State of the Methods

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Volume 19: 1–8
Qualitative Data Collection in an Era of ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Social Distancing DOI: 10.1177/1609406920937875
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq

Bojana Lobe1, David Morgan2 , and Kim A. Hoffman3

Abstract
Qualitative researchers face unique opportunities and challenges as a result of the disruption of COVID-19. Although the pan-
demic represents a unique opportunity to study the crisis itself, social distancing mandates are restricting traditional face-to-face
investigations of all kinds. In this article, we describe options and resources for researchers who find themselves needing to alter
their study designs from face-to-face qualitative data collection to a “socially distant” method. Although technologies are con-
stantly changing, we review the latest videoconferencing services available to researchers and provide guidance on what services
might best suit a project’s needs. We describe options for various platforms and applications including information about
enhanced security applications for researchers collecting sensitive patient health information. Concerns about these technologies
including security of the platform and logistical needs such as computer equipment are also discussed. Special attention is given to
ethical issues when transitioning research efforts to online venues.

Keywords
focus groups, methods in qualitative inquiry, netography, case study, ethical inquiry

Introduction field to become familiar with the tools available now to con-
tinue our work. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is consid-
In a time of unprecedented change and disruption due to
ered a “100-year event,” using diverse methods of connecting
COVID-19, qualitative researchers face unique opportunities
with research participants is as old as the field itself. Here, we
and challenges. As Teti et al. (2020) note in their editorial, the
describe options for various platforms and applications includ-
pandemic is a “social event that is disrupting our social order.”
ing information for researchers collecting sensitive patient
There is a need for researchers to explore the lived experience
health information (PHI). As a general rule, computer-
of individuals facing these challenging times. At the same time,
mediated communication offers greater flexibility in time and
public health mandates and social distancing measures are
location of data collection (Cater, 2011; Jankowski & Selm,
restricting our ability to carry out these investigations. Addi-
2005), can be described as a highly socialized form of interac-
tionally, many of us currently working on research projects
tion (Joinson, 2005), which can also conform to health and
unrelated to the pandemic are being forced to transition from
safety restrictions. However, it’s important to know that there
face-to-face data collection to some other form of data collec-
are also concerns about these technologies including the
tion such as phone or internet-based.
Scholars have produced a rich literature on internet-based
data collection (Fielding et al., 2016; Kanzaki et al., 2004; Pang
1
et al., 2018; Shields, 2003), but given the ever-changing tech- Department of Social Informatics and Methodology, Faculty of Social
Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
nological landscape, an up-to-date guide is warranted. In this 2
Portland State University, OR, USA
article, we describe options and resources for researchers who 3
Oregon Health and Science University–Portland State University School of
find themselves needing to transition their projects from face- Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
to-face qualitative data collection to a “socially distant”
method. Although technologies are constantly evolving, we Corresponding Author:
Kim A. Hoffman, Oregon Health and Science University–Portland State
review the latest videoconferencing services available to University School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University,
researchers and provide guidance on what services might best Portland, OR, USA.
suit a project’s needs. There is a tremendous opening for the Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission
provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

security of the platform, confidentiality (for respondents at Finally, to assure smooth participation, especially with
home or other environments where they can be overheard), and focus groups, we strongly advise having participants engage
the logistical needs such as equipment (computer, camera, and in a short one-on-one presession with the researcher, in order to
microphone). In addition, we give special attention to ethical prevent unforeseen technical issues. Doing so also gives parti-
issues when switching our research efforts to online venues. cipants an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the use
Our goal is to assist researchers who want to move from in- of a particular program’s features. For online focus groups, it
person to video-based online interviewing. We have chosen to is also important to realize that even though the programs
focus on video-based online methods as they are more like usually allow for a large number of people to be included in
face-to-face than voice-only or text options. Other online a single session, videoconferencing works best with a rela-
options that are available, but which we will not include col- tively small number of participants. If face-to-face focus
lecting data through observation of online sites (Kozinets, groups usually work well with anywhere between 4 and 10
2019), virtual ethnography, email (Fritz & Vandermause, participants, online focus groups call for a lower number,
2018), telephone interviews (Drabble et al., 2016; Johnson ideally 3–5 (Lobe, 2017; Morgan & Lobe, 2011). In addition,
et al., 2019), chat and instant message interviews (J. Chen & focus group interviews with a larger number of participants
Neo, 2019; O’Connor & Madge, 2017) and bulletin boards, are particularly difficult to conduct on mobile devices with
discussion groups, or electronic forums (Ferrante et al., 2016; small screens because it becomes difficult to see to the win-
Schiek & Ullrich, 2019). dows with the other participants.
Along the same lines, there is a difference between using
video to facilitate more natural interaction during the interview
Using Videoconferencing Applications and
versus recording the video as a source of data in itself. When
Platforms for Online Interviewing the goal is to capture anything more than obvious nonverbal
Basically, online qualitative methods, such as online interviews reactions, it may be possible to enable a high definition (HD)-
and online focus groups, are versions of traditional methods, quality option within the program (e.g., Zoom and Skype).
using internet venues instead of face-to-face interaction (P. Even then, issues such as bandwidth, lighting, and the quality
Chen & Hinton, 1999). With our ever-growing digital societies, of the participant’s video camera can limit what is visible.
and moreover with this specific COVID-19 pandemic, people But before a researcher can pursue these practical suggestions,
have become familiar with various platforms and applications it is necessary to choose which videoconferencing platform will
to transmit at least some of their daily interactions and com- be used. Hence, the following section provides first-hand reviews
munication online. We might assume that their digital skills of the most affordable and easy-to-use programs.
and competences have accordingly grown, consequently mak-
ing their participation in online research data collection easier.
For all of the videoconferencing platforms described further Review of Video Platforms
in this article, potential participants need to meet certain tech-
When choosing a videoconferencing platform out of the many
nological and logistical requirements to be able to participate.
available, it is useful to consider the functions they make avail-
The first requirement is to be connected to the internet, by
able. In addition to basic information on each, we compare
either computer or any other suitable digital device (i.e.,
them according to these criteria: the number of participants
tablets, smartphones, etc.). The quality of the internet connec-
in a same session, audio/video recording, one-click access for
tion also matters, but in most cases, the average quality is
participants, and privacy features. Please see Table 1 for a
sufficient for participation in most videoconferencing tools.
comparison of the characteristics of a wide range of platforms,
Second, participants need to have working speakers, micro-
which we will describe in more detail for the most commonly
phone, and camera. When using laptop computers, tablets, or
used and available platforms.
smartphones, most of these appliances are already built-in, but
desktop computers sometimes require headphones and an addi-
tional camera to be plugged in before participation. However, Zoom (https://zoom.us)
even on mobile devices a headset can be useful to provide more Note. HIPAA ¼ The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
privacy during the conversation. The third logistical require- Act.Basic information. Zoom is a videoconferencing platform that
ment is for participants to be into a quiet place to assure the has already been extensively used for research purposes
least interruptions and disturbances from their surroundings. In (Archibald et al., 2019; Daniels et al., 2019; Kite & Phongsa-
online interactions, where a researcher and participants are van, 2017; Lobe, 2017; Matthews et al., 2018). The platform
physically distant, the researcher’s control over interaction supports real-time audio and full-motion video. The free Basic
decreases. To ensure successful moderation (Morgan & Lobe, plan offers many useful settings that are user-friendly and intui-
2011), a set of instructions should to be sent to a participant, tive. A participant can use the downloadable version of Zoom
including a request to minimize the disturbing factors, shutting or merely sign in into a web-based version of it.
down other possible applications and social networking sites,
silencing phones, and so on to ensure a high-quality environ- Number of participants in a session. The Basic free plan enables
ment for the interview. unlimited time sessions for one-to-one interviews (two
Lobe et al. 3

Table 1. Platform Characteristics.

Requires
Requires Participants Appropriate
Participants to Have an for Low-Level Lags
Audio Chat Screen Video Download Account to Digital Skills in Live HIPAA Payment
Video Only Function Sharing Recording Application Attend Participants Feed Compliant Scheme

Zoom P P P P P P  P  P Basic free for 40

min, longer fee
based $
Webex P P P P P P  P  P Basic free, other
plans fee
based $
Skype P P P P P P P P P  Free for web
GoToMeeting P P P P P P  P  P Fee based $
Jitsi Meet P P P P P   P P Free
AnyMeeting P P P P P   P  P Starter free,
other plans
fee based $
Adobe P P P P P P P   Upon Fee based $$
Connect request
Telemedicine P P P P some All but All but P  P Varies but most
apps Doxy.me Doxy.me are fee based

participants plus the host). Adding more participants to the Privacy features. The host can set up a password to control the
Basic free account limits the time of each session to 40 min, entrance to a Zoom session. Also, the waiting room feature
but the Pro plan at an affordable monthly cost enables up to 100 enables the host to examine every participant who wants to
participants in an unlimited session. join the session. The platform is the Health Insurance Portabil-
ity and Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliant, but privacy
issues and “Zoom bombing” have been raised (see more in the
Audio/video recordings. Zoom enables audio/video recordings,
“Ethics” section below). Zoom Pro plan enables additional
and control is limited to the host of the meeting, who can decide
privacy features.
to share it with other participants. Also, access to the recordings
is restricted to the host (the recording is saved to the host’s
computer after the session). One interesting recording option in Webex (www.webex.com)
the more expensive versions of Zoom is simultaneous tran-
scription. This means that once a session is completed, the Basic information. Cisco Webex has also been used in online
researcher will have a high-quality draft, which can be further qualitative data collection (Hatten & Christensen, 2012; Mor-
refined while listening to a playback of the original interview. rison et al., 2020; Tuttas, 2015). Hosts are granted advanced
In addition to Zoom’s own capacities, the otter.ai program administrative meeting controls such as encryption, chat
offers additional features for simultaneous transcription while options, recordings, and so on.
working with a basic Zoom account.
Number of participants in a session. Webex has recently lifted the
time limits in their Free plan, which allows up to 100 partici-
One-click access. A Zoom account is not required to join a Zoom
pants per meeting.
meeting (but is required to host it). Participants need to down-
load the Zoom mobile app or desktop application, after which
Zoom meetings are reachable by clicking on the invitation link. Audio/video recordings. Audio/video recording is not available in
Participants are emailed an invitation leading them to click a the Free plan, so researchers would need to find their own
link, download the program, and type their name to enter the screen capture solutions. In particular, Camtasia is a screen
“meeting.” Although this process only requires basic digital recorder and video editor that is an option for any platform that
skills, it would still be difficult for technology-naive partici- does not have recording as a built in feature. In the paid sub-
pants, and moderators should be prepared to patiently explain scription plans, access to recordings is restricted to hosts only.
the process and provide technical assistance. We suggest that
researchers contact the participants at least 1 day in advance of One-click access. Participants do not need a Webex account to
the actual interview (possibly by email or telephone) to be sure join the session but must download the software before the
that they have set up and tested the application. interview.
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Privacy issues. Similar privacy concerns have been raised with number. However, there is no free plan to allow a few or just
Webex as with Zoom. A platform vulnerability called “Prying one participant.
Eye” has allowed hackers to find and join open meetings and
calls. In response to these concerns, the company suggests Audio/video recordings. Audio/video recording is available to the
using the following system features: disallowing “joins” before host, and it warns the participants that recording has started.
the host starts the meeting, locking meetings, and ensuring The recording is saved to the cloud, and after the meeting, it is
guests do not join without authentication. mailed to the host.

