Participants

Participant Selection and Recruitment

In research literature, the word participants is used often interchangeably with informants, respondents, subjects, or interviewees. However, there are some contextual distinctions between these terms. In survey research, participants are often referred to as respondents/interviewees. Respondents/interviewees provide information about themselves (e.g., opinions, preferences, values, ideas, behaviors, experiences) for data analysis by responding through self-administered surveys or interviews (e.g., telephone, face-to-face, email, fax). When experiments are being conducted, subjects are the preferred term for participants. Subjects are usually studied in order to gather data for the study. Finally, participants are considered to be informants when they are well versed in the social phenomenon of study (e.g., customs, native language) and are willing to speak about it. Overall, the distinction between a respondent and an informant is of particular importance because all respondents can talk about themselves; however, not all respondents can be good informants.

Participants can be identified/selected using two methods—probability sampling or nonprobability sampling. The method used for sample selection is dictated by the research questions. In probability sampling methodologies (e.g., simple random, systematic, stratified random, cluster), a random selection procedure is used to ensure that no systematic bias occurs in the selection process. This contrasts with nonprobability sampling methodologies (e.g., convenience, purposive, snowball, quota), where random selection is not used.

Once potential participants are identified, the next task involves approaching the individuals to try to elicit their cooperation. Depending on the purpose of the research, the unit of analysis may be either individuals or groups. For example, if [Page 1017]a researcher is examining student achievement based on test scores across two Primary 1 classes at School X, the unit of analysis is the student. In contrast, if the researcher is comparing classroom performance, the unit of analysis is the class because the average test score is being used.

The manner in which cooperation is elicited will vary according to the technique used to collect the data. However, the procedure generally involves greeting the participants, explaining the purpose of the study and how participants were selected, assuring participants that their responses will remain anonymous/confidential and that data will be aggregated prior to reporting, and asking them to participate. In other words, the actual recruitment involves giving participants sufficient information to enable them to give free and informed consent without being coerced. Participants must also be assured that they have the right to withdraw at any time.

In group situations (e.g., focus groups, classroom surveys) where potential participants are all in one location, cooperation may not be much of a problem. However, when random sampling is used and the unit of analysis is the individual, cooperation may be more difficult. For example, in telephone interviews, many potential participants may simply hang up the phone on telephone interviewers, and mail surveys may end up in the trash as soon as they are received. With face-to-face interviews, interviewer characteristics such as social skills and demeanor are partially important in trying to elicit cooperation. In general, the response rate for face-to-face interviews is higher compared to other methods, perhaps because participants may feel emoverlinerassed to close the door in the interviewer's face. When face-to-face interviews are being conducted, a letter is generally sent in advance to establish the legitimacy of the study and to schedule an appointment. However, when data are being collected nationwide (e.g., national census), public announcements on the radio/television and in local newspapers is the preferred route.

...