KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Nitel Sosyal Bilimler / 2025 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

The Use of Financial Incentives in Qualitative Research across Disciplines in the United States: A Methodological Review from 1995 to 2021/ Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde Disiplinler Arası Nitel Araştırmalarda Finansal Teşvik Kullanımı: 1995–2021 Yılları Arasında Yöntemsel Bir Derleme

Sinem Toraman Turk(Yale University School of Public Health)0000-0002-5837-4414
Julio Meneses(Universitat Oberta de Catalunya)0000-0003-4959-456X
Murat Turk(University of Oklahoma)0000-0002-5105-2578
Sergi Fàbregues(Universitat Oberta de Catalunya)0000-0003-1141-7613
Selda Dudu(University of Seville)0000-0002-6325-9832
Fatih Ozkan(Baylor University)0000-0002-0762-1091
Beyza Ustun-Elayan(Wageningen University and Research)0000-0002-8591-5001
Sayfa
107–127
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, yayın yılı, araştırma alanı ve örneklem büyüklüğünün, nitel çalışmalarda sunulan teşvik miktarlarını etkileyen faktörler olarak işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Nitel araştırmalara katılan bireylere finansal teşvikler sunmak, katılımcı teminini kolaylaştıran yaygın bir uygulamadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve negatif binom regresyon kullanılarak, 627 özgün tam metin ampirik nitel araştırma makalesinde yer alan 698 teşvik vakası incelenmiş ve nitel araştırmalarda kullanılan teşvik miktarlarını etkileyen faktörler belirlenmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, yayın yılı, araştırma alanı ve örneklem büyüklüğünün, nitel çalışmalarda sunulan teşvik miktarlarını etkileyen faktörler olarak işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Finansal teşvik · nitel araştırma · eğilimler

Özet

Nitel araştırmalara katılan bireylere finansal teşvikler sunmak, katılımcı teminini kolaylaştıran yaygın bir uygulamadır. Ancak, nitel araştırmalarda teşvik kullanımının disiplinler arası durumu tam olarak bilinmemektedir. Bu yöntemsel derlemenin amacı, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri bağlamında disiplinler arası nitel araştırmalarda finansal teşvik kullanımının durumunu incelemektir. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve negatif binom regresyon kullanılarak, 627 özgün tam metin ampirik nitel araştırma makalesinde yer alan 698 teşvik vakası incelenmiş ve nitel araştırmalarda kullanılan teşvik miktarlarını etkileyen faktörler belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, yayın yılı, araştırma alanı ve örneklem büyüklüğünün, nitel çalışmalarda sunulan teşvik miktarlarını etkileyen faktörler olarak işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir. Sistematik arama ile belirlenen 698 vaka kapsamında, teşvik miktarları (ABD doları) en az 5,00 dolar ile en fazla 500,00 dolar arasında değişmiş olup, ortalama 31,7 dolar (SS=32,1) bulunmuştur. Enflasyon oranına göre ayarlanan teşvik miktarları ise 5,00 dolar ile 565,00 dolar arasında değişmiş olup, ortalama 36,6 solar (SS=37,4) olarak hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmamız, nitel araştırmalarda teşviklerin disipliner ve yöntemsel bağlamlar tarafından şekillendiğini ve araştırmacıların karar alma süreçlerine rehberlik edecek pratik çıkarımlar sunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, nitel araştırmalarda teşvik kullanımına ve raporlama uygulamalarına ilişkin daha derin bir tartışma başlatarak araştırmacıların kendi alanlarında teşvikleri daha etkili biçimde kullanmalarına katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Abstract

Offering financial incentives to participants for their participation in qualitative research is a common practice that improves recruitment in a study. However, the state of incentive use in qualitative research across fields is unknown. This methodological review aimed to examine the state of incentive use in qualitative research across fields in the context of the United States. Using descriptive statistics and negative binomial regression, we examined 698 cases of incentives for 627 unique full-text empirical qualitative research articles and determined the influencing factors for the amounts of incentives used in qualitative research studies. The results showed that publication year, field of research, and sample size function as influencing factors in the amount of incentives offered in qualitative studies. Of the 698 cases identified through the systematic search, incentive amounts (US Dollar) varied from minimum $5.00 to maximum $500.00 with mean of $31.7 (SD=32.1). The incentive amounts (US Dollar) with the inflation rate varied from $5.00 to maximum $565.00 with a mean of $36.6 (SD=37.4). Our study suggests that incentives in qualitative research are shaped by disciplinary and methodological contexts, and our review provides practical implications to guide researchers’ decisions. This study ignites a deeper dialogue about the use of incentives in qualitative research and reporting practices to assist researchers in enhancing the effectiveness of using incentives within their respective fields.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Turk, S. T., Meneses, J., Turk, M., Fàbregues, S., Dudu, S., Ozkan, F., Ustun-Elayan, B. (2025). The Use of Financial Incentives in Qualitative Research across Disciplines in the United States: A Methodological Review from 1995 to 2021/ Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde Disiplinler Arası Nitel Araştırmalarda Finansal Teşvik Kullanımı: 1995–2021 Yılları Arasında Yöntemsel Bir Derleme. Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 107–127. https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.1742647

