Wie würden Sie mit einem Teilnehmer umgehen, der sich weigert, detailliertes Feedback oder Einblicke zu geben?

Encourage open communication by asking specific, open-ended questions, offering reassurance about confidentiality, and explaining the importance of their feedback. If resistance continues, provide alternative methods for them to share their thoughts, like anonymous surveys or one-on-one discussions.

Handle a resistant participant by building rapport, asking open-ended questions, and ensuring a comfortable environment. Use prompts and examples to encourage detailed feedback, and remain patient and empathetic throughout the process.

The paragraph is a bit strange, since you can only know that participants are reluctant after they've shown reluctance, but setting expectations is a good advice always. Make sure your expectation setting is to the point and not too long, or you'll either prime the participant to respond in a certain way, or come off as intimidating, and depending on the way you recruited them they might have expected something less formal. Make it short and sweet, and start building that rapport right away with your preliminary questions.

Here’s how open ended questions can help in such scenarios : 1. Frame questions that require more than a simple yes or no answer. This prompts participants to share their thoughts and experiences in greater detail. Eg. a. Instead of asking, “Do you like this feature?” ask, “Can you describe your experience using this feature?” b. Rather than saying, “Is this easy to use?” try, “What was your process when you used this?” 2. Follow up on their responses to gain deeper insights. Eg. If they express a positive reaction, inquire, “What aspects did you find most useful?” 3. Prompt participants to share stories about their interactions with the product. Eg. “Can you tell me about a time when you used this feature in a real-life scenario?”

We're all human! Show genuine interest in their thoughts by nodding, maintaining eye contact, and responding thoughtfully. Actively reflect on what they say to ensure you’ve understood correctly. For example, say, "It sounds like you found the navigation confusing. Can you tell me more about that?" This not only validates their feelings but also encourages them to share more detailed insights.

Sometimes, you need to switch up your approach to get participants to open up. If they’re not responding well to verbal questions, try other techniques like card sorting, usability tasks, or think-aloud protocols. These methods can make participants feel more engaged and less pressured, leading to more detailed and valuable feedback. Adjust your technique based on their comfort level and the context of your study.

If your participants seem uncomfortable or unwilling to share, don’t push them too hard. Instead, gently remind them that their feedback is valuable and that there are no wrong answers. Let them know that it’s okay to share as much or as little as they feel comfortable with. Acknowledging their boundaries builds trust and can often lead to them opening up more as they feel safe and respected.

Reluctance can be a data source for feedback. If your research design is appropriately flexible and systems-directed, you should try to figure out 𝐰𝐡𝐲 they're reluctant - primarily, without infringing on their agency. A history of experiencing harmful technologies? A company that doesn't listen, or keep its word? Ask yourself instead: How can this reluctance incentivize accountability + creativity, not only through company apologies but through your insights and prototypes?

Participants are sovereign human beings and not pieces of furniture to be handled. They don't owe researchers anything. Not their lived experiences, their trauma, their feedback or insights. Informed consent is an ongoing process. Options are important - and no should always be one of them.

What I noticed within my interviews is that if a Participant cannot give further details, they probably do not know any additional details. One Participant kept parroting what their leader said, but acted as if it were their idea. I continued to ask the question in various ways and used the 5 how / 5 why questioning techniques within interviews to better understand processes. When I left, I thought that maybe my questioning technique was off. All other Participants were quite able to answer my questions succinctly and give detailed processes when I had my follow up questions. After reviewing the interview, I noticed that I did ask the questions clearly. She didn’t do any processes. She was parroting her leader, but not doing the work.