By David Rothstein, Member, IA Standards Committee
How participants experience market research is among the most consequential yet often underappreciated factors shaping data quality. A participant who feels misled or disrespected is unlikely to engage thoughtfully. One who feels informed and fairly treated is far more likely to provide honest, considered responses. Ensuring a positive participant experience not only supports better response rates, but promotes the accuracy and engagement that produce reliable insights.
The research landscape has changed significantly: declining response rates, growing public skepticism about data use, and the rapid integration of AI into research workflows all create new pressure points. Against this backdrop, the Duty of Care principles in Section 1 of the Insights Association Code of Standards & Ethics (Transparency, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty) are not just compliance requirements. They are a practical roadmap for obtaining better data and maintaining the public trust on which our profession depends. Below, we examine where each principle might be violated, connect it to the Code, and offer practical guidance.
Issue: Lack of Transparency
A survey recruits participants with a 10-minute estimate, but runs 20 minutes and includes a video exercise they weren’t told about. Completion rates drop and data quality deteriorates as remaining respondents race through to the finish line. In a separate online focus group, participants aren’t told upfront the session is being recorded or that a client team is observing live. When they find out midway through, they feel distrust towards the moderator and candor evaporates.
The Code requires researchers to “be fully transparent with research participants regarding relevant parameters and requirements” and ensure participation is “based on accurate information.” When that standard isn’t met, it’s not just ethically problematic, it’s methodologically corrosive.
How to Comply:
· Set accurate expectations up front. Provide a realistic time estimate and describe any unusual or unexpected tasks before participants commit. Treat participants as valued partners in the insights process, not subjects to be managed through a no-frills experience.
· Disclose observation, recording, and AI use clearly. Consent materials should explain in plain language who will see or hear the research, how recordings are stored, and, where applicable, whether AI tools are involved in data collection or analysis. The updated Code now explicitly requires notification when AI-based avatars or chatbots are used in ways participants might perceive as human interaction.
Issue: Lack of Respect
A B2B survey targeting executives is launched without regard for the senior positions held by the desired audience: wordy questions, hard-to-use response choices and scales, generic design, and user experience (UX). Executives drop out after the first few screens. Those who finish provide thin, disengaged answers. Elsewhere, a social research study uses questions on sensitive topics without the proper level of empathy and consideration for whether the language is appropriate for the populations involved.
The Code requires that researchers “make reasonable efforts to ensure that research subjects are not harmed, disadvantaged, or harassed.” Poor survey design signals that participants’ time and comfort don’t matter. Disrespectful design is a direct threat to response rates, data quality, and panel health which only makes our difficult job more difficult.
How to Comply
· Design for the audience. Use language appropriate to participants, not your (or your clients’) internal vocabulary or jargon. Pilot-test with members of the target population before fielding; they will surface friction that colleagues close to the material won’t notice.
· Right-size the instrument. Prioritize ruthlessly. If length is unavoidable, use progress indicators and in-survey acknowledgment of completed sections. A simple “you’re halfway there” has been shown to improve engagement and completion.
Issue: Lack of Fairness
A research firm runs a multi-day online bulletin board study that includes daily journal entries, peer responses, and a debrief interview, all with no incentive, reasoning that participants “will want to contribute.” Recruitment struggles and entries are shallow. Separately, a growing concern: studies that use generative AI or synthetic data to supplement participant responses without telling participants their input is directly feeding these systems.
The Code specifies that incentives are expected as a means to encourage participation. A positive byproduct of a fair incentive is better data quality since a broader cross section of the population being studied is more likely to complete the research. Fairness also means not using what participants provide in ways they didn’t agree to, which could apply directly to AI-assisted research workflows.
How to Comply
· Calibrate incentives to actual burden. A multi-day longitudinal study warrants substantially more participant effort than a five-minute survey. Even when budget is constrained (or in addition to monetary incentives), an in-survey personalized thank-you or sharing of how the research will be used signals that contributions are valued.
· Be transparent about AI and secondary data uses. If participant responses will be used to inform AI model training or validation, this must be disclosed and consented to. As AI tools become more embedded in research workflows, consent frameworks must be actively audited to ensure they remain adequate.
Issue: Lack of Honesty
A hotel brand surveys recent guests, then the next day sends personalized offers referencing the property each guest rated highest. Participants had no idea their responses would drive direct marketing. In a second scenario, a company conducts what it calls “market research” among prospects, using responses to build a lead-scoring model that feeds directly into its sales pipeline. The “research” is, in effect, a sales qualification tool.
The Code is unequivocal: researchers must “always distinguish between research and non-research activities to maintain legislative and public confidence in the integrity of research,” and must not “permit any direct action toward an individual based on their participation in research without their consent.” This is not a technicality. It is the line separating legitimate research from manipulation, and its erosion undermines public confidence in the entire profession. The updated Code strengthens this principle, recognizing that the research/non-research boundary is increasingly tested in a world where data flows seamlessly between CRM systems, ad platforms, and research tools.
How to Comply
· Never use research as a cover for commercial activity. Studies designed primarily to generate leads or trigger individual-level commercial action are not research. Labeling them as such is a misrepresentation to participants and a breach of the Code.
Conclusion
Transparency, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty are not abstract ideals. They are the practical foundations of effective research. When honored, participants engage more honestly and completely. When neglected, data quality suffers, response rates fall, and the public trust that makes voluntary participation possible erodes.
It is critical that all researchers incorporate and adhere to the Code’s four Duty of Care principles to ensure a positive participant experience and to support the credibility of the data being collected.
Protecting and respecting our participants is protecting and respecting our industry. The two are inseparable.
ABOUT THIS SERIES: The Insights Association Code of Standards & Ethics sets the principles that guide ethical and professional market research, insights, and analytics. But how do those standards apply in everyday practice? In this series, members of IA’s Standards Committee bring the Code to life through practical examples, showing how it guides responsible research and decision-making across the industry.
About the Author
David Rothstein is the owner and CEO of RTi Research and serves on the IA Standards Committee. David was elected Chairman of the Board of the Insights Association (2019) and CASRO (2016). He’s an IPC Laureate and a member of the Executive Committee of the Market Research Council.