Qualitative research has long been the backbone of understanding human experiences, behaviors, and social interactions. Unlike quantitative research, which thrives on numbers and statistical patterns, qualitative research delves into the “why” and “how” of human thought and action, offering rich narratives and deep contextual insights (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). However, like all fields of study, qualitative research is not static—it is evolving in response to technological advancements, shifting societal norms, and the growing demand for interdisciplinary approaches.

In recent years, the research environment has been significantly reshaped by digital transformation, globalization, and ethical concerns. Traditional face-to-face interviews and fieldwork are increasingly being supplemented—or even replaced—by digital methods, such as virtual ethnography, online focus groups, and AI-assisted analysis tools (Salmons, 2021). Additionally, the explosion of social media has introduced new ways to capture lived experiences, allowing researchers to explore unfiltered, real-time expressions of thoughts and emotions. This shift challenges conventional qualitative methodologies, pushing scholars to rethink how they collect, interpret, and validate data.

Beyond technology, there is also a rising emphasis on inclusivity and participant collaboration. Participatory research approaches are gaining traction, with communities and marginalized groups playing a more active role in shaping research questions and interpreting qualitative analysis findings (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). This democratization of research reflects a broader societal movement toward equity and ethical transparency in knowledge production.

Moreover, ethical considerations in qualitative research are more pressing than ever. In an era where personal data is easily accessible, researchers must address the issues of privacy, informed consent, and data security (Tracy, 2020). The shift to digital spaces raises questions about confidentiality and the impact of research on online communities, necessitating new frameworks for responsible research practices.

In this blog, we will explore how qualitative research is adapting to these transformations, focusing on emerging methodologies, ethical dilemmas, and the integration of new technologies as the field continues to evolve, you, as a researchers must strike a delicate balance between innovation and maintaining the core principles of qualitative inquiry: depth, context, and human-centered understanding.

1. The Shift Towards Digital and Remote Research

Qualitative research has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, largely driven by the rapid growth of digital technology and the increasing need for remote methodologies. Traditionally, qualitative research relied on face-to-face interactions—ethnographic fieldwork, in-depth interviews, and focus groups conducted in physical spaces (Creswell & Poth, 2018). However, with the widespread adoption of online communication tools, qualitative researchers have had to adapt, developing new strategies that maintain the depth and richness of qualitative inquiry while using the accessibility and convenience of digital platforms.

The Rise of Online Interviews, Virtual Focus Groups, and Digital Ethnography

One of the most notable changes in qualitative research is the shift from in-person interactions to digital alternatives. Online interviews, whether conducted via Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or other virtual platforms, have become a standard practice in contemporary qualitative research. These digital interactions allow researchers to connect with participants across geographic boundaries, making research more inclusive and diverse (Salmons, 2021).

Similarly, virtual focus groups have replaced traditional roundtable discussions, offering participants the flexibility to engage from their homes or workplaces. The ability to record and transcribe these interactions in real time has also made data collection more efficient. However, while digital platforms offer convenience, they also introduce challenges such as reduced nonverbal communication, difficulty in establishing rapport, and potential distractions in the participant’s environment (Archibald et al., 2019). Researchers must develop new techniques to foster engagement in virtual settings, such as using icebreakers, allowing for informal conversation, and ensuring participants feel comfortable navigating digital tools.

Digital ethnography, where researchers observe and qualitatively analyze online communities, social media interactions, and virtual environments, has also become an essential approach. Ethnographers today may explore platforms like Twitter, Reddit, or TikTok to understand cultural trends, discourses, and social movements as they unfold in real time (Pink et al., 2016). While this shift expands access to unfiltered, organic data, it also raises ethical concerns regarding consent and the boundaries of private versus public digital spaces.

The Benefits: Accessibility, Cost-Effectiveness, and Global Reach

One of the greatest advantages of digital and remote research is increased accessibility. Participants who might have been excluded from traditional research due to geographic, financial, or mobility constraints can now engage in studies from anywhere in the world. This is particularly significant for marginalized populations, individuals with disabilities, or those living in remote areas where research opportunities were previously limited (Seitz, 2016).

Moreover, digital research is often more cost-effective. Researchers no longer need to budget for travel, venue rentals, or printed materials, reducing overall expenses. This cost efficiency can allow for larger and more diverse participant pools, strengthening the depth of research findings. Further, automated tools for transcription and data analysis can significantly reduce the time required for coding and thematic analysis, allowing researchers to focus more on interpretation and meaning.

