Researching for equality under lockdown: Problems and possibilities in virtual approaches

 A summary of the event by Michele Paule

The Inclusion, Diversity and Gender Network has concern for equalities at its heart. Many of us research human subjects who are vulnerable and/or marginalised, within complex institutional, domestic and cultural situations. The curtailment of in-person, face-to-face research activities presents us with a range of challenges in terms of access to participants, appropriate platforms, digital inequalities, quality of data and researcher-participant relationship.

Following conversations arising as a result of the IDGN launch event where some participants had shared dilemmas they were facing in researching in lockdown, Michele Paule (one of the Network leads for the IDGN network) and Hannah Yelin (co-lead for the Creative Industries network) decided to offer a conversational workshop where we could discuss issues and how we were tackling them. We also wanted to facilitate sharing of experiences of online methods and helpful resources. Both Michele and Hannah have researched using a blend of qualitative approaches including face-to-face and digital data-gathering. and have garnered positive reviews for their innovative methods, generation of new insights and offer of new models of inclusivity.

Of course, online qualitative research is not new. There is a wealth of studies, guidelines, and evaluations using different tools. Some of these attempt to replicate face-to-face, in-situ social research; others exploit the affordances of digital technologies to offer new kinds of knowledge production.  However, the choice to conduct research online usually IS a choice, made for considered epistemological reasons. During lockdown, we have all by necessity become online researchers. This is a summary of our conversation about the issues such necessity has thrown up for colleagues in our networks, and how we are tackling them.  

The first area we considered the first area we considered was recruitment and access. Under normal conditions Hannah and I would be conducting focus group interviews and workshops in schools and youth clubs around the country. Schools are now open but even if researchers were allowed in school staff who are our gatekeepers are under far too much pressure themselves to be called upon in such times Moving focus groups online is possible, but it throws up a new range of ethical, practical and epistemological factors to consider. Other colleagues reported difficulty in the usual access routes to their research participants, such as sports teams, trade union members, and migrant workers. Colleagues shared examples of how they had adapted their usual approaches, for example using social media in deploying ‘snowballing’ recruitment strategies. We talked about some ways in which encountering participants online rather than in their familiar contexts shaped the nature of data as well as the means of collecting it.

Access is not just an issue for us as researchers. Central to our discussion was the problem of digital divides and inequalities in terms of equipment, access to the Internet, and differing levels digital and other literacies. For some marginalised or vulnerable communities these can prove significant barriers to participation in research. We discussed to what extent we as researchers can help ameliorate this, for example through the provision of cheap devices to participants and providing maps of free Wi-Fi access.

We shared insights about the use of different online platforms and digital technologies. For example, where participants confidentiality is key, messenger services such as Telegram allow the user to remain anonymous to all participants in a discussion, unlike apps like WhatsApp where participants identities and phone numbers are visible to all. Other innovative approaches included bodycams and video diaries for ethnographers, and also the use of ‘cultural probes‘ to allow participants to collect data outside of direct contact with the researcher. Deborah Lupton’s (2020) excellent crowd-sourced resource base  Doing fieldwork in a pandemic contains a wealth of useful example studies, guidelines, and evaluations using different methods

Obviously, conducting research with human participants in these ways raises ethical issues which may be new to the researcher. We talked about the shifting boundaries of the definition between text and human subject in online research, and issues of informed consent when data gathering tools such as bodycams might be considered invasive. We recommended as starting points the Association of Internet Researchers guidelines  and the LSE’s EU Kids online toolkit. The Oxford Brookes research ethics team have proved enormously flexible and supportive in helping colleagues adapt their research in virtual contexts.

One of the most interesting aspects of discussion was a consideration of ways in which online  contexts for data can highlight power inequalities in the researcher-participant relationship, permeable work-life boundaries for researchers, and new opportunities for participants to control the research conversation. For example, asynchronous interviews and forums can lead to much more agency for participants as they continue to discuss in their own time, as a peer community, issues raised by the researcher - or to simply ignore questions that don’t resonate with them. Participants themselves will often raise questions and issues not generated by the researcher, providing bonus insights. This does however imply handover of control, and at times a lack of focus. Some colleagues also reported getting responses to questions (for example WhatsApp groups) at all hours of day and night and often feeling obliged to respond to them.

This conversation was just a beginning and the summary here cannot do justice to the quality of reflection and care for participants expressed by colleagues as they work to ensure their research about inequalities does not reproduce - or create new -  inequalities.