17 Mar Reimagining Research Recruitment After the Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped countless aspects of daily life, and its ripple effects have continued to influence how we engage with work, education, and extracurricular activities. The impact of these societal shifts presented unique challenges for researchers when recruiting participants for studies during the pandemic. Having started and completed a project that spanned the last five years and was wholly impacted by the pandemic, I believe that we need to reconsider the predominant recruitment model that non-profits and academics have relied on in the past.
The Challenge
In early 2020, I started working on an NSF-funded research project for a client that involved iterative phases of curriculum development and a program evaluation. In the beginning, the study included multiple countries, involving collaborations among developers, subject matter experts, academics, schools, and several youth-serving organizations. Having deep experience with this type of research, all of the stakeholders felt quite equipped to tackle this project and let the learning begin. By mid-March, we were forced to reimagine our plans.
Of course, there were lots of challenges: the aforementioned pandemic, hurricanes in Puerto Rico, staff turnover, and other struggles within organizations. All of that would have been manageable IF we could recruit the number of youth that we needed for the study. It wasn’t a problem that was unique to us. I was also hearing from other colleagues that recruitment wasn’t nearly as easy as it used to be.
As I see it, the problem was this: traditional recruitment models—which have often relied on partnerships with large youth-serving organizations—are no longer as effective in a post-pandemic society. In the past, securing buy-in from an institution (like a school, community center, or other youth-serving program) would naturally lead to robust participation numbers. Institutions had both the authority and the influence to encourage enrollment, and families were generally receptive. It was never easy, but it was possible if you knew what you were doing. What we came to realize is that we could no longer work from our old recruiter playbooks.
As I reflected on it, I feel that post-pandemic dynamics have disrupted this model. The core issue lies in the shift from institutional incentives to individual choice. Families are now exercising greater autonomy in deciding how their children spend their time, and institutional endorsements carry less weight than they once did. Even when organizations receive substantial funding to support participation, they struggle to meet recruitment targets because they can no longer assume that families will automatically opt-in.
My working hypothesis is that the pandemic invited families into a new reality where the traditional boundaries between work, school, and home life blurred. As parents adapted to working remotely and children engaged in virtual schooling, many families discovered (with a fair amount of challenge) a newfound sense of autonomy and flexibility. This period of adjustment highlighted an essential question for both adults and children: “What do I really need to show up for?”
This question has had lasting effects on out-of-school-time (OST) programs. Before the pandemic, these programs served as critical spaces for enrichment, socialization, and supervision, particularly for working parents. However, the pandemic decoupled the previously inseparable functions of childcare and education. Parents realized that they could manage their children’s schedules differently—whether through remote supervision, flexible work arrangements, or a greater reliance on informal networks. As a result, the perceived necessity of OST programs diminished for many families.
Institutional vs. Individual Incentives
This shift requires a fundamental change in recruitment strategies. Rather than focusing solely on institutional partnerships, researchers would be best served by engaging directly with families and emphasizing the personal value of participation. This means crafting messages that resonate on an individual level, highlighting not just the benefits of the program or study, but also how it aligns with a family’s unique priorities. It also means that the majority of incentivizing should be directed toward the participant. This approach, more typical for marketing research, is highly motivating at the individual level but requires a lot more effort to connect with each of the participants.
A middle ground, which seemed appropriate for this study, was to incentivize the leaders who would be delivering the program. We placed stipulations on the incentive: we would give X amount if they could help with recruitment and provide us with a set number of complete post-surveys. This was a complete game-changer. We still experienced some attrition, but we saw a significant difference in the engagement of the leaders.
Recommendations for Thoughtful Incentivization
Based on these experiences, here are some recommendations for researchers looking to navigate recruitment in this new landscape:
1: Assess the Recruitment Ecosystem: Before launching a recruitment campaign, take time to understand the landscape. Identify where the decision-making power lies. Is it with institutions, leaders, or individual families? Tailor your approach accordingly.
2: Diversify Incentive Structures: One-size-fits-all incentives are less effective in today’s environment. Consider layered incentive models that target both institutional leaders and individual participants. This could mean offering performance-based bonuses for program leaders while providing direct benefits to participants.
3: Align Incentives with Participant Values: Monetary incentives are effective, but they’re not the only motivator. Consider what matters most to your target population—recognition, skill development, community involvement—and design incentives that align with these values.
4: Create Clear, Achievable Goals: When incentivizing program leaders, be specific about expectations. Set measurable goals (e.g., a certain number of completed post-surveys) and ensure that leaders understand how they can meet these targets.
5: Invest in Relationship Building: Incentives are important, but relationships are foundational. Build trust with both institutional partners and individual participants through consistent communication, transparency about study goals, and genuine engagement with their feedback.
6: Monitor and Adapt: Recruitment isn’t static. Continuously monitor what’s working and be prepared to adjust strategies mid-course. Flexibility can be the key to overcoming unexpected challenges.
Moving Forward
The post-pandemic world requires researchers to rethink long-held assumptions about recruitment. Understanding the shift from institutional to individual incentives and adopting a thoughtful, flexible approach to engagement are crucial. By doing so, we can build more resilient research methodologies that are responsive to the changing dynamics of families, communities, and educational ecosystems.
At Fluent, one innovation that came out of this learning is Research Camp, an experience that trades high-value outdoor experiences for participation in short research studies. Research Camp was designed to blend immersive adventure-based activities with data collection in a way that is engaging for participants while still meeting rigorous research standards. Instead of relying on institutional recruitment, Research Camp meets youth and families where they are—offering exciting experiences that make participation feel worthwhile. Learn more about Research Camp and how your company can get involved.
By integrating adventure, community, and research, we’ve found that participants are more likely to engage meaningfully and provide higher-quality responses. This model has also allowed us to test new approaches to incentivization—ensuring that both program leaders and individual participants see clear benefits to their involvement.
Ultimately, successful recruitment isn’t just about numbers—it’s about fostering meaningful connections that support both research goals and participant needs. By meeting people where they are, both literally and figuratively, we can create research environments that reflect the realities of the communities we aim to serve.
By Dan Warren, Ph.D, Director, Youth Development & Education