From a methodological perspective, remote research enables longitudinal studies with greater participant retention. Unlike traditional research, where follow-ups can be difficult due to logistical challenges, online research allows for easier check-ins, ongoing discussions, and participant engagement over extended periods (Janghorban et al., 2014). This continuity enhances the ability to track changes in behavior, attitudes, and social dynamics over time.

The Challenges: Data Security, Rapport Building, and Digital Literacy Disparities

Despite its many benefits, digital qualitative research presents distinct challenges. One primary concern is data security and privacy. With conversations and personal insights being shared over digital platforms, there is an increased risk of data breaches or unauthorized access. Researchers must ensure compliance with ethical guidelines, such as encryption, secure storage, and informed consent tailored to digital contexts (Markham & Buchanan, 2015). Platforms used for data collection must meet rigorous security standards to protect participant confidentiality.

Another challenge is the difficulty of building rapport in virtual settings. A fundamental strength of qualitative research is its ability to capture emotional elements and body language, elements that can be diluted or lost in digital interactions (Sullivan, 2012). While video calls allow for some level of visual connection, they still lack the depth of face-to-face interactions, where subtle gestures and environmental context contribute to meaning. Researchers must work harder to establish trust, using techniques such as extended introductions, empathetic questioning, and flexible interview structures to create a comfortable and open virtual environment.

Nevertheless, digital literacy disparities can create barriers to participation. Not all participants have equal access to stable internet connections, up-to-date devices, or the technical skills required to navigate digital research tools (Hargittai, 2020). This can lead to the exclusion of certain demographic groups, reinforcing inequalities in research representation. To mitigate this, researchers should provide user-friendly instructions, offer alternative participation methods (such as phone interviews), and be mindful of technological accessibility issues when designing studies.

The shift towards digital and remote research is not just a temporary adaptation, it is a fundamental evolution in qualitative research methodology. While online research offers unprecedented reach, efficiency, and inclusivity, it also demands new ethical considerations, technical competencies, and engagement strategies from researchers. Moving forward, qualitative researchers must balance innovation with sensitivity, ensuring that the depth, empathy, and human-centered nature of qualitative inquiry remain at the core of their work.

2. AI and Automation in Qualitative Data Analysis: Enhancing Research or Diluting Depth?

Qualitative research has always been about immersion, interpretation, and meaning-making. This is a process that traditionally required long hours of transcribing, coding, and analyzing narratives. However, with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation, qualitative data analysis is undergoing a seismic shift. Tools like NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and Dedoose now offer AI-powered features that can transcribe interviews, identify themes, and even analyze sentiment with impressive speed. But does this mean AI is revolutionizing qualitative research for the better, or does it risk stripping away the depth and nuance that makes qualitative work so valuable?

While automation offers undeniable advantages in efficiency, it also raises critical questions: Can AI truly “understand” human experiences? How much should researchers rely on machine-driven insights? And what ethical concerns come with AI-assisted analysis? Let’s explore the opportunities and challenges AI presents in qualitative research.

AI-Powered Tools: The Rise of Automated Transcription, Thematic Analysis, and Sentiment Detection

One of the most time-consuming tasks in qualitative research has always been manual transcription—turning hours of recorded interviews into written text. However, AI-driven transcription tools like Otter.ai, Trint, and Descript have changed the game, cutting transcription time from hours to minutes. These tools use natural language processing (NLP) to convert spoken words into text, often with impressive accuracy (MacPhail et al., 2016).

Beyond transcription, AI-assisted software now helps researchers identify themes and patterns in data. Instead of manually coding transcripts, researchers can use machine learning algorithms to detect recurring topics, categorize responses, and highlight key phrases (Roberts et al., 2020). Some platforms even offer sentiment analysis, which attempts to determine whether a participant’s response is positive, negative, or neutral.

These advancements are compelling in handling large datasets. For instance, when analyzing thousands of open-ended survey responses or social media posts, instead of drowning in unstructured text, researchers can quickly pinpoint trends and extract key insights. But while automation makes the process faster, it doesn’t eliminate the need for human intuition and contextual understanding, which leads to the next big question.

Efficiency vs. Depth: Can AI Capture the Essence of Human Experience?

