Remote research with human participants is no longer just a backup plan, it’s becoming a core method in how many fields collect data. Over the past few years, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers around the world were forced to pivot quickly from in-person studies to remote formats. In turn, Institutional Review Boards (IRB) have also focused on removing obstacles to enhance such research. This shift wasn’t just about convenience. It was a matter of safety, access, and, in many cases, survival of research projects. What began as an emergency measure has started to evolve into something more permanent. Now, even as many institutions return to in-person work, the flexibility and scalability of remote research remain attractive. It opens doors to broader participant pools, especially in rural or underserved areas, and can lower costs linked to travel and facility use (Anderson et al., 2021).
But here’s the rub: conducting research with people, even remotely, still means playing by the rules. That includes following strict ethical standards, getting a fast and confident approval of an IRB, and protecting participants’ rights. While the setting has changed, the responsibilities haven’t. That’s where things get complicated. Institutional IRBs were originally designed with in-person studies in mind. Face-to-face interviews, paper consent forms, locked file cabinets—those were the norms. Now, researchers are experiencing a whole new terrain: digital consent, online surveys, video interviews, cloud storage, and more. This rapid shift has exposed gaps in both IRB policies and researcher know-how. Many research teams have found themselves stuck, trying to translate traditional protocols into virtual settings, often without clear guidance from their institutions (Rosenfeld & Schwartz, 2020).
The goal of this blog post is to unpack some of the most common IRB-related challenges when doing remote research with human subjects. We’ll also share practical strategies that researchers can use to get fast, confident approval and move their projects forward without compromising ethics or compliance. Whether you’re a grad student working on your thesis or part of a larger research team, these insights can help you through the IRB process and protect your participants, no matter where they are.
I. Understanding IRBs in the Remote Research Landscape
Before diving into the specific challenges of doing research remotely, it helps to take a step back and understand what direct management of IRB actually involves and why it still matters just as much, even when everything happens online. An IRB is a committee that reviews research involving human participants. Their job is to make sure that studies are ethical, that risks are minimized, and that participants give informed consent freely and with a full understanding of what’s involved. This system was created in response to historical research abuses, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which exposed how easily participants can be exploited without proper oversight (Beecher, 1966; National Commission, 1979).
Both independent and institutional IRBs are grounded in three key principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, outlined in the Belmont Report (National Commission, 1979). These principles guide how researchers design their studies, communicate with participants, and handle data. When research happens in person, many of these ethical practices are straightforward: Participants sign physical consent forms, researchers can answer questions on the spot, and interviews or data collection usually happen in controlled environments like labs or clinics.
But remote research turns a lot of this upside down. Instead of face-to-face interactions, researchers now rely on email, video calls, and online surveys. Instead of handing over a paper consent form, they might ask someone to check a box online or sign electronically. Instead of meeting in a university office, participants might be answering sensitive questions from their kitchen table, possibly with others in the room. These changes, while seemingly small, create big implications for privacy, consent, data security, and how researchers maintain ethical standards.
Many institutional IRBs have struggled to keep pace with this shift. Their review processes were built around in-person studies, and adapting those rules to the digital space isn’t always straightforward. For example, some IRBs have not adopted an efficient, stress-free service and still require wet signatures for consent forms, or they may not be familiar with the security features of newer online platforms (McDermott & Newman, 2021). Others without expertise and care in handling the process might hesitate to approve video-based interviews if they’re unsure how recordings will be stored or protected.
At the same time, researchers themselves may be unclear on what’s allowed or how to explain their methods in a way that satisfies an IRB. It’s not uncommon to hear researchers say things like “I didn’t know I needed to describe the video platform in detail,” or “Our IRB wasn’t sure how to review our digital consent process.” These kinds of disconnects slow down approvals, frustrate investigators, and sometimes put entire projects on hold.
The takeaway here is simple: even though the research setting has changed, the ethical responsibilities haven’t. IRBs still play a vital role in providing a clear path and making sure human participants are respected and protected. However, both researchers and review boards need to work together to adapt those responsibilities to fit the digital world.
