Challenges of Recruitment and Retention of University Students as Research Participants: Lessons Learned from a Pilot Study

ABSTRACT

Recruitment of participants into research studies is a great challenge, in particular among higher education students who frequently receive invitations to participate in research projects led by faculty members or fellow students. Researchers need to be mindful of students’ motivations and take into account the contributing factors in recruiting students before formulating a recruitment strategy. The primary focus of this paper is to explore the factors which can have an influence on students’ decision to participate in research studies as well as effective strategies for facilitating and improving student recruitment. Moreover, the author provides reflection upon a recruitment process of a pilot study discussing the challenges and barriers she encountered during data collection. The main contribution of this paper is to increase awareness and understanding of the multiple facets of students’ recruitment, challenges to recruitment efforts and the solutions developed to address them among researchers who might experience similar problems. It is in particular noteworthy as research papers would rarely provide information on the outcome of recruitment experience and reasons behind the low-response rate and failure in participants’ retention.

KEYWORDS:

• Recruitment
• retention
• data collection
• research participants
• students

Introduction

Recruitment of participants into research studies is widely considered to be the most challenging and critical aspect of a study. Recruitment is defined as the process of identifying potential participants, providing them with information about the research, obtaining consent and allocating them to the study (Berger, Begun, & Otto‐Salaj, 2009; Patel, Doku, & Tennakoon, 2003). Retention of participants is recognised as an important aspect of recruitment and it refers to developing and maintaining the relationship with participants to encourage and persuade them to be committed and continue their participation (Patel et al., 2003) which is vitally important for longitudinal studies. Recruitment challenges matter most to inexperienced researchers who usually tend to overestimate the number of potentially avid, easily accessible and perfectly suitable volunteers to participate in their research (Gul & Ali, 2010). In addition, recruitment efforts have not been well documented and commonly discussed in the literature as Archibald and Munce (2015) claim that recruitment failures and innovative strategies to overcome the barriers have received less attention in research articles as well as research methodology textbooks. Gul and Ali (2010) also assert that research studies usually provide details about the number of volunteers who participate and those who refuse; however, they fail to give clear and detailed explanation for inadequate number of participants. So, the researchers cannot learn from previous research and most importantly novice investigators underestimate the time and resources required for successful recruitment (Cyr, Childs, & Elgie, 2013; Joseph, Keller, & Ainsworth, 2016).

It is extremely important to remember that failure in recruitment can pose serious threats to feasibility, validity and quality of a research study (Brown, Long, Gould, Weitz, & Milliken, 2000; Gul & Ali, 2010; Massie, Smith, & Tolfrey, 2015; Patel et al., 2003) and it can lead to an ‘under-powered study’ (Treweek et al., 2010, p. 2). Therefore, the common challenges of recruitment and related strategies should be identified during the planning phase of the study as unsuccessful recruitment and poor retention of participants would increase the project costs (Patel et al., 2003). In this regard, recruiting university students as research subjects has been very common and widespread among researchers as they are the most convenient target population specifically due to their potential benefits such as adequate sample sizes and diversity (Aycock & Currie, 2013). However, it should not be assumed an easy task as there are occasions when students are not motivated and interested in the topic of the study, when they drop out before study completion and when those who participate do not sufficiently represent the population (Cyr et al., 2013).

Singer and Bossarte (2006) suggest three main motives behind students’ willingness to participate in research studies. They contend that it can be entirely altruistic as some people believe in helping others without expecting any advantages. They also mention the project-related reasons such as interest in the topic or the researcher as well as the self-centred reasons such as incentives. For instance, male participants are more likely to participate in research for monetary incentives; while, women want to be helpful (Gerstein, Wilkeson, & Anderson, 2004; Goldenberg, Owens Jr, & Pickar, 2007). On the other hand, Zhang (1996) describes in his paper that students are usually hesitant to participate in research studies due to lack of interest/knowledge in the topic, school work, family commitments and their major concern is additional time requirement. Thus, there is still a need for researchers to consider students’ motivations and take into account the factors which can have an impact on their decision to participate in research studies and develop effective strategies to improve and facilitate students’ recruitment.

This paper aims to highlight the importance of recruitment and retention of research participants, particularly in academic environment. It will also discuss the influential factors and the most commons recruitment strategies.

Theoretical Approaches

What makes university students to take part in research studies? If we can gain a better understanding of the answer to this question, we might be able to formulate and employ innovative recruitment strategies. There has been some effort to develop theories and provide explanations of why some people participate in research while others do not with two dominant approaches in the literature.

Porter and Umbach (2006) refer to social exchange theory developed by Blau (1964) explaining that people make decision and choose to do something by using a subjective cost–benefit analysis and the comparison of the alternatives. As such, students will consider the advantages of participating in research projects and they should reach to this conclusion that benefits outweigh the costs. This means that students must have sufficient information about the research topic to assess the relative merits of participating in a study and adequate time to decide (Aycock & Currie, 2013). This theory is in particular of use to understand how certain aspects of research design and administration can have an impact on response rate.

The self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) which is widely discussed in the field of motivation has also been mentioned in Cartmell’s (2016) work as its theoretical framework to provide a better explanation of why higher education students decide to participate in research studies. Self-determination theory makes an important distinction between two different types of motivations and the consequences of them. These two forms are termed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: ‘why versus what for’ (Leal, Miranda, & Carmo, 2013, p. 164). According to this theory, intrinsic motivation involves students participating in research when they find it interesting and feel spontaneous contentment in carrying it out. On the other hand, they will become externally motivated to take part in research studies when the satisfaction does not come from the activity itself but rather from the extrinsic consequences of participation such as tangible rewards (e.g. course credit).

These two approaches have been used to describe and explore different types of factors which can have influential impact on university students to take part in research studies with regard to costs and benefits of participation, intrinsic value or external coercion.

Factors Influencing Students’ Decisions to Participate in Research Studies

Promoting the Benefits of Participation

Researchers should not assume that participants are interested in their topic of research as much as they are. Students conduct a cost–benefit analysis when they are asked to participate in a research study; therefore, attention to details and information which inform their decisions can improve recruitment (Lindenberg, Solorzano, Vilaro, & Westbrook, 2001). In this regard, highlighting the potential benefits of research and how their contribution can improve education or enhance the students’ experience can be effective in generating their interest. For instance, research studies about students’ health improvement can potentially exert positive influence on students’ lifestyle (Aycock & Currie, 2013), so stressing that how students’ participation can play vital role in increasing awareness and management of risky behaviours among university students can be highly influential in attracting their interest to contribute and participate in the research.

Investigators can also emphasise the educational gain from research participation and stimulate students’ interest. Prescott (2002) believes that research projects are not intrinsically designed to be advantageous for participants, but students may benefit by gaining valuable and first-hand experience and learning about research principals. Healey and Jenkins (2009) also support this claim as they believe that students have this opportunity to learn more about the latest trends in the discipline and acquiring research skills. The findings of a qualitative study undertaken by Roberts and Allen (2012) also confirmed the above statements as students assert that by participating in other’s research, their knowledge about the research process specifically conducting research in their own discipline has been enhanced. However, this is a controversial matter as the findings of some research studies demonstrate that students do not prefer research participation to classroom lectures as they cannot gain any extra advantage (Elliott, Rice, Trafimow, Madson, & Hipshur, 2010). This point of view is also fiercely criticised by Leentjens and Levenson (2013) as they argue that if researchers can prove and validate the pedagogical value of taking part in research studies, it cannot be a justification for students’ requirement to participate in research.

In general, researchers who intend to recruit students should inform them of the potential benefits of participation even non-academic ones such as self-discovery and networking opportunities (Brewer & Robinson, 2017) to be able to make them interested in their topic of research.

Incentives

Researchers often provide incentives in appreciation of the participants’ time and effort as well as increasing students’ engagement (Aycock & Currie, 2013; Archibald & Munce, 2015; Yancey, Ortega, & Kumanyika, 2006). However, it cannot be a motivational factor for everyone to volunteer and there is no standard procedure advising when and how to compensate volunteers for their participation. Some methods have been mentioned in the literature but the most frequent and common ones in academia are monetary incentives and course credit (Aycock & Currie, 2013; Cyr et al., 2013; Leentjens & Levenson, 2013).

