs of their participants in advance of the data collection, rather than during the event itself, and be attentive to signs of fatigue. Other techniques to manage Zoom fatigue include providing participants fidget toys (source: consensus conference; PRG), MORE INFORMATION careful planning and structured questioning to ensure interviews do not ‘overrun’, the provision of an interpreter, reaffirming the participant’s right to turn their camera off, providing participants with a list of questions in advance of the data collection, using prompts and sticking to a pre-determined structure (source: consensus Conference; Szulc, 2023). Participant-led research planning (including when to schedule the interview) may also reduce Zoom Fatigue for these groups (source: consensus conference). To avoid zoom fatigue in the researcher, data collection events should not be scheduled back-to-back (source: consensus conference).
4. Identity and power negotiations: Assuming access to the technology, the ability to control whether or not the camera is on, how it is positioned and whether or not a virtual background is used are all decisions that the participant is free to make in line with their needs and preferences. Whilst some participants will choose to have their camera on in order to bond with the researcher or feel ‘seen’ (source: PRG), others choose to distance themselves from the researcher or conceal themselves in order to feel safe enough to connect (Prior and Lachover, 2023). These decisions should not be considered one-off events, but rather part of an ongoing negotiation of what data are transmitted between researcher and participant (e.g. cameras may be off or on depending on the questions posed, a virtual background may be put up because another person has entered the space). Indeed, collecting data remotely through videoconferencing brings new choices for researchers and participants alike, including what is revealed or made visible, if at all, on screen. Generally, for a researcher to benefit from visual cues, the participant needs to be sitting back with their upper body visible (Jenner & Myers, 2019). However, they will ultimately have little control over the way the participant sets up their camera, nor the way that they present themselves. In the age of Instagram and TikTok, there can be a perceived need to ‘perform’ for a camera, which can shape the ways in which people ask and answer questions. Moreover, markers of identity (e.g. a wheelchair or assistance dog) may be placed out of view, allowing participants and researchers to bypass some of the ‘identity negotiations’ often found in face-to-face research (Brown and Boardman, 2011). What is shown/seen onscreen is always limited by the camera view, and frequently curated (Arntson and Yoon, 2023), shaping the resulting interaction (Osler and Zahavi, 2023; Brown and Boardman, 2011). Despite the challenges of performative identities, participants can experience their possibility as empowering - control and autonomy usually afforded to the researcher alone are transferred to the participant. Researchers can help participants to feel at ease by giving them choice and agency about whether and when to turn their cameras on or off. This may also help to mitigate against ‘zoom fatigue’ (source: consensus conference).
5. Mirror anxiety (Fauville et al., 2021a) or facial appearance dissatisfaction (Ratan et al., 2022) can limit the level and duration of engagement online when cameras are turned on, and may affect rapport (Rahman et al., 2021; Brown, 2022). Whilst for some participants, being able to see themselves can be helpful, for example, a neurodivergent participant may find the self-view useful for monitoring their own facial reactions (research participant interview; PRG). To avoid the discomfort of seeing themselves or being seeing by others, some people switch off their cameras, which can lead to shorter engagements. As an alternative to switching off cameras, some videoconferencing platforms allow participants to hide their image from their own view while still allowing it to be seen by others in the meeting; this could be used by participants (or researchers) affected (or distracted) by seeing their own image.
6. Physical containment: Typically, videoconferencing with cameras on usually requires the user to stay in one place with little movement. Feeling physically trapped contributes to ‘Zoom fatigue’ (Fauville et al., 2021a) and some people find this uncomfortable. Reduced physical movement during data collection may reduce people’s ability to interpret each other’s movement style or vitality (Osler and Zahavi, 2023). Indeed, seeing someone’s gestures and bodily movement in physical space contributes to social understanding (Osler and Zahavi, 2023). When an individual’s physical movement is restricted to the on-screen frame, this may reduce the richness and length of the data collection interaction.
7. Emotional and cognitive burden: Researchers using video platforms may experience the cognitive and emotional burden of needing to visually demonstrate listening and empathy, and this can translate to heightened facial expressions (Lathen & Laestadius, 2021). Indeed, more so than in face-to-face communication, videoconferencing imposes a greater cognitive load through this effort required to ‘produce and interpret nonverbal cues’ (Fauville et al., 2021a:2). It takes work to communicate visually through technology (Engward et al., 2022). Cognitive load can also be heavily affected by disconcerting micro-delays in communication (Topping et al., 2021). Microdelays may be amplified for research participants with communication disorders, neurodiverse needs or living with acquired brain injury (Anglade et al., 2022, Topping et al., 2021), with possible implications for inclusivity of qualitative data collected using visual technology. In order to support participants with their full attention in the digital space and to manage the cognitive load, researchers should prepare for videoconferencing data collection by reducing distractions in both their physical and remote environment as far as possible, for example, by using a private space to conduct the data collection where they won’t be disturbed, silencing phones and signing out of email inboxes.
8. Eye contact: The ‘more intense level of eye contact’ that comes from the participant and researcher looking directly at each other onscreen may be interpreted as ‘expectancy of response’, leaving little time for thoughtful pausing or reflection during the conversation (Engward et al., 2022: 2). This may affect the quality of the data collected, while also reducing the duration of the engagement. Yet, it is simultaneously impossible to establish ‘joint attention’ onscreen (i.e. to look where someone else is looking) (Butterworth cited in Anglade et al., 2022), adding cognitive effort and raising worries about distractedness, privacy and what is happening outside of the onscreen frame. At the same time, it can also be hard to know where to look - at the person you’re speaking to, who will be on the screen, or at the camera which is usually above it. Where participants use multiple screens and their camera is not situated on the screen that they are using to look at the interviewer, their attention, while directed at the interviewer, may appear directed elsewhere. Without direct eye contact, it may be harder to decipher emotion (source: consensus conference). It is important to remember, however, that neurodiverse individuals may not be comfortable with eye contact, or, they may look, but only because they are trying to mask symptoms, or are trying to read reactions’ (source: consensus conference).

Audio only data collection can occur via telephone, videoconferencing platforms (with cameras switched off), or through instant messaging where audio can be recorded asynchronously (e.g. voice notes on WhatsApp or iMessages). It can be used as the primary method of data collection, alongside other data collection methods, or as a ‘fall back’ method, such as when an internet connection fails. Whilst it has been suggested that telephone calls are becoming increasingly scarce with a quarter of people aged 18 to 34 having never answered their phone (Ball, 2024), and that this causes a ‘de-skilling’ with this communication medium, for some groups, telephone may be the only secure method available to them.

It has been argued that audio only data collection can result in a loss of circumstantial data as well as visual cues. Not being able to see someone in their natural setting (although this may not be possible with face-to-face data collection either) reduces contextual understanding and richness of data and interpretation:

[Contrasting remote interviews with a face-to-face encounter] ....it was brilliant. So I went to her house and she showed me her garden, which was her pride and joy. [...] I was sat on her sofa, we had like a, a proper chat. And I got lots more information from that and loads of, ‘cause we went to people with a particular disability, got loads of information about how they lived really just from visiting their, their home.(Interview with researcher)

The recording, analysis and reporting of this wider ‘contextual data’ however, is ethically complex. Participants need to be made aware of what is being ‘counted’ as research data by the researcher, and researchers need to be reflexive about the way they have identified contextual data and their reasons for perceiving them as relevant to the research (source: consensus conference).

As well as researchers losing contextual data from audio-only data collection, participants also lose their view of the researcher, and ability to gauge how their words are ‘landing’ through the researcher’s reactions (Heath et al., 2018). Indeed, body language plays a significant role in communication. Drabble et al (2016) have argued that face-to-face recruitment is of heightened importance when audio-only data collection methods are used, so that participants can build trust. This can be particularly important when researching underserved, stigmatised or hidden populations where trust can be an issue, and the researcher’s sincerity may be tested (source: consensus conference).

Rapport development can be more challenging when using audio-only data collection methods (Novick, 2008). Telephone interviews, for example, can be of shorter duration than face-to-face interviews because the researcher is unable to pick up on visual cues and is therefore less likely to probe for specific issues or encourage participation (Irvine et al., 2013). However, more recent research has suggested that rapport can be built in a similar manner to face-to-face or video data collection (Reñosa et al., 2021), although it is harder for the researcher to identify when it has been established (Harvey et al., 2023).

Despite these concerns, audio-only data collection is associated with a range of potential benefits including: potential anonymity for participants, reduced intrusiveness of the research and more equal power relations between the researcher and participant (Trier-Bieniek, 2012). The increased anonymity can make audio-only data collection an attractive option for research with hidden, stigmatised or otherwise marginalised populations (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004), or for research on sensitive topics (Drabble et al, 2016). Indeed, it has been found that it is easier to narrate difficult experiences when you cannot see the other person, and that this can yield richer descriptive data (Trier- Bieniek, 2012, Ward et al., 2015).

Points to consider if undertaking remote qualitative audio-only interviews with individuals:

