COVID-19 caused major disruptions within higher education. Although these disruptions affected students, faculty, and staff, perhaps the most shocking disruption was the layoffs of full-time faculty during the pandemic. This case study frames how, within a power dynamic of nontrust, we collected the required subjective statements for a mixed methods study using the often-overlooked methodology called Q methodology [Q]. In what has been called a democratic approach, Q allows the multiple voices related to an event to be heard rather than only the loudest voices. The disruption and isolation of the pandemic created problems related to carrying out this study, and the result led to remote data collection across all the dimensions of any Q study. These dimensions consist of collecting subjective items (typically statements), reducing them to 40-60 items, having participants sort these items into a grid to capture their internal subjective viewpoints, analyzing these sorts, and then describing the divergent viewpoints that are revealed. This case study will focus on the collection of subjective statements and setting up the online Q sorts. Other aspects of the study will also be discussed as well as addressing potential power structures when performing a Q study. [This content is provided in the format of an e-book.]