A Joint Autoethnography on Collecting Qualitative Data Remotely: Insights From Doctoral Students’ Experiences

Abstract

Researchers in general and those conducting English Language Teaching (ELT) studies in particular have been using alternative data collection methods and strategies due to recent technological advancements, natural events, as well as personal researchers’ predicaments. In this article, we present our research insights into remote qualitative data collection from the perspective of doctoral students. Using a joint-autoethnography research design, we share our reflections on collecting data from two different studies conducted in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. We support these reflections with similar literature about remote data collection. Our focus is on the use of remote observations and remote surveys in qualitative studies. In our settings, while collecting data through remote observation, the major challenges we faced were related to technological management for the use of in-class video-recordings. Consequently, the change to audio-recordings demonstrated to be appropriate in such contexts. Furthermore, the use of remote qualitative surveys for data collection taught us that despite a high rate of initial acceptance for participation in other studies, the response rate in our study was quite low. As a result of this challenge, additional data collection methods were used in the relevant study. These experiences reveal that there will be a need to improve our procedures for a successful collection of remote qualitative data, not only in our future studies, but also for those researchers intending to use these data collection methods in similar situations.

Introduction

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is a commonly used term to indicate situations or contexts where English is taught and learnt so that it can be used, when travelling to different countries, or within the country, when interacting with individuals from different nations who speak it. Therefore, in such contexts English is neither an official nor a national language. This fact makes various researchers conduct studies to understand aspects related to EFL, and English Language Teaching (ELT) in general. While doing so, many researchers deploy qualitative methods. In fact, such methods are now widely used not only within these areas, but also in several other research fields. The qualitative research tools, used for data collection, vary in different fields. This depends on the aims and objectives of the researchers which might determine the use of in-person participant observations; recording of everyday interactions via audio-recording devices; interviews; and open-ended surveys, all of which are qualitatively oriented. In this paper, we reflect on our methodological choices and challenges in conducting remote qualitative research in two separate EFL contexts, namely Mozambique and Libya.

Within the EFL and ELT domains, studies using qualitative approaches are increasing. To illustrate, between 2000 and 2014, data collected from Queen’s University of Belfast database shows that more than 51,000 journal articles written by students and researchers have employed qualitative methods in the broader areas of ELT (Wang, 2018). Thus, compared to mixed methods and quantitative designs, it is the most widely used design in ELT studies. In a similar study, Chamorro and Varón (2022) synthesised EFL publications from 1990 to 2020. Focusing on Colombian journals, they concluded that during these 30 years, qualitative studies became increasingly popular among EFL researchers. As can be inferred from these conclusions, researchers in ELT continuously use qualitative designs and therefore make different decisions regarding research procedures to be adopted throughout the various stages of these studies. These decisions start from determining the design or type of study, the settings, the participants, the instruments, the type of data, and above all, the way the data will be collected (Phillips & Stawarski, 2008). As a result, the choices made at early stages of the study have direct impact on the following research steps as well as on the findings. Therefore, it is crucial for all the researchers to make these choices carefully.

Qualitative research focuses on the narrative data which is drawn from the participants’ ideas, experiences, feelings, rather than on the numerical data. In order to collect, analyse, interpret and present such data, researchers using this approach rely on the techniques associated with it. As can be noted, qualitative research focuses on the everyday lived experiences that are gathered using techniques and tools, such as observations, document analysis, and interviews, which are central to this approach (Braun et al., 2020; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Ma, 2015). Those adopting this approach believe that understanding, describing or explaining the problem in their focus, that is, the phenomenon they are studying, is possible through individual and collective construction. In this respect, qualitative researchers are constructivist in nature since they employ a constructivist paradigm (Tavakoli, 2012). Another characteristic of qualitative researchers is the use of reasoning or inductive logic in their studies. This means that rather than relying on an existing framework, they collect data which form the basis of their path to analysis, from which codes, patterns, and themes emerge, constructing a theory to explain the problem. This qualitative procedure is known as starting from the particular, which refers to the data collected, and going to the general - referring to the resulting theory (Gall et al., 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

However, the methods and tools used, for instance, in face-to-face participant observations, cannot be employed in situations where the researcher is not immersed in the context of the study, which has been the case with the recent COVID-19 pandemic experienced by researchers worldwide. In such cases, the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) enables researchers to collect data nevertheless. As Salmons (2015) acknowledges, the “emerging information and communications technologies (ICTs) offer diverse ways to conduct research interviews, observe participants, and/or obtain related documents” (p. 30). Although initially this may sound like an easy solution, the drawbacks and implications for research results for such an implementation need to be considered. Based on the hands-on experience of the studies we conducted, in this article, our focus will be on qualitative data collection. More specifically, we will deliberate on collecting qualitative data remotely. Therefore, it is our aim in this paper, to present not only the procedures and the benefits of using remote data collection but also the challenges involved in such choices.

The methodologies that will be discussed in this paper are grounded in our experience as international PhD students as we were based in northern Cyprus while we were conducting research in our respective native countries, namely Mozambique and Libya. During course work, we were asked to conduct studies which would focus not only on the host country but on other contexts that we had access to. This fact presented a big challenge to us since the geographical distance that separated us from our homelands was huge, contributing to the difficulty of travelling for a short period of time. In order to deal with this challenge, and following suggestions from the literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic (Jones, 2017; Suadi, 2021), we decided to employ remote data collection methods.