II. Common Challenges with Remote Research
Doing research remotely has opened a lot of doors, but it’s also created a tangle of new issues, especially when human participants are involved. Researchers are finding out that things that seemed simple in person, like getting consent or protecting privacy, become a lot more complicated when everyone’s working from different places and behind a screen. Let’s walk through a few of the biggest challenges that tend to show up when working with human subjects in remote settings.
Informed Consent Isn’t So Straightforward Online
One of the first hurdles is digital informed consent. In traditional settings, you can hand someone a form, explain the study face-to-face, and answer questions right there. But remotely, that personal interaction is missing. Researchers might send a long PDF over email or ask participants to click a checkbox saying they agree without knowing if they actually read or understood anything. This matters. Consent isn’t just about a signature, it’s about providing a clear path and making sure people understand what they’re agreeing to. A 2020 study found that digital consent forms often use technical language, making it harder for participants to fully grasp what’s being asked of them (Skelton et al., 2020). Without the chance to ask clarifying questions in real time, participants may feel confused or uncertain but still proceed out of politeness or misunderstanding.
Verifying Who Your Participants Really Are
In remote studies, especially ones with incentives, there’s a risk of fraud. Some participants might misrepresent who they are just to qualify, or they might complete the same survey multiple times to get paid more. Without being in the same room, it’s tough to verify identities or check if participants meet the criteria your study requires. This issue shows up more often in studies with eligibility restrictions, like research involving specific age groups, diagnoses, or geographic regions. Human subject review boards may question whether researchers can truly screen participants effectively and whether the results will be valid. Researchers have started using identity verification tools or screening questions, but it’s still an evolving challenge (Peach et al., 2021).
Privacy and Confidentiality Are Harder to Guarantee
Let’s say you’re interviewing someone about sensitive topics like trauma, health, or family issues. If they were in a private office, that’s one thing. But what if they’re on a Zoom call from their bedroom while someone else is nearby? That’s a whole different scenario. Without proper direct management, remote settings can create unpredictable privacy risks that researchers can’t always control. In one study, researchers noted how difficult it was to ensure participants had a truly private space when doing interviews about intimate partner violence.
Some had to reschedule multiple times or whisper during the call (Wood et al., 2020). This impacts both the comfort of participants and the quality of the data being collected. And then there’s the technical side of privacy: storing recordings on secure platforms, using encrypted tools, and making sure nothing leaks. Researchers are being held to high standards by institutional IRBs, and rightfully so, but navigating those standards in digital environments can feel overwhelming.
Tech Access Isn’t Equal for Everyone
Not everyone has a laptop, a stable internet connection, or a quiet place to participate. This creates access issues and hinders a clear path, especially for lower-income participants, older adults, or people living in rural areas. As a result, certain groups may be unintentionally excluded from remote research. This kind of “digital divide” can skew research samples and reinforce existing disparities (Roberts & March, 2021). Some human subject review boards now ask researchers to explain how they’ll include people with limited tech access or what accommodations they’ll offer, like phone-based participation or printed materials sent by mail. But it’s not always easy or affordable to make those adjustments.
All of these challenges are manageable, but they take planning. As more researchers shift to remote methods, there’s a growing need for practical strategies, clear guidelines, and open conversations between IRBs and investigators. Being aware of these issues is the first step, next, we’ll look at what researchers can actually do to address them.
III. Practical Solutions and Best Practices
Now that we’ve looked at the challenges of doing remote research with human participants, let’s talk about what you can do to make things smoother. The goal here isn’t just to check boxes for your institutional or independent IRB, it’s to make sure your participants are safe, respected, and truly informed. These solutions don’t require big budgets or complex systems, but they do take thoughtful planning.
Make Digital Consent More Human and Accessible
Informed consent doesn’t have to be a dense, 6-page document in legal jargon. In fact, it shouldn’t be, especially online. One of the most effective ways to improve digital consent is to break it down into simpler formats. Think bullet points, plain language summaries, and short videos that explain the study in everyday terms. Some researchers have even created animated explainers to walk participants through the process, and studies have shown that multimedia tools can improve understanding and engagement (Rowbotham et al., 2013).
