Section 8: Discussion: Remote Qualitative Methods in the Wider Research Context

Since the pandemic, the use of remote qualitative data collection methods has hugely increased. Face-to-face methods are no longer the unquestioned ‘gold-standard’, and new conversations have opened up about the value of remote methods for data quality and inclusive research. The continued, and increasing, use of remote communication in the wider world has arguably shifted attitudes towards remote research, and the level of trust placed in it by participants, researchers and institutions.

Pre-pandemic, the pros and cons of remote data collection tended to be weighed in broadbrush strokes. Remotely-collected data was understood to be shorter, often with the absence of non-verbal data, but with similar thematic content. It is our contention that the use of remote data collection methods nevertheless fundamentally shifts the configuration of the qualitative research space, the type of data produced, as well as the interactions and relationships between researchers and participants. Understanding the impact of these shifts, in multiple contexts, is pivotal to the future of remote methods within the wider qualitative landscape.

The QRDC guidance has been developed through, and for, this evolving research environment. It has been designed to meet the needs of researchers considering whether, when and how remote data collection methods may be appropriate for their qualitative research topic. However, it is also relevant to wider research communities, including research participants, research stakeholder groups and communities (e.g. advocacy groups/charities), PPI groups, ethics committees, institutions and research organisations, as well as to funders and publishers of qualitative research.

Indeed, whilst this guidance has focused on prompts for researchers, similar prompts, drawing on the findings of the QRDC study, could be developed for prospective research participants and included in recruitment and consent materials, e.g. participant information sheets and consent forms. These could include encouraging (would be) participants, with the support of the researcher, to consider their access needs to effectively participate in remote research and their relationship to, and familiarity with, the technology/platform being offered (whilst considering whether a different technology/platform would be more appropriate). These materials could also be used to highlight the possibility of requesting a ‘trial run’ with the researcher, and prompting this group to consider, along with the researcher, which aspects of the research process (e.g. their immediate privacy during data collection) will fall under their control when data is collected remotely, and to co-develop strategies to overcome any identified threats to privacy, confidentiality or safety, which may include defaulting to face-to-face methods.

Similarly, reporting standards for remote qualitative methods are still emerging. Existing qualitative reporting frameworks such as COREQ (consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research) (Tong et al, 2007), for example, whilst including the ‘setting’ of data collection, the influence of non-participants in the research space as well as duration of the data collection, do not cover components unique to remote qualitative methods such as: i) the synchronicity of data collection (a unique feature of remote data collection), ii) the technology/ platform used, its features and how these were used (or not) by participants, iii) any difficulties (technological/practical) encountered and how they were resolved or mitigated against (e.g. trial run), iv) the respective environments of the participant and researcher during data collection, or v) the format of data collected (e.g. text, images/GIFs (graphics interchange format), emojis, audio, audio-visual, or combinations of all four). As highlighted within this guidance, these factors have a significant impact on both rapport and the quality and quantity of data produced, demonstrating the need for consistency in reporting of remote qualitative studies to support quality appraisal and validity of findings.

Despite these areas where further research is needed, the benefits of remote methods are clearly demonstrated within the extant literature. They include their relative speed and their potential to be tailored to meet the needs and abilities of both participants and researchers. Their flexibility, adaptability and ability to circumvent the barriers of time and place, render them particularly well suited to inclusive research projects where diversity of participants and/or wide geographic reach is essential. Use of remote methods can also contribute to efforts to lower the carbon footprint of qualitative research, for example, by avoiding the need for travel, printing, and in some instances, transcribing. They also generate spaces for creativity and innovation, introduce different types of data (e.g. emojis, textese) and, overall, are more sustainable and cost-effective (due to the removal of travel and accommodation costs) than their faceto- face counterparts. In the context of rising travel costs, international research collaborations, and precarious employment contracts for researchers (especially those who are early career), there is sustained pressure for researchers to design studies that are competitively costed and represent good value for money. These wider contextual factors can make remote data collection methods more attractive to researchers, institutions and funders alike. However, their relative benefits and challenges need to be considered carefully, as well as the way that the needs, preferences and wider social context of the participant group of interest directly shapes them.