As a result of the required course work, our discussions and readings led us to conduct different studies using remote data collection methods. In this article, we will concentrate on remote observations and qualitative surveys, and answer the following research questions:

1. What insights can be gained from remote qualitative data collection experience of doctoral students?

2. a. How is collecting data remotely different from face-to-face data collection from the perspective of qualitative researchers?

2. b. How do doctoral students manage the remote data collection process in their studies?

Remote Qualitative Data Collection

COVID-19 pandemic forced many researchers to amend their methodologies due to lack of contact with their potential participants. As Cornejo et al. (2023) argue, “access to participants and recruitment strategies; the conditions of participation; and data production techniques and devices” (p. 1) are the main domains of qualitative research, which were severely affected by the conditions that COVID-19 brought upon the researchers. In this paper, our focus is on the process of data collection, which refers to the process where researchers describe and explain what is taking place in the field. In the next two sections, we describe the general understanding of observations and surveys and introduce remote observations as well as remote qualitative surveys from the lens of other scholars. We also provide operational definitions for both of these methods in relation to this paper.

Remote Observation in Qualitative Studies

In different domains of social science studies, data are collected using different methods. Data, as defined by Yin (2016), are “the smallest or lowest entities or recorded elements resulting from some experience, observation, experiment, or other similar situation” (p. 138). Cameron (2001) indicates that the choice of methods as well as the kind of data researchers want to collect is determined by the aim of the study. She adds that observation is often used in qualitative social science research. Observation is defined as “the actions of watching, recording and, in qualitative approaches, interpreting and reflecting on human activity and behaviour” (Rose et al., 2020, p. 92). It is the process in which the researchers watch in the main setting of the phenomena with varying degrees of participation, looking at the behaviour of the participants (Tavakoli, 2012).

The common observations in research have been in situ where the researchers go to the setting being studied and either actively or passively record the research participants’ activities (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Tavakoli, 2012). However, Rose et al. (2020) argues that due to the widespread use of the internet, researchers now have the option of adopting an entirely neutral “outsider position by conducting” (p. 93) online observation. Torrentina (2020) even discourages the use of direct observations in unusual times that affect many researchers today, arguing that direct observations “are not feasible during the Covid-19 pandemic” (p. 82). Moreover, during the recent pandemic, many scholars have conducted studies using Zoom, Google Meet, Skype, and other platforms, which allowed remote participant observation in real time (Archibald et al., 2019; Boland et al., 2022; Gray et al., 2020; Suadi, 2021). In their study, Archibald et al. concluded that “Zoom as a tool for collection of qualitative data” is viable “because of its relative ease of use, cost-effectiveness, data management features, and security options” (p. 1). Furthermore, McNally et al. (2011), using a different tool for remote observations, concluded that SkypeTM is “a tremendously useful tool in solving our observation problems” (para. 1, discussion section). These studies demonstrate that, as qualitative researchers, we are presented with a number of alternatives to the usual direct observations which demand the researchers to be physically present in the field. For these authors, online observation “involves systematic observation of online activities – such as those on social media” (Rose et al., 2020, p. 105). Salmons (2015) adds that in online observations researchers collect data through “external or participant observation of online dialogues, behaviour, interactions, events, or activities” (p. 31). Other scholars use the term remote observation to describe similar activities (Hager et al., 2012).

Hager et al. developed a system that is currently used for remote observation of teacher trainees. According to these authors, the key instruments or components they considered in designing “a remote observation system included (a) high quality audio and video, (b) remote control of the camera angle, and (c) a procedure for interacting directly with the teacher without disrupting the classroom” (p. 8). Though this framework is designed for evaluation purposes of teacher training in distance education, it provides guidelines for research purposes for remote structured observations where needed. Despite its comprehensive scope, the adoption of Hager et al.’s framework may pose some challenges for qualitative researchers who want to approach observation remotely. For instance, in cases where the necessary technological resources are available, finding people who can properly manage them so that the researcher can obtain data might present a big challenge.

In this paper, we use the term remote observations to mean the process in which the researchers use either technological tools to participate in live sessions, within the research setting, and watch the actions or behaviour of the participants, without being physically present, or they use other people to audio and/or video record the participants’ behaviour regarding the linguistic phenomenon being studied within the ELT/EFL settings. In other words, we define remote observation as the data collection process which consists of collecting recordings of participants’ behaviours and/or verbal interactions regarding the topic under investigation without necessarily meeting them in person.

Remote Qualitative Surveys

Surveys in general have been widely used in studies where the aim is to collect quantitative data (cf. Allam & Elyas, 2016; Önalan, 2005; Khotimah, 2019; Kutlay, 2012). This is the reason why Khotimah (2019) conceptualises survey research designs as “procedures in quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey to a sample or to the entire population of people to describe the attitude, opinion, behaviours or characteristic of the population.” (p. 3). In fact, surveys are generally used in studies where the researchers’ focus is on ‘measuring variables’ and obtaining data that will contribute to the ‘representativeness of their findings’, which are some of the characteristics of quantitative studies (Phillips & Stawarski, 2008; Rose et al., 2020).