Another good practice is to include “comprehension checks” within the consent process, such as simple questions like “What will you be asked to do in this study?” to confirm that the participant actually gets it. Tools like Qualtrics or REDCap allow you to build these checks right into the form. If your human subject review board still insists on a signature, consider using services like DocuSign or REDCap’s e-consent modules, which are increasingly accepted by research institutions.
Choose Platforms That Put Security First
When collecting data remotely, not all tech is created equal. You may be tempted to use whatever’s easy, such as Google Forms, Zoom, or Dropbox, but those platforms might not offer the level of security required for sensitive research. Instead, go with IRB-approved tools that offer encryption and role-based access. REDCap, for example, is designed for research and meets HIPAA compliance standards. For video calls, some universities have secure affiliated networks of Zoom accounts with extra protections built in. If you’re storing audio or video recordings, make sure they’re saved on encrypted drives or secure university servers, not your personal laptop or a public cloud folder. And document everything. IRBs want to see how you’re protecting data, so explain what tools you’re using, what settings you’ve enabled, and who has access.
Build in Flexibility for Participants
Remote research gives participants more freedom, but it also comes with its own barriers. To keep your study inclusive, think ahead about the things that might make participation hard and offer workarounds when you can. For example, if someone doesn’t have a stable internet connection, could they join by phone instead of video? Could you provide prepaid data cards or offer appointments outside of work hours?
These kinds of accommodations show respect for participants’ time and circumstances, and they can also improve your response rates and retention. Researchers working with underserved populations have found that partnering with community organizations helps build trust and bridge access gaps. These partners can help distribute surveys, offer tech support, or simply vouch for the legitimacy of your study (Gonzalez et al., 2020).
Support Participants with Tech and Communication
Not everyone is tech-savvy, and that’s okay. But it’s your job as the researcher to make participation feel smooth, not stressful, and to foster collaboration. Before a remote interview or focus group, send clear instructions ahead of time. Consider making a short how-to guide or video tutorial for using Zoom or any survey platform. You could also offer a short tech test or “dry run” session for participants who want to practice before the real thing. Also, make it easy for people to reach out. To eliminate obstacles, have an email or phone number they can contact if something goes wrong. If your participants are completing tasks over time (like weekly surveys), automated reminders can help; just make sure they’re worded in a friendly, respectful way.
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to remote research, but these practices can go a long way in making your study more ethical, inclusive, and IRB-friendly. The key is to be proactive, transparent, and responsive, not just with the IRB but also with your participants.
IV. Case Examples
Sometimes, the best way to understand the challenges and solutions of remote research is to look at how others have handled it. These examples show how research teams faced hurdles with IRB approval, participant engagement, and ethical dilemmas and how they found creative ways to move forward.
Case 1: A Public Health Study Adjusts to Digital Consent
In 2021, a university-based public health research team was preparing a study on adolescent mental health in remote high schools. The study originally relied on in-person surveys and group interviews during the school day. But due to COVID-19 lockdowns, everything had to move online. The biggest challenge? Getting parental consent remotely. The IRB initially rejected the plan to email consent forms, citing concerns about verifying parental identity and ensuring comprehension. So, the team reworked their consent strategy to eliminate obstacles. Instead of using long PDF forms, they created a two-minute animated video explaining the study in plain language, available in English and Spanish.
They added an online quiz afterward to confirm understanding. Parents could submit consent via a secure e-signature platform (DocuSign), which the IRB eventually approved after seeing the added layers of comprehension and security (McElfish et al., 2021). Not only did the project get the green light, but the team also fostered collaboration and increased participation among Spanish-speaking families, who found the video format more approachable than a written form. It turned a frustrating IRB delay into a better communication strategy.