1. Lack of visual cues may make it more difficult for the researcher to identify which parts of an interview are interesting or ‘exciting the participant more than another’ and therefore worth pursuing (Interview with researcher). Similarly, without visual cues, the participant may struggle to interpret the researcher’s responses, and will likely also be unaware of whether the researcher is taking notes. Note-taking on the part of the researcher can be interpreted by participants as indicating which topics or statements are particularly important, and this can also impact the direction of the interview and data produced (source: consensus conference), shorten the encounter, and reduce the depth and richness of the experience (source: researcher interview). Not being able to see the participant can make it harder for the researcher to ‘read the situation’ or to interpret silence. This can result in the researcher filling the silence prematurely (Hammond, 2018: source: interview with researcher) or potentially misinterpreting the silence, making emotional sensitivity and being able to read distress harder (Epp et al, 2022). However, not being able to see the researcher’s reactions to what the participant is saying can make it easier for participants to say things that are hard to say face-to-face, and for stigmatised groups to participate given the increased degree of anonymity (Krouwel et al., 2019, Oates et al., 2022, Jenner & Myers, 2019). MORE INFORMATION Lack of visual cues can also contribute to participants ‘losing track’ or repeating themselves (source: consensus conference). Drabble et al (2016) have suggested that ‘supportive vocalisations’ (encouraging words and tones) and ‘orientating statements’ (e.g. how many questions are left, referencing the wider research project to give the participant a sense of where they fit in) can address this issue within audio-only interviews. There can also be benefits of not having visual cues- it removes the need for researchers to visually ‘perform’ their responses (facial expressions, posture) as well as vocalise them. This may be of value when listening to distressing or sensitive information, as it enables researchers to concentrate on ‘active listening’ (Drabble et al, 2016) without the pressure, anxiety and/or effort of responding visibly (Sipes et al., 2022). In the absence of visual cues, telephone interviews may also encourage participants and researchers to verbalise elements of bodily experience that are assumed or unspoken when visual cues are presentt (Enoch et al., 2023).
2. Inclusivity. For people who experience difficulties with communication, either through a disability or health condition (e.g. hearing or speech impediment, cerebral palsy, aphasia) or because they do not speak the same language as the researcher, lack of visual cues can be particularly challenging. Accents can be harder to understand without visual cues to support interpretation, and lip reading/live captioning are not possible with telephone interviews. Audio-only data collection, however, can be more inclusive than other remote methods of data collection given the prolific use of mobile phones, and the relatively low costs of providing participants with them, along with data and any required applications, should they not have access (Karadzhov,2020; Singer et al, 2023). Data collection using audio-only smart phones also means that participants (and researchers) are not tethered to a particular place but are instead able to move around during data collection. This flexibility supports the inclusion of participants from hidden, underserved and also transient participant populations (e.g. homeless), as well as those who have significant constraints on their time, e.g. those with caring responsibilities, parents and professionals (Karadzhov,2020; Oltmann, 2016). MORE INFORMATION The flexibility and relative lack of preparation needed to participate in audio-only data collection can also support inclusivity by enabling participants to feel more relaxed (e.g. no need to think about backgrounds, dress or appearance), and an absence of visual cues can also support the inclusion of neurominorities by reducing distraction and anxiety and lessening the cognitive load of ‘self-presentation’ (Szulc, 2023). However, it has also been observed that participants are more likely to be multi-tasking during telephone data collection than other remote methods, which can reduce focus and negatively impact data quality (Ślęzak, 2023). Moreover, the researcher has no control over, or potentially any insight into, the environment the participant is in during data collection, bar any auditory cues (e.g. footsteps, traffic, voices), which can mean contextual data are lost.

Text interviews can be conducted by email, chat rooms, text messaging (SMS) and/or instant messaging apps. Text-based interviews are increasingly being used by qualitative researchers, facilitated by the rise of various instant messaging applications (e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Slack, SnapChat, Viber, Discord and WeChat). Some of the key benefits of text-based interviews are their reach and flexibility, their heightened potential for anonymity (user profiles can be used in place of names) (Anderson et al, 2021), as well as their ability to be implemented synchronously, asynchronously, or in combination.

When used asynchronously, text-based interviews are arguably the most flexible method available for remote qualitative data collection as participants, and researchers, may respond at a time and place convenient for them, and with as much time as they need to consider their response. As such, textbased interviews typically produce data that are very different in nature (e.g. in terms of fluency and structure) to those generated by synchronous data collection methods. Whilst this can render them easier to read than verbatim transcripts, they are more likely to constitute ‘sanitised’, edited accounts, rather than spontaneous thought. As James and Busher (2006) note, with email interviews, the questions sent to participants have to be very clear and unambiguous, as participants needing to send clarification questions can lead to the interview becoming protracted and researchers can waste opportunities for data collection. Despite this, however, as noted by Pell et al .(2020), asynchronous text-based methods give participants a chance to ‘own’ their own accounts, whilst also eliminating transcription costs. This greater agency and control can create more symmetrical power relations (Hanna and Mwale, 2017; Ślęzak, 2023), although it can lead to frustrations on the part of the researcher. One researcher who interviewed young people via WhatsApp messages noted the following,

In face-to-face interviews, I am used to being able to direct the conversation more overtly, to decide when it begins and ends and to control the pace. In contrast, through digital messaging interviews, I felt myself patiently (and sometimes impatiently) waiting for participants to determine when they wanted to respond as well as being conscious that they could end the interview at any time they chose.(Gibson, 2020: 620)

It has been acknowledged that it can be more challenging to develop rapport within text-based interviews than for other remote methods given the complete lack of visual, verbal/paraverbal (e.g. laughter, tutting), or audio cues (Harvey et al., 2023). This can mean that less rapport is built (Harvey et al., 2023) or that rapport takes longer to reach the level needed for accessing in-depth data (Gibson, 2020), including for underserved groups (Gibson, 2020, Harvey et al., 2023). Fritz and Vandermause (2018), reflecting on in-depth email interviews, have suggested that use of ‘reciprocal language’, i.e. using the words that participants use themselves can be validating and support the development of trust and rapport:

Responding to participants using their chosen ‘descriptor words’ enhanced communication and subtly provided participants with validation that their words (text-based) were important and were not wrong or a misuse of language. When the same words used by participants were employed, communication was enhanced and credibility given to participants’ voices.(Fritz and Vandermause, 2018: 1646)

In the case of email interviews, researchers may also choose to develop rapport prior to data collection, including synchronous contact and chats as the consent process and email interview gets set up, or by asynchronously emailing respondents with research updates and gentle reminders to encourage them to maintain interest with the study. Indeed, regular online contact can help participants to actively engage with questions (Gibson, 2017b), as well as the way questions are formatted within the email (numbered was found to work better than bullet points) (Fritz and Vandermouse, 2018).

