research on recruitment 2018 - esomar · research on recruitment 2018 ... networks of recruiters...

Research on Recruitment 2018Investigating qualitative researchers’ views on the state of research participant recruitment

https://liveminds.com/

Introduction

Liveminds commissioned SketchBook Consulting to carry out research benchmarking the views of qualitative researchers on the state of research participant recruitment.

The aim of this research was to recognise and understand the challenges faced by researchers, to explore opportunities for improving recruitment methods within the industry, and to improve Liveminds Behavioural Recruitment service.

Contents

Introduction 2

Who took part? 3

Recruitment methods used 4

Biggest challenges 5

What is effective recruitment? 6

What’s important? 7

Better participants wanted 8

Traditional qual challenges 9

Digital qual challenges 10

Researchers’ views 11

How much is too much? 13

Professional participants 14

Pros and cons 15

Recruitment horror stories 17

Summary 18

Liveminds & SketchBook 19

https://www.sketchbook.consulting/

The study included 100 UK-based researchers who conduct qualitative market

research in the UK or international markets. The online survey was promoted

through industry forums and advertised on social networks.

TYPES OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY COMPANY

Who took part?

3

Director

Senior Management

Middle Management

Junior Executive

Owner /Partner

4

57

17

5

17

Quantitative

Traditional Qualitative(ie focus groups, depths)

Digital Qualitative (ie online forums, communities, mobile)

67

98

76

Q: Which types of research does your company conduct?

Base: All participants - 100

Q: What methods do you use to recruit for traditional qualitative projects (ie face-to-face or

telephone)?

Base: Those who conduct traditional qual - 98

RECRUITMENT METHODS USED FOR DIGITAL QUAL

Q: What methods do you use to recruit for digital qual projects (ie online or mobile)?

Base: Those who conduct digital qual - 76

Recruitment Co. with

networks of recruiters

Client supplied

lists

Direct to recruiters

in field

Online Quant panels

Online Qual

panels

Online / social media advertising

Email marketing

lists

8175

67

3426

18 17

Recruitment Co. with

networks of recruiters

Client supplied

lists

Direct to recruiters

in field

Online Quant panels

Online Qual

panels

Online / social media advertising

Email marketing

lists

67

57

42 41

2924

12

RECRUITMENT METHODS USED FOR TRADITIONAL QUAL

4

Participant quality is the biggest challengeQ

ualit

y of

par

ticip

ants

Ove

rly d

eman

ding

clie

nts

Unc

lear

clie

nt b

riefs

Cos

t of r

esea

rch

Poor

ly ru

n vi

ewin

g fa

cilit

ies

Clie

nt's

trus

t in

resu

lts

Unc

lear

clie

nt s

uppl

ied

stim

ulus

Poor

ly d

esig

ned

plat

form

s

App

licat

ion

of re

sults

Tim

e re

sear

ch ta

kes

Flaw

ed m

etho

ds/a

ppro

ache

s

Slow

ado

ptio

n of

new

met

hods

The Research on Recruitment findings echoed the GRIT report 2017 Q3-Q4 with

‘quality of participants’ seen as the number one challenge facing the qualitative

research industry today.

5

53

3835 35 34

29

24 24 23

1915

4

Q: Which, if any, of these do you consider to be challenges facing the qualitative research

industry in your market today?


We asked researchers in the study to define ‘effective recruitment’, accounting

for all the factors that go into delivering this. The sample of responses below

shows the range of factors that were expected and also those to avoid.

What is effective recruitment?

6

Effective is just simply accuracy for me. I want to TRUST that people I have in my interview group or community are genuine, interested and are going to add value to a project. For too long recruitment has been unregulated…

Considered, to the brief, properly screened and managed. Quality controlled. Not sending out key screener questions to a huge database and recruiting on a first come basis.

Fresh respondents that are of good quality, recruited to spec and have been recruited 'fresh', having not taken part in research before - not using existing databases / panels to recruit.

Recruiting people who genuinely meet the project specification; giving me warning of any difficulties meeting the recruitment criteria; avoiding people who are frequent attenders.

It's simply getting the right people that client's want to speak to... I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done!

People who are on spec and are who they say they are.

“

Q: Taking everything into account – how would you personally define “effective

recruitment”? Please consider all the factors that might go into delivering this.


“““

““

Effective recruitment: what’s important?A

ccur

ate

fit b

etw

een

sam

ple

& re

crui

tmen

t crit

eria

Part

icip

ants

are

relia

ble

Part

icip

ants

are

mot

ivat

ed

Resp

onsi

ve p

roje

ct m

anag

emen

t by

recr

uitm

ent p

artn

er

Part

icip

ants

are

art

icul

ate

Rece

ive

regu

lar a

nd a

ccur

ate

upda

tes

on p

roje

ct p

rogr

ess

Few

er re

peat

par

ticip

ants

Recr

uitm

ent i

s co

mpl

eted

qu

ickl

yRe

crui

tmen

t is

chea

p

Researchers in the study told us the most and least important factors for effective recruitment.

MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANTAccurate fit between sample Recruitment is cheap& recruitment criteria

7

95 93

85 8478 76

60

37

12

Q: How important do you think each of these factors are for “effective recruitment”?

Figures shown are the NET rating 4 or 5 out of 5 for importance


Researchers want better participantsBe

tter

fit b

etw

een

sam

ple

& re

crui

tmen

t crit

eria

Mor

e m

otiv

ated

par

ticip

ants

Few

er re

peat

resp

onde

nts

& p

rofe

ssio

nal p

artic

ipan

tsM

ore

relia

ble

part

icip

ants

Mor

e ar

ticul

ate

part

icip

ants

Fast

er re

crui

tmen

t

Bett

er p

roje

ct m

anag

emen

t

Mor

e fre

quen

t/ac

cura

te

upda

tes

on p

roje

ct p

rogr

ess

Mor

e tr

ansp

aren

t sou

rcin

g of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts

BETTER PARTICIPANTS

8

BETTER SERVICE

49

39 39

35

31

24

20

15 14

Q: Which would you be prepared to pay more for?


We asked researchers what they would pay more for. The top requests were ‘Better fit between sample and recruitment criteria’, ‘More motivated participants’ and ‘Fewer repeat respondents and professional participants’. The split between ‘better participants’ and ‘better service’ was clear.

Too

man

y re

peat

par

ticip

ants

Bad

fit b

etw

een

sam

ple

&

recr

uitm

ent c

riter

iaPo

orly

mot

ivat

ed p

artic

ipan

tsIn

frequ

ent/

inac

cura

te u

pdat

es

on p

roje

ct p

rogr

ess

Inar

ticul

ate

part

icip

ants

Poor

pro

ject

man

agem

ent

Unr

elia

ble

part

icip

ants

Slow

recr

uitm

ent

Hig

h co

st o

f rec

ruitm

ent

Lack

of t

rans

pare

ncy

with

so

urce

of p

artic

ipan

ts

TOP CHALLENGES1. Too many repeat participants2. Bad fit between sample & recruitment criteria3. Poorly motivated participants

9

Q: Which, if any, of these factors have you personally experienced an issue with on traditional

qual projects recruited in your market in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who conduct traditional qual - 98

5452

41 3937

34

2723

20

37

Traditional qual recruitment challenges

Too

man

y re

peat

par

ticip

ants

Bad

fit b

etw

een

sam

ple

&

recr

uitm

ent c

riter

ia

Poor

ly m

otiv

ated

par

ticip

ants

Infre

quen

t/in

accu

rate

upd

ates

on

pro

ject

pro

gres

s

Inar

ticul

ate

part

icip

ants

Poor

pro

ject

man

agem

ent

Unr

elia

ble

part

icip

ants

Slow

recr

uitm

ent

Hig

h co

st o

f rec

ruitm

ent

Lack

of t

rans

pare

ncy

with

so

urce

of p

artic

ipan

ts

47

42

33

30

26

21 2017 16

10

Q: Which, if any, of these factors have you personally experienced an issue with on digital qual

projects recruited in your market in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who conduct digital qual - 76

21

Digital qual recruitment challenges

TOP CHALLENGES1. Unreliable participants2. Poorly motivated participants3. Inarticulate participants

Base: All participants - 100 Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree

Unsurprisingly 97% of researchers in this study believe high quality recruitment

is vital for good qualitative research.

However, half of researchers surveyed have seen repeat respondents in

different research projects in the last year.

97 3

51 19 30

Q: High quality recruitment is vital to good qualitative research

Q: I recognise the same participants taking part in my qualitative research projects

Researchers views on recruitment


52 24 24

However, researchers trust in recruitment is not completely broken. 54% of researchers who took part agree ‘recruiters know how much research their participants have done’. 68% of researchers agree ‘qualitative recruiters are trustworthy’. 75% of researchers ‘trust their preferred recruiter completely’.

More than half of researchers in the study believe too many participants lie to get recruited.

More than half of researchers surveyed believe some recruiters encourage participants to lie.

Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree

52 24 24

Q: I believe too many participants lie in order to get recruited

Q: Some recruiters encourage participants to lie in order to get recruited

I don

’t ca

re

Onc

e a

mon

th

Onc

e ev

ery

3 m

onth

s

Onc

e ev

ery

6 m

onth

s

Onc

e a

year

Onc

e ev

ery

few

yea

rs

They

hav

en’t

done

re

sear

ch b

efor

e

5 1

28

22

27

9

6

76% WOULD LIKE PARTICIPANTS TO HAVE TAKEN PART ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS OR LESS OFTENMany researchers are concerned that too few participants are taking part in too much research.

