Why Zoom isn't enough for your Online Qualitative Research needs 2.0
Nov 24, 2025, Ushma KapadiaThis is an update of our 2023 post, “Why is Zoom Not Enough for Your Online Qualitative Research Needs?” Read the original here: https://flowres.io/blog/online-qualitative-research
Traditionally run, Qualitative Research is an in-person activity. While online qualitative research was attempted in the past, it never gained wide acceptance immediately, at least in Southeast Asia. Covid-19 changed this dynamic. Online qualitative research suddenly became mainstream; and now is often the method-of-choice for FGDs, IDIs and other qualitative methodologies.
64% of all Qual research done is online - Insight Platforms’s survey (2023).
In the early days of this shift, researchers either leant towards specialized online qualitative platforms like discuss.io, recollective, Qualboard by Sago or generic video collaboration heavyweights like Zoom and Teams to interact with participants for qualitative research. The use of Online mode for qualitative research also solved the problem of reaching participants in far distances and meeting participants from diverse backgrounds. It opened a channel for research which was earlier thought to be impossible. Ease of recruiting participants globally was one essential factor that made Online a preferable way of conducting qualitative research. With practitioners adopting and experimenting to make online consumer insight platforms work for their use-cases, Online Qualitative Research has matured since 2023.
Online synchronous research interactions are not like regular meetings, they involve no of stakeholders (participants, researchers, clients and sometimes interpreters). Video-meeting platforms like Zoom made it easy for all the stakeholders to join and view research fieldwork. Yet, across categories – CPG, Media, Healthcare, Legal, Tech – clients who ran “Zoom-only” qual research, discovered four recurring failures; that quietly eroded data quality and raised compliance risks:
Observers and Participants shared a “room”, were in the same space
Disclosing presence of client observers (while ethically necessary) affected the participant-moderator dynamics
Running interactions in Webinar mode diluted two-way conversation, since Zoom missed a backroom designed to cater to Qualitative Research needs
Slack/WhatsApp backchannels split observer/ moderator attention and complicated governance.
The “one room” trap caused awkward moments, yielded distorted data
If observers can be seen or even guessed to be present, participants are bound to self-edit. We’ve all lived the mishaps: a client accidentally turns on video or sends a probe to ‘Everyone’ instead of to the moderator/ fellow observers. Participant candor collapses right when you need differing opinions challenging one another (think concept tests, early creative evaluation, sensitive topics). What this meant for researchers:
Painstakingly engineer separation…ideal is a private, fail-safe backroom that virtually prevents observers from landing up in the participant space. But if not, at least use Zoom Webinar where observers/ clients are easily separable
Tech-check for mis-sends: Ensure that the attendees list is hidden from participants; observer cams/mics are locked and a 60-second dry-run, before admitting the group into the virtual call.
Establish a single relay in the backroom: Get only one observer to funnel probes to the moderator; ensure that everyone else sends their comments on a private chat.
Disclosure is required, but nudges participants to self-censor; which skews data
Ethically and legally, you should disclose client observation and capture participant consent to it. Yes, do tell participants that the client is observing and record only with participants’ consent. Observers should never be in the same meeting. Implication for researchers:
Treat all-party consent as your default. Capture it in writing and verbally at the onset; log who observed and when.
Script a disclosure that clarifies the observers’ silent role; and then keep them invisible to participants
Use a quick reassurance line (eg. “We want unfiltered reactions; observers can’t join this room”) and pivot into warm-up, to reset the participant-moderator dynamic.
“We’ll just use Zoom Webinar”/ Slack/ WhatsApp is not a Backroom strategy
Webinar mode is built for broadcast, rather than for active interaction. Attendee chat is curtailed, spontaneous unmute is restricted and moderators juggle panelist chat, Q&A and call-controls. You get less natural dialogue, more cognitive load. Parallel chats are intuitive and deceptively nimble. However, in practice, they fracture attention and create governance drift (PII in consumer apps, screenshot sprawl, fuzzy retention). Operationally, an active backchannel forces moderators to furtively scan between participants and observers (two screens) and try address “Ask this now!” pings… all at the same time. In the bargain, either you require a dedicated person to man the groups (a waste of time for project managers) or probing suffers and moderator’s control over the group frays. A few workarounds:
Default to meeting-style sessions solidly supported a dedicated Backroom. Reserve Webinar for one-to-many broadcasts (eg. town halls, company announcements), not for Qualitative Research data-capture.
Consolidate the backchannel. A single observer stream inside your research environment providing structured, time-stamped notes to the moderator will suffice.
Assign a Backroom Editor to triage probes (now/later/debrief); and prevent pile-on.
Turn off consumer chat apps during fieldwork and route backroom notes into analysis; not into unmanaged DMs.
What our clients learned from hands-on-deck usage of Online Qualitative Research platforms …
‘Zoom-only’ feels familiar; but can be expensive in terms of data-quality. Once you disclose observation (as you should), participant behaviour is bound to shift. Webinar modes aren’t programmed for interactive sessions. Third-party backchannels drain attention and add governance risk. The durable fix isn’t a longer checklist of apps to use. Instead, it’s better session architecture. Researchers don’t have to choose between Zoom’s convenience and the control of a purpose-built qual platform. The track to getting both is simple - let Zoom do what it does best (getting people into a room without fuss); and offload the observation layer elsewhere. Most meeting platforms already let you stream sessions to external destinations. Zoom to YouTube or Vimeo works fine if all you need is passive viewing.
But if you want real qualitative rigor, streaming alone isn’t enough. You need an integrated layer that keeps the session running on Zoom while giving observers their own a private, auditable backroom; … a place where they can watch, discuss, pass probes, and never risk landing in the participant’s line of sight. This hybrid model delivers the best of both worlds. Zero hassle for participants. Zero contamination from observers, moderator workspace that protects the only scarce asset in that hour – moderator attention. And finally, a workflow designed around how qualitative research actually happens, not how office meetings happen.