While AI excels at identifying patterns, it doesn’t truly “understand” context, emotion, or cultural subtleties the way a human researcher does (Floridi & Chiriatti, 2020). AI can tell you that the phrase “I feel overwhelmed” appears frequently in a dataset, but it can’t discern whether the speaker is experiencing workplace burnout, personal struggles, or an existential crisis. Similarly, sarcasm, humor, and irony often get lost in AI-driven sentiment analysis, leading to potential misinterpretations (Geiger & Halfaker, 2017).

Another limitation of AI in qualitative research is its inability to ask follow-up questions or probe deeper. A human interviewer can notice subtle shifts in a participant’s tone or body language and adjust their questioning accordingly, something AI simply isn’t capable of replicating. The richness of qualitative research often lies in these moments of spontaneity, emotion, and lived experience, elements that algorithms struggle to capture.

To balance the two, many researchers are adopting a hybrid approach: letting AI handle the repetitive, mechanical aspects of qualitative analysis while preserving human interpretation for the deeper, more quality work (Silver & Lewins, 2014). AI can assist by surfacing potential themes, but the final interpretation still requires a researcher’s critical eye.

Ethical Considerations: Bias, Data Privacy, and the Risk of Over-Reliance

While AI-powered research tools offer convenience, they also come with ethical concerns—particularly around bias, privacy, and the potential over-reliance on machine-driven insights.

• Algorithmic Bias: AI systems learn from existing data, meaning they can inherit and amplify biases present in the datasets they are trained on. If a machine learning model is trained on a dataset that reflects existing societal biases, it may reinforce stereotypes rather than offer objective insights (Birhane, 2021). For example, sentiment analysis tools trained primarily on Western English may struggle with cultural expressions from non-Western participants, leading to inaccurate interpretations.
• Data Privacy & Consent: AI transcription and cloud-based qualitative analysis tools store and process large amounts of sensitive data, often on third-party servers. Researchers must ensure that these tools comply with data protection regulations like GDPR or HIPAA, especially when dealing with confidential or personally identifiable information (Zook et al., 2017). Informed consent should be updated to explicitly mention the use of AI in data processing, as participants may not be comfortable with machine learning algorithms analyzing their words.
• Over-Reliance on AI: There’s a growing concern that researchers might become too dependent on AI tools, potentially devaluing traditional qualitative analysis methods. While AI can streamline the coding process, it should not replace the critical thinking, reflexivity, and deep engagement that define qualitative research (Sovacool et al., 2018). The risk is that researchers may accept AI-generated themes at face value without questioning their validity, leading to shallow or misleading conclusions.

To mitigate these risks, qualitative researchers must remain actively engaged in their analysis, using AI as a supporting tool rather than a replacement for human insight.

Ultimately, AI and automation have undeniably transformed qualitative data analysis, making research more efficient and scalable than ever before. Automated transcription, thematic detection, and sentiment analysis free up valuable time, allowing researchers to focus on interpretation rather than manual labor. But AI is not a replacement for human understanding but a tool that must be used thoughtfully, critically, and ethically. Moving forward, the best approach is a hybrid model that combines the speed of AI with the depth of human interpretation. By staying mindful of bias, ethical concerns, and the limitations of automation, researchers can use AI without losing the essence of qualitative inquiry, which remains, at its core, a deeply human pursuit.

3. The Rise of Participatory and Collaborative Research Approaches: Shifting Power in Qualitative Inquiry

For years, qualitative research has been driven by the idea that researchers are the experts since they are the ones who observe, analyze, and interpret the lives of others. But in recent decades, this traditional researcher-participant dynamic has been challenged by participatory and collaborative research approaches, which place participants at the center of the research process.

Rather than treating participants as passive subjects, these approaches invite them to become active co-researchers, helping shape research questions, analyze data, and even co-author findings. Why does this matter? Because lived experience holds just as much value as academic expertise, and collaborative research creates knowledge that is more authentic, inclusive, and impactful. Participatory research is not just a qualitative methodology; it’s a shift in power, ethics, and accountability. As researchers rethink their roles, they must ask: Whose voices are being centered? Whose knowledge is being prioritized? And how can research become a tool for empowerment rather than just observation?