Onc

e a

wee

k

2

Q: Thinking about one of your typical research projects, how often do you

believe the participants will have done research before?


HOW OFTEN DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR PARTICIPANTS HAVE TAKEN PART IN RESEARCH?51% of researchers in the study believe their participants have taken part once every 3 months or more often. Only 2% believe their participants are fresh to research and 5% don’t care.

13

Participation: How much is too much?

14

No25

I’m not sure17

Yes58

Most researchers surveyed (58%) agree that professional participants are a problem in qualitative research. Although, 25% don’t think they’re a problem. We’ve looked at the pros and cons of using professional participants in the next section.

PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS TAKE PART ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS OR MORE OFTEN

We wanted to understand how often a participant would need to take part for researchers to consider them a professional participant.

84% of researchers surveyed think professional participants take part in research once every 3 months or more often. Over half of researchers believe their participants take part in research with the same frequency as professional participants.

Q: Overall, do you think “professional participants” are a problem in qualitative research?


Professional participants are a problem

THEY’RE TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH PROCESSSuch as the participant who interrupted the moderator and suggested they should be doing a personification exercise.

THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO LIE WHEN RECRUITED They’re focused on getting paid for taking part and know what to say to get included.

THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO LIE IN THE RESEARCHPeople who have done lots of groups start to think like marketers and aren’t

representative of typical consumers.

15

The pros and cons of professional participants

We asked researchers which positive and negative statements apply to professional participants. Most researchers saw problems with using professional participants in their research studies.

16

Too

fam

iliar

with

rese

arch

Mor

e lik

ely

to li

e w

hen

recr

uite

dM

ore

likel

y to

lie

in th

e re

sear

ch

Insu

ffici

ently

mot

ivat

ed

Qui

cker

and

eas

ier t

o fin

dU

nder

stan

d re

sear

ch w

ell

Mor

e re

liabl

e

Mor

e m

otiv

ated

7673

64

17

6459

21

16

Q: Which, if any, of these statements do you think apply to "professional participants”?


The pros and cons continued...

The advantages of professional participants were around convenience (quick to find, understand what’s required of them) but interestingly researchers surveyed didn’t consider them to be more motivated or more reliable.

WHEN PARTICIPANTS AREN’T REPRESENTATIVE CONSUMERSResearchers gave many examples of participants not matching their specifications, such as a bald man in a shampoo discussion group.

WHEN PARTICIPANTS AND RECRUITERS ARE UNTRUTHFULSome of the researchers surveyed raised concerns about validity as professional participant’s have been known to bend the truth to match criteria or say what they think researchers want to hear to ensure they’re included. One extreme example was a woman with a cushion under her jumper pretending to be pregnant.

WHEN PARTICIPANTS ARE REPEAT RESPONDENTSMany researchers told us they’d seen the same participants regularly turn up for different projects claiming different demographics, ownerships and buying intentions. The researchers found these experiences professionally embarrassing, particularly when the truth was revealed in front of clients, such as the participant who asked when they would be doing a personification exercise.

Read more…

17

Recruitment horror stories...

Researchers in the study told us the main challenges they face when recruiting research participants goes wrong. We heard about repeat respondents, participants not matching the required specifications, and even worse, people lying to get through screening.

https://liveminds.com/blog/research-participant-horror-stories

Summary

97% of researchers in this study believe high quality recruitment is vital for good qualitative research. Ultimately, if recruitment is not effective the credibility and integrity of the research is compromised. It’s also clear that researchers want better participants than they’re currently receiving.

Effective recruitment means finding participants who:● Accurately fit specifications● Are more reliable and motivated● Are less likely to be repeat respondents

With so many suppliers available, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s fundamental flaws in the traditional database recruitment process which are creating so many negative experiences for researchers. The research industry needs to improve the way recruitment works to enhance the representativeness of the participants. It will be interesting to see how adoption of new technologies changes these experiences over time.

We look forward to reporting again on this subject in Research on Recruitment 2019.

18

19

Liveminds

Liveminds created ‘Behavioural Recruitment’, which is powered by Facebook’s unparalleled data on what people have actually done, rather than what they say they’ve done. People are only invited to take a screener if their online activities have already demonstrated the interests and behaviours required in the project's criteria. There are 2.2 billion Facebook users around the world, in 190+ countries – this greater reach means that participants are typically fresh to research, meaning researchers get the views of real consumers rather than conditioned responses.

If you’d like to find out more click here to visit liveminds.com

SketchBook

SketchBook is the friendly face of quant and technology in research - supporting qual agencies with full service quant, to enable them to respond to integrated briefs. SketchBook also provides guidance on the use of mobile and new technologies for research. Creativity, technology and fun!

If you’d like to find out more click here to visit sketchbook.consulting

https://liveminds.com/services/recruitment

https://www.sketchbook.consulting/

research on recruitment 2018 - esomar · research on recruitment 2018 ... networks of recruiters...

Documents