Braun et al. (2020) challenged the view that surveys are essentially quantitative tools. In their study, they guarantee that “qualitative surveys have much to offer qualitative researchers, especially given online delivery options” (p. 1). Recent studies demonstrate that qualitative surveys are emerging and gradually being utilised successfully in qualitatively oriented studies. Many scholars note that, despite being widely used in quantitative studies, the common methods used in surveys include telephone interviews, face-to-face interviews, and questionnaires (Gall et al., 2007; Mathers et al., 2007). These methods are also found in qualitative surveys. As a matter of fact, Belanovskiy (2023) affirms that qualitative surveys can take the form of “interviews and focus groups” (p. 91). For us, this implies that surveys are not restricted to quantitative studies since both interviews and questionnaires can fully use open-ended questions to yield qualitative data, thus the term – qualitative surveys. This perception of qualitative surveys is also grounded in Braun et al.’s (2020) article in which they clarify that qualitative surveys are composed of a number of open-ended questions, drafted by researchers and focusing on one topic being studied. They add that these surveys are administered by the researcher/s and the questions are presented in a fixed and standard order to all participants who write or type their answers, which are then analysed using qualitative approaches. Belanovskiy (2023) provides guidance regarding how participants are selected in qualitative surveys. He argues that it is incorrect, for instance, to assign quantitative paradigms in determining the sample representativeness for such a method, and suggests purposive sampling instead.

Bíró et al. (2014) defend that there are many researchers adopting “online surveys” (p. 50), in cases where the researchers do not have face-to-face access to the potential participants. According to Braun et al. (2020), the use of an online qualitative survey provides researchers and participants with a number of advantages. Certainly, the advantages which surpass the weaknesses towards the use of this method are at the centre of the changes from traditional paper-based surveys to remote qualitative surveys. Julien (2008) agrees with this view and explains that using online surveys can be “easier to handle for both the researcher and the respondent” (p. 847).

This preference for remote or online qualitative surveys, which has significantly increased due to the outbreak of COVID-19, can be seen in many social and life sciences as well as in different other areas where researchers have adopted such remote methods (Lion et al., 2023; Keen et al., 2022; Neris, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2022). To illustrate, in a study conducted by Fitri and Putro (2021), the use of online surveys was justified by the presence of COVID-19 in their study settings. They defend that the adoption of online surveys presents a lot of advantages in such situations. In addition, some scholars in health sciences have conducted their studies and provided instructions and strategies based on their insights into using qualitative remote surveys (Remaklus-Homan et al., 2022). Others used such a method in education with children and young people (Hennessey et al., 2022). Some researchers have concentrated on providing ethical discussion and general methodological guidance while using survey interviews for remote qualitative data collection (Braun et al., 2020; Engward et al., 2022; Neris, 2022). In the discussion about email surveys, Mann and Stewart (2000) explain that researchers can usually send the questions “to respondents as the text of a conventional email message” (p. 67). Alternatively, they add, researchers can attach a document containing the questions and ask the respondents to download and answer the questions, then upload them to send their answers back to the researcher. All of these methods of collecting data require very little in terms of technological skills and equipment since email messaging is a conventional method of communication in today’s societies. Using remote survey tools, as described here, can allow the researchers to adopt the same means of conventional communication to collect data remotely. However, to move methodological discussions around remote qualitative surveys as data collection tools in qualitatively oriented studies further, the existing literature is still scarce. Hence our study aims to add to this discussion by providing insights into how remote surveys can be used in different contexts for qualitative research.

In this article, we use the term remote qualitative survey to mean the process of collecting data in which open-ended questions are sent to the participants so that they can provide written answers at their convenient time. The researchers obtain the answers either through the same means (for instance, email, WhatsApp, phone messages, or any other instant platform, such as Google Forms), as highlighted by Mann and Stewart (2000). However, the essence of our adoption of remote qualitative surveys is grounded on Poynter’s (2010) distinction between synchronous and asynchronous approaches to online research, where for our case the latter was predominant in our studies. Poynter explains that in asynchronous research techniques, “the researcher and the respondents do not need to be online at the same time” (p. 111), thus our preference for the term remote.

Methodology

This article is a result of our reflections on our experience of collecting qualitative data remotely. According to Mann and Stewart (2000) citing Boud et al. (1985), “reflection is an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull over and evaluate it” (p. 8). Mann (2016) acknowledges the need for reflexivity practice in qualitative research. Therefore, the current study used a “joint autoethnography” research design (Rose et al., 2020) also referred to as “collaborative autoethnography” (Chang et al., 2013) to provide our remote research insights. Joint autoethnography (JAE) allows different researchers or authors to concentrate on a specific theme or topic and share their own lived experiences as a group (Rose et al., 2020; Rutter et al., 2022). Actually, JAE enriches the construction of the knowledge which would otherwise be completely relying on a single researcher’s perspective. In this article, we adopted the term joint autoethnography which will be used throughout the article.

In line with our objective, and following Chang et al.’s (2013) framework for data collection in JAE studies, we wrote down all the relevant stages, challenges, and successes while collecting remote data so that we could analyse and report our experiences in a scientific manner. This procedure facilitated discussions about the similarities and differences encountered by each of the researchers. In fact, Rutter et al. (2022, p. 3) comment that in JAE studies, “intersubjectivity” is promoted, and not only the “individual” but also the “mutual” experiences of the researchers are relevant. Consequently, despite acknowledging the challenges involved in JAE studies, they reject the criticism brought to JAE due to subjectivity in academic research, arguing that this is what makes the essence of lived experience to be reported.