Moving Beyond Extractive Research: The Need for a More Ethical and Inclusive Approach

For too long, traditional research, especially in marginalized communities, has operated in a top-down, extractive manner. Researchers swoop in, collect data, publish papers, and move on, often without returning knowledge, credit, or tangible benefits to the communities they studied (Smith, 2012). This has led to deep distrust in research, particularly among Indigenous, Black, and other historically exploited groups.

Participatory and collaborative approaches challenge this extractive model by redefining research as a two-way exchange. Instead of treating people as “subjects,” participatory research acknowledges that they are the experts in their own experiences. This not only results in more accurate and meaningful findings but also ensures that research serves the communities it studies rather than just academic institutions.

A powerful example is community-based participatory research (CBPR), where researchers partner with local communities to co-design studies, qualitatively analyze findings together, and use research for real-world change (Israel et al., 2019). CBPR has been instrumental in areas like public health, where local knowledge is crucial for designing effective interventions.

When Participants Become Co-Researchers: How Collaboration Enriches Data and Analysis

One of the most exciting aspects of participatory research is that it breaks down the barriers between researcher and participant, allowing for deeper insights that wouldn’t emerge through traditional methods. For example, in photovoice research, participants use photography to document their own experiences, highlighting issues and perspectives that might otherwise go unnoticed (Israel et al., 2019). Instead of a researcher interpreting someone’s reality from the outside, participants get to define and frame their own narratives, creating a more authentic representation of their world.

Similarly, peer-led research models where people with lived experience conduct interviews and analyze data offer insights that academic researchers alone might not be able to access. A study on youth homelessness, for instance, might yield richer findings if led by former homeless youth, who understand the complexities of survival in ways that an outsider never could (Kidd & Kral, 2005). These collaborative methods don’t just make research more ethically sound; they also make it richer, deeper, and more reflective of reality. When participants are actively involved in interpreting data, they bring in perspectives that researchers might overlook, leading to findings that are more nuanced and culturally relevant.

The Challenges of Participatory Research: Power Dynamics, Time, and Institutional Barriers

As transformative as participatory research is, it’s not without its challenges. It requires more time, more effort, and a willingness to share power, which isn’t always easy in academia, where researchers are often pressured to publish quickly.

1. Power Dynamics & Trust: Even in participatory research, power imbalances don’t just disappear. Researchers still hold institutional privilege, access to funding, and control over how findings are disseminated. Building genuine trust takes time; especially when working with communities that have been harmed by research in the past. It’s not enough to invite participants into the process; researchers must actively listen, share decision-making power, and be willing to challenge their own biases (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995).
2. Time-Intensive Process: Traditional research often follows a straightforward timeline; design, data collection, analysis, journal publication. Participatory research, on the other hand, is much more fluid and iterative. It requires relationship-building, collaborative decision-making, and constant adaptation, which means projects can take longer than standard research studies. While the process is ultimately more meaningful, researchers working under tight institutional deadlines may struggle to make it work.
3. Institutional Barriers & Funding Issues: Many academic institutions still prioritize “objective,” researcher-driven studies over participatory approaches, which are sometimes seen as less rigorous because they challenge traditional hierarchies of knowledge. Funding bodies may also be reluctant to support research where control is shared with non-academic partners, making it harder for participatory projects to secure grants (Cargo & Mercer, 2008).

Despite these challenges, researchers committed to participatory methods find ways to navigate the system by advocating for more inclusive funding structures, educating institutions on the value of co-created knowledge, and using community partnerships to push for systemic change.

Participatory and collaborative research is more than just a method, this is a philosophy that challenges traditional notions of who gets to produce knowledge and who benefits. At its core, it shifts research from something done to people to something done with people, ensuring that findings are not only academically valuable but also practically meaningful to those being studied. While participatory approaches require more time, effort, and humility, they lead to more ethical, impactful, and authentic research. For qualitative researchers looking to make a real-world difference, the challenge is clear: Are we willing to let go of control, share power, and truly collaborate? Because if research is meant to serve communities rather than just careers, then participation isn’t just an option; it’s a necessity.

4. Ethical and Privacy Challenges in Modern Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has always been deeply rooted in ethics and trust. When people open up about their experiences, emotions, and personal stories, they expect researchers to handle their information with care and respect. But as qualitative research methods evolve, moving into digital spaces, incorporating AI, and engaging with vast online datasets—ethical challenges have become more complex than ever before. From informed consent in online settings to protecting digital data and navigating the blurred lines between public and private information, modern qualitative researchers face a new ethical frontier. And while traditional ethical frameworks still apply, they often fall short in addressing the nuances of digital-age research.

