Navigating the Tightrope: A Joint Autoethnography on Challenges and Strategies in Participant Recruitment for Educational Research

Öz

Educational research relies on rigorous methodological approaches to generate valid and reliable knowledge. However, despite researchers’ best efforts, sometimes various challenges may arise during participant recruitment. Identifying, selecting, and securing participants’ informed consent is often difficult, and if not managed carefully, such challenges can compromise the integrity of the research. This study explores the complexities of recruiting participants for educational research by examining both the challenges encountered and the strategies employed to address them. Employing a joint autoethnography within a qualitative approach, we gathered data through a collective self-interview and analysed them thematically. The findings revealed four overarching themes: (1) participant dynamics, (2) contextual influences, (3) cultural challenges faced by researchers, and (4) the role of incentives. By offering a transparent account of the recruitment process, this study underscores the importance of developing thoughtful and context-sensitive strategies to overcome recruitment barriers. These insights aim to enhance the quality, ethical rigour, and overall effectiveness of educational research, while also encouraging further inquiry into participant recruitment across diverse settings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• participants’ recruitment
• autoethnography
• self-interview
• educational research

İnce Bir İp Üzerinde Yürümek: Eğitim Araştırmalarında Katılımcı Bulma Sürecindeki Zorluklar ve Stratejiler Üzerine Ortak Bir Otoetnografi

Öz

Eğitim araştırmaları, geçerli ve güvenilir bilgi üretmek için titiz metodolojik yaklaşımlara dayanır. Ancak araştırmacıların tüm çabalarına rağmen, katılımcıların araştırmaya dahil edilmesi sürecinde zaman zaman çeşitli güçlükler ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Katılımcıların belirlenmesi, seçilmesi ve bilgilendirilmiş onamlarının alınması çoğu zaman zor bir süreçtir ve bu süreç dikkatli yönetilmediğinde araştırmanın bütünlüğünü zedeleyebilir. Bu çalışma, eğitim araştırmalarında katılımcı temini sürecinin karmaşıklığını inceleyerek karşılaşılan güçlükleri ve bu güçlükleri aşmak için kullanılan stratejileri ele almaktadır. Nitel bir yaklaşım çerçevesinde ortak otoetnografi yöntemi kullanılarak yürütülen çalışmada, veriler araştırmacıların birlikte gerçekleştirdiği öz görüşme yoluyla toplanmış ve tematik analiz ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular dört ana temayı ortaya koymuştur: (1) katılımcı dinamikleri, (2) bağlamsal etkiler, (3) araştırmacıların karşılaştığı kültürel zorluklar ve (4) teşviklerin rolü. Katılımcı temini sürecine ilişkin şeffaf bir anlatım sunan bu çalışma, katılımcı bulma sürecindeki engelleri aşmak için bağlama duyarlı ve düşünülmüş stratejiler geliştirilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bulguların, eğitim araştırmalarının niteliğini, etik titizliğini ve genel etkililiğini artırmaya katkı sağlaması ve farklı bağlamlarda katılımcı temini üzerine yeni araştırmaları teşvik etmesi amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• otoetnografi
• öz görüşme
• eğitim araştırmaları
• gönüllü katılımcı

Kaynakça

1. Adamson, J., & Muller, T. (2024). Collaborative autoethnography in applied linguistics: Reflecting on research practice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2024(285), 155-178. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2023-0001
2. Barkhuizen, G. & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigating the experience of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.002
3. Bartlett, R., Wright, T., Olarinde, T., Holmes, T., Beamon, E. R., & Wallace, D. (2017). Schools as sites for recruiting participants and implementing research. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 34(2), 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370016.2017.1304146
4. Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
5. Birchley, G., Huxtable, R., Murtagh, M., Meulen, R. T., Flach, P., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2017). Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(23), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z
6. Boileau, E., Patenaude, J., & St-Onge, C. (2018). Twelve tips to avoid ethical pitfalls when recruiting students as subjects in medical education research. Medical Teacher, 40(1), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1357805
7. Breault, R. A. (2016). Emerging issues in duoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(6), 777-794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1162866
8. Bruhn, J. G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, A. A., & Prescott, L. D. (2002). Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 461-493. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0033

