1
Using a smartphone ‘app’ in qualitative research: The good, the bad and
the ugly
Borja García, Jo Welford and Brett Smith
Borja García (corresponding author): Lecturer in Sport Management and Policy,
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. b.garcia-garcia@lboro.ac.uk
Jo Welford, Research Associate (FREE Project), School of Sport, Exercise and
Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK. j.welford@lboro.ac.uk
Brett Smith, Reader in Qualitative Health Research, School of Sport, Exercise
and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK. b.m.smith@lboro.ac.uk
2
Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: The good, the bad and the ugly
Abstract
This paper reflects on the use of a smartphone application (‘app’) in qualitative
research following the experience of the FREE (Football Research in an Enlarged
Europe) project, which investigated the lives of football fans in the UK. To meet this
aim, a participant-focused audio-visual methodology was designed, featuring the use
of an app to collect data. Fans were asked to take photographs and keep diaries to
show the role football plays in their lives. The smartphone app was developed to allow
fans to use their own mobile phones, capturing qualitative data in ‘real time’. The
paper reflects on our experience of using the smartphone app in this qualitative
research, analysing the advantages, disadvantages and the main risks that researchers
will need to take into account when using smartphone apps in their future qualitative
research projects. We encourage others to build on and advance this under-
researched but potentially valuable tool.
Keywords: smartphone app; mobile phone; iPhone; android; audiovisual methods;
auto-ethnography; qualitative research; digital divide; technology; football
3
Introduction: Mobile Phones, Smartphones and Applications in research
Smartphones – defined as programmable mobile phones – are widely used in Western
countries (Raento, Oulasvrite and Eagle, 2009) and continue to increase their market
share. For example, in the UK smartphones were owned by over 60% of the population
at the end of 2013 with ownership projected to rise to over 80% by 2017 (We Are Apps,
2013). For the 16-64 age range, smartphone ownership in 2013 was 72%, a figure that
rose from 58% only ten months previously (Deloitte, 2013). Similar figures are
suggested for the USA (Edison Research, 2014; Pew Research, 2014).
Applications are software programmes that run on smartphones (Patel et al, 2013),
enhancing the functionality of larger programmes and allowing them to run in a user-
friendly way that is designed for the mobile phone screen. Smartphones and apps are
not used widely in research presently, and where they have been utilized it has mainly
been to collect quantitative data such as demographics (Aanensen et al, 2009;
Kiukkonen et al, 2010; Raento et al, 2009), time use (Bouwman, Heerschap and de
Reuver 2013; Sonck and Fernee, 2013), market research (Chen, 2011), monitoring
human behaviour and interactions (Dennison et al, 2013; Luxton et al, 2011; Payne,
Wharrad and Watts, 2012), plotting feelings in relation to location (Killingsworth and
Gilbert, 2010; MacKerron and Mourato, 2013) and gathering observational data (Patel
et al, 2013).
The use of smartphones in qualitative research however is absent in the academic
literature, which is a notable gap given the increased use of interactive methods such
as diaries and photography. Reflecting on how technology may encourage future
4
opportunities for diary-based research a decade ago, Bolger, Davis and Rafaeli (2003:
599) suggested that ‘improved mobile communication allows online, duplex (i.e.,
interactive) contact with participants. For example, researchers can now send
questions to, and receive responses from, participants in real time’. Diary-based
methods have not generally followed advances in technology, with empirical studies
still overwhelmingly providing participants with audio or video equipment (see for
example Cherrington and Watson, 2010; Tamminen and Holt, 2010; Williamson et al,
2011) or maintaining the written format (see for example Day and Thatcher, 2009;
Duke, 2012). One example where advances in technology have been utilised in audio-
visual methods is Plowman and Stevenson’s (2012) study that collected qualitative
data by asking parents to use their mobile phone to take and send images for a family
time use study.
Why use smartphones to collect data?
Previous quantitative studies that have utilised mobile phone technology have
described a number of benefits of this approach. The use of smartphones can be a
time and cost-effective solution (Dennison et al, 2013; Raento, Oulasvirta and Eagle
2009), particularly as a large (and remote) sample size is possible (Kiukkonen et al,
2010; MacKerron and Mourato, 2013; Patel et al, 2013). Another benefit is that
longitudinal studies are also more feasible as once downloaded, the app can be used
over time (Chen, 2011; MacKerron and Mourato, 2013). Efficiency is further enhanced
by the instant transfer of data (Patel et al, 2013; Sonck and Fernee, 2013). Smartphone
5
apps are interactive and user-friendly, which can improve the response rate and
reduce drop-out (Chen, 2011; Plowman and Stevenson, 2012) as interest can be
sustained longer (Dennison et al, 2013).
Aside from these practical benefits, the trialling of apps in research has produced data
that can be both immediate and encompass changes over time. A broader range of
quantitative data, such as what people are doing at a certain point of time (Aanensen
et al, 2009; Kiukkonen et al, 2010) can be supplemented with accurate and reliable
location information, allowing data to be understood in its context (Chen, 2011;
Dennison et al, 2013; MacKerron and Mourato, 2013). This can give an insight into not
just what people are doing but where and when they are doing it. Images can be
uploaded to give further contextual information (Plowman and Stevenson, 2012).
Researchers have also suggested the benefits of mobile technology to participants.
Using an app contained within a mobile phone is unobtrusive and discrete (Kiukkonen
et al, 2010; Raento, Oulasvirta and Eagle, 2009), particularly useful if the research topic
is sensitive (Dennison et al, 2013). Equipment does not need to be provided and is
familiar to the participant (Dennison et al, 2013; Sonck and Fernee, 2013). If an app is
used to replace other tools such as online surveys, participants do not need to be by
their computer to take part (Patel et al, 2013; Sonck and Fernee, 2013). All these make
retention more likely.