Informed Consent in the Digital Era: More Than Just a Signature

Getting informed consent in traditional qualitative research is fairly straightforward; researchers explain their study, participants sign a consent form, and everything is clear. But in digital and remote research settings, this process becomes more complicated (Markham & Buchanan, 2015). For instance, when conducting social media research, do researchers need permission from every person whose tweet or comment they analyze? Some argue that since social media is public, consent isn’t required. Others emphasize that just because something is accessible doesn’t mean it’s ethically fair to use (Townsend & Wallace, 2016). The challenge lies in balancing access with respect for users’ privacy expectations, especially when studying sensitive topics.

Another tricky area is informed consent in AI-assisted research. With qualitative researchers using AI tools to transcribe, analyze, and sometimes even interpret data, participants may not fully understand how their information is being processed (Davidson et al., 2019). Researchers must be transparent about AI’s role in their study, ensuring participants are aware of what happens to their data beyond the initial interview or survey. Remote research also brings another consent challenge: ensuring participants fully understand what they’re agreeing to without face-to-face interaction. A quick online checkbox doesn’t necessarily equate to meaningful informed consent. Researchers need to go beyond the form, ensuring participants understand potential risks, their right to withdraw, and how their data will be stored—all while navigating language barriers and digital literacy differences (Salmons, 2021).

Data Privacy: Keeping Confidential Information Secure in a Digital World

With so much research happening online, data security is a growing concern. Unlike paper notes stored in a locked filing cabinet, digital data is vulnerable to hacking, leaks, and unauthorized access. This is especially critical when handling sensitive participant information, such as interviews with survivors of violence, whistleblowers, or marginalized communities. One of the biggest issues is data storage and encryption. Many researchers store participant interviews, transcripts, and video recordings in cloud-based platforms or university servers. But not all of these systems are equally secure. A breach in a poorly protected database could expose your participants’ private conversations, violating ethical obligations (Tracy, 2020). You must ensure that data is encrypted, stored on secure servers, and, whenever possible, anonymized to protect participants from harm.

Another challenge is third-party involvement in data processing. Many researchers rely on software like Otter.ai for transcription or NVivo for qualitative coding. But do participants know that their voices and words are being processed through external AI systems? Transparency about who has access to data and where it is stored is a crucial ethical responsibility (Van den Eynden et al., 2019).

Blurred Lines Between Public and Private Data: The Social Media Dilemma

A major ethical grey area in modern qualitative research is the use of social media and online content. Platforms like Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube have become goldmines for researchers studying public discourse, activism, and social trends. But the question remains: is it ethical to analyze this data without participant consent? Legally, most social media posts are considered public, meaning you don’t need permission to study them. However, ethical concerns go beyond legality. Even if someone shares something publicly, they may not expect their content to be used in academic research, especially in ways that could expose them to harm (Zimmer, 2010).

For instance, qualitatively analyzing tweets about mental health could provide valuable insights, but if researchers quote specific tweets without anonymizing them, they could unintentionally expose someone’s struggles to a wider audience (Franzke et al., 2020). Similarly, if you are studying online communities discussing sensitive issues like eating disorders or addiction, participants may not realize that their forum discussions are being analyzed by outsiders. A good rule of thumb? If there’s any doubt about whether a participant would feel comfortable being studied, as a researcher you should err on the side of caution; either by anonymizing content, paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, or seeking explicit consent.

The Ethics of AI and Automation in Qualitative Research

The rise of AI in research brings new ethical questions that researchers are still figuring out how to answer. Many qualitative researchers now use AI-powered tools to transcribe interviews, detect sentiment, and even suggest themes in data. While these tools increase efficiency, they also raise ethical concerns about bias, accuracy, and data ownership. For example, AI-driven sentiment analysis often fails to recognize cultural elements, sarcasm, or emotional complexity, leading to misinterpretations of qualitative data (Davidson et al., 2019). If researchers rely too heavily on AI-generated insights without critical human oversight, they risk distorting participants’ true voices.