Monetary Incentives

Determining the amount of financial incentives to encourage participants’ cooperation and also preventing their attrition is difficult. It is noted in the literature that higher monetary incentives might have undue influence on students and can cause those ones who do not satisfy the study entry criteria, hide the information which excludes them from participation (Cyr et al., 2013). On the other hand, providing a modest amount of money as an incentive considering students’ other responsibilities including schoolwork, full-time or part-time job and family commitments is not satisfactory and students will not invest their time to participate in research. Hence, it is advised that the compensation ‘should be sufficiently high so as to encourage participation but not so high as to be coercive’ (Gross & Fogg, 2001, p. 532).

Although financial compensation can be attractive, it is worthwhile noting that poor attendance and dropping-off before study completion are the distinctive characteristics of those participants whose main reason to participate is money (Green et al., 2000). The findings of a study conducted by Kaba and Beran (2014) demonstrate that the majority of students participated in their research due to the positive feedback shared by other students who had participated, their curiosity about the topic and wanting to be involved in the research. Gul and Ali (2010) also maintain that financial incentives can be stimulating; however, participants’ active engagement can be determined by the perception of benefits and relevance of research to their life.

Course Credit

Providing a course credit incentive is another option for researches who recruit students. It might be of interest from departmental point of view as it does not add extra costs and can be easily incorporated into the teaching program (Leentjens & Levenson, 2013); however, it is not feasible for all studies specifically those conducted campus-wide (Coker, Huang, & Kashubeck‐West, 2009). Moreover, the majority of scholars are also of the opinion that offering extra credit is a controversial matter as providing equitable alternatives for those who choose not to participate is not a straightforward task (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016). Research suggests that writing a short essay or book report can be comparable to participating in research; while, students believe that the alternatives are not interesting and quite likely to take more time and effort than taking part in research projects (Leentjens & Levenson, 2013). Aycock and Currie (2013) assert that course credit will put students choosing not to participate in an unfavourable position as they might be influenced by concerns about repercussions of non-participation such as receiving lower grades or fewer learning opportunities. Besides, those opposing this incentive argue that grades should be a reflection of students’ learning, not an irrelevant activity that aims to advance researchers’ careers (Grant & Sugarman, 2004).

Overall, researchers need to give careful consideration to choosing the most effective incentive for their target population as different incentives may stimulate different subsets of population to take part in the study and causing participation bias (Hsieh & Kocielnik, 2016). Furthermore, students who are motivated solely by extrinsic incentives might not take part in a study with sincerity which can affect their responses and consequently lead to invalid research data (Aycock & Currie, 2013).

Researcher/Recruiter Characteristics and Interpersonal Skills

Researchers should possess certain and essential attributes to be able to convey positive impression on potential participants (Patel et al., 2003). They should be respectful, tolerant and tactful and also communicate the research details and expectations from participants in a positive, honest and clear manner (Massie et al., 2015). As such, they can establish and maintain a trustworthy relationship with prospective participants which can play a critical role in enhancing recruitment and reducing attrition (Archibald & Munce, 2015; Gul & Ali, 2010). Being reasonably well informed about the aim and process of a research project is of great importance as they should provide detailed information about the research, respond to participants’ inquiries and address their concerns (Gul & Ali, 2010). It is also noteworthy to mention that participants’ questions should be answered in a prompt and courteous manner. Quickly responding to participants’ questions proves clearly that researchers are thoughtful and considerate towards fulfilling participant’ needs and it could be a unique opportunity to make a positive impression on potential participants (Joseph et al., 2016). Several studies have also revealed that communicating the research in an enthusiastic way can have profound impact on prospective participants (e.g. Archibald & Munce, 2015; Massie et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2003). Kaba and Beran (2014) claim that when students feel the researchers’ strong passion about their study, it makes them more interested in participation and they see value in their role. Researchers should also be diligent and tenacious during the recruitment process as the initial recruitment results might be disappointing. This issue mostly can have an impact on junior investigators who underestimate the workload of recruitment and their motivation and enthusiasm could easily fade by the challenges they might face.

Researchers need to be determined to conquer a sense of failure and frustration and be persistent by following up with the participants who did not respond initially and give them another opportunity to participate in the research (Kaba & Beran, 2014). However, investigators should act in a way not considered as pushy and overbearing (Yancu, Lee, Witherspoon, & McRae, 2012) which can have detrimental effect on students’ motivation.

