Skip to main content

Table 3 Strengths and limitations of each method

From: Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing

  Innovation Tournament Observations/Qualitative Interviews
Strengths Limitations Strengths Limitations
Preparation phase • Only need to create a single prompt • Limited to a single prompt to elicit information about potentially complex problems • Have option to ask a range of questions to inform implementation strategy design • Time and resource intensive (both with creating materials and training and supervising research staff)
Data collection and synthesis phase • Limited time burden placed on stakeholders (stakeholder participation time is low, can participate when and where they choose)
• Data analysis less time intensive than traditional qualitative interviews
• Stakeholder voice is involved in analysis through voting/vetting of ideas
• Cannot iteratively refine prompts based on initial responses from stakeholders
• “Stopping” the tournament not traditionally linked to reaching thematic saturation
• Can continue to refine questions over time as new information is gathered
• Can determine “stopping” point based on achieving thematic saturation
• Time and resource intensive (both with regards to data collection and training and supervising of research staff)
Community engagement • Iterative “voting” process during the data collection phase intended to create community and buy-in among stakeholders
• Unlimited number of participants can share ideas
• Low incremental cost to adding more participants
• Difficult to engage individuals who may be less likely to be engaged via electronic medium • Participants can identify other core stakeholders to be included
• Can identify key individuals to serve on an advisory board
• Engagement is with a subset of stakeholders only
• High incremental cost of adding more stakeholders to process
Overall • Ideal for a specific question with potentially straightforward solutions
• Requires fewer person hours
• Lower stakeholder burden
• Results can be analyzed quickly with low person power
• Less detailed information about context, leading to less targeted implementation strategy suggestions
• Electronic platform can be costly
• Provides greater detailed insight into context, informing more targeted implementation strategy suggestions • Greater burden placed on stakeholders
• More time and person power required to complete all phases