The online survey as a qualitative research tool

ABSTRACT

Fully qualitative surveys, which prioritise qualitative research values, and harness the rich potential of qualitative data, have much to offer qualitative researchers, especially given online delivery options. Yet the method remains underutilised, and there is little in the way of methodological discussion of qualitative surveys. Underutilisation and limited methodological discussion perhaps reflect the dominance of interviewing in qualitative research, and (misplaced) assumptions about qualitative survey data lacking depth. By discussing our experiences of developing online surveys as a tool for qualitative research, we seek to challenge preconceptions about qualitative surveys, and to demonstrate that qualitative surveys are an exciting, flexible method with numerous applications, and advantages for researchers and participants alike. We offer an overview and practical design information, illustrated with examples from some of our studies.

KEYWORDS:

• Qualitative paradigm
• qualitative survey
• question design
• research design
• thematic analysis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Beyond sole or primary method, there are a few instances of qualitative surveys being used in multi-method qualitative designs – essentially as a ‘substitute’ for, or to extend the reach of, interviews or focus groups as the primary data collection technique (e.g., Clarke & Demetriou, 2016; Coyle & Rafalin, 2001; Whelan, 2007).

2. A researcher asking a participant a series of open-ended questions is effectively a structured interview.

3. The specific features and concerns of qualitative survey research are rarely addressed in literature on online surveys (e.g., Hewson, 2016).

4. We do not wish to suggest an ontologically real, hard and fast qualitative/quantitative demarcation here. In using this demarcation we recognize blurred boundaries. Where (fuzzy) lines are drawn is as much about research values as data form.

5. For history and demarcation of different types of ‘online’ and ‘internet’ surveys, see Vehovar and Manfreda (2017), and for detailed consideration of survey software, see Kaczmirek (2017).

6. The extent to which qualitative researchers can make claims ‘beyond’ their sample is an important and live debate (e.g., see Smith, 2018), but beyond the scope of this paper.

7. Where and how you recruit will necessarily delimit the diversity of the potential participant pool, something EB experienced in relation to race/culture.

8. The sole (virtual face-to-face) interview participant in Study 1 commented that if she had not experienced some degree of recovery, the content of the discussion would have been triggering of her intrusive thoughts.

9. Survey software usually can save partial completions, allowing participants to pick up where they left off when completing the survey on the same device; editing previous responses may or may not be possible.

10. We sometimes compromise on what we view as ideal language to make things accessible for (most) participants.

11. Multimodal elements can be incorporated into question design if appropriate and platform-supported.

12. The complex ethical issue of too detailed participant information is a question for a different paper.

13. VC supervised VAValentina Acquaviva, who completed this project as part of an MSc in Health Psychology.

14. For these repeat participants, quoting their participant code from survey one meant they did not have to provide demographic information again, reducing the burden of participation.

15. There is no necessary reason why TA is so dominant, although its flexibility makes it suited to the analysis of data generated by a wide range of methods, including qualitative surveys (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

16. We see limited value, and potential participant-costs, in very short face-to-face interviews, which may be the case if the topic requires only brief data from each participant.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the source.

Notes on contributors

Virginia Braun

Virginia Braun is a Professor in the School of Psychology at The University of Auckland, Āotearoa New Zealand. She is a feminist and critical (health) psychologist, and her research explores the intersecting areas of gender, bodies, sex/sexuality, health, and (now) food. She also has an ongoing interest in qualitative research and (with Victoria Clarke) wrote the award-winning textbook Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners (SAGE). They have written extensively on thematic analysis (with various co-authors), and are finishing a new book on thematic analysis, for SAGE. She co-edited Collecting Qualitative Data (Cambridge University Press) with Victoria and Debra Gray – which introduces a range of methods for collecting qualitative data beyond the widely used interview or focus group – and is interested in other methods like qualitative story completion. She is on twitter @ginnybraun.

Victoria Clarke

Victoria Clarke is an Associate Professor of Qualitative and Critical Psychology at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Her research interests focus on the intersecting areas of sexuality and gender, appearance and embodiment, and family and relationships. With Virginia Braun (and others) she has written extensively about thematic analysis and they are currently co-authoring a book on thematic analysis for SAGE. Her other books include Successful Qualitative Research (SAGE) and Collecting Qualitative Data (Cambridge). She also has a particular interest in developing survey and story completion methods for qualitative research. You can follow her on Twitter @drvicclarke where she regularly tweets about thematic analysis and qualitative research.

Elicia Boulton

Elicia Boulton is a counselling psychologist who works with looked after children involved in child sexual exploitation (CSE). She undertook her doctoral thesis at the University of the West of England, and explored the lived experiences of sex and sexuality for women with OCD, using an online qualitative survey. Elicia has worked for ten years in a therapeutic capacity with young people and those with learning disabilities and autism.

Louise Davey

Louise Davey is a counselling psychologist in an inpatient psychology service and in private practice. Her doctoral research at the University of the West of England was a critical qualitative study exploring people’s experiences of living with alopecia areata, an appearance changing hair loss condition. Her interests include embodiment, gender, dynamics of power, and the value of a critical qualitative perspective for applied psychology practice.

Charlotte McEvoy

Charlotte McEvoy is counselling psychologist with a keen interest in issues around intersectional feminism, anti-racism and social justice. Her doctoral thesis explored therapists’ accounts of how social class manifested in their practice. As a white middle class female she is committed to acknowledging her own privilege and the ever-present power dynamics around race and class in the therapeutic environment. Over the past decade, she has worked in various organisations as a counselling psychologist in training, including charity and NHS and specialist services for women and for young people.