In an autoethnographic study, researchers focus more on themselves. That is, rather than drawing attention to the behaviour of their participants, they look at what, for instance, they have learnt throughout the process of conducting a study, or in any (cultural) situation. As such, the researchers disseminate their own story as narrated in the first person singular (in the case of ‘autoethnography’) or in the first-person plural (in a JAE study). The authors report their own stories. Adams et al. (2017) make it clear that the manner in which we write and practice autoethnography, as well as our objectives and goals of the autoethnographic article, are affected by “processes, principles or practices of autobiography and ethnography” (p. 3). These scholars identify a number of purposes that can be taken into account while reporting personal experiences in JAE. The main purposes of autoethnographic studies include, among others, to “describe moments of everyday experience,” to “complement or fill the gaps in existing literature” and/or “to articulate insider knowledge of cultural experience” (p. 3) in a novel way with the lens of somebody who has experienced the practices rather than as told by a third person and reported by outsiders. These purposes are aligned with what we wanted to achieve with our reflections of what we experienced as qualitative researchers during the pandemic period, where access to the research sites were limited, at the same time we were abroad on studies and we wanted to collect data in our home countries.

Data for this article was obtained from the reflective journals of the first two authors who are coded as Researcher 1 and Researcher 2. Starting from April 2022, we conducted studies related to the field of ELT, focusing on teachers and students in secondary schools, and lecturers in higher education. Our studies used different remote data collection methods. In study 1, conducted by researchers 1 and 3, interviews and observations were both administered remotely in one month. The participants were two English language teachers working in different Mozambican secondary schools. Similarly, researchers 2 and 3 conducted a study using remote qualitative surveys and interviews in higher education. Data collection for study 2 lasted for five months and involved 15 lecturers in the ELT Department in Libya. Ethical approval for both studies was obtained from the Ethics Committee for Educational Sciences, Near East University (NEU/ES/2022/842 and NEU/ES/2022/831 respectively). Table 1 summarises the primary source of our data collection for the production of this article.

Table 1.

Summary of Studies Included for Reflections.

Researchers	Studies Conducted	Data Collection	Participants	Focus
Author 1 & 3	Study 1	Remote observations and remote interviews	2 English language teachers	Mozambican EFL teachers’ use of questions in secondary schools
Author 2 & 3	Study 2	Remote qualitative surveys and remote interviews	15 English language lecturers	Libyan EFL lecturers’ perceptions regarding online education at university level

In order to follow up with each author’s stages regarding data collection experiences, a total of nine meetings were held in seven months. Six meetings were conducted during the last four months of 2022. Four of these meetings were initially held fortnightly using the Google Meet platform. To retain data from the meetings, note taking and audio-recordings were used. Later, between January and March 2023, three follow-up meetings were conducted. The last three meetings were held using the WhatsApp platform. In such interactions, using the same platform, the researchers made phone calls, exchanged written messages, and sometimes recorded the information under discussion and exchanged it between them. The recorded data for these meetings added up to 8 hours in total. In these meetings, not only the initial findings but also the challenges encountered and possible ways of overcoming them were discussed, recorded, and shared.

In order to respond to Nowell et al.’s (2017) suggestion regarding strategies for enhancing credibility in qualitative research, all the discussions were followed by the writing process of the topics or aspects that were considered in each meeting, that is, an open coding process was carried out as we recorded the data. Based on our analysis of the progress of the two studies, the resulting sections were reviewed and edited, and further information was added by all authors of the current study. This strategy allowed us to verify that the information added to this paper was related to the experience gathered throughout the studies in consideration.

In the studies reported herein, we focus on remote qualitative data collection. As can be seen from Table 1, the research designs and aims in the two reported studies were different in nature and aims. The settings in the two studies were also different from each other, that is, one of the studies obtained data from classrooms at the secondary level while the other one gathered data from university classrooms. The participants were also from different backgrounds. Yet, the common point in our studies was that they were both designed qualitatively in EFL classroom settings. In addition, the focus of this paper is not on the actual data collected in our separate studies but on our mutual lived experiences as qualitative researchers doing remote data collection.

Findings

Conducting Remote Data Collection - Our Insights

Having contextualised our study and provided the methodological procedures that we followed in order to produce this article, in the next sections we describe our insights from both remote observations and remote qualitative surveys.

Insights From Remote Observations

In our studies, we used different types of remote observations. In general, we categorise them following many scholars who suggest the existence of two different types of observations – participant and non-participant (Orgad, 2009). Different from Orgad, in Ciesielska et al.’s (2018) study, three types of observation are identified. In addition to participant and non-participant observations, these scholars added ‘indirect observation’ consisting of the involvement of research assistants in the study. As we will explain later, the bureaucratic processes as well as technological challenges led us to have different types of remote non-participant and indirect observations of the participants. Non-participant or outsider observation occurs when the researcher is not directly involved in the participants’ activities during the observation. We used this type of remote observation by either asking our participants to record their activities and behaviours, or using research assistants to do the recordings, which is referred to as indirect observation. In this study, both are grouped under non-participant observation.