Where use of a technology, for example, instant messenger, is already part of daily interactions with others for certain groups (e.g. young people), it can be easier for researchers to build rapport in the same way they would do face-to-face, or using other communication channels (Lannutti, 2017; Gibson, 2020; Singer et al., 2023). However, for some participants, the lack of rapport associated with text-based data collection can be preferred; the participant might have consciously selected this interview channel from a range of others to keep the researcher at ‘arm’s length’ as this enables them to give more honest accounts (Harvey et al., 2023). Remote qualitative data collection creates a personal distance between researcher and participant(s) resulting in more candid accounts of sensitive or stigmatised issues (Van Zeeland et al., 2021, Heath et al., 2018), but making the role of silence harder to navigate (source: consensus conference). Text-based interviews can also be less daunting for inexperienced researchers, particularly if undertaking research on a sensitive topic. They may actually establish rapport more easily by using asynchronous exchange of text as they have longer to consider their responses and prompts (Gibson, 2017b) and can return to the literature in between contact (Dahlin, 2021). Indeed, given the timescales involved in asynchronous remote text-based interviews, which can go on for several months (compared to face-to-face interviews which typically last 60-90 minutes), rapport can be developed overtime, as the research becomes interwoven into the participant’s life and the researcher becomes witness to unfolding events between points of contact. However, given the extended timeframes, keeping participants engaged can be challenging. Providing timelines for expected responses, rather than leaving this open-ended can help to manage this (source: consensus conference). Increasing the number of questions about a particular concept can also help to bring focus, consolidate thought, deepen engagement and reduce time in the written exchange.

The potential for asynchronous text-based interviews means that researchers can conduct several interviews simultaneously. Indeed, there may be institutional or project timeline pressures to do so. Whilst this con-current interviewing may allow for ‘cross-fertilisation’ of the interviews, such that ideas elicited from one interview can be fed into subsequent interviews prior to analysis (Dahlin, 2021), it also poses challenges. If several textbased interviews are occurring concurrently, it can be difficult to undertake interim analysis as well as to focus the researcher’s attention on any one interview:

Throughout this process, I found it difficult to manage five separate yet similar conversations concurrently without getting them mixed up. The difficulty arose when constructing response emails. Balancing mindfulness to the specific conversation for which a response was being constructed while keeping in mind the greater concept concurrently being explored with other participants required intense concentration and continuous rereading of email threads. In addition, it was difficult to manage the rhythm and timing of five separate conversations. Individual participants tended to have a rhythmic pattern of response timing to emails inquiries that remained consistent throughout the researcher–participant interaction. Total interview times varied greatly, from 2 days to 2 months, with email exchange times varying from hours to weeks.(Fritz and Vandermause, 2018: 1646)

Given the range of benefits and challenges associated with text-based interviews, researchers need to consider the following:

1. Inclusivity Use of text-based interviews can facilitate inclusivity, for example, when used asynchronously, participants in different time zones can be interviewed without resorting to unsociable hours for data collection (James and Busher, 2006). The greater anonymity that is possible through text-based interviews can also mean that hidden, stigmatised or otherwise marginalised communities can participate. Where messaging apps such as WhatsApp are used to conduct the data collection, researchers have suggested loaning smartphones so that participants do not have to supply their personal phone number (Mavhandu-Mudzusi et al., 2022; Singer et al., 2023). Use of visual elicitation (through animations) may be empowering for participants, and facilitate the inclusion of children (Lomax et al., 2022). They can flatten power dynamics, encourage participation and enhance diversity/facilitate inclusion (Fane et al., 2018, Researcher interview). Furthermore, neurodiverse participants, those who have experienced trauma and those with specific health conditions and disabilities that impact communication, may prefer text-based participation. However, it is important to remember that visual materials are not neutral but are instead interpreted in relation to internal (the image’s content) and external narratives (the social contexts and relations within which the image is embedded at any moment of viewing) (Banks & Zeitlyn, 2015). Hence, researchers should choose visual material carefully with both the research question, research participant and technology in mind. These methods rely on literacy, digital skills and access (Chen and Neo, 2019), as well as reasonable typing speed and network availability, all of which can exclude underserved and remote populations. Whilst online translation tools are freely available, such tools are not typically sensitive to cultural idioms, nuances and etiquette which are critical to qualitative research. Researchers should carefully consider the accuracy of translation in text-based data collection and seek translation services where there is a good understanding of local culture and context (Yunus et al., 2022).
2. Design Given the time commitment involved in undertaking asynchronous text-based interviews, it is important to consider methods for keeping participants engaged from the outset, as well as having strategies in place for leaving the data collection space. This can be challenging, particularly if the interview is sustained over weeks or months. Researchers who plan to use instant messaging platforms or SMS for text-based interviews should carefully consider the compatibility of the platform, and its features, with the study design, for example whether voice recordings, photos/ emoticons are accepted, or if participants should only use the text feature (Singer et al., 2023).
3. Data The type of data that text-based interviews produce can be very different to that produced by spoken word, and it is important that researchers consider that they may receive short and superficial, or ‘finger peck’ responses (Jemielniak, 2020; Fritz and Vandermause, 2018). Chen and Neo (2019), however, suggest that this might depend on the technology used; whilst data generated by instant messaging can be similar to spoken data with a similar back and forth engagement, email interviews tend to present ‘fully developed sentence and argument structure. However, social groups can differ in their use and style, of text-based communication mediums. Different written media (e.g. email, WhatsApp, Instant messaging) as well as online communities also come with their own vernacular for communicating emotion and mood (Hammond, 2018); the term ‘textese’ (Chen and Neo, 2019) has been used to describe the acronyms and shorthand that are adopted across these modalities (e.g. IRL- in real life, IYKYK- if you know, you know). Researcher fluency in this vernacular, sometimes referred to as ‘multiliteracies’ (Fane et al., 2018) can shape mis/interpretation and data quality (Gibson, 2020). Text-based interviews can also include the use of signs, symbols and interactive features (e.g. emojis, animations, memes, photos, videos, voting systems etc.). These can aid interpretation of the participant’s written text in the absence of visual cues, act as prompts or cues, build rapport, assist with the recognition of negative affect (Boutet et al., 2021), as well as facilitate cross-cultural communication (Alshenqeeti, 2016). Use of emojis and reactions such as ‘haha’ or ‘wow’ can help to create a comfortable and informal online setting that seems natural to the participant, and can take the place of verbal cues. However, their use has also been found to generate ambiguity in communication (Kimura- Thollander and Kumar, 2019, Bresciani and Eppler, 2015), given that it is not always clear how emojis are interpreted by others. Moreover, it is easy to accidentally select a different emoji than the one intended, and there remains uncertainty around how they can be incorporated meaningfully into qualitative analyses. Furthermore, whilst researchers might design a study to use text-only methods of interview, there can sometimes be slippage between textbased and audio-only interviews, as participants can choose to use the ‘voice memos’ function of instant messaging apps instead of typing their response, particularly if they are providing a long and complex answer (Mavhandu-Mudzusi et al., 2022). Researchers need to consider in advance how these will be handled. Whilst Mavhandu-Mudzusi et al. (2022) found that they contained richer data than the typed responses, some researchers opted to exclude them in analysis (Henry et al., 2016). Finally, researchers must consider the security of the data they generate. Whilst end-to-end encryption is used by platforms such as WhatsApp, this does not guarantee data security, or prevent infiltration of interview spaces by imposters (Manji et al., 2021), researchers are therefore encouraged to thoroughly explore the data security features of the technology or platform they intend to use in relation to the population they are researching, as some are more vulnerable to breaches of data security than others (Barbosa and Milan, 2019).

Group data collection primarily occurs through focus groups or group interviews. They can be carried out in a variety of ways remotely, synchronously or asynchronously, and using different technologies and platforms - videoconferencing (audio and visual), text-based methods (text only but may involve some audio) or audio-only (including videoconferencing with cameras off). It has been suggested that the researcher has to ‘work harder’ in group data collection when conducted remotely due to hampered abilities to ‘read the room’, leading to recommendations to reduce the number of participants to no more than five (Bolin et al., 2023), especially if technology needs to be checked at the start as a problem with one person’s access can delay the whole group. Specific considerations for each method are presented below:

Group Data Collecting Using Videoconferencing Platforms (Cameras on or off)

When conducting focus groups or group interviews using videoconferencing platforms, allocated time, and ideally dedicated staff members, should be on hand to ensure that the IT is working correctly for each participant (and they feel able to use it) before data collection begins . Ideally this will occur in advance of the data collection event, but there will nevertheless need to be technology checks ‘on the day’ regardless. Etiquette for the group (e.g. whether to raise hand when wanting to speak, or just speak, who is visible to who), and whether or not the chat function will be used, need to be made clear to the participants from the outset. Turn taking can be harder to implement remotely, and there can be more interruptions than would occur in a face-to-face setting. In order to avoid ‘zoom bombing’ (uninvited participants infiltrating the group, in this instance, virtually), researchers can ‘lock’ the session, and this can also be reduced by providing a password to enter the space, and/ or the use of a virtual ‘waiting room’ or ‘lobby’ where identity can be established before entry is permitted. In audio-visual groups where the participants were strangers to each other before the data collection, rapport can take longer to build remotely than faceto- face. This could shorten the time available for data collection and should be accounted for when planning remote focus groups or interviews (Bolin et al., 2023). Where participants have pre-existing relationships with each other, rapport can build more quickly (Boland et al., 2022, Bolin et al., 2023), although prior relationships can also sometimes reduce participation and engagement e.g. if the participants belong to the same community and there is fear of their views being reported back. Indeed, Jenner and Myers (2019) found that the depth of disclosure by a participant is not linked to the channel of data collection per se, but to whether the researcher and the participant’s social networks might overlap – potential overlaps tending to reduce the depth of data produced (Jenner and Myers, 2019). Overall, it is important to bear in mind that anonymity is considerably reduced in focus groups and group interviews, and there are greater risks to confidentiality and privacy.

