article · International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Online qualitative data collection expanded rapidly following public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains widely adopted. However, digital environments also introduce significant vulnerabilities to deceptive participant behaviours, notably identity misrepresentation and repeat participation by single individuals. Drawing on evidence from an online study of young people who detransitioned after a gender transition, specific methods were developed to detect and handle fraudulent contributions. Twelve indicators highlight potential scams in remote qualitative interviews. These flags relate to recurring similarities between participants, the specific types of information disclosed, participant behaviours during interactions, and internal narrative inconsistencies. These criteria, alongside broader methodological literature, underpin practical strategies designed to prevent, identify, and manage deceptive practices in online qualitative research.
As social and commercial studies increasingly rely on virtual interviews, fraudulent participation threatens the integrity of research findings and wastes project budgets. Recognising concrete warning signs allows investigators to screen out bad-faith contributors, ensuring that findings reflect genuine experiences while upholding data quality and ethical research standards.
The indicators and strategies offer practical utility for market research organisations, digital polling agencies, and clinical study recruiters operating online. Because the framework was applied and tested within an actual qualitative research project, its principles are immediately usable for manual participant screening. However, the abstract does not indicate that any automated software tool or commercial product has been developed.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
In the wake of COVID-19, numerous research projects moved to online data collection to comply with public health guidelines. Since then, many qualitative projects have continued to use online methods to collect data. While online methods facilitated research continuity, they also introduced new opportunities for deceptive behaviors, particularly misrepresentation and multiple participation. Drawing from a recent project that conducted online interviews with young people who detransition after a gender transition, this article describes how fraudulent interviews were identified and dealt with. We present 12 indicators of potential scams in qualitative interviews, including similarities between participants, the type of information provided, participants’ behaviors, and inconsistencies in the narratives. We discuss our overall experience and, in light of recent literature, present strategies to prevent and deal with scams in qualitative research.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1177/16094069231224610
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
