Selfie consents, remote rapport, and Zoom debriefings: collecting qualitative data amid a pandemic in four resource-constrained settings

Author:

Reñosa Mark Donald CORCID,Mwamba Chanda,Meghani Ankita,West Nora S,Hariyani Shreya,Ddaaki William,Sharma Anjali,Beres Laura K,McMahon ShannonORCID

Abstract

In-person interactions have traditionally been the gold standard for qualitative data collection. The COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to consider if remote data collection can meet research objectives, while retaining the same level of data quality and participant protections. We use four case studies from the Philippines, Zambia, India and Uganda to assess the challenges and opportunities of remote data collection during COVID-19. We present lessons learned that may inform practice in similar settings, as well as reflections for the field of qualitative inquiry in the post-COVID-19 era. Key challenges and strategies to overcome them included the need for adapted researcher training in the use of technologies and consent procedures, preparation for abbreviated interviews due to connectivity concerns, and the adoption of regular researcher debriefings. Participant outreach to allay suspicions ranged from communicating study information through multiple channels to highlighting associations with local institutions to boost credibility. Interviews were largely successful, and contained a meaningful level of depth, nuance and conviction that allowed teams to meet study objectives. Rapport still benefitted from conventional interviewer skills, including attentiveness and fluency with interview guides. While differently abled populations may encounter different barriers, the included case studies, which varied in geography and aims, all experienced more rapid recruitment and robust enrollment. Reduced in-person travel lowered interview costs and increased participation among groups who may not have otherwise attended. In our view, remote data collection is not a replacement for in-person endeavours, but a highly beneficial complement. It may increase accessibility and equity in participant contributions and lower costs, while maintaining rich data collection in multiple study target populations and settings.

Funder

Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Vittol Foundation

The Johns Hopkins Catalyst Awards

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institute of Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Johns Hopkins Alliance for A Healthier World

UCSF Gladstone

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference30 articles.

1. Conducting intensive interviews using Email;McCoyd;Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice,2006

2. Green J , Thorogood N . Qualitative methods for health research. sage, 2018.

3. Saldaña J , Omasta M . Qualitative research: analyzing life. Sage Publications, 2016.

4. But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3