When the COVID-19 pandemic led to lockdowns and other measures to stop the spread of the deadly virus, qualitative researchers, like others, had to adapt and learn to collect their data remotely. This workshop offers a collection of tips and tricks for collecting qualitative data remotely using video conferencing software such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom, phone, and hybrid methods to accommodate their participants. We will discuss logistics of using proxies at sites to recruit and consent participants and coordinate remote interviews and focus groups. We will provide examples from real projects and discuss the pros and cons of the newly found flexibility in remote data collection, accommodations that might be needed for specific populations, platforms security to ensure confidentiality, e-consenting models and platforms, using AI for transcribing, and evaluating data collected remotely and in-person. We will also cover methods that benefit from remote data collection modes, such as physician participants showing quality metrics they collect or interviewers showing notes (e.g. journey mapping in real time with participants' input). The workshop will teach the following skills: 1) deciding between in-person and remote data collection modes, depending on the research question and participant characteristics; 2) platforms, logistics, and best practices of implementing remote consent; 3) using on-site proxies to conduct remote data collection; 4) flexibility in remote data collection (what are your options?); 5) hands-on training, real project examples, and exercises; 6) group discussions and implications for qualitative and mixed-methods research. We believe this is an ideal time to take stock of what we have learned from collecting qualitative data under the pandemic restrictions. Now that remote data collections methods are here to stay, we need to continue developing our best practices to accommodate not only future disasters, but also people with different abilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gorbenko et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: