Advocates of online alternatives to face-to-face interviewing suggest online approaches save money and time, whereas others have raised concerns about the quality and content of the resulting data. These issues affect researchers designing and costing their studies and application reviewers and research funders. We conducted a scoping review of English language articles describing the range of online alternative approaches. Furthermore, we systematically identified studies directly comparing online alternatives with face-to-face approaches. Synthesis of these 11 articles (565 participants) suggests that online alternatives should not be viewed as a straightforward replacement for face-to-face, a particularly important finding given the rapid communication changes occurring in the COVID-19 pandemic. When applied with consideration of the evolving evidence on their strengths and weaknesses, online methods may increase the likelihood of obtaining the desired sample, but responses are shorter, less contextual information is obtained, and relational satisfaction and consensus development are lower.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
BackhausA.AghaZ.MaglioneM. L.ReppA.RossB.ZuestD.Rice-ThorpN. M.LohrJ.ThorpS. R. (2012). Videoconferencing psychotherapy: A systematic review. Psychology Services, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027924
4.
Berners-LeeT. (1999). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web, by its inventor. Harper.
5.
ByrneC. (2017). Anonymous social media and qualitative inquiry: Methodological considerations and implications for using Yik Yak as a qualitative data source. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(10), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731081
6.
CarrE. C. J.WorthA. (2001). The use of the telephone interview for research. NTResearch, 6(1), 511–524.
7.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory. In SmithJ. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research method, (ch.4, pp. 89–110). Sage.
8.
CostelloL.McDermottM. L.WallaceR. (2017). Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647
9.
CreswellV. L.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
10.
CurasiC. F. (2001). A critical exploration of face-to-face interviewing vs. computer-mediated interviewing. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 361–375.
11.
DoddsP. S.HarrisK. D.KloumannI. M.BlissC. A.DanforthC. M. (2011). Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS ONE, 6(12), Article e26752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026752
12.
DoganE.SanderC.WagnerX.HegerlU.KohlsE. (2017). Smartphone-based monitoring of objective and subjective data in affective disorders: Where are we and where are we going? Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(7), Article e262. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7006
13.
FergusonM. A.KitterickP. T.ChongL. Y.Edmondson-JonesM.BarkerF.HoareD. J. (2017). Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, CD012023. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012023.pub2
14.
GaiserT. (2017). Online focus groups. In FieldingN.LeeR. M.BlankG. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (2nd ed., pp. 290–306). Sage.
15.
GermainJ.HarrisJ.MackayS.MaxwellC. (2017). Why should we use online research methods? Four doctoral health student perspectives. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1650–1657.
16.
GilesD.StommelW.PaulusT.LesterJ.ReedD. (2015). Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA.” Discourse Context & Media, 7, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.002
17.
GodleskiL.DarkinsA.PetersJ. (2012). Outcomes of 98,609 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs patients enrolled in telemental health services, 2006-2010. Psychiatry Services, 63(4), 383–385. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100206
18.
GraffignaG. B. A. (2006). The influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative health research: A comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about HIV/AIDS. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500307
19.
GreeneC. J.MorlandL. A.MacdonaldA.FruehB. C.GrubbsK. M.RosenC. S. (2010). How does tele-mental health affect group therapy process? Secondary analysis of a noninferiority trial. Journal of Consultative Clinical Psychology, 78(5), 746–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020158
20.
HallettR. E.BarberK. (2014). Ethnographic research in a cyber era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(3), 306–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241613497749.
21.
ImE. O.CheeW. (2012). Practical guidelines for qualitative research using online forums. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 30(11), 604–611. https://doi.org/10.1097/NXN.0b013e318266cade
22.
JamisonJ.SuttonS.MantJ.De SimoniA. (2018). Online stroke forum as source of data for qualitative research: Insights from a comparison with patients’ interviews. BMJ Open, 8(3), Article e020133. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020133
23.
JennerB. M. M. K. (2019). Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: A comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1512694
24.
JonesS. (Ed.). (1999). Doing internet research—Critical issues and methods for examining the net. Sage.
25.
KeedleH.SchmiedV.BurnsE.DahlenH. (2018). The design, development, and evaluation of a qualitative data collection application for pregnant women. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 501(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12344
26.
Kramish CampbellM.MeierA.CarrC.EngaZ.JamesA. S.ReedyJ.ZhengB. (2001). Health behavior changes after colon cancer: A comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Family and Community Health, 24(3), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-200110000-00010
27.
KurtzL. C.TrainerS.BeresfordM.WutichA.BrewisA. (2017). Blogs as elusive ethnographic texts: Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative online research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917705796
28.
LarsonR.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 41–56.
29.
LeeM. (2017). Don’t give up! A cyber-ethnography and discourse analysis of an online infertility patient forum. Culture, Medicine, Psychiatry, 41(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-016-9515-6
30.
LevacD.ColquhounH.O’BrienK. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
31.
Lo IaconoV.SymondsP.BrownD. H. K. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952
McCoydJ. L. M. (2006). Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325006067367
34.
McKechnieV.BarkerC.StottJ. (2014). The effectiveness of an Internet support forum for carers of people with dementia: A pre-post cohort study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), Article e68. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3166
35.
MoskowitzD. S.YoungS. N. (2006). Ecological momentary assessment: What it is and why it is a method of the future in clinical psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 31(1), 13–20.
NguyenD.JohnC. (2007). Multiview: Improving trust in group video conferencing through spatial faithfulness. CHI ‘07 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, United States. https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/1240624.
38.
NicholasD. B.LachL.KingG.ScottM.BoydellK.SawatzkyB. J.ReismanJ.SchippelE.YoungN. L. (2010). Contrasting Internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900102
39.
OgdenJ.CornwellD. (2010). The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(7), 1059–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01272.x
40.
OwenM. I.BraunL. T.HamiltonR. J.GradyK. L.GaryR. A.QuestT. E. (2017). Weblogs: A complex data source for qualitative research. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 23(11), 826–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.08.453
41.
PentzoldC. (2017). “What are these researchers doing in my Wikipedia?” Ethical premises and practical judgment in internet-based ethnography. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9423-7
42.
ReichJ. A. (2015). Old methods and new technologies: Social media and shifts in power in qualitative research. Ethnography, 16(4), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138114552949
43.
ReidD.ReidF. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups an in-depth comparison of computer mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research, 47(2), 131–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530504700204
44.
ReisnerS. L.RandazzoR. K.White HughtoJ. M.PeitzmeierS.DuBoisL. Z.PardeeD. J.MarrowE.McLeanS.PotterJ. (2018). Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: Methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317705355
45.
RupertD. J.PoehlmanJ. A.HayesJ. J.RayS. E.MoultrieR. R. (2017). Virtual versus in-person focus groups: Comparison of costs, recruitment, and participant logistics. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(3), Article e80. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6980
46.
RyanS. (2013). Engagement and inclusivity in researching patients’ experiences. In ZieblandS. (Ed.), Understanding and using health experiences: Improving patient care (1st ed., pp. 135–147). Oxford University Press.
47.
SchneiderS. J.KerwinJ.FrechtlingJ.VivariB. A. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000104
48.
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ.MacFarlaneA.McPhersonA. (2010). Interviews and internet forums: A comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309354094
49.
SealeC.ZieblandS.Charteris-BlackJ. (2006). Gender, cancer experience and internet use: A comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Social Science in Medicine, 62(10), 2577–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.016
50.
SnelsonC. L. (2016). Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: A review of the literature. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915624574
51.
SolomonM. (1996). Targeting trendsetters: Cyberstudies capture the perceptions and insights of early adopters. Marketing Research, 8(2), 9.
52.
StoneA.ShiffmanS. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16(3), 199–202.
53.
SturgesJ.HanrahanK. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104041110
54.
SynnotA.HillS.SummersM.TaylorM. (2014). Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Health Research, 24(3), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314523840
55.
TaggC.LyonsA.HuR.RockF. (2017). The ethics of digital ethnography in a team project. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2–3), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-1040
56.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
57.
TuttasC. A. (2015). Lessons learned using Web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 25(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549602
58.
VicsekL. (2016). Improving data quality and avoiding pitfalls of online text-based focus groups: A practical guide. Qualitative Report, 21(7), 1232–1242. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss7/4
59.
WilkersonJ. M.IantaffiA.GreyJ. A.BocktingW. O.RosserB. R. (2014). Recommendations for internet-based qualitative health research with hard-to-reach populations. Qualitative Health Research, 24(4), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314524635
60.
WilliamsS.ClausenM. G.RobertsonA.PeacockS.McPhersonK. (2012). Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100405
61.
WoodyattC. R.FinneranC. A.StephensonR. (2016). In-person versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis of data quality. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316631510
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
