Remote Data Collection in Qualitative Health Research

A Realist-Informed Evaluation

Bibliographic Data

ID24231016
AuthorsFelicity Boardman (0000-0002-3268-6276, University of Warwick), Julie Roberts (0000-0001-6099-9600, University of Warwick), Kate Seers (0000-0001-7921-552X, University of Warwick), C C Clark (0000-0002-1077-9383, University of Warwick), Bronwyn Harris (0000-0003-4695-008X, University of Warwick), Sophie Staniszewska (0000-0002-7723-9074, University of Warwick), Chinwe Onuegbu (0000-0001-6372-9390, University of Warwick), Puren Aktas (0000-0003-0783-8044, University of Warwick), Frances Griffiths (0000-0002-4173-1438, University of Warwick)
Year2026
Volume25
Publication date2026-01-19
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/16094069261486222
OpenAlexW7221571864
LanguageEN
References cited60

Remote methods of data collection- where participant/s and researcher/s are not co-located and communication technologies are used- have become increasingly commonplace. While in-person methods have long been considered the ‘gold-standard’ of qualitative enquiry, the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the widespread adoption of remote methods, and their use has persisted. Remote methods offer unique opportunities; unprecedented access to participants and the possibility of novel, creative and multimodal data forms. Despite burgeoning use, however, there remains a dearth of synthesised evidence regarding their efficacy, which is essential for guiding decisions about their use. This study aimed to use the extant evidence base combined with empirical data to determine which remote qualitative methods work best, for whom and under what circumstances in order to produce guidance on the collection of remote qualitative data. A realist approach was used, including literature reviewing, 27 qualitative interviews (17 with researchers and 10 with previous qualitative research participants) and a consensus conference involving 32 stakeholders. It was supported by a public reference group. Researchers were recruited through their public profiles, social media and the team’s networks. Previous research participants were recruited through local community groups, a community engagement agency and social media. The context, mechanisms and outcomes that produce high quality, inclusive remote qualitative data were mapped from these various evidence sources using qualitative meta ethnographic evidence synthesis techniques. The findings highlight the significant interface between topic, population and method (including technology) and the need for researchers to be highly attentive to the interrelationships between these components in research design, whilst framing them within their wider, and evolving, context. By focusing on these intersections, rather than each aspect of research design individually, the benefits of remote methods (in terms of flexibility, inclusivity, sustainability and re-configured power dynamics) can be realised, and their harms both identified and accounted for.

COVID-19 pandemic · methodological recommendations · multimodal data · participant recruitment · power dynamics in research · Qualitative research · realist evaluation · remote data acquisition · Research ethics · researcher recruitment · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access