From: Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
Virtual mode | Face-to-Face Mode | |
---|---|---|
Key characteristics | Communication through website Written inputs Flexible (self timed) inputs Over a time period | Face-to-face meetings Spoken inputs Inputs typically only at meeting Time limited to meeting plus some paper-based preparation |
Advantages/benefits | Written inputs more likely to be carefully considered Time for reflection Self managed Physical presence not needed Lack of visible (audible) status markers | Generates discussion, ideas Members can check, clarify and question each other Can obtain 'soft' information and non-verbal cues Capacity for on-the-spot reflection |
Limitations/problems | Lack of visual cues Risk of less interactivity, dialogue and group reflection | Can get skewed by powerful/dominant individuals Physical presence required |
Outcomes (e.g., clarity/range of research topics, quality of research proposals) | Vignettes checked by group More opportunities to have a say Voting Process visible, can be traced | No provision to develop and check outcomes Lack of time and flexibility Lack of presence a major gap Consensus, not always clear |
Resource implications | Website design & update Training for CMC Technical back-up Possibly higher time costs | Admin/paper distribution Arranging meetings and venues Travel costs |
Implications for individual members | More flexible use of time Total time commitment similar to F2F mode Easier to agree time commitment with employer | Time commitment felt to be significant For many, commitment has to be agreed with employer |