How to conduct remote research when you can’t access your intended audience.

In an ideal world, we would have unfettered access to our intended audiences, enabling us to conduct in-depth, on-the-ground studies that yield rich, contextual data.

But that’s not the case.

Researchers face significant challenges conducting information behavior research, especially when studying populations in environments they can’t access in person.

Gazzetta’s work researching information needs in restricted contexts frequently requires us to  map out a range of ways to reach people remotely, safely, and in a cost-effective manner to achieve our research goals.

This is required for several research methods, like when we conducted a psychological mindset cluster of our intended audience through a survey.

Below, we share considerations and strategies for survey recruitment and distribution when direct access to intended audiences is limited or impossible. We hope other remote research teams can take advantage of our documented process and apply it to their research.

Jump: HOW remote research is different | WHAT methods are available | HOW to choose the best method for you

How remote research differs from traditional research.

Each of the considerations below are relevant to the ethical implications of our interactions with others, as well as to the soundness of the methodology and confidence levels we can expect from our research.

Balancing these factors might weigh out differently from one newsroom to another. Should you move forward with a study that puts participants at risk or that would lead to obviously biased data? If cost or time is a factor, it may be worth it to spend more resources to minimize these risks.

Establishing trust and rapport with participants.

In traditional fieldwork, researchers often rely on their physical presence, body language, and shared experiences to build connections. In remote settings, researchers must find new ways to create a sense of safety and openness. This might involve leveraging trusted community intermediaries, using culturally appropriate digital platforms, or developing more robust informed consent processes that clearly communicate the purpose and potential risks of participation.

Digital divide and impact on representation.

While digital technologies offer unprecedented access to some populations, they can also inadvertently exclude the most vulnerable or least connected members of a community. For example, we must be acutely aware that our remote research methods might be biased towards those with better access to smartphones and the internet. This potential skew in our sample must be acknowledged, and, where possible, mitigated through creative outreach strategies.

Data collection through digital means.

Instead of direct observation and in-person interviews, we might rely more heavily on digital ethnography, analyzing social media posts, online forums, and other digital footprints left by our intended audience. This approach offers rich insights but also raises new ethical questions about privacy and consent in digital spaces.

Asynchronous communication with participants.

This becomes a more prominent feature of remote research. While this can be a challenge for building rapport, it also offers participants more time for reflection and can lead to more considered responses. For example, we might use a combination of real-time video interviews and follow-up email or messaging exchanges to allow for deeper exploration of topics that emerge during initial conversations.

Capture contextual information creatively.

Because we can’t physically observe participants in their environments, we might instead ask participants to share photos or videos of their living and working spaces, or use digital mapping tools to understand their geographic distribution and movement patterns. We might also leverage existing datasets or collaborate with on-the-ground organizations to fill in contextual gaps that we cannot observe directly.

Heightened awareness of security and privacy concerns.

When working with potentially vulnerable populations in a restrictive environment, we must be vigilant about data protection, secure communication channels, and the potential for surveillance or interception of research activities. This might involve using encrypted communication tools, anonymizing data at the point of collection, and being extremely cautious about storing or transmitting any information that could identify participants.

Heightened awareness of ethical practices.

Perhaps most important, remote research in restricted environments demands we must constantly question our methods and their potential impact on participants:

• Are we inadvertently putting anyone at risk by engaging them in our research?
• How can we ensure truly informed consent when we can't be physically present to explain the study?
• How do we balance the need for rich, detailed data with the imperative to protect participants' identities and privacy?

Effective methods for recruiting remote research participants.

Throughout our work, our team at Gazzetta has evaluated various research participant recruitment methods, comparing their costs, security implications, efficiency, and overall usability to find the method and service that worked best for our needs as a remote team.

Below is what we’ve found works for each method.

