Dan Warren Tag

17 Mar

Posted at 14:52h in Market Research, Research

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

04 Oct

Posted at 14:58h in Children, Kids, Market Research, Methodology, Qualitative Research, Research, Research Camp

Research Camp is an immersive experience for both youth and clients. For the kids, it involves engaging in a full schedule of camp activities and participating in research for a brief period each day. Clients have the opportunity to witness children grapple with their research or design questions in real life while also interacting with them informally. What makes this experience unique is that we conduct the research in a fun and engaging environment: Camp. Research Camps take place in cities across the US at established camps that hold sessions during school vacations and in the summer. The incentive for youth participation is a week of the camp’s tuition at a significantly reduced price.

At Research Camp, we explore the world through the eyes of children. Using a range of qualitative research methodologies, we aim for deep insights into their thoughts, feelings, and experiences to answer our client’s research questions. Over the past few weeks, we’ve published articles about how Research Camp came about and how we found our first participants. In this article, we’ll focus on how we leverage a convenience sample and five qualitative research methodologies to understand and enhance the lives of children.

Convenience Sampling – A Quick Entry Point

Research Camp relies heavily on a convenience sampling. A convenience sample is just that, convenient, because participants are selected based on ease of recruitment over randomness. It is particularly helpful when conducting exploratory or formative research because it allows us to gather data quickly from children who are either attending the camp or already interested in going. Convenience sampling tends to be time efficient and cost effective compared to other sampling methodologies, making it a great choice when appropriate.

Convenience sampling, however, comes with its limitations. Since participants aren’t randomly selected, the sample may not accurately represent the broader population, thus limiting the external validity of the research. Additionally, the absence of randomness in the selection process makes reliable estimation of sampling error problematic and, therefore, precise statistical inferences and hypothesis testing doesn’t really work. For our purposes, the convenience sample is perfect, but researchers must be aware of the drawbacks when designing and interpreting convenience sample-based studies.

Qualitative Research Methodologies We Use with Kids at Camp

Because children have unique perspectives and experiences that may not always be adequately captured by utilizing one research solution, we use five different qualitative research methodologies at Research Camp. These methodologies were chosen to generate rich data to help us explore nuanced responses, emotions, and stories that go beyond data from surveys or questionnaires to provide a more holistic view of children’s experiences and opinions.

1. Focus Groups – Exploring Children’s Perspectives

One of the primary qualitative methodologies we use is focus groups. In a focus group a skilled moderator guides a small group of children through discussions on specific topics. This methodology offers several advantages:

        • Careful Participant Selection: We ensure that the children in our focus groups are uniquely positioned to provide valuable insights into the topic under investigation.
        • Experienced Moderation: Our moderators have backgrounds in child psychology or education, creating a safe environment for children to express themselves.
        • Age-Appropriate Sessions: Recognizing children’s shorter attention spans, our focus group sessions typically last 45 minutes to an hour and may involve engaging activities like games or storytelling.

 

2. In-Depth Interviews – A Personal Connection

In-depth interviews (IDIs) with children are another valuable qualitative methodology we use during Research Camp. These semi-structured interviews facilitate detailed discussions with children on a wide range of topics. Conducting in-depth interviews with kids provides two benefits to the research process:

        • A Child-Centric Approach: In-depth interviews allow us to adapt questions to the child’s developmental stage and cognitive abilities, ensuring age-appropriate interactions.
        • Building Trust: Conducted in a one-on-one, non-threatening environment, these interviews often lead to stronger connections between children and researchers, fostering more honest and open responses compared to focus groups.

 

3. Child Ethnography – Immersed in Their World

Child ethnography, a specialized form of ethnographic research, plays a crucial role in Research Camp. This qualitative methodology involves immersive, long-term fieldwork to study the lives of children within their cultural and social contexts. We do this both on-site at the camp as well as in the homes of some of the campers outside of the camp hours. Child ethnography is invaluable because it provides:

        • Deep Insights: Child ethnography provides a holistic understanding of children’s daily lives, experiences, and perspectives by allowing the researchers to see things play out over a longer period in a more natural environment.
        • Cultural Context: Ethnographies can help researchers explore how cultural norms, values, and practices shape children’s experiences and development, offering insights into their socialization.

 

4. Observations – Becoming part of the scene

Nothing has been more effective than getting into the thick of it with kids. By interacting with youth through observations and immersion during Research Camp, researchers spend time with children, observe their interactions, and engage in informal conversations. Observations have some specific benefits:

        • Immersive Insights: Observations and immersion provide authentic insights into children’s lives by creating the opportunity to see kids over a longer and less contrived period of time.
        • “Quantity” time: By creating a wider timeframe to observe kids, we increase the possibility of kids becoming more comfortable and, therefore, authentic. It also makes the space for other unintended insights that can provide some of the most profound breakthroughs.

