Introduction
In this article, I'll talk about 'how to recruit research participants'. I'll reflect upon my experiences of doing so and will also draw upon expertise in reviewing research proposals and ethics applications. Whilst the original intention was to write something for my students, the piece morphed into something that may be of interest to other researchers too.
My guidance may be different to accepted conventions at some institutions. However, unless we challenge 'ways of doing', then how do we improve? I like to view recruitment as a marketing exercise, in which researchers demonstrate an understanding of participant motivations, needs and wants. This requires more than a superficial understanding of the research philosophy being adopted and a willingness to consider solutions outside of disciplinary conventions too. So without further ado, let's delve into participant recruitment.
My Experiences of Participant Recruitment
My first experience of recruiting research participants was for my undergraduate dissertation. The initial stage was to calculate sample size using unfathomable maths. The end result was n = absolutely unachievable. Then I looked to other similar studies and decided that I needed 10-12 people just because there was published work with the same number. Two weeks was allocated within my research plan to recruit this many.
As I was a 1st Class type student, I set unrealistically ambitious goals, using a study design that would allow me to publish in the Journal of Applied Physiology (JAP). I thought this was possible. But reality soon set in. Emails to potential participants went ignored and those who had already agree to volunteer developed invisible tendencies. My research timeline was now looking very different.
The next stage of recruitment was panic. I accosted anyone that looked like they had exercised, despite me being interested in elite performance. Attempts to convince anyone that showed a tiny bit of interest in the study largely went ignored. Even my greengrocer looked bored. Eventually, I manged to recruit 6 recreational type athletes.
Many months later, the final study write-up looked very different to what was planned. It was most certainly not fit for JAP. My limitations section included statements to highlight that my study was substantially underpowered and that 'more research' was needed (using the population that I had initially tried to recruit in the first place). I still got the grade I was looking for. I had also learnt to work autonomously in the lab and provided pilot data for a novel treadmill. These experiences helped me get a funded Ph.D.
My Ph.D. recruitment processes were better but the bar was also set much higher. I became a neurotic wreck as a result. In turn, I was less fun to be around and this may have had something to do with my participant attrition. Protocols, whilst gold standard, were too demanding on participants time. Sometimes they got injured and if I'm honest, some probably got fed up spending time with me too. Thus, more volunteers were required. Fortunately, I recruited just enough participants to convince my examiners that sample size was sufficient and they eventually award me a Ph.D. Shortly afterwards, I was chatting with a pro-tour bike rider about my findings. "Oh mate, we answered that question years ago....this is what I do and it's really simple.....". I vowed never to conduct research again.
Several years later when working at British Cycling, being the 'academic boffin' in the office meant that most external requests for 'help with research' recruitment came to me. Whilst my empathetic and altruistic tendencies have always remained, I rarely helped. Rather, my most common actions were to:
1. Delete poorly worded & unprofessional emails without wasting my time to reply.
2. Ignore requests that were asking help to answer questions that were clearly more important to the researcher than the needs of the sport. They often proposed research questions that could not be answered in a way that was likely to be useful. More often than not, overly positivistic questions that were free from context were presented to me.
3. Ask questions that related to "what's in it for us?" Someone has got to pay for employee time and that cost could only be justified if tangible benefits were clear and aligned with organisational Key Performance Indicators.
4. Say no but I gave a considered response saying 'why not'. These responses were reserved for those who had done a professional job but maybe didn't understand the 'delivery context' sufficiently.
The quality of requests was typically poor, regardless of the academic status of the researcher. In fact, sometimes undergraduate students did a better job than esteemed professors. The reality was that we only ever engaged in research that focused on the needs of the 'business' and not simply what the researcher was interested in. This typically required co-creation of the research question(s). However, my 8-years as an end-user of research taught me that too many researchers wanted my help to solve problems that wouldn't help me. It's easy to be critical but I had also been 'that researcher'. I only learnt the error of my ways when the 'boot was on the other foot'. Such experiences have had a profound influence of how I conduct research now. I can also articulate what I do using fancy philosophical words.
What is your Research Philosophy?
Being able to articulate what the underpinning philosophical approach supports your research methods is important to conducting good quality research projects. I argue that if you can't articulate the philosophical basis of your research approach, you may not be aware of the fact that you even have one, you may not appreciate the limitations of particular approaches, know what the alternatives are or choose to adopt one that suits your own agenda.
As I've gained a deeper philosophical understanding of research, I have moved towards an ontological position of Critical Realism (although I initially didn't know it). In short, this position is my way of seeing the world and how I solve problems within it. I consider the causal underpinnings of my areas of interest, that theory rarely determines cause and that universal truths rarely exist (slightly esoteric I know). This informs on my research process in which I always consider the following:
1) What problem do I want to solve or what challenge do I want to overcome?
2) Has the problem been solved before and is there evidence to demonstrate this? (Gap in the literature).
3) Do others working in the 'real world' believe the research problems/challenges exist and have they the agency/resources to be able to implement solutions?
4) Beyond a 4* paper, what would I like to achieve in conducting the research?
In an excellent resource by Tom Fryer, he advocates that we should all understand what our research philosophy is before embarking on a research journey, including recruitment of participants. Tom suggests that those using positivistic philosophies often search for truths that don't exist. I agree with Tom. This is the reason many researchers, including those far more published than me, commonly cannot answer the 'so what's' of their research. 'More research is required' can often suggest that a conclusive answer or broad consensus is unlikely to be reached anytime soon. 'More research' is also a statement that is not recognised as a good employability skill in industry. The bosses I've had want solutions and outcomes not suggestions that I may be closer in 18-months time. You can access Tom's resource below.