Presentation of Content

Communicating the goals of the research in a clear and honest way is considered as another influential factor on encouraging students to participate in a study. Students should be fully aware of what the research expectations are to be able to make informed decision. It is imperative to be clear from the start about the research potential benefits, level of commitment, time estimates, incentives as well as ethical matters to generate interest and build trust in prospective participants. If the research details and expectations from participants are communicated poorly, it might lead to reduced retention and dropping out of the study before its completion. This matter is identified as a frequent complaint of students from researches who do not explain the research process clearly (Cyr et al., 2013).

Researchers should also avoid using unnecessary and scientific language as their choice of words and phrases play a significant role in attracting students’ interest or raising fear. For instance, the finding of a study conducted by Massie et al. (2015) demonstrates that students’ interpretation of using the words exercise and sport are widely varied as some see these two words the same, some prefer the word sport as their assumption about exercise was working hard and some believe that the word sport reminds them of competition which seems stressful. Archibald and Munce (2015) also put an emphasis on choosing the right words and attention to terminology when describing the research projects and contend that using specialised and technical counterparts of words can result in hesitation among students to participate.

Logistical Factors

It is mentioned in the literature that investigators should give serious consideration to participants’ other commitments to encourage their participation. Conflicting schedules, lack of time and transport are identified frequently as participation obstacles which can cause inconvenience for students and might hinder their participation (Gul & Ali, 2010; Kaba & Beran, 2014; Massie et al., 2015). These problems specifically matter to researchers conducting qualitative research who need to schedule different interview sessions. Students from different faculties usually study on different campuses and it would be more convenient for them to attend interview sessions on their own campus to avoid wasting time and also money on transport. Thus, researchers should be able to organise research sessions at places in close proximity of where students study and have flexible hours for participation to enhance recruitment and prevent drop-off (Fook et al., 2013). Timing of contact with potential participants is another critical factor and it is vital for researchers to consider the students’ workload and do not start recruitment efforts during peak academic times. Students might be interested in taking part in research; however, if they receive the request at bad timing considering their busy life, they will decline the invitation (Cyr et al., 2013).

Researchers must carefully assess recruitment strategies before commencing the study, identify the logistical barriers and discuss the effective solutions to reduce them. They should be mindful of contacting students at a good time, avoiding the exam period while they are busy with their schoolwork as well as considering their schedules and place of running research sessions to increase their willingness to participate.

Recruitment Strategies

As previously stated, recruitment and retention of participants is a challenging aspect of conducting research; therefore, acquiring knowledge about the most common strategies and analysing others’ successes and failures in recruiting a similar sample is of vital importance to learn effective strategies and avoid ineffective ones. In regard to student recruitment, scholars are of the idea that researchers need to use a combination of active and passive forms of recruitment to effectively enhance the student participation. Passive recruitment can broadly be defined as a process which investigators promote awareness in the target population about a research project relying on participants to approach them; while, active recruitment strategies encompass identifying specific individuals or groups and recruiting from them (Lee et al., 1997).

Hanging posters, distributing flyers, sending targeted or mass email, as well as making an announcement using online course management systems are some of the most frequently passive strategies cited in the literature which used to increase study awareness simultaneously across various faculties (Cyr et al., 2013; Kaba & Beran, 2014; Roschelle et al., 2014). However, Goldenberg, Owens, and Pickar (2007) are convinced that direct approach is highly effective in engaging students’ attention as they used collective number of strategies to recruit students but class presentation and setting up information kiosks yielded better results comparing to indirect methods. Other researchers also support this claim (Gul & Ali, 2010; Yancu et al., 2012) and maintain that it would be easier for students to consent and approve to participate in research while they are amongst their friends and there is an increased likelihood of encouraging and inviting other students to take part in the study (Ivaz et al., 2006).