Remote qualitative methods bring with them their own complexities. They can make rapport and human connection more challenging, and they can also introduce additional dimensions to ethical concerns around data access, ownership and security. Moreover, the endurance of digital exclusion (Allmann, 2022) and increasing recognition of the role of digital disengagement (Romanowski & Lally, 2024) underscores the need to resist the positioning of remote methods as the solution to widespread and persistent research inequities. The inclusion of social groups whose voices are currently underrepresented, or absent entirely, in health and social care research may mean, in certain circumstances, a reversion to face-to-face interactions and trust-building with underserved communities before data collection could even be considered.

It is imperative that funding bodies, institutions/ research organisations and ethics committees, as well as qualitative researchers themselves, are mindful that use of remote methods does not perpetuate the absence of marginalised voices in health and social care research. Tensions between inclusive research practice and research governance requirements can be particularly heightened in remote research. For example, there may be in mismatches between technologies approved at an institutional level, and those which best meet the needs and preferences of research participants. There is a pressing need, amplified and illuminated through the choices facing researchers regarding use of remote data collection methods, to consider participant derived interpretations of privacy, access and control. Thinking ‘outside the box’, developing creative co-produced strategies with participants to remove barriers to research participation and working directly with ethics committees on issues of access to research (Walsh et al, 2024; Northway et al., 2014) are vital for inclusive research practice.

The evidence explored in this guidance also points to the importance of foregrounding participant choice and autonomy, and of offering a bespoke range of data collection methods that align with participants’ needs, communication preferences and abilities. Adopting flexible, hybrid, remote methods offers participants greater agency to control the conditions of their data collection encounter/s in ways that have not previously been possible. Rather than erosion of the researcher’s role, this shift can be highly productive, providing opportunities to alter power dynamics and offering new ways of working between researchers and participants.

As communication technologies continue to evolve, proliferate and diversify, and artificial intelligence is changing the way we live and work, the avenues through which remote data can be collected are ever-expanding. This has the potential to both support (greater access), and threaten (chatbots), the validity of remotely collected data (Dudeck, 2016). It is therefore paramount that researchers, funding bodies, ethics committees and institutions keep up to date with the evolving features of technologies and the wider technological and data infrastructure in which they sit. Technology developers and researchers need to work together to ensure that the range of platforms emerging to support remote qualitative research are grounded in the principles of ethical research practice and robust research design.

Dialogue around, and training in, remote methods is also pivotal to this endeavour, along with the direct involvement of patient and public contributors. In particular, there is a need for capacity building in relation to remote qualitative research design, safeguarding and ethics. The transitions in and out of remote data collection events, as well as the communication skills needed to navigate them whilst remaining attentive to participant distress, are key areas where skills developed in face-toface research do not translate seamlessly into remote contexts. Likewise, research participants also need support and resources in order that they may exercise insightful choices regarding their involvement in qualitative research. Where, when and how remote data collection occurs, as well as the potential consequences and outputs of that participation need to be carefully considered, and the simple transfer of these decisions to would-be participants is insufficient to achieve meaningful, and safe, research engagement.

Overall, remote methods offer qualitative researchers a valuable tool- a chance to remove barriers and connect to groups that have previously been excluded from, and sometimes harmed by, researchers. Rather than a panacea for qualitative research, however, remote methods bring with them their own set of challenges, and their use needs to be situated within this broader context of power politics, if their benefits are to be realised.

How to cite the guidance

Boardman, F., Roberts, J., Clark, C., Onuegbu, C., Harris, B., Seers, K., Staniszewska, S., Aktas, P., Griffiths, F. 2024. Qualitative Remote Data Collection Guidance. Coventry: University of Warwick Press. Available from here: https://doi.org/10.31273/9781911675174