If the focus group or group interview is set up to use audio and visual data, this works best if every participant has their cameras switched on (Marhefka et al., 2020). In such groups where some participants turn their cameras off, but others have theirs on, those with cameras turned on can feel more exposed as the sharing of (visual) data is uneven and they may feel uncertain about who exactly they are talking to. There may be concerns that the participant with their camera off is a nongenuine participant (source: consensus conference). Concerns about who else might be in the group - who they cannot see - may be particularly heightened for participants who have experienced trauma, MORE INFORMATION and/or underserved social groups where mistrust is prevalent (Wellings et al., 2000). Careful facilitation is required in these circumstances, and if researchers decide that having 40 Section 5: Collecting Qualitative Data Remotely cameras on is key to data collection, this should be made very clear at the point of recruitment to the study and re-iterated during consent (source: consensus conference). Thought will also need to be given to the fact that not all participants will have good quality web-cams capable of transmitting a clear picture, and the steady internet connection that group data collection with cameras on requires (Hensen et al., 2021). It may also not be possible to predict these barriers to participation (e.g. service outages). However, the potential impact of ‘technology deprivation’ needs carefully considering at the research design phase, as it is mostly likely to exclude underserved and/or marginalised communities (source: consensus conference). MORE INFORMATION Providing technologies (Singer et al., 2023) may help overcome these technological challenges, but will not overcome the barriers of digital skills.

Having cameras off and relying solely on audio data in remote focus groups can sometimes be advantageous, and reduce bandwidth demands for those with slower/less reliable internet speeds and connectivity. Turning off the camera may also reduce self-consciousness and improve participation:

when I had my video on [in a remote focus group discussion], I barely talked. I was just ... it felt like a load of people were looking at me, and so I felt the need to turn it off, to be able to talk comfortably. (Interview with research participant)

Indeed, participants in video conferencing with a group may feel subjected to a ‘hyper gaze from a grid of staring faces’ (Fauville et al., 2021a). Some people find this uncomfortable. Feeling scrutinised by others may contribute to Zoom fatigue and limit the level and duration of engagement online.

Whether or not the chat function is on during data collection can also be a significant influence on the data. It can be useful for asking questions without disrupting flow, and gives participants non-threatening spaces to ask clarifying questions. Using the chat is an important aspect of inclusivity (Chen and Neo, 2019), however it may not work as well for participants who find multiple streams of data overwhelming. MORE INFORMATION Through some platforms, participants are able to see expressions or representations of self and others in the form of visual signs and symbols such as avatars or emojis. These constitute both data and commentary on the data as it unfolds. Visual prompts and communication may encourage participation and enhance shared understanding (between participants in groups or with researcher), and participants can make contributions that they would have felt uncomfortable saying out loud. The availability of time tracking monitors can also allow the researcher to check each participant’s speaking time, and number of times they contributed to the discussion, which can highlight participants who may be experiencing barriers to participation which can increase inclusivity (Flayelle et al., 2022). With particular platforms, participants and researchers can also use the chat function to pass private messages to each other which can help the researchers run the group more effectively, and allow participants to share information with the researcher that they do not want to share with the group (Flayelle et al., 2022). It also means that researchers can privately ‘check in’ with participants who appear less engaged or distressed. Similarly, direct messaging can enable researchers to privately communicate with each other, or participants with interpreters, during data collection. This can support the creation of supportive spaces and ensure that no one’s voice is missed (Flayelle et al., 2022; Dodds & Hess, 2020), but also requires additional resources.

However, some participants find the possibility of three streams of communication (audio, visual, text) overwhelming, and this stress can affect the participant’s ability to provide data (Sweller, 2011). Indeed, it’s also possible that chat functions can be used to harass, threaten or intimidate other participants (source: consensus conference). MORE INFORMATION Having a dedicated facilitator or researcher on hand to manage the chat and admit/ remove/mute participants as well as identify signs of distress can help to mitigate some of these potential harms (Dos Santos Marques et al., 2021), however there are challenges to identifying distress in these contexts. With larger groups, not being able to see everyone’s face on the screen at the same time can make responding to visual cues harder (Epp et al, 2022). MORE INFORMATION Remote focus groups and group interviews have relatively easy routes of rapid exit compared to their face-to-face counterparts (often the click of a button), which can support the inclusion of groups who would find face-to-face scenarios intimidating or distressing, but they can also make it hard for researchers to distinguish between those leaving due to distress, and those leaving due to technology issues (Epp et al, 2022). Follow-ups or safeguarding concerns are also harder to pursue, particularly where participants have opted to remain anonymous.

Through some platforms, auto transcription is available. This may contribute to rapport and instant reflection as the event unfolds in real time. It may enable a more democratic co-production of the data. It may prompt clarification, corrective editing or self-censorship, but can also support the inclusion of those with hearing impairments.

Audio-only focus groups or group interviews are inherently more challenging than remote video sessions; it is difficult to tell when participants are speaking but muted, to identify an individual speaker among many participants (which can also make transcription more resource intensive), and to interpret tone and body language. In addition, audio-only encounters often limit crosstalk, which can enhance the depth of responses. Participants can also forget who is in the virtual room if a person is not contributing, and multi-tasking occurs more frequently in audio-only data collection.

