IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i6d10.1007_s40271-021-00528-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conducting Qualitative Research Online: Challenges and Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Stacy M. Carter

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Patti Shih

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Jane Williams

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Chris Degeling

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Julie Mooney-Somers

    (The University of Sydney)

Abstract

What ways of thinking and concrete strategies can assist qualitative health researchers to transition their research practice to online environments? We propose that researchers should foreground inclusion when designing online qualitative research, and suggest ethical, technological and social adaptations required to move data collection online. Existing research shows that this move can aid in meeting recruitment targets, but can also reduce the richness of the data generated, as well as how much participants enjoy participating, and the ability to achieve consensus in groups. Mindful and consultative choices are required to prevent these problems. To adapt to ethical challenges, researchers should especially consider participant privacy, and ways to build rapport and show appropriate care for participants, including protocols for dealing with distress or disengagement, managing data, and supporting consent. To adapt to technological challenges, research plans should choose between online modalities and platforms based on a clear understanding of their particular affordances and the implications of these. Finally, successful research in virtual social environments requires new protocols for engagement before data collection, attention to group numbers and dynamics, altered moderator teams and roles, and new logistical tasks for researchers. The increasing centrality of online environments to everyday life is driving traditional qualitative research methods to online environments and generating new qualitative research methods that respond to the particularities of online worlds. With strong design principles and attention to ethical, technical and social challenges, online methods can make a significant contribution to qualitative research in health.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacy M. Carter & Patti Shih & Jane Williams & Chris Degeling & Julie Mooney-Somers, 2021. "Conducting Qualitative Research Online: Challenges and Solutions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 711-718, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00528-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00528-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00528-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00528-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moawiah Khatatbeh & Fadwa Alhalaiqa & Aws Khasawneh & Ala’a B. Al-Tammemi & Haitham Khatatbeh & Sameera Alhassoun & Omar Al Omari, 2021. "The Experiences of Nurses and Physicians Caring for COVID-19 Patients: Findings from an Exploratory Phenomenological Study in a High Case-Load Country," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria & Beltran Villarreal-Rao & Matilde Luna & Wendoline Rojas-Mendoza & Christoper A. Alarcon-Ruiz & David Villarreal-Zegarra & Ana L. Vilela-Estrada & Samantha Ramírez, 2022. "Factors Associated with Mental Health Outcomes in Hospital Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Andrea Bever & Jackie Manthorne & Tissa Rahim & Layla Moumin & Shelagh M. Szabo, 2022. "The Importance of Disease-Free Survival as a Clinical Trial Endpoint: A Qualitative Study Among Canadian Survivors of Lung Cancer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 307-316, May.
    4. Chinaza Uleanya & Ke Yu, 2023. "Data Collection in Times of Pandemic: A Self-Study and Revisit of Research Practices During a Crisis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    5. Husbands, Samantha & Mitchell, Paul Mark & Kinghorn, Philip & Byford, Sarah & Bailey, Cara & Anand, Paul & Peters, Tim J. & Floredin, Isabella & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "Is well-becoming important for children and young people? Evidence from in-depth interviews with children and young people and their parents," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Hiba Bawadi & Sara Elshami & Ahmed Awaisu & Ghadir Fakhri Al-Jayyousi & Shuja Ashfaq & Banan Mukhalalati, 2023. "A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaoling Ge & Huanhuan Tong & Yongxia Song & Hongye He & Shuwen Li & Jingfang Hong & Wenru Wang, 2020. "The caring experience and supportive care needs of male partners for women with gynaecologic cancer: A qualitative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4469-4481, December.
    2. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Hareth Al-Janabi & Jenny Coles & John Copping & Nishit Dhanji & Carol McLoughlin & Jacky Murphy & Jean Nicholls, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 421-427, July.
    5. Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Isha Chaudhry & Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 39-54, January.
    6. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental D," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, June.
    7. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    8. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    9. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    10. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    11. A. Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Eline Overbeeke & Cathy Anne Pinto & Ian Smith & Jenny Sharpe & James Ormrod & Chiara Whichello & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Kristin Bullok & Bennett Levitan & Isabelle Huys &, 2021. "Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: A Qualitative Study in Neuromuscular Disorders to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 601-612, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00528-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.