When using remote observation as a data collection tool, it is important to carefully plan and decide whether the researcher will use any research assistant or not. As Hager et al. (2012) suggest, it is important to involve research assistants where possible since the researcher will not be present in the setting. These assistants play a significant role in helping the participants with any difficulties they may encounter in using the technological devices as well as taking notes of relevant phenomena occurring during the data collection. They do this following the instructions received from the researchers. Therefore, it is crucial to train the research assistants in order to prepare them technologically as well as scientifically with the necessary knowledge of what they will do and how they will do it. Answering the question “Can observation be carried out by observers other than the main researcher?” Mirhosseini (2020) positively agrees that such practice can be followed as long as the observers, that is, research assistants have the “methodological knowledge” and know “what it means to observe and how observation should be done” (p. 80). This is a significant point to be determined by the nature of the study and the tools used for such observations.

In the first study which was led by author 1, research assistants were involved. This procedure was followed only after obtaining the approval from the relevant ethics committee. In fact, it was only after the approval of the Ethics Committee for Educational Sciences, that the researchers trained the assistants for appropriate methods of data collection.

The online training for the research assistants was held using Zoom platform followed by WhatsApp and telephone communications throughout the preparation (before data collection), execution (during) as well as after data collection discussions. In such meetings and follow-ups, we provided detailed explanations regarding the technological tools to be used (cameras and microphones), gaining access to the settings and participants, the purpose of the observations, and what exactly we wanted to get through the observations, among other aspects which the assistants asked in the training. Thus, relevant prerequisites for remote observations described by Hager et al. (2012) and Mirhosseini (2020) were met. Yet, as we will demonstrate in the following sections, other factors may affect the access of the research assistants to the participants as well as the kind of data we obtain via remote observations.

Adapting Our Remote Observation Procedures as We Move

As a result of the challenges we faced because of the prior experiences of the participants, we needed to make a lot of adjustments to the nature of the data. This was challenging for us as remote qualitative researchers because, despite all the efforts we put in at the preparation stage, and even after careful planning, we noted that the way we collected our data through this remote observation had been impacted by our participants’ experiences of being observed remotely. Our assertion is grounded on the fact that, after all the technological devices, such as cameras and microphones, were set up for our study 1, most of the participants who had initially agreed to participate were reluctant to proceed with the video recordings. This reluctance affected the quality of the data we collected since, rather than obtaining video recordings as planned before, we had to collect audio-recordings from those participants who expressed interest in taking part in the study.

We initially contacted all of the seven English language teachers of the first school where study 1 was conducted, and they agreed to participate. As we continued making arrangements, we received different excuses from some of these potential participants. For instance, four of them said that they were testing in the following weeks and their classes would not be available for the observations. Later, two out of the remaining three teachers kept postponing the observations without providing any reasons until the end of the study.

As the study progressed and we interviewed the only participant as part of the study, we found out that his colleagues’ prior experience of their classes being recorded was only limited to inspectors from the Ministry of Education recording them for future judgments. Therefore, despite having been given clear explanations in the initial contacts, as well as in the participant consent form, that the recordings would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes, the teachers felt uneasy about being recorded. Looking at their experience, we understand that they thought that these recordings could be shared with their inspectors later. As a result of this perception and experiences regarding being recorded, we only managed to have one teacher participating in the study at this school, impacting on the number of participants in our study 1 negatively.

The second challenge, which emerged during the data collection process, in study 1, was that the only teacher who agreed to be recorded for the purposes of this study asked the research assistant to use only a microphone and avoid video-recording. Looking at our initial research focus for study 1, which was the teachers’ use of questions and the resulting interactions in the classroom, we decided to carry on as requested by the participant. This made us change our initial plan and adapt ourselves to using audio-recordings only (Mann & Stewart, 2000). Yet, this meant that we would not have the multi-modal data that we were expecting, hence a change in the analysis procedures was required (Orgad, 2009).

The remote observation challenges described above were somehow stressful for us because we had to find possible ways to deal with them. As one of the consequences of the reduced number of participants in the study, during the data collection process, we did not have enough data to provide a comparative analysis of different classrooms’ linguistic practices, which was among our initial aims for study 1. Therefore, we had to identify participants from a different school. Thus, we had to include another teacher who agreed to participate in our study. Unfortunately, since he was working in a secondary school in a different district, we faced another challenge. The second location where our new participant was teaching was further away from the initial location of data collection, which presented a challenge in itself because it was difficult for the research assistant to move to the new setting due to the distance separating them. As a result, we had to make additional arrangements with this participant so that he could record his own classes. This meant that he would not have the tools that we had already bought for the research assistant. With limited options, we remotely made all the necessary arrangements with this participant in the second school, following similar procedures we used with the first participant in the first setting. In the latter case, we asked the participant to record himself in the absence of the research assistant. However, since it was not possible to provide him with the technological equipment for video-recording, he was only able to audio record himself rather than the initial video-recordings that we wanted to collect. Thus, we feel that being away from the context of the study, and collecting data through remote observation, imposed limitations on the kind of data we were able to obtain, as well as caused us to waste financial resources because some of the technological tools we purchased were underutilised.

Drawbacks of Audio-Recordings as a Replacement for Video-Recordings

As noted earlier, due to several obstacles, our initial plan to obtain video-recordings had to be adjusted to the reality. Instead of video-recordings, we managed to get audio-recordings. To be able to collect quality data, we had to buy wireless headphones, which added to the cost of the study. In addition, we asked one of the participants to use his phone to record his classes. Although this strategy is helpful in situations where the focus is only on the language being used and verbal interactions, there is a lot that is missed. For instance, because only the teachers had the headphones closer to them, we could not clearly get most of the students’ reactions and answers since they were not recorded except for the ones who were closer to the teachers. We believe that if we, as researchers, had direct access to the setting, we would have had the opportunity to reorganise the tools used to obtain better quality data. Hence, the negative impact of collecting data remotely.