In spite of the advantages of active method, some researchers have strong reservation about it and emphasise the ethical implications of applying this method. Leentjens and Levenson (2013) highlight the privacy issue and assert that this method violates the students’ privacy as their decision about taking part in research would reveal to their friends, other fellow students and even their lecturer. They also argue that group recruitment increases peer pressure and students might consent to participate due to their friends’ encouragement. Teacher’s authority is recognised as another complication of active recruitment. The results of a study conducted by Bartholomay and Sifers (2016) which investigates students’ perception of pressure in research done by faculty indicate that students felt intense pressure when they are asked to participate in a study by their own instructor and they feel obliged to participate due to perception of repercussions for non-participation. Hence, research suggests faculty members to avoid direct contact and use of students whom they teach to limit the perception of coercion among students (Aycock & Currie, 2013; Miller & Kreiner, 2008).

Retention Strategies

Along with exploring the most effective strategies to enhance recruitment efforts, an investigation into identifying retention strategies has also been increased over recent years (Robinson et al., 2015). Researchers believe that high study demands may result in higher rates of attrition. The amount of contact between the researcher and participants, the extra and inconvenient procedures and long study duration are amongst the most cited factors which play a role in poor retention (Cyr et al., 2013; Zweben, Fucito, & O’Malley, 2009). In this regard, scholars are of the opinion that careful selection is an important element which investigators should take it into serious consideration. Hadidi, Lindquist, Treat-Jacobson, and Swanson (2013) contend that researchers usually recruit participants who expressed their interest and meet the research criteria in a very short time due to recruitment challenges; while, assessing the general interest and motivation of volunteers are of great significance. There are several factors such as personal issues, work requirements, study pressures and logistical obstacles which might have an impact on participants’ commitment; hence, it is important not only to explain the research process and expectations to participants but also to assess whether the volunteers are good candidates for the study.

Exploring the literature also shows that researchers should place considerable emphasis on staying in contact with participants and sending regular reminders (Foss, Druin, & Guha, 2013; Gul & Ali, 2010). The significant role of sending out email reminders using names of participants in email subject lines has been highlighted as it can be a way to ensure that an email is going to be read and response rates are likely to be improved. Sending update emails and providing participants with their personal results at different stages of research can also be influential in marinating their interest in the study as it will help to build a trustworthy relationship between the research team and participants.

In summary, we can reach to this conclusion that to help keep participants engaged throughout the study’s period, building, developing and maintaining a strong relationship plays a significant role. It can be achieved by clarifying the participation requirements, assessing and understanding their main motivation of volunteering before signing the consent form and staying in contact.

Lessons Learned from a Pilot Study

Pilot study plays an important role in helping researchers identifying the difficulties and problems regarding their research design, research instruments and also recruitment and retention of participants. The findings of a pilot study can provide a valid assumption about response rate and the likely success of proposed recruitment strategies. Pilot studies can be very informative, not only to the researchers conducting them in terms of helping to guide planning the main study but also to others who undertake similar work. Researchers believe that every attempt should be taken to publish the results of pilot studies specifically when the focus is on feasibility goals not statistical significance as these studies typically do not show statistically significant results. Hence, providing such information can help research community to save resources for performing studies which may not be feasible and most importantly avoid duplication of efforts (Thabane et al., 2010).

In this section, the author provides reflection on recruitment efforts of a pilot study undertaken as part of a PhD research project to explore the impact of cohesion on university students’ collaborative information behaviour over the duration of group tasks and discusses the major obstacles she faced during the process.

Overview of Research Project

The main aim of the research is to explore and gain a comprehensive understanding of the role that group cohesion can play in the way students seek, find, evaluate and use information collaboratively to accomplish a group task. In this regard, mixed research methodology combining both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection was proposed to conduct this study. Hence, research participation involved filling out pre-survey and post-survey, completing a digital diary at three points during the group assignment as well as being interviewed at the end of the assignment. The surveys and digital diaries would take about 15–20 min and 10–15 min to complete, respectively.

Pre-survey and post-survey were employed in order to measure cohesion as a group construct as well as students’ information behaviour in the group context. The first questionnaire includes items measuring cohesion from a multidimensional perspective encompassing task cohesion, interpersonal cohesion and perceived cohesion within groups. The second questionnaire encompasses questions probing students’ information behaviour activities which include sensemaking and identifying information need, seeking information and using information during the course of their group assignment to find out to some extent these activities have been performed individually or collaboratively. It should be noted that evaluating cohesion at multiple points across a team’s lifespan matters for group cohesion; thus, the same items measuring different aspects of cohesion were included in post-survey as well to perceive the changes in this group construct. The semi-structured digital diary was also employed to be completed at three points over the duration of group task by each participant to reflect changes of their behaviour over time. Open-ended questions and partially open-ended questions were included to probe for further information regarding their experience of seeking, evaluating and using information in a group and their interaction with other group members. It would record the participants’ activities, individual views and information behaviour practices in a collaborative environment.

