Investigação Qualitativa e o Desafio Digital

Abstract

Introductory Notes

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic changed Qualitative Research (QR) by transferring the research environment from the face-to-face to the digital scenario, raising challenges from study design to knowledge transfer and implementation in the most varied contexts.QR allows the construction of knowledge having human experience as a source of information. On the other hand, the thoughts and living processes of people in everyday life, in their sociocultural environment, indicate, among other aspects, the relational dimension of interest to the QR. Therefore, subsequent implications for understanding the processes of living are important for people's decision-making to drive human and social development, as well as the quality of that living (Kerr et al., 2013).This illustration of the relational dimension of QR extends to the assumption that the qualitative researcher -person relationship is vital for the construction of knowledge. At the same time, it is the recognition that in all life transitions, human diversity is expressed in the diversity of experience, decision, action and in the meaning that people attribute to their experiences in the context in which they live. We corroborate the position of Kerr et al.(2013) that one of the advantages of QR is the study of the 'subtle nuances' of human life and the analysis of social processes over time.The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a public health emergency, has imposed restrictions on the physical presence of qualitative researchers in person-to-person relational encounters (research participant), so essential to capturing the nuances of the investigated phenomena with qualitative tools (face-to-face interview, in-depth, observational immersion, focus groups, group meetings, discussion groups, among others). In the most varied contexts of people's lives, namely in health, where there is a need for collaborative work between clinicians and researchers, what was observed was a rupture of meetings, postponing qualitative research implementation in a face-to-face environment.In this sense, the development of knowledge to deal with the unknown COVID-19 was limited to experimental laboratories to the detriment of social laboratories. Consequently, the face-to-face and relational social laboratory has shifted to the digital environment. The process of virtualizing qualitative research in a digital environment is not new in the history of knowledge production through QR.Virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the internet when there are enough people willing to hold public discussions for enough time and human feeling to form networks of personal relationships in cyberspace (Rheingold, 1993, p. 5). The growth of these communities in cyberspace has been favoured in part by the disappearance of informal public spacesin our real existence, and in part by the pioneering spirit of the “Internet Surfers” attracted by interacting with others on a whole new level.The temporary migration (during the pandemic) of qualitative researchers to the virtual environment represented a major challenge to the ontological, epistemological, and methodological restructuring of those studies in progress. New questions were formulated and designed to be carried out in the online mode, leading to the adoption of resources, different strategies and ethical considerations related to the virtual environment. The online QR demanded awareness that the virtual environment is a new world of openness, possibilities, and opportunities, but also limitations for research in general and qualitative research.It is logical that some of the 'subtle nuances' of human life are also increasingly taking place in virtual communities, social networks, platforms and the like, and this observation has led many researchers to rethink methods, techniques and fieldwork for this new emerging challenge and to look at new technologies as a field and/or a tool to support QR, allowing the maintenance of communication and collaboration networks between researchers, society and participants (Presado et al., 2021).On the other hand, there are those who advocate that online data collection can be harmed as the existence of an interface makes it difficult to build a relationship of trust and empathy (Presado et al., 2021). We acknowledge that there are elements of non-verbal communication that may not be fully captured (Minayo & Costa, 2019; Presado et al., 2021). As Minayo and Costa observe, each interview expresses the light and shadows of reality in a different way, so when analysed, it needs to incorporate the context and, whenever possible, be accompanied and complemented by information from the observation of the scenario under study. This 'non-presence' can also place limitations on the analysis and interpretation of the findings (Minayo & Costa, 2019; Presado et al., 2021).In view of the above, it is important that researchers debate the potential of the virtual world as a field for QR, but also discuss the methods and techniques for the 'world 4.0', defending a scientific culture based on good conduct that enables reliability and production and science communication (Cabral et al., 2015).In this special issue, which aims to be a challenge for this public debate around the QR and the virtual world, we invite readers to reflect on ways to increase the scientific credibility of their work and improve the production and dissemination of knowledge.