ArticleSAGE open
Data Collection in Times of Pandemic: A Self-Study and Revisit of Research Practices During a Crisis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of and trends in current cannabis use among US youth and adults, 2013-2022.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2024Article
- Field based research in the era of the pandemic in resource limited settings: challenges and lessons for the future.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- 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-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.