The data collection would end by conducting semi-structured interviews with the aim of seeking elaboration, enhancement and clarification of the results of two previous data collection instruments. Thus, the interview questions would be largely driven by data obtained from surveys and diaries.

Recruitment Procedure

The researcher made a decision to implement an active recruitment strategy due to its benefits and higher rate of participation. Having analysed publicly available information contained in the university handbook, the researcher identified four teaching units as having a component of group work assessment (more than 20% of final grade). The units also had a high rate of enrolment which could provide bigger population of students. The researcher obtained permission from course coordinators to present information about the study and distribute informed consent forms in classrooms. The recruitment process started during the third week of semester when students had just started forming their groups and working on their group assignment.

The researcher developed a script that highlighted the value of student participation and the potential benefits of this study as well as details about the research process and expectations from participants. The researcher made five classroom visits with approximately 40 students presented at each class during seven days and gave presentation for about five to eight minutes depending on students’ questions. She clarified the research aims and how the results could benefit the student community and future students if not themselves directly. Confidentiality and participants’ rights were also emphasised and the presentation ended with information about the incentives in appreciation of students’ time and effort for their contribution.

The researcher offered students a monetary incentive (entering into a draw for four $50 gift vouchers); she also emphasised the educational gain from participating in this research by offering students a summary of the data they would provide as their personal reflection on their contributions to the group assignment so as to increase their willingness to participate. After presentation, the researcher distributed the information letter and consent forms and informed students that she would collect them after the lecture.

Recruitment and Retention Challenges

The use of an active recruitment strategy resulted in 52 participants from roughly 200 students which was a successful outcome for a pilot study. However, the serious problem arose when students dropped out before study completion, just 17% of participants (9 participants form 52 students who were recruited) completed all the phases of project; while, it was assumed that at least half of participants would remain till the end of study. The researcher diligently followed up with participants and sent them regular reminders (no more than three times) to encourage them keep up commitment which was not successful. In this regard, retention of participants was a major issue due to high non-response rate and students’ withdrawal before finishing the study. As mentioned earlier, retention is considered as an important aspect of recruitment; therefore, the researcher revised the recruitment process so as to find the most likely explanations which hindered her efforts.

Using an active recruitment strategy without considering its associated issues could be one reason of high non-response rate. As discussed earlier, the pressure from peers might be higher in group recruitment; so some students might feel obliged to sign the consent form because of their friends’ encouragement and other fellow students. The lecturers of those teaching units also supported the research and encouraged students to participate. That could be another explanation which also mentioned by Leentjens and Levenson (2013) that students usually consent to participate in these circumstances in order not to disappoint their ‘liked professor’ (p. 396). We can conclude that ethical implications of active recruitment strategies emphasised by scholars can cause students to agree to participate under feeling of coercion which consequently leads to their withdrawal. Hence, investigators need to be acquainted with ethical implications of active recruitment strategies and do not rely on only one strategy. Using a combination of active and passive recruitment methods can play significant role in enhancing recruitment and retention.

Providing improper incentive considering the study design could be another contributing factor in high non-response rate. Completing online surveys and digital diaries were assumed quite simple and straightforward considering the use of user-friendly platforms (e.g. Qualtrics); however, the monetary incentives of four $50 gift voucher prizes were too modest for students to give their time to take part in this multi-stage research. Reviewing the literature also demonstrates that researchers should ‘start big’ for longitudinal studies and they need to recruit as many initial participants as resources allow due to the probability of high attrition in these studies (Foss et al., 2013). In this research, the investigator stopped recruiting when the number of participants reached about 50 without considering the possibility of poor retention.

