Should previous research participation rule someone out?

Back

A player applies for your study and mentions taking part in research before. Should that exclude them?

Previous participation is relevant information, but it needs context. What they took part in, when it happened and what they were exposed to can matter more than the fact that they have participated at all.

The decision should follow the needs of the research.

Understand what came before

A recent playtest of the same game raises different questions from an unrelated interview several years ago.

Useful considerations can include:

• How recently the person participated.

• How often they have taken part.

• Whether the research involved the same game, franchise or topic.

• Whether they saw material that could affect their response now.

You may not need every detail for every study. Establish which information is relevant and collect it consistently.

Protect the perspective you need

• If the research depends on a first encounter with a game or feature, previous exposure could affect suitability.
• Someone who has already seen a tutorial, discussed a concept or played an earlier build may approach the session differently from a person discovering it for the first time.
• In other studies, existing familiarity may be expected or useful. Some research deliberately follows the same people over time.
• The requirement needs to reflect whose experience you want to understand.

Avoid assumptions about returning participants

• Having participated before does not automatically make someone dishonest, rehearsed or unable to give useful feedback.
• Equally, familiarity with research should not earn someone a place. A confident applicant who understands the process still needs to meet the audience criteria and practical requirements.
• Assess their relevant experience and suitability rather than relying on a broad label such as “professional respondent”.

Make restrictions clear before recruitment

• Agree any participation exclusions when developing the brief and screener.
• Be specific about the period and type of research covered. “No recent research” leaves room for different interpretations; an agreed definition gives recruiters and reviewers a consistent basis for selection.
• Where a client has a standard policy, share it early so it can be incorporated into the recruitment process.

Allow room to clarify an answer

• Applicants may not describe previous activities in research terminology. They might remember “trying a game online” without knowing whether it was a playtest, beta or promotional event.
• Follow-up questions can help establish what happened. An unclear answer deserves clarification before a judgement is made.
• At Gromotion, we consider previous participation against the agreed brief, alongside gaming experience, validation and availability.

Reviewing your participation restrictions? Get in touch to work through what matters for your next study.