Why is this important in terms of participant recruitment? Well, I argue that our research philosophy must help us recognise participants ways of seeing the world. It's a bit like us transmitting Bluetooth signals to a device without a compatible receiver. Nothing much will happen. Rather, we must be able communicate with participants in a way they understand. We must also solve problems in a way that is important and meaningful to them if they are to be sufficiently motivated to participate in our research. I have given a few practical recommendations in doing so below.
How I Recruit Now
Despite vowing never to do research again, here I am doing research. But I use many of the tools I used in 'industry'. Much like getting people to sign-up for a paid for service, participant recruitment is a marketing exercise in which we must convince others into 'buying into' our product. It's not enough to tell people the product is available to buy.
I think I'm not bad at marketing. In one study I managed around 10000 people. In my latest one, I hit my target in 2 days. There are reasons for this success. Firstly, I've got a great network and spend time maintaining it. That means doing favours for people, building relationships and asking questions to find out what the current problems/challenges in industry are. Therefore, when I ask people to participate or help me recruit, we're working on a shared problem. This approach is consistent with Personal and Public Involvement (PPI) methods that are used in healthcare and behaviour change science. In short, I know my market, have 'built my brand' through relationship development and have done lots of work to ensure people know who I am. This is intentional.
Secondly, I put all my recruitment material online in a way that can be shared through social media. 'Signing up' should be as easy as buying something from a reputable online trader. We all know when a purchase is difficult, we'll just go to another website where it's easier or choose not to buy.
For participants to volunteer to participate in research, they should ideally:
- Be sufficiently motivated to want to engage with and use their valuable time to participate. It is our job to understand these motivations.
- Believe that the research is worthwhile and important to them.
- Not be required to put in an effort that exceeds their level of motivation. That means making life as easy as possible for them.
- Be rewarded materially or with a feeling that they're making a worthwhile contribution to society.
- Explicitly recognise that participant time is a valuable asset and that their contribution is genuinely valued.
Not all need to apply but consideration of the 'Intensity of Motivation' model of Brehm & Self (1989), as shown in Figure 1, is helpful in understanding their motivations. Simple things like not having to 'email for further information' or not expecting participants to read reams of small print certainly helps.
-
Figure 1. Brehm & Self's 'Intensity of Motivation' model
Unfortunately, many researchers believe that their area of interest is critically important to the rest of the world. This is rarely the case and most participants see through the 'veneer'. To illustrated these points, consider the headlines for two research studies:
1) Participants needed for a study into cycling performance. We are looking for trained athletes to perform six laboratory tests on the influence of L-carnitine on time-trial performance.
2) Are you interested in mental health in sport and feel your expertise and/or experiences could help inform on the development of a new framework to support better sporting environments?
The first study is very typical of what we'd see in sport science. Is it doing a good marketing job though? This type of project is a very 'hard sell' to demonstrate tangible benefits to participants. Free laboratory testing isn't as exciting as it used to be. Most serious cyclists have home ergometers that are often better (valid & reliable) than lab ones. If a researcher asked me as a coach to help in this study, I'd also point them towards Ron Maughan's recommendations on sport supplement use. I'd want to see convincing arguments of how these recommendations had been accounted for. I'm not arguing that this type of study is inappropriate. Rather, more careful consideration of why the study is important and recognition of some of the underlying philosophical underpinnings of the research need to be considered first. That means you can honestly market the study and its importance to participants.
I'll admit it, the second study headline is mine. The full recruitment page is here. I know that there are lots of people interested in mental health in sport and the subject is important to them. The request shows that I value their expertise and experience. It is also clear how their contributions will be used. The statement was a 'marketing job' and my participants are my customers. I am motivated to provide them with a positive experience in an area that is just as important to them as me.
Additionally, I sit on the ethics committee at my institution. Key considerations in reviewing research proposals for me are: does the study show research in a good light and is the time of the participant being used effectively? Researchers whether they are an undergraduate student or a world-renowned professor, are ambassadors of research. If participants have a negative experience or have their time wasted, then they are unlikely to volunteer again. Research isn't just about the individual researcher, it's about presenting research in a good light to participants and likely end-users too. Following the marketing perspective, we want to build our market and maintain customer loyalty. This means acting with integrity, transparency and good intention.
To finish, I'll offer a few 'Top Tips' when recruiting participants:
1. Always start with saying what problem you are trying to solve and why it is important to potential participants.
2. Research is not all about you and what you need. Your participants wants and needs should come first. Let them know this. Of course, for basic science projects, this is hard to do and we must sometimes rely on good will or financial inducements. However, for social science and applied sport science, how the research findings could be applied should be at the forefront of your mind.
3. Use language that is appropriate for your participants in recruitment material. This should be free from jargon and technical terminology. I talked about 'critical realism' in this blog because I'm encouraging you to consider what it means. But I would rarely use such a phrase to participants.
4. Prioritise information that participants need to know to be able to give informed consent. It is still important give access the 'small-print' but sending a 5-page information sheet in a Word document is usually overkill and counterproductive.
4. If you can, present all recruitment material online. It should easily accessible and sharable on social-media if that is appropriate. Remember, email is not as effective as it used to be.
If you apply these tips, I'd suggest that this will make recruitment easier and result in better research outcomes too. Of course, there are instances when my tips aren't appropriate or applicable. But you must be able to explain 'why' to yourself, ensuring your internal voice isn't simply telling you what you want to hear.