As stated previously, students should have enough time after providing with detailed information about the research to be able to analyse the potential benefits of the study and arrive at a decision whether they wish to participate. In this regard, Comer (2009) suggests that students should be allowed at least one day as it can be highly beneficial for decreasing perceived coercion. They need to be strongly motivated to participate in a study that continues over a period of time. The researcher asked students to return consent forms after the class, which might exert intense pressure on them and led them into making a snap and hasty decision to partake in research.

Difficulties and discomforts come with research design and data collection methods can also have an impact on participant recruitment and retention (Gul & Ali, 2010) specifically among students who are recognised as over-surveyed population (Van Mol, 2017). Cyr et al. (2013) believe that time commitment is a deciding factor for students to participate or withdraw from a study. They state that ‘less is more: as level of commitment increases, so does attrition’ (p. 12). Patel et al. (2003) also mention that the number of research instruments should be reduced to lighten the extra participant burden. In the current study, students were asked to complete two surveys and three digital diaries while they were working on their group assignment as well as attending an interview session. Given the demands of research and the amount of time that participants should have remained committed, poor retention could be predictable.

New Research Design and Recruitment Strategy

With regard to the study’s low-response rate, the researcher decided to amend the recruitment strategy as well as research design. Analysing the data collected from nine participants who completed all the stages of study resulted in lack of enough meaningful data. The participants’ responses to open-ended questions within the digital diaries which were designed to encourage students to elaborate on their collaborative behaviour while working on their group assignments did not provide rich data to enhance the researcher’s understanding of their information behaviour in group settings. This issue also confirmed the need to make a revision to research design. Thus, the researcher with the assistance of a supervisory team took a new approach for collecting data. Accordingly, focus group research has been employed as it is particularly suited for obtaining several perspectives about the same topic and gaining deeper insights (Gibbs, 1997). Focus groups provide an opportunity for the researchers to engage with participants and probe when responses need more explanation (Barbour, 2008). In addition, social interaction between participants provides the insight and data that cannot be obtained via other methods as it enables participants to ask questions of each other, and re-evaluate their own understandings of their specific experiences (Gibbs, 1997). Students who were about to complete and submit their group assignments or have done so in the last 12 months were eligible to take part in focus group sessions and the guided questions are based upon previously designed instruments. However, there would be some follow-up questions to obtain additional detail and to further explore the insights, experiences and rich description.

The investigator also used a new recruitment strategy. Despite presenting research to some specific classes across faculties, the invitation to participate in research was published on university website (Student Intranet – News) to increase awareness among target population. In addition to brief and vivid description of research, a short video was also prepared and uploaded which provided more details about the study. The usefulness of developing a short video about the research procedure is mentioned in prior work and scholars assert that it can have a positive role in attracting participants’ interest (Roschelle et al., 2014; Yancu et al., 2012). The incentive scheme was also amended and participants were compensated individually ($40 gift voucher for each participant) in appreciation of their time and their contribution to research.

Making the above amendments to recruitment strategy and research design yielded much better results. Of 35 students who contacted the researcher and expressed their interest in participation, 23 took part in research and attended focus group sessions. Participants were accepted in the order of receiving emails from students; however, their eligibility to take part in research was confirmed before sending an invitation to attend a focus group session. Moving to a focus group approach (reduced set of instruments) and using wider recruitment medium lead to collecting more meaningful and rich data through very active participation.

Conclusion

Recruiting students to participate in research is not simple. Students analyse the costs and benefits of participation and if their participation was not truly voluntary they would easily withdraw from research. Researchers need to be mindful that how their research design and activities expected from students can have an impact on the response rate. Research suggests that investigators should highlight the intrinsic motivations and non-monetary extrinsic ones to participants; however, it heavily depends on the sample and study design. Hence, researchers should review all the relevant literature, be acquainted with others’ successes and failures and consider all the critical factors which could enhance student recruitment to be able to formulate the best possible recruitment strategy.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Associate Professor Justin Brown for his inspiration and helpful comments. She is also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Parisa Khatamian Far

Parisa Khatamian Far is a PhD candidate in Library and Information Science at Edith Cowan University. She previously worked as a research librarian for about nine years providing research services to higher education students. Parisa’s research interest is exploring students’ information behaviour in the context of group work and identifying the factors which drive them to engage in collaborative information behaviour activities.