Similarly, from our experience, we learnt that audio-recordings present another drawback in cases where the researcher wants to observe not only the language used but also the actions and behaviours taking place in EFL classes, which are inherent to everyday interactions. As noted by Mirhosseini (2020), well-prepared research assistants can be a valuable addition in this context. In such cases, as we did it, the audio-recording is accompanied by a general description of what the assistants had observed following the researchers’ instructions. In our experience, despite the training we provided to our research assistants, we understand that including them as the researchers’ eyes provided meaningful data but not as we expected before the activity. For instance, one of our research assistants was informed that he needed to write down the teachers’ and students’ reactions to the questions and answers during the class. We wanted to explore, for example, whether the teachers were pointing to the students after asking them questions and whether they were writing the students’ answers on the board, among other relevant language learning behaviours that occurred in the class. To our surprise, this information was not obtained. The assistant did not provide us with this additional information, and as a result, we had to rely only on the audio-recordings he sent us.

Taking into account that our main aim in study 1 was to analyse the questions used in the interactions between the teachers and the students, the challenges imposed by several factors during data collection, and the resulting changes we made to our procedures had little impact on the quality of data collected for this study. Indeed, our focus on the analysis of the language used in the EFL classes demonstrated that either video or audio-recording would be appropriate. However, we understand that this would not be appropriate in a different study where video recordings are irreplaceable due to the nature of the study.

Dealing With the Challenges in Remote Observations: Additional Choices?

Based on all that we have experienced in our attempt to use remote observations in qualitative data collection, we can make the following suggestions to those who might need to adopt such methods in their qualitative work. Following the principles of a detached observer, researchers can look at other possibilities of achieving the same aims of their studies. For instance, if the aim is to focus on the use of language, as suggested by DuFon (2002) and Jewitt (2012), researchers focusing on EFL classrooms may rely on identifying videos previously recorded and made available on different educational platforms as data. The use of already existing recorded videos for analysis is helpful in observing the students’ reactions towards the teachers’ use of English in the classroom or to analyse the multi-modal interactions in EFL classrooms. Nevertheless, this is only possible through the access to the recordings of the online classes which are placed on different universities or institutional platforms or on other online platforms. These previously institutional recorded videos may not help for case studies, especially for the secondary schools or universities like Mozambicans where previously recorded lessons are rare for researchers. This might demand them to find other videos in a completely different platform or situation, but it might also imply changing the settings of the researchers’ study.

Moreover, if researchers decide to use existing videos in different online platforms, questions about the ethical approval procedures and permissions for access may arise because, in some cases, institutional ethics boards do not allow the researchers to use alternative data collection methods without further permission. Therefore, another round of permissions might be needed if this is the case, which lengthens the study period. Moreover, obtaining the consent of all those involved in the recorded video may also present a significant challenge (Jewitt, 2012).

Different from non-participant observation, researchers may decide to observe or take part in the participants’ activities by following our initial plan and making improvements so that it can be possible to observe them in situ through technological tools. Although this choice is demanding, it can still be done using different technological tools in order to directly observe and participate in the activities (Hager et al., 2012; Orgad, 2009). In fact, we understand that observing remotely or observing by attending online meetings (where the classroom is online) might be less interfering than physically being in the setting. In online classes, for instance, if the researchers’ cameras are off and they do not speak, they are like a fly on the wall and it is more difficult for participants to notice them. Hence, they have very little impact on the naturally occurring interactions during the recording (Ciesielska et al., 2018; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011).

In our study 1, we initially made plans to participate in online English classes in different academic institutions which used Zoom and Google Meet. We were promised that we would be able to join or have access to the previous classes within two weeks’ time. We were told by the university managers that, we would be granted access to the online classes of such academic institutions. This procedure turned out to be a great barrier for us as described by Mirhosseini (2020) under ‘access and gatekeepers’. The anticipated access was never granted and it was impossible to have access to this data until we finished writing the findings of our studies. Furthermore, we were promised to get access to such online classes in the following semesters as a result of the institutional academic organisations and internal rules, but again we never got them. For this reason, we made changes and decided to observe teachers from secondary schools. This experience demonstrates that, similar to in situ data collection, the researchers’ initial planned duration might also be affected in qualitative remote data collection. This means that the data collection process may take longer than the planned time, and therefore, might significantly affect the preliminary schedule of the study.

Although the advancement of technology brings to English language researchers a number of advantages regarding remote observations, we note that it is not always possible to video record EFL classes due to the tools necessary for such recordings and the accessibility of the participants. In addition to these factors, we can add the knowledge of the ones assisting the researchers to collect data. For the assistants, we believe that a very detailed and comprehensive training should be provided in the planning process. Therefore, when deciding to observe participants remotely, these and other aspects need to be taken into account to guarantee that all the activities will be carried out successfully.

Insights From Using Remote Qualitative Surveys

In the last section, we provided our experience regarding remote observations in collecting qualitative data. In this section, we aim to share our insights into using remote qualitative surveys. We will do so by referring both to our experience and to the existing literature that was presented in the earlier sections of this paper in relation to remote qualitative surveys.

