CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methodological and Ethical Considerations when Conducting Qualitative Interview Research With Healthcare Professionals: Reflections and Recommendations as a Result of a Pandemic

Open access
Pilbeam, Caitlin, Anthierens, Sibyl, Vanderslott, Samantha, Tonkin-Crine, Sarah, Wanat, Marta·2022·International Journal of Qualitative Methods
DOI 10.1177/16094069221077763
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The impacts of healthcare professionals (HCPs) being research participants are often neglected. As professionals, they tend to be perceived as ‘immune’ to many negative effects of sharing their experiences. However, in the context of an ongoing global pandemic such as COVID-19, these assumptions can be clearly challenged. This article draws on researchers’ experiences of conducting single and longitudinal qualitative interviews with HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe during 2020. Reflecting on the methodological and ethical implications of doing such research during a pandemic allows researchers to surface assumptions about and question categories of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘sensitivity’. We explore these categories in relation to three issues we have identified: (i) Blurred boundaries in researcher-participant relationships; (ii) Interviews as spaces to process experiences; and (iii) Motivations to conduct and participate in research. We demonstrate that qualitative interviews during a pandemic are embedded in sense-making processes for both the interviewer and participant, and as such may play an important role in coping and resilience. We therefore argue for ethically active research that critically engages with the concepts of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘sensitivity’, and underpinning assumptions, in context over time throughout the research process for current and future research with HCPs and other groups beyond pandemic situations. We thus aim to prepare researchers for…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/16094069221077763

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Farrell A., 2005, Ethical research with children, 1
  2. Gale J, 1992, The qualitative report, 1, 1
  3. Gleeson J., 2021, High Educ, 4, 1
  4. 10.1080/03069889908256265 · DOI
  5. Liamputtong P., 2011, Researching the vulnerable, 23
  6. Morrison Z. J., 2012, An Exploration of Exit Strategy in Qualitative Research, 11, 416
  7. Pilbeam C., 2021, How do healthcare workers ‘do’ guidelines? Exploring how policy decisions impacted UK HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic
  8. Smith R., 2021, European Journal of Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 22

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Pilbeam, C., Anthierens, S., Vanderslott, S., Tonkin-Crine, S., & Wanat, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Wanat, Marta
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-03-03
Volume
21
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/16094069221077763
OpenAlex
W4214828981
Cited by
20
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
qualitative interviews, research ethics, COVID-19 pandemic, vulnerability, sensitivity, researcher-participant relationship, sensemaking, coping and resilience, research motivation, ethical conflicts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review