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (59)

  1. Abdelazeem, B., Abbas, K. S., Amin, M. A., El-Shahat, N. A., Malik, B., Kalantary, A., & Eltobgy, M. (2022). The effectiveness of incentives for research participation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PloS one, 17(4), e0267534.
  2. Adua, L., & Sharp, J. S. (2010). Examining survey participation and response quality: The significance of topic salience and incentives. Survey methodology, 36(1), 95-109.
  3. Allison, P.D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Sage. American Psychological Association. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative research (JARS- Qual). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative
  4. Bourgeault, I. L., Dingwall, R., & De Vries, R. G. (2010). The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research. Sage.
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage.
  7. Cantor, D., O’Hare, B. C., & O’Connor, K. S. (2008). The use of monetary incentives to reduce nonresponse in random digit dial telephone surveys. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link, & R. L. Sangster (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 471–498). John Wiley.
  8. Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., & Grandy, G. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212
  9. Clark, T. (2010). On ‘being researched’: Why do people engage with qualitative research? Qualitative Research: QR, 10(4), 399-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110366796
  10. Coday, M., Boutin-Foster, C., Sher, T. G., Tennant, J., Greaney, M. L., Saunders, S. D., & Somes, G. W. (2005). Strategies for retaining study participants in behavioral intervention trials: Retention experiences of the NIH behavior change consortium. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29(2), 55- 65. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2902s_9
  11. Coxe, S., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2009). The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634175
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth ed.). SAGE.
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. Ferguson, C., & Wynne, R. (2021). The role of small incentives in qualitative research, and the impact of online recruitment during COVID. Contemporary Nurse, 57(1-2), 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2021.1912619
  14. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed). Sage. Flick, U. (2022). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research design. Sage.
  15. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.392
  16. Halpern, S. D., Chowdhury, M., Bayes, B., Cooney, E., Hitsman, B. L., Schnoll, R. A., Lubitz, S. F., Reyes, C., Patel, M. S., Greysen, S. R., Mercede, A., Reale, C., Barg, F. K., Volpp, K. G., Karlawish, J., & Stephens- Shields, A. J. (2021). Effectiveness and ethics of incentives for research participation: 2 randomized clinical trials. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(11), 1479- 1488. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5450
  17. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2016). Ethics in qualitative research: Controversies and contexts. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957619
  18. Head, E. (2009). The ethics and implications of paying participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802246724
  19. Hilbe, J. M. (2007). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge.
  20. Hoeyer, K., Schicktanz, S., & Deleuran, I. (2013). Public attitudes to financial incentive models for organs: a literature review suggests that it is time to shift the focus from ‘financial incentives’ to ‘reciprocity’. Transplant International, 26(4), 350-357.
  21. Howitt, D. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  22. Islam, S., & Tanasiuk, E. (2013). Differential response on pre- and post- disclosed committed inducements in a face to face interview. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 69.
  23. Ismail, N., & Jemain, A.A. (2007). Handling overdispersion with negative binomial and generalized Poisson regression models. Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, Winter 2007. Retrieved on June 22, 2019 from https://www.casact.org/pubs/forum/07wforum/07w109.pdf.
  24. Itracks. (n.d.). Guidelines for incentives for online/mobile qual research. https://www.itracks.com/tips/guidelines- for-incentives-for-onlinemobile-qual-research/
  25. Jessiman, W. C. (2013). 'To be honest, I haven't even thought about it' - recruitment in small-scale, qualitative research in primary care. Nurse Researcher, 21(2), 18- 23. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.11.21.2 18.e226
  26. Karazsia, B. T., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2008). Regression models for count data: Illustrations using longitudinal predictors of childhood injury. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33(10), 1076–1084. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsn055
  27. Kelly, B., Margolis, M., McCormack, L., LeBaron, P. A., & Chowdhury, D. (2017). What affects People’s willingness to participate in qualitative research? an experimental comparison of five incentives. Field Methods, 29(4), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X17698958
  28. King, Gary. 1988. “Statistical Models for Political Science Event Counts: Bias in Conventional Procedures and Evidence for The Exponential Poisson Regression Model.” American Journal of Political Science 32(3): 838–863. Retrieved on June 22, 2019 from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/epr.pdf.
