The most challenging part of any user research process is recruiting the right participants. Incentives are one tool we can we use – but are they always necessary?
You might think the most difficult part of a research project is designing the study, or negotiating with stakeholders, or analysing the data, or convincing the team of your recommendations.
But finding participants remains, for me, the most mysterious part of the process.
You can thoroughly plan every aspect of your study, meticulously define your participant profile, have sufficient resources to reach out to them, but still end up with only one participant agreeing to speak with you in three weeks.
Conversely, you might think recruitment will be slow in summer with people on vacation, but surprisingly, find yourself with more volunteers than you possibly have time to speak to.
Each time I wonder what affects these results.
Why, on some occasions, can you quickly schedule a list of participants and achieve nearly perfect turnout, while other times, you struggle to recruit, even when offering incentives?
Is it the schedule, the topic, participants' understanding of the interviews, fear of sharing personal data – or the quality of the incentives themselves?
Coming from the commercial world, I initially believed that incentives were always necessary to motivate people to participate in research.
However, after recently conducting research, both pro-bono and as a user researcher in the public sector for Sparck/BJSS, my previous assumptions have been challenged.
Over the past year, I’ve had a significant number of people speak to me, sometimes for more than an hour, without expecting cash or vouchers in return.
What influences their decision to participate if not incentives?
They have no other choice but to use the product
It’s a harsh reality but sometimes users become users of a product because it is imposed upon them.
This is common among professionals using tools selected by their organisation.
In such cases, participants don’t have the power to stop using the product, whether they like it or not. And if they want to change it, the only power they have is the ability to communicate with researchers.
Their need and hope to be heard is a powerful motivator. They want to feel that their voices matter.
In this context, rewards and incentives might even make them feel quite uncomfortable.
The culture of openness and helping each other
I want to be cautious when discussing this but after working in the commercial sector in the USA, and now gaining experience in the UK public sector, I’ve noticed a difference in culture.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had amazing participants from both countries who openly talk and share their stories.
However, in the UK public sector especially, I sense more of a collectivist culture – like we are all in this together, part of one big team.
At least when interviewing NHS professionals, it felt as though participants genuinely saw participation as their responsibility to their peers and patients.
The topic that touches you
Sometimes, curiosity is the most important factor.
I think this works particularly well during alpha stages. when you’re in the early phases of development and still have raw ideas about what you're going to do.
In these situations, you can find people whose eyes light up when you say, “I’m exploring how people do X because we want to develop Y."
If you find someone who shares this experience and has a lot of curiosity, they might not expect to be paid for the conversation.
Simply making them feel that their experience could play a crucial role in something bigger is often enough.
Overall, when I look at the results, the feeling that participants can make a drastic change matters more than rewards.
If participants feel that their voice matters and they can see the changes based on their conversations and feedback, they will be more willing to talk to you.
For organisations, it’s critical to build trust with their users by showing how participation has influenced decisions.
While I know many companies are hesitant to share what changes have been made based on participants' feedback, I still believe there’s an opportunity to show appreciation.
You can always reach out to participants after a release or change, express gratitude, and explain how their insights helped fix a bug or create a new feature.
You can also highlight this in your media materials and updates, emphasizing that your users are your primary product managers, as their feedback has driven the changes.
When users see that you give them credit – both personally and publicly – they will be more likely to engage with you, even without incentives.
To reward or not to reward
So, should we reward participants? I would still say yes, but not as a way to motivate them to participate.
Incentives are a good way to show appreciation for their time and honesty during the conversation.
Rewards can take different forms, but we shouldn’t forget to give credit to our users, as we are improving our products for them and because of them.
As for using rewards to help you get more participants, I’m sceptical of this now.
Sometimes it might work, but it’s definitely not a universal remedy for the challenge of recruitment.