1. VPN pop-up recruitment: This method involves displaying recruitment messages to users of VPN services, asking if they will take our survey. It offers a quick recruitment process with no security risks. However, it tends to bias the sample towards more tech-savvy users. Filtering is possible via screeners, and participants self-declare their information. This method allows for sensitive questions and optional incentives, but confidence levels in the data quality are generally low because of the specific demographic of VPN users.
2. Redirected or advertising domains pop-ups or embeds: This approach uses pop-ups on redirected domains to recruit participants. When an internet user types an incorrect web address into their internet browser, such as “goggle” instead of “Google,” the browser will redirect them toward an advertising domain containing a pop-up with the survey. It's relatively inexpensive and poses no security risks. It's a quick method that may attract less tech-savvy users, potentially providing a different demographic than VPN pop-ups. Like the VPN method, it allows for sensitive questions and optional incentives, with medium confidence levels in data quality.
3. Overseas recruitment through agencies: This method involves using international agencies to recruit domestic participants to take our survey. It costs relatively more per completed survey than methods #2 and #4, and poses no security risks. It offers quick recruitment and potentially high data quality when using reputable agencies. Participants are pre-recruited, and filtering is done by the intermediary. Sensitive questions may be possible, and incentives are typically part of the process. This method offers high confidence levels in data quality because the agencies ensure samples meet specifications.
4. Domestic recruitment: Using domestic agencies for recruitment can be an option in between the costs per completed survey of methods #2 and #3. While it offers quick recruitment and potentially high data quality, it poses security risks for the point of contact. Participants are pre-recruited, and filtering is done by the intermediary. Sensitive questions are not advisable, but incentives – such as paying those who complete the survey or offering the chance to win something of value – are part of the process. This method offers high confidence levels in data quality.
5. NGOs and personal contacts: This method leverages relationships with NGOs and personal networks for recruitment. We did not concretely explore the costs. We noted that it poses security risks for both the point of contact and intermediaries. It's a slower process, but can yield high-quality data. Filtering is done via contacts, and participants self-declare information. Sensitive questions may be possible, and incentives are optional. This method offers the highest confidence levels in data quality.
6. Proxy populations: This approach involves recruiting from populations that can serve as proxies for the intended audience, such as overseas groups who were formerly part of your intended audience. It poses no security risks and offers quick recruitment. However, the data may be biased toward past experiences. Filtering can be done via screeners, and sensitive questions are possible with optional incentives. Confidence levels in data quality are low because the proxy populations are no longer sharing the lived experience of your intended audience.
7. Robocalls: This method uses automated phone calls for recruitment. It poses no security risks and offers quick recruitment. It may attract less tech-savvy users, providing a different demographic perspective. Filtering depends on the available database, and participants self-declare information. Sensitive questions are possible, but there are typically no incentives. Confidence levels in data quality are low.

This overview enables us to make informed decisions about participant recruitment, balancing factors such as cost, security, data quality, and the ability to ask sensitive questions in the complex research environment in which we are working.

Choose your recruitment method based on selection criteria.

Multiple recruitment methods may work for your research, so it’s important to weigh options based on your research goals and available resources.

In one of Gazzetta’s project, for example, domestic recruitment was a clear winner for us because of the high confidence level of the data offered, namely that the ventures assured us they could target our intended audience. We also chose domestic recruitment because of the speed of service promised and low cost.

Some factors we assessed as a part of our selection criteria when selecting a survey distribution and recruitment venture were::

• Intended audience eligibility: Can they reach those who meet our criteria of being part of a specific subset of our intended audience with a defined metric about their life events?
• Distribution methodology: How will the survey attract and reach participants? While there is always bias in remote research due to limited control over sample participants, we wanted to minimize its impact by being informed of the way to reach participants.
• Price and payment method: What is the total cost to us, what is the price per completed survey, and are there incentives involved? Is there a method with which we can pay from overseas, through international transactions or currency conversion?
• Security and privacy: How much detail about ourselves and our purpose do we have to reveal? Because of potential restrictions on and censorship of foreign entities, we did not want to disclose all details of our organization and research projects, other than the necessary information to conduct the survey. Some survey recruiting platforms require enterprise verification for distribution, which is troublesome and difficult for us to acquire.
• Time: What is the estimated timeframe to get our target number of valid surveys?
• Survey data validation: How does the venture validate the survey responses as effective and truthful?

Despite unique challenges, one benefit of remote research is the potential for larger sample sizes and more diverse participation. Without the constraints of physical travel, we can potentially reach a wider geographic spread of individuals across different regions of the country. However, this also requires careful sampling strategies to ensure we're capturing a representative cross-section of experiences and not just the most easily accessible participants.

Adapting traditional research methodologies to remote settings requires both creativity and rigor. By carefully considering the ethical and security implications, leveraging technological solutions, and creatively adapting our recruitment and data collection strategies, we can strive to reach even the most inaccessible communities.

For more information on remote research, we recommend the book Remote Research: Real Users, Real Time, Real Research (2010) by Nate Bolt and Tony Tulathimutte.

Join us on our process in the audience research phase and beyond. If you haven’t already, sign up to our newsletter so you don’t miss out.

If you have feedback or questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch at hello@gazzetta.xyz.