Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T20:33:39.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Adopting Digital Methods

Conducting Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups in the Midst of a Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

By
Ruth Strudwick  and
Hollie Hadwen
Edited by
Paul M.W. Hackett ,
Christopher M. Hayre ,
Dave Muller ,
Marcia Scherer  and
Ava Gordley-Smith
Paul M.W. Hackett
Affiliation:
Emerson College, Boston
Christopher M. Hayre
Affiliation:
The University of Canberra
Dave Muller
Affiliation:
Suffolk University, Massachusetts
Marcia Scherer
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center, New York
Ava Gordley-Smith
Affiliation:
University of Suffolk
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the theory underpinning qualitative methods, namely semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and issues of methodological coherence in adopting a digital approach. We offer an in-depth exploration of the practical considerations of adopting digital methods. This includes the challenges of building a rapport with the participant, familiarity with technology for both researcher and participant, scheduling, and data protection issues. We explore pertinent ethical considerations, including institutional approval, informed consent, confidentiality, and the ongoing ethical responsibilities of the researcher engaged in qualitative research. We draw upon our experiences of using synchronous online videoconferencing platforms to conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups, integrating our reflections throughout. Whilst necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, the associated need for social distancing and the potential for further regional restrictions, we argue that digital methods transcend the current global situation, offering opportunities to facilitate qualitative research that may extend beyond geographical borders, attenuate fiscal limitations, and enable greater collaboration between researchers.

Keywords

qualitative interviewsonlinedigital technologiesvideoconferencingfocus groupsethicsconsentconfidentiality
Type
Chapter
Information
The Future of Qualitative Research in Healthcare
The Role and Management of Digital Methods
 , pp. 68 - 86
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements

Author HH would like to acknowledge her doctoral supervisors at the University of Essex, Dr Caroline Barratt and Dr Chris Green, for their support and guidance during the ethical approval process.

References

Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (2019) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bishop, L. and Kuula-Luumi, A. (2017) ‘Revisiting qualitative data reuse: A decade on’. Sage Open: Special Issue – Reusing Qualitative Data: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddy, R., Gordon, C., MacCullum, F., and McGuiness, M. (2016) ‘Men’s experiences of having a partner who requires Mother and Baby Unit admission for first episode postpartum psychosis’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 73 (2): 399–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, A. (2004) Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (2nd ed.) Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, L. J. (2007) ‘The researcher “in the middle”: Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy’. The Australian Community Psychologist 19 (1): 163–74.Google Scholar
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.) (accessed 1 January 2021).Google Scholar
Chan, V. W. S. (2021) ‘Initiative on reducing the “Digital Divide”’. IEEE Communications Magazine 59 (5): 4–5.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2018) Research Methods in Education (8th ed.) Abingdon: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Coolican, H. (2019) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (7th ed.) Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design – Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.) London: Sage.Google Scholar
Data Protection Act 2018, c. 12 (accessed 10 September 2021).Google Scholar
Dwyer, S. C. and Buckle, J. L. (2009) ‘The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (1): 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, N. G. and Fielding, J. L. (2000) ‘Resistance and adaptation to criminal identity: Using secondary analysis to evaluate classic studies of crime and deviance’. Sociology 34 (4): 671–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, L. (2011) Phenomenology for Therapists: Researching the Lived World. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, W. J. and Brown, A. (2009) Working with qualitative data London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, D., Mays, N., and Pope, C. (2020) ‘Ethical issues in qualitative research’. In Pope, C. and Mays, N. (eds.) Qualitative Research in Health Care (4th ed.) (27–41) Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Research Authority, Health (HRA) (2021) Public Involvement (accessed 12 November 2021).Google Scholar
Hinton, L. and Ryan, S. (2020) ‘Interviews’. In Pope, C. and Mays, N. (eds) Qualitative Research in Health Care (4th ed.) (43–56) Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iphofen, R. (2011) Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Israel, M. and Hay, I. (2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Jolley, J. (2020) Introducing Research and Evidence-Based Practice for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals (3rd ed.) Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, J. (1996) ‘Introducing focus groups’. British Medical Journal 311: 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Larkin, M. & Thompson, A. (2012) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’. In Thompson, A. & Harper, D. (eds.) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners (99–116). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lloyds Bank (2019) The UK Consumer Digital Index 2019 (accessed 10 September 2021).Google Scholar
Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., and Addington-Hall, J. (2010) ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population?’ Journal of Research in Nursing 16 (4): 335–44.Google Scholar
McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., and Liljedahl, M. (2019) ‘Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews’. Medical Teacher 41 (9): 1002–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2021a) Internet access – households and individuals, Great Britain: 2020 (accessed 1 September 2021).Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2021b) Internet access users, UK: 2020 (accessed 4 September 2021).Google Scholar
Powell, J. and van Velthoven, H. H. (2020) ‘Digital data and online qualitative research’. In Pope, C. and Mays, N. (eds) Qualitative Research in Health Care (4th ed.) (97–109) Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, V. (2018) ‘Evaluating pre-existing qualitative research data for secondary analysis’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 19 (2): 3–18.Google Scholar
Tsai, A. C., Kohrt, B. A., Matthews, L. T., et al. (2016) ‘Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research’. Social Science and Medicine 169: 191–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unluer, S. (2012) ‘Being an insider research while conducting case study research’. The Qualitative Report 17 (58): 1–14. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1752&context=tqr (accessed 4 January 2018).Google Scholar
Walker, C., Mills, H., and Gilchrist, A. (2017) ‘Experiences of physical activity during pregnancy resulting from in vitro fertilisation: an interpretative phenomenological analysis’. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 35 (4): 365–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×