Case 2: Remote Interviews with Survivors of Domestic Violence
A different capstone project for a graduate student at Walden University focused on intimate partner violence during the pandemic, a topic that requires extreme care and privacy. Researchers planned to conduct one-on-one interviews with women who were isolated at home, often in the same space as their abuser. The ethical challenges were huge. How could the team guarantee safety and confidentiality in that environment? Would it even be ethical to proceed?
Working closely with their independent IRB, the research team built a flexible interview protocol that let participants choose the time, platform, and method of communication. Some opted for encrypted chat apps; others preferred brief phone calls while out for a walk. The team also created a “safe exit” button on the study’s website and developed scripts in case an abuser entered the room during a call. This level of customization made the study more complex, but it was necessary to protect the participants. The IRB approved the study with added oversight and praised the team’s adaptive, participant-centered approach (Wood et al., 2020).
Case 3: Tackling Fraud in Online Survey Panels
A research team from UCSC Health Center studying vaccine hesitancy ran a national survey using an online panel vendor. After a week of data collection, the team noticed strange patterns, duplicate IP addresses, nonsensical open-text responses, and completion times that were too fast to be believable. They were dealing with bot submissions and participant fraud, a growing issue in remote survey research. Rather than scrap the study, the team revised their IRB protocol to include additional screening layers: CAPTCHA verification, IP tracking, attention check questions, and open-text responses that required meaningful engagement (Kennedy et al., 2020). The IRB approved the updated protocol, and data quality improved dramatically. This experience highlighted that remote studies need not only ethical safeguards but also quality controls to protect research integrity.
These examples show that IRB challenges in remote research aren’t insurmountable. In fact, they often push researchers to design better, more inclusive, and more thoughtful studies. The key is being willing to adapt and to work with your IRB as a partner, not an obstacle.
V. Future Directions
As remote research becomes more common- not just a pandemic workaround but a long-term strategy- it’s clear we’re in a transition period. Researchers, participants, and human subject review boards are all adapting to a new normal. But the truth is, we’re still figuring things out. There’s no universal playbook for an ethical, clear path of remote human-subject research yet. The good news? That opens up a lot of possibilities for growth for both researchers and IRBs to foster collaboration and change.
IRBs Are Evolving—But They Need Better Support
Many IRBs are already adjusting their processes to meet the demands of remote studies. They’ve begun accepting electronic signatures, recognizing digital consent methods, and asking new questions about privacy and tech platforms. But not every institution is at the same pace. One of the biggest future needs is for consistent, updated guidance across institutions. Right now, a protocol that gets fast, confident approval at one university might get stuck in weeks of revisions at another. This lack of consistency is frustrating for researchers and confusing for participants. National bodies, like the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) or professional organizations, could help with expertise and care in handling the process by developing standardized frameworks for remote research ethics (Menikoff et al., 2017).
Training Researchers for the Digital Age
A lot of researchers were trained in a world of lab rooms, clipboards, and face-to-face interviews. Now, they’re being asked to use video conferencing software, write data security plans, and troubleshoot remote recruitment, all with little to no formal training. We need to build up digital ethics education in research programs. That means workshops, toolkits, and examples that show what a guide to “yes” looks like in a remote setting. It also means helping researchers feel more confident when designing protocols, choosing platforms, or responding to IRB feedback. Some universities have already created helpful resources for remote study design, including sample language for consent forms, platform comparisons, and case examples. Scaling up efforts like these could really lower the barrier to entry for remote work.
More Inclusive and Participant-Centered Approaches
The shift to remote methods can be a powerful opportunity to make research more inclusive and foster collaboration if we do it right. When done thoughtfully, remote studies can reach people who would otherwise be left out: caregivers, people with disabilities, rural residents, or those with tight schedules. However, that only happens if we build systems of affiliated networks with their needs in mind by offering flexible scheduling, multiple formats, low-tech alternatives, and plain language communication. Moving forward, researchers should focus not just on what’s convenient for their teams but on what actually works for participants. That means building flexibility and empathy into the design from day one.
