Do You Know Who You're Talking To? Methodological Reflections on Maintaining Inclusivity and Research Integrity When Responding to Inauthentic Encounters in Online Qualitative Research
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4476886 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Brandi Lee Lough Dennell (0000-0003-2261-0152), A Dowrick (0000-0002-2937-6728), Jane Evered (0000-0003-0098-1171), Jane Alice Evered, Abigail Jones (0000-0001-9315-0857) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Publication date | 2025-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/16094069251384112 |
| OpenAlex | W7084593524 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 18 |
There is an ongoing debate around how to design online synchronous qualitative research studies, and respond in the moment, when researchers suspect that they are engaging with 'impostor' or 'fraudulent' participants. Initial literature framed ineligible participants as a threat to data quality and the integrity of the research itself, calling for reactionary approaches to potential participants. This paper contributes to the growing literature cautioning that strict screening approaches may negatively harm genuine participants and undermine inclusion efforts. This paper explores the concept of 'knowing' research participants in qualitative research, focusing on methods that enhance how we genuinely come to know the participants we seek to include, particularly in reclaiming interactions that may have become curtailed during online research. Through consideration of researchers' ethical responsibilities in relation to what is presumed or learned, we offer methodological reflections on how researchers' skilful attention to the research encounter may be all that is required to ensure continued research integrity within the context of inauthentic participants. Taking actions to better know participants upholds our ethical responsibilities to them and also has the effect of identifying inauthentic participants who intentionally falsify their accounts
Context (archaeology · Harm · Inclusion (mineral · Qualitative research · Quality (philosophy · Reactionary · Research ethics · Research integrity · Scientific integrity · Suspect · Gene expression and cancer classification · Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities · Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
More than Tuskegee
‘Imposter participants’ in online qualitative research, a new and increasing threat to data integrity
Virtual Synchronous Qualitative Data Collection Methods Used in Health and Social Sciences
Imposter Participants in Synchronous Qualitative Research
Thick performances, not just thick descriptions
More or less than human? Evaluating the role of AI-as-participant in online qualitative research
An Implausible Virtual Interview
Beyond the challenge to research integrity
Dealing With Scam in Online Qualitative Research
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |