Every now and then, I come across a range of questions at the beginning of a survey that I call the \u2018old-school opening.\u2019 It usually includes a range of demographics, perhaps some survey-specific filters, and then two classics of the research world: \u2018Have you participated in research in the last x number of weeks?\u2019 and \u2018Do you work in any of the following industries?\u2019 The latter is certainly worth its own discussion in another article, but today, I want to address the former.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We happily disqualify respondents based on their previous research participation, but how recently have we asked ourselves \u2018why?\u2019 At a time when the research industry is competing for participants\u2019 time and attention\u2014whether that\u2019s online, face-to-face, CATI, or through another method \u2014 can we still (literally) afford to disqualify respondents because of recent participation in another survey?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The brain is like a muscle \u2013 the more that certain areas are used, the more easily accessible they become. This means areas of the brain that recall certain information (such as brands) may be more stimulated if they were recently activated through participation in a questionnaire or focus group. As a result, certain information may be more easily accessible to these respondents, which can produce, for example, a higher brand awareness or more thought-through answers than a \u2018fresh\u2019 respondent would have given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, this would only be an issue if a respondent had recently participated in a survey on a similar topic, and if the survey was aimed at collecting unprompted information, such as unprompted brand awareness or spontaneous opinions on a topic. Questions aimed at recalling certain behaviours may even benefit from previous exposure to a similar topic, as that area of the brain would already be activated, and recall would arguably be better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, there\u2019s the topic of over-participation. By asking about previous participation, the thought is that you can identify respondents who are trying to participate in research at a high frequency for financial gain \u2014 and who may, therefore, be misrepresenting their actual views. I\u2019m sorry to burst that bubble, but these respondents are savvy enough to tick or say \u2018no\u2019 when asked whether they\u2019ve recently participated in research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In instances when online panels are used for recruiting, only advanced tracing technology (such as digital fingerprinting) and daily limits on survey participation will properly tackle this challenge. In instances when sample is recruited offline, this is even more complicated \u2014 the most effective way to identify inauthentic responses here is to identify inconsistencies in respondents\u2019 behaviours. Whichever method you choose for data collection, the point remains that asking people whether they\u2019ve recently participated in research is an ineffective \u2014 and perhaps even slightly na\u00efve \u2014 way of trying to tackle inauthentic over-participants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To summarise, like any question in a good survey, we should only ask about previous participation if it serves a purpose and if it serves that purpose well. If we\u2019re asking it to tackle over-participation, then we may as well not ask it. If a survey\u2019s data may be skewed by a respondent having recently thought about the topic, then let\u2019s very specifically disqualify respondents who have recently participated in research on that subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a research landscape in which respondents are a finite resource and every question counts in keeping them engaged, we need to ask ourselves: why are we still asking about previous participation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The market r<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_toluna_hide_sidebar":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asia-pacific-pt-br","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tolunacorporate.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}