 

5. Co-Creation Sessions – Collaborating with Children

Co-creation sessions, when children are invited into the process of the design, development, or improvement of products or services, are an amazing and inspiring experience. Often, researchers and designers get stuck in a certain adult-centric way of thinking and need to enlist the help of kids to create alongside them. Co-creation is great because it provides:

        • Fresh Perspectives: Children offer fresh, imaginative, and innovative viewpoints that can lead to creative solutions.
        • User-Centric Solutions: Co-creation ensures that products or services are tailored to children’s needs and preferences, enhancing customer satisfaction.

 

Research Camp employs a range of qualitative research methodologies to unlock the unique perspectives and experiences of children. From focus groups and in-depth interviews to child ethnography, observations, and co-creation sessions, these methodologies help us understand, empower, and advocate for children in a world that often, intentionally or not, misinterprets or tunes out their critical voices.

By Dan Warren, Director, Youth Development & Education

30 Aug

Posted at 00:09h in Loaded Statements, Meditations

 

While on vacation with his family last week, Fluent’s Director of Youth Development & Education, Dan Warren, took some time to share his thoughts about choices, endings and beginnings as the summer ends and he looks towards the start of the school year and returning to work.

 

The only true voyage of discovery, the only fountain of Eternal Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to behold the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others, to behold the hundred universes that each of them beholds, that each of them is. – Marcel Proust

 

It is common to hear the phrase, “We are often blind to the things we are blind to.” We have choices about the way that we view the world, but choice is work.  Viewing choice as work is something that denotes intentionality. We must be conscious that we have choice not necessarily on how the world is but how we think about our world. The reality is that often the world shifts away from our preferences to areas of unwelcome novelty whose arrival was beyond our control.

What may be more relevant than our opinion on the shift is how we respond to the change. How we decide to turn our choices and awareness into action recognizing that we are part of a system that is social and interconnected is a large part of that process. Taking simple steps toward appreciating and capitalizing on fundamental things in life illuminates the wisdom in simplicity.

Sometimes our recognition of options is obscured by deeply engrained self-imposed and/or cultural practices. Stepping outside convention and chasing the “what if” down the rabbit hole, especially when considering those aspects of life that are most precious, can be a valuable exercise to test assumptions, biases, and opportunity.

As we weigh our choices, our own rubric for comparison may prove helpful. Occam stated that “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity,” arguing that, all other things being equal, the simpler answer is the better one.  Shifting between choices is often conceptually simple but practically challenging because it involves accommodation. This discomfort, even in the most welcomed changes, is worth our attention and patience.

Regardless of the work associated with change, it is worthwhile to be vigilant about noticing when and why our choices are now qualitatively different. New technologies, for example, can stretch horizons beyond anything that we could have previously anticipated and things that were not effective in the past are now possible in the future of now.

Even when we have made giant leaps personally, recognizing that we are embedded in a social system can illuminate that our priorities and resulting choices create intentional and unintentional experiences for others. If it is our intent for others to experience and explore the world in wondrous ways, then we must live in mindfulness that we affect and are affected by the choices and priorities of others.  The major downside of choice is that failure is always a real possibility. How people decide to determine and digest failure is a key to growth.

Dan Warren is Director of Youth Development & Education at Fluent Research

21 Jul

Posted at 23:49h in Children, Kids, Media, Methodology, Qualitative Research, Research

Digital contexts are becoming more prevalent in children’s lives than ever before, fueled in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to move various aspects of children’s lives online*. Since human development is a holistic and dynamic process between the developing person and his or her context* and children develop in positive and healthy ways when their strengths are combined with the strengths of their contexts, we have an opportunity as researchers to bring this framework to the changing landscape of children’s lives.

What has become apparent in our company’s recent requests for proposals, is that there is a lack of fit between the knowledge and experience of many designers and the developmental needs and abilities of children. This lack of fit signals a fundamental problem, and an opportunity, given the growing presence of digital technology as a context for children’s development. The virtual world is a new frontier and there has been a land rush of companies looking to stake their claim flag.  This rapid growth has seemed to create holes in the capabilities of these frontier companies. More precisely, the talent needed to design for adults does not adequately translate to designing for kids. In the absence of comprehensive knowledge about child development, current designers may err in using themselves or those close to them as the markers of success and/or “normality”.

“We all have a blind spot and it’s shaped exactly like us.” – Junto Diaz, Author

Short of extensive training in child development, designers can utilize a few central rules of thumb when designing for kids. Keeping these in mind will go a long way to minimizing, or at least acknowledging, our biases:

1) All humans are whole. Sometimes by necessity, we need to zoom in and focus on a specific part of children’s development, such as their literacy level or their ability to swipe on a tablet. But it is important to understand those parts within the context of the whole developing person. We then need to further adjust our lens to view that person as situated within a dynamic relationship with his or her context.