Ethical Innovation, Not Just Compliance
Finally, there’s a chance to move beyond thinking of the IRB as a checklist and start seeing it as a space for innovation. New questions are emerging about surveillance, AI-powered data collection, and algorithmic bias, things that traditional research ethics barely scratched the surface. The future of human subject research, especially in digital spaces, will demand more than just “Is it approved?” We’ll need to ask, Is it fair? Is it safe? Is it trustworthy? That mindset shift could lead to stronger science, better data, and more public confidence in research overall (Emanuel et al., 2020).
Remote research isn’t a trend, it’s part of the future. But it will only work if we build the ethical foundations to support it. That means better tools, smarter policies, more researcher training, and participant-centered design. The challenges are real, but the opportunity to reshape research for the better is right in front of us.
VI. Conclusion
Remote research with human participants isn’t just a short-term solution, it’s becoming a core method for studies across health, education, and social science. And as this shift continues, so does the need for expertise and care in handling the process. Researchers are juggling digital consent, data security, participant privacy, and evolving ethical standards. It can feel overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be.
At BeyondBound IRB, we believe there should be no roadblocks, just support. We offer a comprehensive, bespoke approach tailored to your research needs, whether you’re running a survey from your kitchen table or coordinating a multi-site clinical study. Our goal is to provide an efficient, stress-free service that clears the way for your work. That means fast reviews, personal guidance, and a team that speaks your language, not legalese.
We’re committed to helping you get fast, confident approval with direct engagement from experts who actually understand your project. You’ll have a clear path from submission to green light because we’re here to eliminate obstacles, not create them. Our approach is built to foster collaboration, not confusion. We don’t believe in one-size-fits-all. That’s why we offer transparent pricing depending on the scope of your research. Whether you’re an independent researcher, a nonprofit, or part of a growing institution, you’ll have access to comprehensive support and an affiliated network of experienced professionals ready to walk with you every step of the way.
So, if you’re navigating IRB approval for your remote research, don’t do it alone. Let Beyond Bound IRB be your trusted partner in getting things done right. Ethical, efficient, and always tailored to you. Start your review today because your research deserves momentum, not red tape.
References
Anderson, C., Broom, A., & Delany, C. (2021). Remote research ethics: Lessons from COVID-19. Social Science & Medicine, 277, 113892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892
Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
Emanuel, E. J., Persad, G., & Upshur, R. (2020). Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(21), 2049–2055. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2005114
Gonzalez, C., Griffin, A. C., & Williams, N. (2020). Ethical considerations for conducting community-engaged research during COVID-19: Reflections from the field. Health Promotion Practice, 21(5), 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920934851
Kennedy, C., Hatley, N., & Lau, A. (2020). Preventing survey fraud and improving data quality: Lessons from a national study on COVID-19 beliefs. Survey Practice, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2020-0020
McDermott, D., & Newman, L. (2021). Navigating IRB approvals in a digital world: Research ethics in remote environments. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264621997058
McElfish, P. A., Purvis, R. S., James, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2021). Conducting community-engaged research during COVID-19: Strategies for real-time adaptation. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e112. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.799
Menikoff, J., Kaneshiro, J., & Pritchard, I. (2017). The Common Rule, updated. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 613–615. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1700736
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Peach, L., Moxley, K., & Taylor, S. (2021). Remote qualitative research and ethical challenges: Strategies from a virtual ethnography of mental health services. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1904313
Roberts, C., & March, L. (2021). Remote data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic: Digital inequalities and research ethics. Sociology Health & Illness, 43(6), 1344–1359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13257
Rosenfeld, E., & Schwartz, R. (2020). Ethical and regulatory challenges in remote social science research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 42(3), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500057
Rowbotham, M. C., Astin, J., Greene, K., & Cummings, S. R. (2013). Interactive informed consent: Randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058603
Skelton, E., Drey, N., & Sturt, J. (2020). Digital consent processes in health research: Exploring participant understanding and trust. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00501-6
Wood, L., Baumler, E., Schrag, R. V., Guillot-Wright, S., Hairston, D., Temple, J. R., & Torres, E. (2020). Conducting intimate partner violence research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Ethics and safety considerations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 88626052093540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520935400