AI models are also trained on existing datasets, which means they can carry biases from previous research. If an AI system is trained on predominantly Western, English-language datasets, it may not accurately interpret narratives from non-Western or marginalized groups, creating ethical blind spots (Benjamin, 2019). As a researcher you must remain actively involved in the interpretation process, ensuring AI enhances rather than replaces human judgment.

Ultimately, ethical challenges in qualitative research are not new but the digital age has made them more complex, urgent, and sometimes, less clear-cut. Researchers must go beyond traditional ethical checklists and actively engage in conversations about how to adapt ethical principles to new research landscapes. At the core of ethical research is respect for participants; their privacy, their autonomy, and their right to control how their data is used. Whether conducting in-depth interviews, scraping social media data, or using AI for analysis, you must constantly ask yourself: “If I were the participant, would I feel comfortable with how my data is being handled?” Ultimately, the key to navigating ethical challenges is transparency, caution, and an unwavering commitment to protecting the people behind the data. Because at the end of the day, ethical research isn’t just about following rules but it’s about earning trust.

Conclusion

Qualitative research has always been about understanding human experiences in depth, capturing the emotions that numbers alone cannot convey. But as the field continues to evolve, adapting to digital methodologies, AI-driven tools, and multimodal approaches, researchers are facing new challenges and opportunities that are reshaping the way we collect, analyze, and interpret data. Whether you’re a student struggling with your dissertation or a researcher facing new qualitative methodologies, our dissertation consultation services ensure you receive expert guidance every step of the way.

At its core, the evolution of qualitative research should not come at the expense of its foundational values; depth, empathy, and ethical integrity. While technology can enhance research practices, it cannot replace the researcher’s responsibility to listen carefully, interpret responsibly, and uphold the trust participants place in them. If you need help with dissertation research, analysis, or methodology design, our dissertation consulting and dissertation assistance services provide tailored support, ensuring your study maintains both academic rigor and ethical integrity. From refining research questions to conducting qualitative analysis, our dissertation coach experts help you stay on track and produce high-quality research.

Looking ahead, the future of qualitative research will likely be one of continuous adaptation. The challenge for researchers will be to strike a balance between innovation and responsibility, adopting new tools without losing sight of the fundamental purpose of qualitative inquiry. If you’re looking for professional support, our dissertation services offer expert guidance, helping you through the challenges of qualitative research with confidence. No matter how advanced research tools become, the heart of qualitative inquiry remains the same: understanding, respecting, and amplifying the voices of those we study. Let us help you bring your research to life with the expertise and support you deserve.

References

Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-8.

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press.

Birhane, A. (2021). Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach. Patterns, 2(2), 100205.

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325-350.

Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667-1676.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Davidson, E., Paulus, T., & Jackson, K. (2019). Digital Tools for Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681-694.

Franzke, A. S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & the Association of Internet Researchers. (2020). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Association of Internet Researchers.

Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2017). Operationalizing conflict and cooperation between automated software agents in Wikipedia. Human–Computer Interaction, 32(5-6), 409-448.

Hargittai, E. (2020). Potential biases in big data: Omitted voices on social media. Social Science Computer Review, 38(1), 10-24.

Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2019). Methods for community-based participatory research for health (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1), 24152.

Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187-195.

MacPhail, C., Khoza, N., Abler, L., & Ranganathan, M. (2016). Process guidelines for establishing Intercoder Reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198-212.

Markham, A. N., & Buchanan, E. (2015). Ethical considerations in digital research contexts. Handbook of Qualitative Research in Communication Studies, 434-448.

Markham, A. N., & Buchanan, E. (2015). Ethical considerations in digital research contexts. Handbook of Qualitative Research in Communication Studies, 434-448.

Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage Publications.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications.

Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2020). Navigating the local modes of big data: The case of topic models. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 205395172092510.

Salmons, J. (2021). Doing Qualitative Research Online (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Seitz, S. (2016). Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via Skype: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 229-235.

Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage Publications.

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.

Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 12-42.

Sullivan, J. R. (2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews? The Hilltop Review, 6(1), 10.

Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2016). Social media research: A guide to ethics. The University of Aberdeen.

Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Van den Eynden, V., Corti, L., Woollard, M., Bishop, L., & Horton, L. (2019). Managing and Sharing Data: A Guide to Good Practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313-325.

Zook, M., Barocas, S., Boyd, D., Crawford, K., Keller, E., Gangadharan, S. P., & Pasquale, F. (2017). Ten simple rules for responsible big data research. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(3), e1005399.