Rapid Techniques in Qualitative Research: A Critical Review of the Literature

TLDR: The aim of this review is to briefly explore the ways in which data collection and analysis methods have been adapted in qualitative research to deal with short study timeframes.

Abstract: Qualitative researchers are under increasing time demands to rapidly collect, analyze, and disseminate the results of their findings. Adaptations to qualitative methods may be required to enable the use of timely and relevant qualitative data across multiple disciplinary settings. The aim of this review is to briefly explore the ways in which data collection and analysis methods have been adapted in qualitative research to deal with short study timeframes. We carried out a two-phased systematic review of the literature and determined there were six primary reasons why rapid techniques were used: (a) reduce time, (b) reduce cost, (c) increase the amount of collected data, (d) improve efficiency, (e) improve accuracy, and (f) obtain a closer approximation to the narrated realities of research participants. In addition, we analyzed the characteristics of the articles, how traditional methods were adapted and evaluated, the benefits and limitations of using rapid techniques, and future recommendations.

Full text

1
RAPID TECHNIQUES IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE
Ginger A. Johnson and Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
Introduction
Many qualitative researchers currently work in environments that require the rapid sharing of
findings. This time pressure is particularly relevant for researchers working in healthcare who
are interested in using research findings to inform changes in policy and practice, as the needs
and priorities of healthcare organisations might change throughout the study and the healthcare
landscape might be subjected to external pressures such as budget cuts and shifts in public
policies (Authors). In these situations, the timeliness of the sharing of findings is a critical
determinant of their use (McNall and Foster 2007).
Qualitative research has traditionally been represented as an approach requiring long periods of
time for data collection and analysis. However, over the past three decades, significant work
has been carried out to develop rapid research methods and other techniques to speed up data
collection and analysis. Researchers have developed approaches such as rapid appraisals
(Beebe 1995), Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) (Scrimshaw and Hurtado 1987), Rapid
Ethnographic Assessments (REA) (Bentley et al. 1988), the RARE model (Brown et al. 2008),
Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) (Beebe 2014), quick ethnography (Handwerker 2001) and short-
term ethnographies (Pink and Morgan 2013) among others. Most of these approaches rely on
the use of a team of researchers, the combination of multiple methods for data collection and
triangulation during analysis, and iterative processes of data collection and analysis to reduce
the time required for research (McNall and Foster-Fishman 2007).
In addition to these approaches, researchers have also developed techniques to reduce the
amount of time required for qualitative data collection and analysis. Techniques might entail

2
reducing the amount of time required for the transcription of interviews or combining data
analysis methods with data collection to deliver real-time findings. These techniques have been
used as part of rapid studies, but are also frequently used in longer term studies to speed up
particular aspects of the research. Despite the wide range of rapid techniques available for
qualitative research, these have not been synthesised and critically analysed. The aim of this
review is to explore the ways in which data collection and analysis methods have been adapted
in qualitative research to deal with short study timeframes. We present the findings of a
systematic review of these techniques, analyse the benefits and limitations of using the
techniques in practice, and propose recommendations for their further development.
Materials and methods
Design
We carried out a phased systematic review of the literature (Tricco et al. 2017). The first phase
consisted of a general search for articles describing rapid data collection and analysis methods.
Articles were reviewed by both authors to determine if they met the inclusion criteria and to
identify any additional terms used to describe rapid data collection and analysis methods. Each
article was reviewed in depth and when new words were identified in the text to explain the
rapid tool or technique, these were added to the search strategy for phase 2. The second
phase included a second search using these new terms. Articles from both phases (which met
the inclusion criteria) were included in the review. The search strategies for both phases can be
found in Appendix 1. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for the design and reporting of the
review.
Research questions
1. How are rapid data collection and analysis techniques defined?

3
2. How are adaptations of methods (to deal with short study timeframes) defined and
justified?
3. What are the stages of research that normally experience modifications to adapt to rapid
timeframes?
4. What are the benefits and limitations of using rapid techniques?
5. What recommendations can be made for the future development of rapid techniques?
Search strategy
Each search phase involved running the search strategies in Appendix 1 through multiple
databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. The searches
were conducted in January 2018. An additional search was conducted in October 2019 using
the same search strategies to update the search and identify any new publications. Results
were combined into RefWorks and duplicates were removed. The reference lists of included
articles were screened to identify additional relevant publications.
Selection and inclusion criteria
The results from the search were imported into RefWorks to remove duplicates and manage the
references through title, abstract and full-text review. Both authors reviewed the articles
independently and discussed any discrepancies until consensus was reached on which articles
to include in the full-text review. No exclusions were made based on date or language.
Inclusion criteria
1. Published in peer-reviewed journal.
2. Includes an adaptation of data collection or analysis methods (self-identified
adaptations).
3. Involves a rapid study (self-identified as rapid).
Exclusion criteria
1. Study is not a rapid study (self-identified as rapid).

4
2. Methods are not adapted (self-identified as adapted).
3. Research is not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Data extraction, management and synthesis
The included articles were analysed using a data extraction form developed in RedCap
(Appendix 2). The form was developed after the initial screening of full-text articles. It was then
piloted independently by both authors using a random sample of five articles. Disagreements
between them were discussed until consensus was reached. The form was revised based on
the findings from the pilot screening. Data were exported from RedCap and analysed in relation
to our research questions (see above). A narrative, descriptive synthesis of findings was then
carried out by both authors. Risk of bias assessment was not applicable for this review.
Results
Identification of articles
The search was divided in two phases. Phase 1 was based on an open search strategy
exploring various terms related to rapid research (for the full strategy see Appendix 1). This
initial search yielded 109 published articles (Figure 1). These were screened based on title and
type of article, resulting in 13 articles. Screening based on abstracts left 10 articles for full-text
review. This phase in screening led to seven articles that met the inclusion criteria. These seven
articles were reviewed and additional keywords were identified. A second search phase was
carried out with these additional terms. The second phase yielded 119 published articles.
Screening by title and type of article led to 15 articles. Screening based on abstracts generated
eight articles for full-text review. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. Both search phases led to
13 articles. Both search strategies were used again in 2019 to update the search and an
additional five articles were found. A total of 18 articles were included in the review. The
bibliographies of all articles were reviewed, but no additional articles were identified for
inclusion.