  29. Largent, E. A., Eriksen, W., Barg, F. K., Greysen, S. R., & Halpern, S. D. (2022). Participants’ perspectives on payment for research participation: A qualitative study. Ethics & Human Research, 44(6), 14- 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500147 Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Nagin, D. S. (1996). A comparison of poisson, negative binomial, and semiparametric mixed Poisson regression models: With empirical applications to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24(4), 387–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124196024004001
  30. Leavy, P., Ed. (2014). The oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
  31. Mbuagbaw, L., Lawson, D. O., Puljak, L., Allison, D. B., & Thabane, L. (2020). A tutorial on methodological studies: The what, when, how and why. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 226- 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7
  32. Miller, T. (2012). In Tina Miller, Maxine Birch, Melanie Mauthner and Julie Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913912
  33. National Science Foundation (2002). The 2002 user friendly handbook for project evaluation. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/nsf02057.pdf
  34. Neal, Z., Neal, J. W., & Piteo, A. (2020). Call me maybe: using incentives and follow-ups to increase principals’ survey response rates. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(4), 784-793.
  35. O’Brien, B.C., Harris, I.B., Beckman, T.J., Reed, D.A., Cook, D.A. (2012). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245-1251.
  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2024). “OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators. R&D Highlights in March 2024 Publication”, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation. www.oecd.org/sti/msti2024.pdf
  37. Osborne, J.W. (2017). Regression and linear modeling: Best practices and modern methods. Sage.
  38. Page, M. J., Mckenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583
  39. Parkinson, B., Meacock, R., Sutton, M., Fichera, E., Mills, N., Shorter, G. W., Treweek, S., Harman, N. L., Brown, R. C. H., Gillies, K., & Bower, P. (2019). Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: A scoping review and a checklist for design. Trials, 20(1), 624- 624. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3710-z
  40. Payne, E. H., Gebregziabher, M., Hardin, J. W., Ramakrishnan, V., & Egede, L. E. (2018). An empirical approach to determine a threshold for assessing overdispersion in Poisson and negative binomial models for count data. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, 47(6), 1722–1738. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2017.1323223
  41. Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). The adoption and practice of mixed methods: U.S. trends in federally funded health- related research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 428-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364609
  42. Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage. Research & Marketing Strategies (RMS ) Inc. (2011, March 14). Qualitative research incentives: 5 reasons why more is better. https://rmsresults.com/2011/03/14/qualitative-research-incentives-5-reasons-why-more- is-better/
  43. Resnik D. B. (2015). Bioethical Issues in Providing Financial Incentives to Research Participants. Medicolegal and bioethics, 5, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S70416 Ripley, E. B. D. (2006). A review of paying research participants: It's time to move beyond the ethical debate. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(4), 9- 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.4.9
  44. Roller, M. R. (n.d.). Research quality & the impact of monetary incentives. Research design review. https://researchdesignreview.com/2021/05/30/research-quality-impact-monetary-incentives/
  45. Ryen, A. (2012). In Jaber Gubrium, James Holstein, Amir Marvasti and Karyn McKinney(Eds.), Assessing the risk of being interviewed (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218403.n34
  46. Seymour, K. (2012). Using incentives: Encouraging and recognising participation in youth research. Youth Studies Australia, 31(3). 51-59.
  47. Shay, L. A., Kimbel, K. J., Dorsey, C. N., Jauregui, L. C., Vernon, S. W., Kullgren, J. T., & Green, B. B. (2021). Patients’ reactions to being offered financial incentives to increase colorectal screening: A qualitative analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(3), 421-429.
  48. Singer, E., & Ye, C. (2013). The use and effects of incentives in surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 112-141.
  49. Speiglman, R., & Spear, P. (2009). The role of institutional review board ethics: Now you see them, now you don’t. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 121–134). Sage.
  50. Surmiak, A. (2020). Ethical concerns of paying cash to vulnerable participants: The qualitative researchers’ views.
  51. Qualitative Report, 25(12), 4461-4481. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4441 Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Pearson.
  52. Thompson, S. (1996). Paying respondents and informants. Social Research Update, Autumn(14).
  53. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32- item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357.
  54. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 181.
  55. Trapani, J. (n.d.). Academic Research and Development | NSF - National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20213/academic-r-d-international-comparisons
  56. VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
  57. Willig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (2008). In Carla Willig, Wendy Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927
  58. Clark, T. (2010). On ‘being researched’: Why do people engage with qualitative research? Qualitative Research: QR, 10(4), 399-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110366796
  59. Page, M. J., Mckenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583