Group data collection using exchange of text

Text-based focus groups and group interviews bring with them the opportunity for using synchronous or asynchronous mediums (e.g. WhatsApp or email), and can lead to more democratic power relations between researcher and participants. The lack of inperson relationship can mean that power structures are not as concretely put into place. In WhatsApp focus groups, for example, participants have as much power to speak up as researchers and have as much control to shift the flow of conversation (Neo et al., 2022). When running synchronous text-based focus group discussions (e.g. WhatAapp or instant messaging) facilitators may need to carefully balance ‘listening responses’ that keep the conversation going (written and emoji cues) with enough silence to avoid interrupting the conversational flow (Colom, 2021). Having the questions visible from the onset results in better rapport (Hallam, 2022). Two active participants can also act as ice-breakers; their chat encourages others to join in, as the prompts of the researcher do not always have the same level of effect as a participant. It is therefore important to have a sufficient number of participants to increase the chances of having some participants in the group who take this active role (Hallam, 2022).

Text-based data collection methods obviate transcription costs and afford participants much greater levels of anonymity than other methods (Ślęzak, 2023), which make them an attractive option when conducting research with hidden populations. However, participants who are regular users of the technology being used for the data collection might need to consider what information they have made available on the platform- e.g. a WhatsApp or Facebook account showing the participant’s phone number, photographs and/or personal details. MORE INFORMATION It has been suggested that providing devices with the platform already installed so that participants can set up new profiles not linked to their accounts can afford them greater privacy (Singer et al., 2023).

One of the key challenges of text-based group data collection is keeping the group engaged and on topic, particularly if the data collection is asynchronous and there are long gaps between responses. The use of platforms that show conversation ‘threads’ i.e. what previous text a participant is responding to can support the flow of the data collection, however these cannot easily be saved and present challenges for analysis.

Inclusivity is an important consideration for all forms of remote focus groups or group interviews, and there will be unique considerations for each population. Indeed, there is evidence that dissent is more likely to be expressed in text-based focus groups compared to those conducted in-person or with video-on synchronous data collection methods, with increased anonymity perhaps leading to greater freedom of expression (Namey et al, 2021). This has been referred to as the ‘disinhibition effect’ and has been linked to the removal of visual cues (Montoya-Weiss et al, 1998).

Whilst the use of interviews and focus groups in remote contexts has been more widely used and reported, the evidence base for other qualitative methodologies is still emerging, as discussed below.

Remote observation in ethnography

Observation is regarded as a key aspect of ethnographic research, however there is only a small amount of published evidence on the use of remote methods to conduct it (Hall et al, 2021), and much of this is in the form of commentaries, or involves ‘found’ data (Mare, 2017), what Posthill & Pink (2012) refer to as ‘social media’ ethnography, or ‘digital ethnography’ (Forberg & Schilt, 2023). Given that ethnography relies heavily on (often long term) immersion in the field, using a range of approaches, the COVID pandemic had a big impact on how ethnography could be conducted, and many researchers were forced to move to online platforms. For these types of studies, which were well developed before COVID-19, researchers may follow ‘internet events’, including ‘…monitoring profile pages, hashtags, group discussion threads and trending topics’ (Mare, 2017: 2). Research by Howlett (2021) argued ‘being there’ during ethnography was seen as key before the pandemic, however, ‘being there’ can be interpreted in different ways, and may include ‘mental access’ to participants’ worlds (Mare, 2017: 652). Indeed, there is now an argument that says you do not need to be physically present to observe people (Podjed, 2021). In an opinion piece, Boughton (2020) argues that:

Thanks to smartphones and tasks such as video diaries and photo uploads, researchers can now peek into the lives of respondents without physically needing to be there. It’s easier than ever to capture and assess behaviours and reactions as they happen, delivering true to life data quicker and easier. We’ll set out tasks to see how users perform certain actions - get them to film themselves in their environment, show us around where they live, take photos of the tools they use and everyday parts of their lives.(Boughton, 2020)

Now that so much of our lives are reflected and memorialised on digital platforms, opportunities to do this type of research have increased (Howlett, 2021), and more symmetrical relationships between participants and researcher may now be possible, given that participants can look up researchers’ social media presence (Begueria & Beneito- Montagutl (2024), and researchers can now glimpse into participants’ lives from afar. Indeed, Begueria & Beneito-Montagutl (2024) noted that in their study, the ethnographer and participants had equal access to each others’ social media accounts. They were connected using a range of technologies- smart phone, laptop and tablet, and through multiple social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp and more). They found that the ethnographer was as much observed as those being observed, and also that boundaries between the professional and personal life of the ethnographer were challenged (e.g. some participants posted significant amounts on the ethnographer’s personal Facebook account). Reflecting on this, they observe that invasion of personal digital spaces can be experienced as similarly intrusive as invasion of personal physical space, concluding that positionality is a key consideration for researchers wishing to conduct this type of observation.

As well as observation of digital environments, ethnographers wishing to conduct remote observations of face-to-face environments have similarly had to adapt their data collection methods. These adaptations have included the use of Google Maps street view to explore participants’ localities (Reimer-Kirkham et al, 2024), photo elicitation methods (Sinko et al, 2020; Bakare & James, 2022) as well as WhatsApp instant messaging (Humphries et al, 2022). Humphries et al (2022), who had to adapt their observations of healthcare professionals due to the COVID-19 pandemic, refer to this approach as Mobile Instant Messaging Ethnography (MIME). This near synchronous method had the advantage of enabling the researcher to feel close to the action, without being as intrusive as face-to-face observation; however, rich contextual data can be missed (Humphries et al, 2022).