One-click access. Clicking on the invitation link invites partici-

Skype (www.skype.com) pants to do a download of the application without extra activity.
Participants are asked to type in their names to enter the
Basic information. Skype is technically different from the pre- meeting.
vious two platforms as it is a Voice over Internet Protocol
service, providing free audio and video calls. Because of its Privacy features. The host can lock the meeting once it starts, so
wide usage, it was frequently picked up by qualitative no one else can enter the session. The application offers exten-
researchers before other videoconferencing tools picked up sive security and encryption functionalities, and is HIPPA
(Cater, 2011; Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Lo Iacono et al., compliant.
2016; Sullivan, 2012). Because it is so widely used in inter-
personal communication, it is often the first application that
comes to mind when people think about taking qualitative Enhanced Security Applications: Telemedicine Platforms
interviewing and focus groups online (Lobe, 2017). Although Telemedicine technology was originally created to provide and
one can download it to a computer or use it in a web browser, support health care professionals interacting with a patient
Skype is sensitive to internet connectivity quality issues online using audio and video. It is rapidly replacing conven-
(Lobe, 2017) and therefore works best via the downloadable tional methods of in-person clinical visits, especially during the
rather than the browser-based version. COVID-19 pandemic, and costs of telehealth technologies are
dropping (Board on Health Care Services and Institute of Med-
Number of participants in a session. In principle, Skype can icine, 2012). There is a rich literature documenting its use and
accommodate both one-to-one calls and one-to-many, but it acceptability (Coelho, 2011; Doolittle & Spaulding, 2006;
works best in one-to-one settings due to the abovementioned Gardner et al., 2015; Wootton et al., 2011). This field offers
internet connectivity issues. In sessions including more people, many platforms that have been developed specifically for col-
connection limitations can appear, urging people to stop shar- lecting sensitive patient data (compliant for HIPAA,1 General
ing video or dropping a call. Data Protection Regulations (GDPR),2 and PHIPA) and there-
Audio/video recordings. It enables audio/video recordings easily fore lend themselves well to qualitative data collection for any
and gives the host a legal warning about acquiring consent from study where a greater level of data security is desirable (such
the participants when pressing the recording button. The as children or immigrants). These platforms encrypt all audio,
recording is then available for 30 days in the Skype session video, and screen sharing data, and all meetings are password
cloud, and it can be downloaded locally. protected. Commonly used applications include Doxy.me,
Vidyo, VSee, Zoom Healthcare, and MD Life; all offer many
One-click access. The participants and the host have to be signed of the same features and most importantly a high level of
into their previously acquired free of charge Skype accounts. security. An additional benefit is that the field has been
improving these technologies for more than 20 years, and
Privacy features. Only participants who are added to the call by a research has been carried out about its ease of use. Beside the
host or who are provided a link from a host can participate. positive developments, there is also one downside point. For
Skype uses AES 256 bit encryption but is not HIPAA example, in a comparison of four platforms, researchers found
compliant. that difficulties with program installation and account cre-
ation created high levels of time and mental demand for par-
ticipants (Agnisarman et al., 2017). This points to the possible
GoToMeeting (www.gotomeeting.com) importance of respondent fatigue for online qualitative inter-
Basic information. GoToMeeting provides a HD video which is a viewing in general.
distinct feature. It enables a researcher to host a one-time meet-
ing or to set up a personal meeting room that can be used Basic information. All telemedicine platforms offer both audio
multiple times with the same invitation link. It enables screen and video support in real time. Some, such as Doxy.me, offer a
sharing, while the Business plan version provides transcription, free basic service, while others charge a monthly or yearly fee.
translation, and note-taking functionalities. Additional features such as “personalized” rooms and schedul-
ing may have further costs. After signing in, respondents can
Number of participants in a session. Professional plan enables see the interviewer in a small self-view box, which they can
150 participants, and Business plan enables even greater turn off. The toolbars generally include standard options such
Lobe et al. 5

as mute/unmute the video, microphone and speaker buttons, Informed Consent, Withdrawal, and Debriefing
speaker volume control, a full screen button, and a disconnect
The most common way to replace the traditional statement of
button. Some platforms offer the ability to share screens, trans-
informed consent for online data collection is to email the
fer files, or have HD video.
consent form to the participant, typically in the body of an
Number of participants in a session. By definition, telemedicine email, and request that the participant reply to that message
platforms were originally designed for highly protected one- as an expression of consent (Lobe, 2017). For some situations,
to-one encounters between a doctor and a patient. However, electronic signatures may be provided (Hewson et al., 2016) by
most platforms are now seeing the utility of adding “group inserting scanned signatures to a Word document or by using
sessions” and are developing these options for an additional specialized programs such as using Docusign. Note that parti-
cost. Group sessions can be held in Zoom Healthcare, Dox- cipants need to be able to ask additional questions prior to
y.me, Vidyo, and VSee. approving their consent, and communicating directly via email
can address this problem (Hewson et al., 2016).
Audio/video recordings. At the time of this writing, most teleme- In the consent form, the researcher must include a line
dicine platforms have or were in the process of developing informing participants they may withdraw from the study at
audio and video recording options. For example, with Zoom any point of the data collection and further. In online interview-
Healthcare, you can save a recording of your interview on your ing and focus groups, voluntary withdrawal can be easily
local desktop or the cloud. The latter option is for nonclinical accomplished, simply by disconnecting. When a “debriefing
applications, as there are fewer privacy concerns. For services statement” is to be supplied at the end of the session, this can
that are still developing the recording option such as Doxy.me, also be accomplished via email (Hewson et al., 2016).
Camtasia is once again an option for recording the screen.

One-click access. This dimension offers the most variability Privacy of Participants, Confidentiality of Data, and Data
among platforms. Doxy.me does not require any downloads Security
or account set up. With Vidyo, the investigator emails an
invite to the participant who then clicks on the link provided Privacy issues are inherent to online services (Lobe, 2017) as in
to download a plug-in for VidyoWeb. The participant can then the famous saying: “Once online, always online!” So, it is
“check-in” to the investigator’s virtual waiting room by enter- essential to investigate the privacy, confidentiality, and data
ing their name. The VSee tool enables investigators to email collection policies of all platforms and services. Further, it is
an invitation link to a respondent who then creates a free important to assure privacy on an invitation basis. For example,
account and installs the desktop VSee application. With Zoom with Skype each participant needs to sign into the interview
Healthcare, participants do not need an account but must individually, which prevents unwanted intruders. This option
download the application. should also be enabled in Zoom (possibly along with password
protection); otherwise, outsiders may find a way to enter meet-
ings that are publicly available—a phenomenon that has
Ethical Issues become known as “Zoom bomb-ing” (www.pcmag.com/
Most of the fundamental ethical issues in online interviewing news/were-you-zoom-bombed). Another useful feature is
are the same as in face-to-face contexts. However, Thomas Zoom’s “waiting room” which allows the initiator of the meet-
(2004, p. 187) argues for “an increased awareness of and com- ing to control who enters the video conference.
mitment to” already established ethical principles that apply To assure the confidentiality of data, it is necessary to
across traditional research. Researchers who already have remove all possible personal identifiers. HIPPA, a U.S. law
approval from their review board will probably only need to designed to provide privacy standards that protect patients’
file a simple “amendment” to their original proposal to shift medical information, lists 18 personal identifiers that research-
from in-person to online data collection. Some ethical issues ers should consider removing when anonymizing data (Ander-
that should be kept in mind for all research and must not be son & Corneli, 2018). Note that informed consent procedures
overlooked in online research are respect for persons (as the and debriefing may compromise anonymity if they are done
fundamental value), anonymity–pseudonymity, risks/benefits using email addresses that are identifiable (i.e., that use first or
for participants, risks/benefits for the social good, public versus last names). In general, researchers must take special care to
private space, subject compensation, justice, cross-cultural prevent any linkage between the data collected and email
issues, special/vulnerable populations, deception, nondisclo- addresses. The simplest possible solution would be to print off
sure, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct (Ess & Hård the emails with expression of consent, archiving them in a
af Segerstad, 2019). For detailed advice about ethical issues in paper form and immediately deleting the electronic version.
online research, see the guidelines from the Association of Inter- There are also other technically more demanding solutions.
net Researchers (Franzke et al., 2020). The main point to be Another issue that arises in video-based interviews is the
recognized is that there is always a “person” who may be affected potential visibility of the background in the participant’s sur-
by the research (Markham and Buchanan, 2012). Below, we dis- roundings, especially if they are at home. This might be more
cuss some practical considerations. of an issue for group interviews, where participants would have
6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

a chance to look into each other homes. For some, this might be and keeping it confidential, keeping various research files (e.g.,
irrelevant, but for others, this might be disturbing. As a solution transcriptions, field notes, and personal data), password protec-
to this, many videoconferencing tools now offer a choice of tion, and possibly encryption for data stored on the researcher’s
virtual background where participants can use a set of offered local computer, and timely deletion of audiovisual recordings.
backgrounds or their own photos. For Skype, this can be For online interviewing, it is also recommended to check what
addressed at least partially through the program’s internal sort of recording storage is provided by the platform—cloud or
option to blur the background in the video, but it is still advi- local (i.e., on the computer of the researcher)—and apply local
sable to request that participants set up their device in a setting storage whenever possible. In Skype, for example, the record-
with a neutral background whenever possible. Another privacy ing link is provided to all participants, which poses confidenti-
issue in online interviews and focus groups is that participants ality issues. Other applications, such as GoToMeeting and
may find a way to record the interview from their own device. Webex, warn participants when the recording starts and stops.
For most video-based software, only the researcher who initi- Webex and Zoom provide local storage of the recording with-
ated the call has the ability to record the interview, but a parti- out extra efforts.
cipant with sufficient technical knowledge could get around
this level of protection, so the prohibition on recording should Discussion
be made explicit in the instructions to the group and possibly in
the statement of informed consent. As Teti et al. (2020) note in their editorial, “qualitative methods
For either in-person or online focus groups, an additional can play a pivotal role in understanding epidemics like
specific privacy issue arises because there is always the possi- COVID-19, the people involved in them, and effective solu-
bility that people will learn enough about other participants to tions and strategies” (). By making use of the technologies
compromise confidentiality of the data. When this is a concern, available to us, we can document this phenomenon and other
the statement of informed consent should include language situations in the future that will no doubt hamper face-to-face
such as: “Be aware that your confidentiality cannot be guaran- data collection efforts. Therefore, researchers should become
teed in a group setting such as this. Please respect one another’s comfortable with and prepared to employ “socially distant”
privacy by not discussing who attended at this meeting or methods of data collection. This article has described some
repeating anything that was said.” This should be reinforced of those technological answers for projects needing to transi-
during the introductory instructions to focus groups. Remem- tion from face-to face-qualitative data collection to a virtual
ber also that participants can get caught in a feeling of false method. Internet-based communication offers many opportuni-
anonymity during the use of online platforms, which can lead ties, but it’s important to consider what services might best suit
them to disclose more information than they might in face-to- a project’s needs. For example, Zoom offers convenience but
face situations (Eynon et al., 2008). has had to address security risks. Platforms such as Doxy.me
Finally, it is important to note that a stricter set of privacy offer security but come at greater cost and may have a steeper
standards apply to U.S. researchers who are collecting pro- learning curve for the researcher and participant. Further, spe-
tected health information that falls under the HIPAA. In cial consideration should be given to ethical issues and consent
particular, to be HIPAA compliant, the supplier of a soft- processes when transitioning research efforts to online venues.
ware program must sign a business associate agreement that Despite some of these challenges, online interviewing via
insures that its servers do not retain information from an videoconferencing provides a valuable opportunity to rise to
interview that contains protected health information. At this the challenge of social distancing while maintaining our data
time, Zoom offers a HIPAA-compliant platform if working collection efforts.
exclusively through their system, but this may not be the
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
case if you have access to Zoom through a third-party sup-
plier. Software supplied by Apple, Facebook, Google, or The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Microsoft is not HIPAA compliant, including all of the chat
and message programs provided by these companies. By Funding
comparison, for researchers who are collecting data in Eur-
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
ope, the GDPR applies to the companies providing software
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National
and services rather than to specific software programs. In Institute on Drug Abuse (U10 DA015815).
this case, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Zoom
are all compliant with GDPR. ORCID iD
David Morgan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6014-7643
Kim A. Hoffman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3063-7881
Data Storage
For any research project, it is advisable to follow strict ethical Notes
procedures after the data have been collected (Andersen and 1. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
Corneli, 2018). Online data collection can generate issues that of 1996 is a U.S. federal law that created national standards to
go beyond the standard procedure, such as deidentifying data protect sensitive patient health information. PHIPA, like HIPAA,
Lobe et al. 7

is a series of rules on the use, disclosure, and collection of health Ess, C., & Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2019). Everything old is new again:
information. This law is important for researchers who are collect- The ethics of digital inquiry and its design. In Å. Mäkitalo, T. E.
ing sensitive patient data. Nicewonger, & M. Elam (Eds.), Designs for experimentation and
2. For European Union, researcher can use the platforms that have the inquiry: Approaching learning and knowing in digital transforma-
ability to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (2016/ tion (pp. 179–196). Routledge.
679) on the protection of natural persons with regard to the pro- Eynon, R., Fry, J., & Schroeder, R. (2008). The ethics of internet
cessing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
research. In N. G. Fielding, R. M Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of online research methods. Sage.
References Ferrante, J. M., Friedman, A., Shaw, E. K., Howard, J., Cohen, D. J., &
Shahidi, L. (2016). Lessons learned designing and using an online
Agnisarman, S. O., Chalil Madathil, K., Smith, K., Ashok, A., Welch,
discussion forum for care coordinators in primary care. Qualitative
B., & McElligott, J. T. (2017). Lessons learned from the usability
Health Research, 26(13), 1851–1861. https://doi.org/10.1177/
assessment of home-based telemedicine systems. Applied Ergo-
1049732315609567
nomics, 58, 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.003
Fielding, N., Lee, R., & Blank, G. (2016). The Sage handbook of
Anderson, E., & Corneli, A. (2018). 100 Questions (and answers)
online research methods. Sage.
about research ethics (Vol. 5). Sage. Franzke, A., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., & Ess, C. (2020). Internet
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. research: Ethical guidelines 3.0.
(2019). Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collec- Fritz, R. L., & Vandermause, R. (2018). Data collection via in-depth
tion: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. email interviewing: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Health
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 16094069 Research, 28(10), 1640–1649. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323
19874596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596 16689067
Board on Health Care Services and Institute of Medicine. (2012). The Gardner, M. R., Jenkins, S. M., O’Neil, D. A., Wood, D. L., Spurrier,
role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment: Work- B. R., & Pruthi, S. (2015). Perceptions of video-based appoint-
shop summary. National Academies Press. http://www.ncbi.nlm. ments from the patient’s home: A patient survey. Telemedicine
nih.gov/books/NBK207145/ Journal and E-Health: The Official Journal of the American Tele-
Cater, J. (2011). Skype: A cost effective method for qualitative medicine Association, 21(4), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.
research. Rehabilitation Counselors & Educators Journal, 4(2), 2014.0037
10–17. Hatten, J., & Christensen, L. (2012). Utilizing online technologies to
Chen, J., & Neo, P. (2019). Texting the waters: An assessment of focus effectively facilitate data gathering in large-scale qualitative
groups conducted via the WhatsApp smartphone messaging appli- research. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of
cation. Methodological Innovations, 12(3), 2059799119884276. E-Learn 2012—World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119884276 Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 611). Asso-
Chen, P., & Hinton, S. (1999). Realtime interviewing using the world ciation for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
wide web. Sociological Research Online, 4(3). http://www.socre Hewson, C., Vogel, C., & Laurent, D. (2016). Ethics in internet-
sonline.org.uk/4/3/chen.html mediated research Chapter 5. In C. Hewson, C. Vogel, & D. Laur-
Coelho, K. R. (2011). Identifying telemedicine services to improve ent (Eds.), Internet research methods (2nd ed., pp. 71–98). Sage.
access to specialty care for the underserved in the San Francisco Jankowski, N. W.van, & Selm, M. (2005). Epilogue: Methodological
safety net. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, concerns and innovations in internet research (p. 207). https://
2011, 523161. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/523161 repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/56846
Daniels, N., Gillen, P., Casson, K., & Wilson, I. (2019). STEER: Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., & Ecklund, E. H. (2019). Beyond the
Factors to consider when designing online focus groups using in-person interview? How interview quality varies across in-
audiovisual technology in health research. https://journals.sage person, telephone, and Skype interviews. Social Science Computer
pub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1609406919885786 Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319893612
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections Joinson, A. (2005). Internet behaviour and the design of virtual meth-
of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616. ods. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126 the internet (pp. 21–34). Oxford.
Doolittle, G. C., & Spaulding, A. O. (2006). Providing access to Kanzaki, H., Makimoto, K., Takemura, T., & Ashida, N. (2004).
oncology care for rural patients via telemedicine. Journal of Development of web-based qualitative and quantitative data col-
Oncology Practice, 2(5), 228–230. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP. lection systems: Study on daily symptoms and coping strategies
2006.2.5.228 among Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients. Nursing & Health
Drabble, L., Trocki, K. F., Salcedo, B., Walker, P. C., & Korcha, Sciences, 6(3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.
R. A. (2016). Conducting qualitative interviews by telephone: 2004.00195.x
Lessons learned from a study of alcohol use among sexual Kite, J., & Phongsavan, P. (2017). Insights for conducting real-time
minority and heterosexual women. Qualitative Social Work: focus groups online using a web conferencing service.
Research and Practice, 15(1), 118–133. https://doi.org/10. F1000Research, 6, 122. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.
1177/1473325015585613 10427.2
8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Kozinets, R. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative PC. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2020, from https://www.pcmag.com/
social media research (3rd ed.). Sage. news/were-you-zoom-bombed-video-of-it-may-now-be-on-you-
Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. K. (2016). Skype as a tube-tiktok-for-all-to
tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Schiek, D., & Ullrich, C. G. (2019). Using web forums for qualitative
Online, 21(2), 12. inquiries: Empirical findings on the conditions and techniques for
Lobe, B. (2017). Best practices for synchronous online focus groups. asynchronous online group discussions. The Qualitative Report,
In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group 24(13), 14.
research: Challenges, innovation and practice (pp. 227–250). Shields, C. M. (2003). Giving voice to students: Using the internet for
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614- data collection. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 397–414. https://doi.
8_11 org/10.1177/1468794103033007
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). The International Encyclope- Skype. (n.d.). www.skype.com.
dia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Elsivier Press. Sullivan, J. (2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection
Matthews, K., Baird, M., & Duchesne, G. (2018). Using online meet- for qualitative interviews. The Hilltop Review, 6(1). http://scholar
ing software to facilitate geographically dispersed focus groups for works.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol6/iss1/10
health workforce research. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ Teti, M., Schatz, E., & Liebenberg, L. (2020). Methods in the time of
10.1177/1049732318782167 COVID-19: The vital role of qualitative inquiries. International
Morgan, D., & Lobe, B. (2011). Online focus groups. In S. N. Hesse- Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920920962. https://
Biber (Eds.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social doi.org/10.1177/1609406920920962
research (pp. 199–230). Oxford University Press. Thomas, J. (2004). Reexamining the ethics of internet research: Fac-
Morrison, D., Lichtenwald, K., & Tang, R. (2020). Extending the ing the challenge of overzealous oversight. In M. D. Johns, S. S. L.
online focus group method using web-based conferencing to Chen, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues,
explore older adults online learning. International Journal of and ethics (pp. 187–201). Oxford.
Research & Method in Education, 43(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/ Tuttas, C. A. (2015). Lessons learned using web conference technology
10.1080/1743727X.2019.1594183 for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research,
O’Connor, H., & Madge, C. (2017). Online interviewing. In N. G. 25(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549602
Fielding, R. M Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The Sage handbook of Webex. (n.d.). https://www.webex.com/">https://www.webex.com/
online research methods (pp. 416–434). Sage. Wootton, R., Bahaadinbeigy, K., & Hailey, D. (2011). Estimating
Pang, P., Chang, S., Verspoor, K., & Clavisi, O. (2018). The use of travel reduction associated with the use of telemedicine by patients
web-based technologies in health research participation: Qualita- and healthcare professionals: Proposal for quantitative synthesis in
tive study of consumer and researcher experiences. Journal of a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 185.
Medical Internet Research, 20(10), e12094. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-185
2196/12094 Zoom. (n.d.). https://zoom.us