As we explained in the methodology section, in study 2, researchers 2 and 3 conducted a study in which one of their foci was on the Libyan EFL lecturers’ perceptions regarding online education. Since the focus of this study was the participants’ perceptions, we did not need to record them in their natural settings but we needed their perspectives on the topic under investigation. Primarily, the geographical distance between us (in northern Cyprus) and the participants of the study (in Libya), was the main reason for choosing remote surveys using ICTs. Despite the underutilisation of remote surveys in qualitative studies (Braun et al., 2021), in our experience, these data collection methods present numerous key characteristics which make them extremely interesting and useful to us as researchers, thus, differing from conventional surveys conducted using paper and pencil. For instance, the process of sending or distributing the surveys and receiving the responses was quicker, easier, and more precise than it would be if we had printed and distributed them to the participants in person.

Nonetheless, there were also challenges of using remote qualitative surveys for study 2. The first one was related to finding participants and ascertaining that the data was collected from the relevant individuals. Therefore, after following ethical protocols to gain access to the settings, we initially contacted one EFL lecturer from whom we obtained other contacts of ideal participants for our study based on the criteria that we had already established (Mirhosseini, 2020). One such criteria was that the participants would be EFL lecturers at university level, teaching undergraduate students. Based on this snowball strategy (Parker et al., 2020), we managed to have 20 different email addresses. We sent the first email to all the possible participants explaining the purpose of our study and all research details before sending the survey questions. We also explained to them that their participation in the study was voluntary.

To our surprise, it was not difficult to find volunteers who were interested in taking part in our research. The initial email asking for their consent to send the survey questions obtained positive feedback where 15 out of 20 possible participants accepted to take part in the study. However, the follow-up did not have the same results. When we emailed the 15 lecturers, who had volunteered, with the qualitative survey questions attached in Word format, we explained to them that they would need to download and answer the questions in the same document and send their answers back to us (Mann & Stewart, 2000), only seven participants returned their answers. The remaining participants first postponed their participation in the study. Later, they simply did not reply to the emails we sent them asking for their feedback. This lack of collaboration on the part of some EFL lecturers is not a new phenomenon. It has been observed in other studies and many scholars have shown that remote or online surveys in general have a much lower response rate than traditional offline surveys (Bachmann et al., 1996; Couper & Triplett, 1999; Crawford et al., 2001). Some scholars argue that if we had gone to meet our participants in person and given them hard copies, the response rate would have been higher.

Nevertheless, there is no assurance that by being present at the setting the possible participants of the study would accept to take part in the survey. That is, those who did not participate in the study would still take the printed surveys but would not return them. Although looking at the general number of people initially contacted, our response rate was lower, the advantage of carrying out a remote qualitative survey was that the collected data provided us enough information that we even experienced saturation (Mirhosseini, 2020) whereby some answers of the last three participants were similar or the same from the first five participants who had submitted their responses.

Advantages of Remote Qualitative Surveys

The adoption of remote qualitative surveys presents a number of advantages. For instance, our use of remote qualitative surveys presented flexibility to our participants. In study 2, which was used as the basis for our reflections about remote surveys, the EFL lecturers who participated in the study were in Libya and we were based in northern Cyprus but it was possible for them to answer the questions about their perceptions regarding EFL online education whenever and wherever it was most convenient for them. This possibility of answering the questions at a different time, after sending the surveys to the participants, gave them the chance of doing their everyday tasks, duties and reserve time that they believed did not affect their routine to participate in the study, confirming what Mann and Stewart (2000) present as advantage of using computer-mediated communication (CMC) for data collection.

Another advantage we have experienced in using remote qualitative surveys is related to the low costs involved in it. The expenses were summarised in the payment of the Internet provider so that we would be able to send and receive the surveys. The key point here is to make sure that participants also have access to the internet that they can use with their phones or computers. Having thought about this, we contacted potential participants whose daily activities involved the use of the internet. Thus, it did not add any cost to their normal budget. Therefore, online surveys’ expenses were less than half compared to the traditional surveys (paper-and-pencil method). This demonstrates that the collection of research data using conventional methods such as paper-and-pencil may be both expensive and time-consuming. It frequently entails going out into the field and visiting institutions in order to ascertain that the data collection is carried out appropriately. This is the reason why many researchers advocate the use of online data collection methods. In fact, it is flexible, saving a lot of time, and with lower costs (Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Lefever & Matthasdóttir, 2007; Orgad, 2009).

In addition, using a remote structured survey containing open-ended questions for our participants highlighted the need of observing additional attention compared to quantitative surveys. During the remote survey, the participants take complete control over the questions and respond to questions at their own speed and convenience, allowing them to answer all the open-ended questions before submitting their responses. This is different from quantitative ones, which take less time to respond due to its use of closed questions. Therefore, in qualitative surveys, it is important for the participants to have enough time to think about and compose their responses accordingly. This procedure allows the researchers to collect data that reveal the participants’ personal perceptions regarding the topic under study without rushing them to respond to any of the questions. This high quality of responses from the participants has a direct impact on the results the researchers will come up with. Moreover, since all the participants are given the same questions in the same order, the researchers have more control over the sequence in which respondents complete the questions allowing us to analyse them in an easier way (Wyatt, 2000).