9. Bull, M. J., Boaz, L., & Sjostedt, J. M. (2014). Public health model identifies recruitment barriers among older adults with delirium and dementia. Public Health Nursing, 31(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12075.
10. Callagher, L. J., El Sahn, Z., Hibbert, P., Korber, S., & Siedlok, F. (2021). Early career researchers’ identity threats in the field: The shelter and shadow of collective support. Management Learning, 52(4), 442-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507621997738
11. Ceballos, R. M, Knerr, S., Scott, M.A., Hohl, S.D., Malen, R.C., Vilchis, H., & Thompson, B. (2014). Latino beliefs about biomedical research participation: A qualitative study on the U.S.–Mexico border. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(4), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614544454
12. Chang, H. (2016). Individual and collaborative autoethnography as method: A social scientist’s perspective. In S. H. Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 107-122). Routledge.
13. Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W., & Hernandez, K-A. C. (2016). Collaborative Autoethnography. Routledge. Colnerud, G. (2015). Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics, 10(4), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114552339
14. Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., & D. M. M. St. George, (2002). Distrust, race and research. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 2458-2463.
15. Crist, J. D., Ruiz, M. R., Torres-Urquidy, O. H., Pasvogel, A., & Hepworth, J. T. (2013). Recruiting hospitalized Mexican American elder adults and caregivers: Challenges and strategies. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 6, 22-28.
16. Dutwin, D., & Buskirk, T. D. (2023). A Deeper Dive into the Digital Divide: Reducing Coverage Bias in Internet Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1902-1920. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221093467
17. Drolet, M. J., & Girard, K. (2020). Les enjeux éthiques de la recherche en ergothérapie: un portrait préoccupant. Revue Canadienne de Bioéthique, 3(3), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.7202/1073779ar
18. Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (2023). Quels sont les éthiques soulevés par la recherche scientifique? In M. Lalancette & J. Luckerhoff (Eds.), Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche (pp. 383-405). Presses de l’Université du Québec. Eide, P., & Allen, C. B. (2005). Recruiting transcultural qualitative research participants: A conceptual model. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(2), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690500400204
19. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273-290. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290
20. Estabrooks, P., You, W., Hedrick, V., Reinholt, M., Dohm, E., & Zoellner, J. (2017). A pragmatic examination of active and passive recruitment methods to improve the reach of community lifestyle programs: The Talking Health Trial. The international Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0462-6
21. Flink, I., Avildsen, C., Mabunda, M., Yisa, C., Teh, H., & Perez, R. (2024). Mixed methods study supporting the piloting and scaling of a Gender-Responsive Play-Based Learning training package for pre-primary teachers in Rwanda and Mozambique. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, Article 101151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101151
22. Ford, M. E., Siminoff, L. A., Pickelsimer, E., Mainous, A. G., Smith, D. W., Diaz, V. A., & Tilley, B, C. (2013). Unequal burden of disease, unequal participation in clinical trials: Solutions from African American and Latino community members. Health & Social Work, 38(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlt001.
23. García, A. A., Zuniga, J., & Lagon, C. (2017). A personal touch: The most important strategy for recruiting Latino research participants. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 28(4), 342-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659616644958
24. Gelinas, L., Largent, E. A., Cohen, I. G., Kornetsky, S., Bierer, B. E., & Fernandez Lynch, H. (2018). A framework for ethical payment to research participants. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378(8), 766-771. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1710591
25. Giorgi, A. (2021). The challenge of recruiting and engaging reluctant non-expert representatives. Qualitative Research, 21(1), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120917915
26. Giorgini, V., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Medeiros, K., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2016). Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Accountability in Research, 22(3), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.955607
27. Gísladóttir, K. R. & Óskarsdóttir, G. (2020). Envisioning new ways of knowing: Toward a shared vision of multicultural teacher education through collective self-study. In C. Edge, A. Cameron-Standerford, & B. Bergh (Eds.), Textiles and tapestries (pp. 1-13). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/textiles_tapestries_self_study/chapter_104
28. Gul, R. B., & Ali, P. A. (2010). Clinical trials: The challenge of recruitment and retention of participants. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 227-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03041.x
29. Guidry, K. R. (2014). Non-response bias on web-based surveys as influenced by the digital divide and participation gap. [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/18783