2) There is no ‘typical’ child. Much of what we know and have studied about children is approximations that are gathered from information that has been averaged over large groups from mostly Westernized societies. Expectations about children should be considered approximations that can get you close to understanding.

3) All households are different. A common mistake is to view children’s development as unfolding in a vacuum. Rules and expectations differ greatly by household and are driven by cultural, situational, and practical factors. Just because a child is developmentally capable of something does not mean that they will do it.

4) Child development is less linear than it appears. Because development is an iterative process, there are often regressions that ebb and flow with progressions. Development of a skill or competency may occur steadily over time or rapidly in spurts. While many abilities get better over time, it is not always the case.  Some abilities, like attention span increase gradually over time during childhood while other capacities, like learning a new language, decrease over time. Other aspects of development, like identity development, are latent during younger years and then rapidly develop.

If there is one mantra that we could recommend to all designers and those thinking about how to best support kids, we would strongly offer this:

“Every [child] is like all other [children], some other [children], and no other [child].” – Kluckhohn & Murray, Anthropologist & Psychologist

By Dan and Amy Warren.

==========

1*Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, 2022.

*Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.

 

10 May

Posted at 22:51h in Children, Content, Kids, Media, Methodology, Research

Today, the most cutting-edge thinking about human development is holistic, dynamic, and emphasizes the relationship between the developing person and his or her context.  This thinking is an important evolution; a stark contrast to outmoded ideas that see people as something to be molded by the context like a piece of clay or “filled” like an empty receptacle.

The Positive Youth Development (PYD) perspective is one such holistic and dynamic view, based on the ideas that:1

   1. All young people have strengths (because of the potential for developmental change across the lifespan), and

   2. All contexts have strengths as well. These strengths are resources that can be used to promote positive youth development.

   3. If the strengths of young people are combined with the strengths of the context, then positive, healthy development occurs.

PYD emerges out of this dynamic relationship and is evidenced by the presence in young people of “Five C’s”:  Competence, Confidence, Connection, Caring, and Character.

Digital contexts are becoming more prevalent in children’s lives than ever before, fueled in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to move various aspects of children’s lives online.2  The growing presence of digital technology as a context for children’s development requires that we think deeply about its impact, identify its strengths, and consider how best to combine those strengths with the strengths of young people to promote their positive development.

Nutrient-rich digital contexts have many of the same features as those found in the physical world.  Both are guided by a deep understanding of children’s development, behavior, and natural play patterns.3  Both also recognize social interactions as the core of what it means to be human, seeking to enhance and extend (not obstruct) human connection.4  In turn, both types of contexts empower children to be agents in their own development, to make choices and course-corrections, to be generative and creative.5

We know digital contexts support positive development when children exhibit these six positive behaviors:3

    1. Communication (sharing ideas, caring about and interpreting the work of others)

    2. Collaboration (turning shared ideas into shared action)

    3. Community Building (contributing to the good of the community)

    4. Content Creation (using tools to create new artifacts)

    5. Creativity (being flexible and imaginative)

    6. Choices of Conduct (making decisions based on one’s personal sense of morality)

Taken together, these behaviors can be used to guide the design of developmentally-mindful digital contexts and, as well, to evaluate and revamp existing digital contexts.

When we take a positive developmental approach to digital contexts, we recognize that the quality and potential benefits of those contexts are contingent upon children’s developmental milestones.  Just as a child’s height determines the relevance of monkey bars, so too does their attention span, memory, symbolic representational skills and so on, determine the relevance and nutrient richness of digital contexts.  Certain developments, particularly in early childhood, happen best in the physical, multidimensional world.  Children must reach these key milestones to unlock and benefit from the strengths of digital contexts.  When unlocked, the strengths of young people can combine with the strengths of digital contexts to support positive development.

    1. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.
    2. Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, 2022.
    3. Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Oxford, Cary, NC.
    4. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34.
    5. Lerner, R. M., Theokas, C., & Jelicic, H. (2005). Youth as active agents in their own positive development: A developmental systems perspective. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund, & D. Wentura (Eds.). The adaptive self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development (pp. 31-47). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Amy Warren, Ph.D. is a Senior Child Development Researcher at Fluent Research. Amy holds a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from Clark University and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in child development from Tufts University. Dan Warren, Ph.D. is Director, Youth Development and Education at Fluent Research. Dan holds a doctorate in Human Development and Child Study from Tufts University and taught elementary school in Massachusetts for nearly a decade. Together, they co-founded Home Base Learning Center, a nature-based elementary school guided by the core values of Positive Youth Development, Social Justice, and Earth Stewardship.