Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37008258›Full record

ArticleSAGE open

Data Collection in Times of Pandemic: A Self-Study and Revisit of Research Practices During a Crisis.

Chinaza Uleanya, Ke Yu

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Brazilian Version of the Vestibular Activities and Participation Measure: Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chinaza UleanyaUniversity of Johannesburg Faculty of Education, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7732-0905
Ke YuUniversity of Johannesburg Faculty of Education, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 as a global pandemic has greatly disrupted research, not only in terms of the practicality of research activities such as data collection, but also in data quality. Using self-study in form of duoethnography method for reflecting on research practice, this article reviews and reflects on the practices of remote data collection during the pandemic and further revisits additional issues brought about by these practices and concerns. One key observation from this self-study is the prevalence of practical challenges, particularly those related to participant access, that overshadows the potential advantages of remote data collection as well as other challenges. This challenge results in researchers' reduced control of the research process and also a requirement for more flexibility, greater sensitivity toward the participants and research skills for the researchers. We also observe greater conflation of quantitative and qualitative data collection and the emergence of triangulation as the main strategy to offset potential threats to data quality. This article concludes by calling for more discussions on several areas that feature scarce discussion in literature, including potential rhetoric importance assigned to data collection, adequacy of triangulation to safeguard data quality, and the potential difference between COVID-19's impact on quantitative and qualitative research.

Indexed as

COVID-19data collectionremote data collectionself-study

Identifiers

PMID37008258
PMCPMC10050996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read47
measurements read2
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.