30. Gyure, M. E., Quillin, J. M., Rodríguez, V. M., Markowitz, M. S., Corona, R., Borzelleca, J. Jr., Bowen D. J., Krist, A. H., & Bodurtha, J. N. (2014). Practical considerations for implementing research recruitment etiquette. IRB, 36(6), 7-12.
31. Halpern, S. D., Chowdhury, M., Bayes, B., et al. (2021) Effectiveness and ethics of incentives for research participation: 2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Internal Medicine. 181(11), 1479-1488. https://doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5450
32. Hancock, R. (1997). Why are class teachers reluctant to become researchers?. British Journal of In-service Education, 23(1), 85-99. https://doi:10.1080/13674589700200009
33. Harris, C., Myers, B., & Ravenswood, K. (2019). Academic careers and parenting: Identity, performance and surveillance. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 708-718. https://doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1396584
34. Ince, B. U., Cuijpers, P., van’t Hof, E., & Riper, H. (2014). Reaching and recruiting Turkish migrants for a clinical trial through Facebook: A process evaluation. Internet Interventions, 1(2), 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.05.003
35. Irvine, F., Roberts, G., Bradbury-Jones, C. (2008). The researcher as insider versus the researcher as outsider: Enhancing rigour through language and cultural sensitivity. In P. Liamputtong, (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research (pp. 35-48). Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 34. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_3
36. Jacobs, E. A., Mendenhall, E., McAlearney, A. S., Rolle, I., Whitaker, E. E., Warnecke, R., & Ferrans, C. E. (2011). An exploratory study of how trust in health care institutions varies across African Americans, Hispanic, and white populations. Communication & Medicine, 8(1), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v8i1.89
37. Jarvis, K. (2017). Dilemmas in international research and the value of practical wisdom. Developing World Bioethics, 17(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12121
38. Kaba, A., & Beran, T. (2014). Twelve tips to guide effective participant recruitment for interprofessional education research. Medical Teacher, 36(7), 578-584. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.907489
39. Khatamian Far, P. (2018). Challenges of recruitment and retention of university students as research participants: Lessons learned from a pilot study. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 67(3), 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1500436
40. Krumpal, I. (2024). Social desirability bias and context in sensitive surveys. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Encylopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6527-6532). Springer.
41. Kyndt, E., Berghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Bulckens, L. (2014). ‘Time is not enough.’ Workload in higher education: A student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 684-698. https:/doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.863839
42. Leentjens, A. F. G., & Levenson, J. L. (2013). Ethical issues concerning the recruitment of university students as research subjects. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 75(4), 394-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.03.007
43. Lierville, A. L., Grou, C., & Pelletier, J. F. (2015). Enjeux éthiques potentiels liés aux partenariats patients en psychiatrie: État de situation à l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Santé mentale au Québec, 40(1), 119-134.
44. MacIver, E., Adams, N. N., Torrance, N., Douglas, F., Kennedy, C., Skatun, D., Santiago, V. H., & Grant, A. (2024). Unforeseen emotional labor: A collaborative autoethnography exploring researcher experiences of studying long COVID in health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 5, 1-10. Article 100390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100390
45. Macnamara, J. (2025). Human Research Ethics Review Challenges in the Social Sciences: A Case for Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09532-9
46. Manohar, N., Macmillan, F., Steiner, G. Z., & Arora, A. (2018). Recruitment of research participants. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 71-98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6
47. Marks, A., Wilkes, M. A., Blythe, S., & Griffiths, R. (2017). A novice researcher’s reflection on recruiting participants for qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 25(2), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2017.e1510
48. McGinn, R. (2013). Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics, 7, 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6
49. Meadows, L. M., Lagendyk, L. E., Thurston, W. E. & Eisener, A. C. (2003). Balancing culture, ethics, and methods in qualitative health research with Aboriginal peoples. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200401
50. Méndez, M. (2013). Autoethnography as a research method: Advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09
51. Meskin, T., Singh, L., & Van der Walt, T. (2014). Putting the self in the hot seat: Enacting reflexivity through dramatic strategies. Educational research for social change, 3(2), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390903426212
52. Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Researcher interaction biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 779-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5
53. Mondain, N., & Bologo, E. (2009). L’intentionnalité du chercheur dans ses pratiques de production des connaissances: les enjeux soulevés par la construction des données en démographie et santé en Afrique. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 48, 175-204. https://doi.org/10.7202/039772ar
54. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
55. Negrin, K. A., Slaughter, S. E., Dahlke, S., & Olson, J. (2022). Successful recruitment to qualitative research: A critical reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221119576
56. Newington, L., & Metcalfe, A. (2014). Factors influencing recruitment to research: Qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-10
57. O’Boyle, E. H., & Götz, M. (2022). 10 questionable research practices. In L. Jussim, J. A. Krosnick, & S. T. Stevens (Eds.), Research integrity: Best practices for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 260-294). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190938550.003.0010
58. Patel, M. X., Doku, V., & Tennakoon, L. (2003). Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9(3), 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.9.3.229
59. Pilkington, H. (2018). Employing meta-ethnography in the analysis of qualitative data sets on youth activism: A new tool for transnational research projects?. Qualitative Research, 18(1), 108-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117707805
60. Poulos, C. N. (2021). Conceptual foundations of autoethnography. In C. N. Poulos (Ed.), Essentials of autoethnography (pp. 3-17). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000222-001
61. Price, D., Edwards, M., Carson-Stevens, A., Cooper, A., Davies, F., Evans, B., Hibbert, P., Hughes, T., Rainer, T., Siriwardena, N., & Edwards, A. (2020). Challenges of recruiting emergency department patients to a qualitative study: A thematic analysis of researchers’ experiences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(151), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01039-2
62. Rowlands, C., Rooshenas, L., Fairhurst, K., Rees, J., Gamble, C. B., & Blazeby, J. M. (2018). Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital. BMJ Open, 8(2), e018581.
63. San Fabián, J. L. (2020). El reconocimiento de la actividad investigadora universitaria como mecanismo de regulación del mercado académico. Revista de Educación de la Universidad de Málaga, 1(1), 23-44. https://doi:10.24310/mgnmar.v1i1.7208
64. Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y. (2020). Saturation controversy in qualitative research: Complexities and underlying assumptions: A literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706
65. Sieber, J. E. (2004). Empirical research on research ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9
66. Sormani, E., Baaken, T., & van der Sijde, P. (2022). What sparks academic engagement with society? A comparison of incentives appealing to motives. Industry and Higher Education, 36(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422221994062
67. Stevenson, J., Keogh, P., Smith, J., & West, E. (2018). Reaching the right people: Reflexive practice to support effective recruitment, participation, and engagement in research with communities affected by stigma. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918819376
68. Stuber, J. M., Middel, C. N. H., Mackenbach, J. D., Beulens, J. W. J., & Lakerveld, J. (2020). Successfully Recruiting Adults with a Low Socioeconomic Position into Community-Based Lifestyle Programs: A Qualitative Study on Expert Opinions. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(8), Article 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082764
69. Sutasuwan, S., Sumalee, S., & Supsombat, W. (2016). Study of the essential research skills for graduate education. Kasetsart Education Review, 31(3), 102-113.
70. Swisher, L. L., Arsalanian, L. E., & Davis, C. M. (2005). The realm-individual-process-situation (RIPS) model of ethical decision-making. HPA Resource, 5(3), 3-8.
71. Tagare, D., Exter, M. E., & Ashby, I. (2023). The many hats - accidental roles on an interdisciplinary research and implementation project: A collaborative autoethnography. In B. Hokanson, M. Schmidt, M. E. Exter, A. A. Tawfik, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Formative design in learning. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41950-8_21
72. Tarisayi, K. S. (2023). Autoethnography as a qualitative methodology: Conceptual foundations, techniques, benefits and limitations. Encyclopaideia – Journal of Phenomenology and Education, 27(67), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/17815
73. Turner, N., & Almack, K. (2017). Recruiting young people to sensitive research: Turning the ‘wheels within wheels’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(5), 485-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1207943
74. Vinte, J. V. (2025). Paper-and-pencil vs online assessment in distance education: Examining EFL students’ preferences and challenges in a Mozambican tertiary institution. Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, 7(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.1569632
75. Vinte, J. V., & Çavuşoğlu, Ç. (2024). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices on the use of questions in Mozambican secondary schools. MEXTESOL Journal, 48(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v48n3-5
76. Vinte, J. V., Khalil, E., & Çavuşoğlu, Ç. (2023). A joint autoethnography on collecting qualitative data remotely: Insights from doctoral students’ experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231211783
77. Wall, S. S. (2016). Toward a moderate autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916674966
78. Zapcic, I., Fabbri, M., & Karandikar, S. (2023). Using Reddit as a source for recruiting participants for in-depth and phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231162674