How overlooking participant recruitment process in user research undermines the research: Challenges and Recommendations

a case study

Pparticipant recruitment challenges impede the quality of user research and solution designed for the user. How might we identify those key challenges and overcome them so that research can be actualised as intended?

Assumption

Participant recruitment is an integral part of user research. Platforms that provide participant recruitment services are few and not easy to reach out to when in need. They are vague and costly. User researchers especially those in career transition to the UX Research role, working on an individual project, in startups and SMBs environment finds it challenging to recruit credible, verified participants to advance the study.

Setting the stage

Participant recruitment often takes the back seat amidst the entire process of the user research study. Participant recruitment becomes the onus to external market research agencies. This creates more room for UX researchers for data analysis and synthesis. Which makes sense!

However, a study shows UX researchers spend 16–20% of their time on participant recruitment. This gives me goosebump knowing the fact that UX researcher resorts to participant recruitment to external agencies diminishing their organic involvement in the participant recruitment process. Does this undermine participants being the centre of research and solution?

I am not passing my judgement here yet, let's find out!

My key stakeholders on this study are; UX Researcher, UX Designer, Market Researcher, UX Design Student

As rightly said UX Researchers advocate for the user. Researchers take pride in that. They are unavoidably dependent on the user in all their activities. Participant recruitment is one of the core activities to identify the right participant of the product to the right solution. However, recruitment activity and its challenges in their way are often not talked about.

I have interviewed each of the stakeholders in a candid environment to understand their side of the story versus my assumption. The aim is to uncover organic findings and insights from their experience in the context of participant recruitment of the user research journey.

sample questions

Tell me about your participant recruitment process.

What are your participant recruitment options looks like?

Why participants are recruited for the research study?

Explain to me how the quality of the participants can influence the study.

How do you prepare your participants for the interview?

Crucial Findings

Insight 1

UX students, interns and individuals conduct user research for the individual project to build a portfolio or personal project. They set out with intention and enthusiasm to produce impactful work. However, they end up interviewing participants from friends circle, cohorts and social media connections. They are aware of the fact that a string of biases is attached to the study and that the study wouldn’t fly in the direction as intended. The enthusiasm in them deters when each interview ends. This pattern diminishes their confidence in their work. And the struggle continues.

Recommendation: A well-written screening questionnaire can produce participants closest to your requirements. Seek out help from UX professionals and test the screening questionnaire before circulating it to the audience.

Insight 2

90% of participant recruitment activities are shouldered to field agents. 16% of UX researchers’ daily activities are engaged in the participant recruitment process. The intention is clear; recruit quality participants for the research. The quality of the participant heavily impacts the direction and outcome of the research. Practically, UX researchers pivot to the participant recruitment process at the screening stage. And the time spent on screening varies from 5–30 minutes. Keeping the imperativeness of participant quality at the apex, a UX researcher’s active involvement in the entire recruitment process is paramount. However, in the current pattern, UX researchers pitch in on the initial and final stages of the participant recruitment process and are missing out on events in between. Lack of active involvement in participant recruitment creates unnecessary back and forth communication, trust issues with participants, internal confusion, diminishes participant’s commitment, scheduling deterrence, logistic issues, etc.

Recommendations: In-house participant recruitment capability for UX research is commendable to have. The agents are exposed to the UX research environment and the close interaction with UX researchers has imbibed the culture in them. The chances of recruiting quality participants are likely high. Whereas, resorting to an external agency is risky. The credentials and competency of the agency must be verified. It is recommended that the UX researcher or research coordinator be involved in the recruitment process to set up the UX research culture within the agency. This will take time and cannot be done overnight. However, it is worth spending that much time and resources to recruit quality participants in the long run.

Insight 3

Participants are human and none of them is cookie-cutters. Each of them brings unique stories as intended. And what is not intended for the research study are dishonest, tutored, uncommitted, mischievous participants. Realistically, it is not possible to gauge these tenets of human behaviour. Researchers had to swallow the frustration when they encountered such participants. This is not the fault of participants; rather, they have not been briefed about how important their experiences are to the lives of millions. Even if there’s a briefing for participants, it’s about the product. Participants may not use the product and therefore do not see their involvement making a difference at all. Owing to such practice, motivation in them evaporates right from the beginning. The result produces tutored, dishonest, uncommitted, mischievous participants.

Recommendation: Involving actively in every stage of the participant’s recruitment process will negate the distance between the UX researcher and the participant. Apart from routine screening and marking the checklist, this allows the researchers to provide the context of the study and their influence on the lives of others. Holding their hand along the way, not only motivates them; moreover, trust issues and prejudice will slip off. The momentum built over time will shine the light of honesty and candidness when they answer.

Key Takeaway

For Decision-makers: Logistic and mobilisation decisions over participant recruitment set the culture and the processes in the firm. Involving UX researchers in the decision-making process will not do any wrong, instead, it heightens their involvement and direct engagement with the participant. This allows researchers to understand and gauge the participant up close. Thus the study will not suffer. Process maturity will strengthen over time and the product will become more lovable to the users.

For UX Researchers: The veracity of the participant is crucial to you to conduct a research study and generate findings/insights. The screening will have a checklist to gauge the tangible items like the articulation, which is easy. How would you gauge the intangible items like motivation? There isn’t such measurement and it’s likely we cannot determine unless time is invested to understand them throughout the process. This can instil the intended motive for the study, crack the ice and turn the session into conversational rather than robotic. Don't get me wrong, it does not mean to overindulge with the participant. Rather understand them with direct communication than indirect.

In-Short

My assumption stands true on the simplistic view of challenges surfaced in participant recruitment, be it student, intern, UX researchers working on a personal project. The audience access is limited to cohort, social connection and friends (remember bias). The size of the respondent is low and strict screening yields near to zero qualified participants. Off-guarding the screening shield compromises the quality of the participant and makes the study mediocre. In a firm, UX researchers are often missed from the decision-making table. Hence, participant recruitment activity is resolved to external agencies. The researcher’s involvement is far stretched in synthesis than participant recruitment activity. This distances them from participants and creates a relationship barrier. Thus the participant’s openness towards the study passes into oblivion.

Ending with a thought to reflect upon

“Evangelising user research is popular in the synthesis and it is overlooked on participant recruitment despite its 16% share in the UX researcher’s daily activities”.