5
[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]
Characteristics of the included articles
The dates of publication ranged from 1992 to 2018, with over half of the articles published from
2010 onwards. Eight articles were developed by authors in the United States, three in Canada,
three in the United Kingdom, three in Australia and one in New Zealand. More than half of the
rapid techniques described in the articles were used for data analysis. Three articles described
techniques that can be used for data collection and four articles described techniques that can
be used for both collection and analysis (see Table 1).
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]
What are the reasons why rapid techniques are used?
There were six main reasons why the rapid techniques were used: 1) reduce time, 2) reduce
cost, 3) increase the amount of collected data (due to the reduction of time required to collect it),
4) improve efficiency, 5) improve accuracy, and 6) obtain a closer approximation to the narrated
realities of research participants. The need to reduce the time for research was the most
frequently mentioned reason for the use of rapid techniques, but some techniques, such as the
analysis of interview recordings, were also focused on reducing the errors and interpretation
biases produced by transcription. Mind mapping techniques also sought to improve the
accuracy of the research by allowing participants to cross-check interpretations in real-time as
the mind maps were developed.
It should be noted that some (n=6) of the articles reviewed discussed the purpose of a rapid
study methodology beyond the original study objectives. Among those that did, research
findings were additionally used for the following purposes: (1) to demonstrate that rapid
methods of data analysis can be used as reliably and systematically as more conventional

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature" ?

This time pressure is particularly relevant for researchers working in healthcare who are interested in using research findings to inform changes in policy and practice, as the needs and priorities of healthcare organisations might change throughout the study and the healthcare landscape might be subjected to external pressures such as budget cuts and shifts in public policies ( Authors ). 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature" ?

Technological advancements should not be seen as an answer to all of their problems but should be critically analysed in relation to the demands they place on researchers ( i. e. additional training ), the quality of the data produced, and possibilities for interpretation they allow. Many of the rapid techniques described in the review seem promising for qualitative researchers interested in developing timely research. Despite evident limitations, several approaches to rapid data collection and analysis, if properly implemented, are able to reduce the amount required for high-quality in-depth qualitative research and potentially facilitate the use of findings in changes in policy and practice. 

Q3. What were the main reasons why rapid techniques were used?

There were six main reasons why the rapid techniques were used: 1) reduce time, 2) reduce cost, 3) increase the amount of collected data (due to the reduction of time required to collect it), 4) improve efficiency, 5) improve accuracy, and 6) obtain a closer approximation to the narrated realities of research participants. 

Q4. What was the frequently mentioned reason for the use of rapid techniques?

The need to reduce the time for research was the most frequently mentioned reason for the use of rapid techniques, but some techniques, such as the analysis of interview recordings, were also focused on reducing the errors and interpretation biases produced by transcription. 

Q5. What is the main lesson from the review?

One important lesson the authors can learn from this review is to be transparent and critical about the processes used to transcribe recordings. 

Q6. What are the main concerns of researchers?

Researchers are mainly concerned with how to deal with interview or focus group recordings, analysing them directly as recordings or speeding up transcription processes. 

Q7. What limitations were described in the article?

Key limitations described by the articles included reduction in the natural pace of group discussions and/or reduced interaction with the facilitator to allow time for charting data during data collection (i.e. mind mapping), potential for not achieving the same ‘depth’ or ‘level ofresearcher bias (e.g. editing audio/video footage in a way which distorts original intent, misinterpretation of data by the researcher), use of method may still require (selective) use of transcripts and/or use of other methods, additional time required to master new technologies and/or ‘unlearn’ a previous methodology, cost to purchase new technologies, potential loss of data if coding directly from audio or loss of detail if only reliant on notes, reliance on experienced researchers to obtain the same quality of findings as when using conventional analysis techniques, required hiring of a specialty profession that may not be available in rural areas (i.e. court reporter), lack of sophistication of voice recognition software requiring additional time burdens (e.g. proofreading, adding punctuation, which might mean the technique stops becoming rapid), and voice fatigue during dictation. 

Q8. What are the main characteristics of qualitative research?

Researchers have developed approaches such as rapid appraisals (Beebe 1995), Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) (Scrimshaw and Hurtado 1987), Rapid Ethnographic Assessments (REA) (Bentley et al. 1988), the RARE model (Brown et al. 2008), Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) (Beebe 2014), quick ethnography (Handwerker 2001) and shortterm ethnographies (Pink and Morgan 2013) among others. 

Q9. What were the main reasons for using rapid methods of data analysis?

Among those that did, research findings were additionally used for the following purposes: (1) to demonstrate that rapid methods of data analysis can be used as reliably and systematically as more conventionalmore contemporary method for using technology for data collection, analysis and dissemination (Markle et al. 

Q10. What did the authors prefer to eliminate the creation of transcripts?

About half of the articles reviewed preferred to eliminate the transcript production phase entirely, however, there were four articles which still privileged the creation of verbatim transcripts prior to coding and analysing text-based data (Scott et al.