A variety of tools have emerged in recent years to support remote ethnography (Schneer, 2020), including apps (e.g. OverTheShoulder) and software (e.g. itracks which supports unobtrusive observation of remote interactions).

Remote technologies provide new avenues for data collection and, as such, new opportunities for creativity. Emerging methods include use of a whiteboard feature for drawing (Spray et al., 2022). ‘Enhanced’ interviews or focus groups that use visual methods or object elicitation can be adapted to the online context; for example, using digital stimuli (Kara, 2020). Lomax et al. (2020), created a series of digital animations that acted as prompts for children to communicate what life was like for them in the COVID-19 pandemic. The animations also illustrated some of the creative methods children might want to use. Creative remote data collection methods can involve additional costs, however, and researchers need to consider whether these will end up being transferred to participants. To support inclusive research, materials for creative tasks can be posted or otherwise supplied to participants in advance of a remote creative workshop. For example, Fleetwood-Smith (2021) developed an online collage activity that required adult participants to reimagine the hospital and, in preparation, sent co-produced ‘remote research kits’ in the post consisting of collage materials and instructions. Spray et al. (2022) also provided simple materials for sculpting (pipe cleaners, play doh and balloons), as well as an iPad, in order to remotely collect data with children during the pandemic about the experience of having asthma. Boardman et al. (2023) similarly supplied ‘take home’ art boxes to children through a local art gallery, inviting them to make creations that reflected their identities, as part of a project evaluating public engagement with research on genetic screening. Participants were invited to submit photographs of their artwork or return their creations to the gallery for display. The children’s creations were then analysed as data in an evaluation of a research-based art installation. Remote creative methodologies can produce data types that are not typical for qualitative research, and researchers need to consider how this will impact analysis. For example, remotely-enabled visual/text data forms, such as emojis and animations, will need consideration in terms of how transcription and analysis should be managed (source: researcher interview with researcher).

Informal exchanges between researcher and participant prior to remote data collection can help develop rapport but need to be planned. During data collection, gaining sufficient rapport demands the researcher’s active attention, arguably more so than when face-to-face.

Individual interviews undertaken via videoconferencing platforms are most similar to those undertaken face-to-face. However, engaging this way can be cognitively and emotionally burdensome for research participants and researchers themselves. The researcher needs to think through how this burden will impact different participant groups in advance, depending on their needs, as well as how the researcher will manage their own cognitive burden. When videoconferencing, participants have the power to decide what is visible, or not, to the researcher as they can switch off their camera. Audio-only interviews are less intrusive and can provide greater anonymity for participants than videoconferencing; however, there are no visual cues which can make interviewing, and identifying distress, harder. Individual interviews using exchange of text provides flexibility and anonymity for participants, and the researcher has little influence on how they respond. Text exchange can be particularly good for research on sensitive or stigmatised topics, but can be hard to do, however, particularly in terms of developing rapport, composing questions and prompts that avoid misunderstanding, and managing several concurrent interviews and threads (Humphries et al., 2022).

Remote group data collection such as focus groups and interviews require planning for a manageable size. Technical checks with each participant prior to the focus group are particularly important. At recruitment, expectations need to be made clear such as whether cameras will be on or off, and use of chat functions along with guidance of how individuals protect their privacy. For some research topics and participants, audio-only may enable greater participant engagement, whereas for others, lack of visuals can be experienced as threatening. Early engagement with participants to balance and manage these, potentially conflicting, needs is particularly important for group data collection. Use of chat can enhance data collection, but can also be disruptive or overwhelming, so how it is used needs careful thought. This might include allocation of a research team member to manage the chat. The researcher needs a plan for how to manage sudden participant departure, including how to check on the wellbeing of the departee. This might include the creation of a distress protocol. Text-based focus groups can offer great anonymity if set up to prevent identification of the participant. This can potentially result in greater disclosure from participants, however follow-up, managing distress and managing the (a)synchronicity of the focus group can be challenging if participants take differing lengths of time to respond. Participants can engage more, however, if they are able to view the whole thread of the discussion.

The use of digital platforms for communication and sharing of experience in everyday life provides opportunity for digital ethnography. This can be supplemented with researcher prompted collection of observation data by research participants, such as videos of their environment.

Researchers need to consider the level of intrusion perceived by participants, and the boundary between their own personal and professional digital presence.

Digital data collection can also include engaging participants in creative tasks, either digitally (e.g. using photography) or using materials physically distributed to participants (e.g. collage materials). The researcher needs to consider what value this adds to the data, how the creative outputs are included in analysis and any additional costs to the participants.

1. What is the role of rapport in data collection for your research topic and participants; how will you adjust data collection to achieve sufficient rapport?
2. How will you perform as a researcher; how will this play out using different data collection modalities, and how burdensome will this be?
3. How will your participants ‘perform;’ how will they control their performance in different modalities, and how burdensome will this be?
4. How will you enable participants to control the level of intrusion they experience during data collection; and how do you manage intrusion for yourself?
5. How will you ensure that your use of a modality does not result in excessive emotional and cognitive burden for participants and for yourself?
6. What is likely impact of anonymity (or not) for your participants on your data collection?
7. Where participants use a range of data collection modalities and/or the data includes novel forms of data (e.g. emojis) how will you deal with this during analysis