After collecting data, the remote surveys facilitated the analysis process. It was simple to compile, code, and analyse the data collected for study 2 through remote structured qualitative surveys. Since all the data was qualitative and the answers were received through e-mails and Google Forms, it helped us to organise them in one folder. As a result, the codification was quicker and easier than if it had been performed using paper-and-pencil and then converting the answers into text in Word format before coding and analysing them. This experience addresses what Carbonaro and Bainbridge (2000) and Ilieva et al. (2002) have found regarding collecting data online. These authors concluded that remote data collection allows data to be stored and avoids its loss due to any circumstances. At the same time, they add, it can easily be inserted into a database for further analysis without the need of transcribing the data since the answers are already in an electronic written form, thus, reducing the time on preparing the data for the analysis.

Drawbacks of Using Remote Qualitative Surveys

While there are significant advantages of collecting data via remote structured qualitative surveys, there are also some drawbacks. Since the researchers are not present to ask any follow-up questions, such remote surveys are exponentially designed as structured surveys, rather than semi-structured. Hence, the advantage of probing deeper into the perceptions of the participants where possible is no longer valid (Gray et al., 2020).

Another disadvantage related to the use of remote qualitative surveys is that the EFL lecturers could not have their inquiries about the questions found on the surveys answered right away. Although they were provided with contact information through which they could ask us any questions related to the survey, we did not receive any email asking for clarifications about the questions we sent them. This behaviour presents two interpretations. The first one is that the questions on the survey were clear to all the participants who did not feel the need to send emails asking for explanations. The second interpretation is that they refrained from sending us any emails because we were distant and may not have been online at the same time that they were answering the questions. Hence, they did not see it necessary to spend time and effort in sending extra emails and waiting for responses. Therefore, even if some participants found it difficult to understand some questions, they simply answered those questions in their own way of understanding, which might differ from the purpose of the researchers. To avoid this second possibility, we carried out a pilot study with a number of participants from similar backgrounds and improved the questions based on those teachers’ comments and answers.

Conclusion

In some studies, collecting qualitative data remotely is not an option but the only way researchers can obtain data. Having had such experiences, we conclude that, despite some challenges that we encountered, such as difficulty in video recordings and low participation, remote data collection allows us to obtain data similar to face-to-face data collection methods in many ways.

Our reflections on the process of remote qualitative data collection showed that remote observations are more challenging than remote qualitative surveys, since in order to conduct remote observations, we need to have appropriate technological tools as well as training for the research assistants where necessary. This demands both the researchers and the participants to be familiar with information and communication technology (ICT) tools. Therefore, there is a need to add some extra weeks of preparation and provision of assistance and training for both the participants and the research assistants. This is different from the procedures followed in face-to-face observations, where the researcher is only responsible for liaising with the participants and organising his/her own time for the observations. Hence, extra time for planning is required in remote qualitative observations. Moreover, we defend that the research assistants should be given observation guides - forms, following a semi-structured format - to record any relevant interactional data where necessary.

To minimise possible adverse effects of non-participation in remote observation, researchers adopt different strategies. They use, as we tried, some existing video-recordings from the academic platforms, as long as the ethical procedures are followed before the intended data collection period, and access is guaranteed by the managers or producers. In fact, although we used audio-recordings, instead of videos, from the observations of EFL teachers, we understand that in different studies such procedures might not be appropriate, especially when audio-recordings completely replace video-recordings as a data gathering tool.

Although the challenges we faced might contribute to some researchers’ reluctance to adopt remote observation, we affirm that the advantages associated with the use of this data collection tool will often surpass the challenges. For us, the expenses associated with buying some technological tools and establishing contacts with the participants were very little compared to our initial budget that involved paying for flight tickets for the face-to-face observations. This was impractical due to the reasons we mentioned earlier too. Hence, we strongly argue that researchers, in general, can use remote data observation methods successfully if they allow enough time for planning and training procedures. This will also allow them to take some steps to improve the video recording method, and obtain appropriate visual data to meet the aims of their study.

Looking at our experience in relation to the use of remote qualitative surveys, there are some lessons which can benefit many researchers within ELT and other areas. As researchers, we need to consider our participants’ situation and background before accessing them. There is a need to review whether they have, for instance, access to the internet, particularly if the intended participants are from developing countries. Taking this into account, in our study 2, we focused on identifying and selecting participants who consistently demonstrated high levels of online activities, and excluded those who are not familiar with such kinds of activities. The exclusion of the latter group, as we mentioned earlier, might be taken as one of the weaknesses of remote data collection via qualitative surveys. Another relevant aspect the researchers need to think about is the appropriate tools such as, email, WhatsApp, among other possibilities to be used to obtain responses. We used emails as the medium for distributing our qualitative surveys to the participants. Similar to our experience with remote observations, the participation rate was significantly low in this method. Therefore, our experience suggests that employing multiple tools or platforms to invite participants to answer our open-ended questions would be advisable. In summary, we can affirm that despite some challenges presented by this data collection method specifically, in the aspect of participant recruitment, it can save researchers time and money. Researchers can easily use it since it is flexible.

We believe that our participants had sufficient time to respond to our qualitative survey at their convenience. On the other hand, we noted that, as one of the challenges, the duration required for data collection may exceed the researcher’s initial projections, resulting in failures to meet the established research deadlines. Similar to remote observation procedures, we found that prior planning and allowance of time is crucial in this method of data collection. All in all, administering both remote observations and remote qualitative surveys proved to be very useful in cases where the researchers cannot be present at the setting and meet the research participants.