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

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.

‘Unfocused groups’: lessons learnt amid remote focus groups in the Philippines

“…Initially, given our preparation efforts, our experiences conducting remote IDIs 3 and our proposed workarounds for FGDs, we felt hopeful that remote FGDs were feasible. However, challenges began even at participant recruitment.…”

“… 1 2 In light of the emergence of various tools for online data collection and the difficulty of conducting data collection in person during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, several scholars have offered guidance on methodological and practical adaptations when conducting remote interviews. 3 4 Herein, we complement these lessons with insights on another key methodology for qualitative research—focus group discussions (FGDs).…”

“…However, based on previous experience when conducting remote in-depth interviews (IDIs), we decided to give participants the option to choose among several platforms including: FB messenger, Zoom, Skype and Google Meet. 3 Our target participants described a high level of familiarity and general preference for FB Messenger, which made it our top choice.…”

“…Prior to shifting FGDs to FBMR, we undertook the following training and preparation exercises for our team: (a) a brief introduction by an information technology (IT) expert (JRG) on FBMR’s features and how to navigate FBMR including how to set preferences for the session, how to invite participants to join and how to be in control during the session; (b) a pilot run within the team via FBMR; and (c) the IT expert mentoring and assisting with the workarounds during the first FGDs. Our experiences in the broader research project with general participant recruitment and data collection preparation are outlined elsewhere 3 ; we therefore focus on setting up and executing FGD sessions (see table 1 ).…”

“…The process concluded with a ‘selfie consent’ where the respective participants took a picture while holding their signed consent sheets. 3 …”