A Trauma-Informed Approach to Imposter Qualitative Study Participants

Background and Purpose: Catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, many qualitative interview-based studies are conducted virtually. Though survey researchers now account for bots (i.e., programs that fill out surveys with fake values to attain compensation) and researchers working with minoritized groups are familiar with trolls (i.e., people who provide offensive responses), imposter participants are an emerging concern. Imposter participants fabricate identities to participate in qualitative interviews and secure compensation. Due to an increase in imposter participants, researchers must balance accessible study recruitment with preserving data quality. Unfortunately, there is limited guidance on how to navigate this concern in a trauma-informed and equitable way. Therefore, we share a protocol based on the process we used in our qualitative online interview-based study with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) survivors of sexual and intimate partner violence.

Methods: We recruited 30 participants for an online interview-based qualitative study of LGBTQ+ adults who were currently or had recently (since August 2014) attended U.S. colleges as undergraduates, had attended at least some courses in-person, and experienced sexual and/or relationship violence during college. We used snowball sampling through both key informants and advertising via social media to share our screening and demographic questionnaire. We identified 103 imposter participants at the screening stage, eight at the scheduling stage, and three during interviews.

Results: Signs that participants were imposters included: (1) name discrepancies during screening, communication, and scheduling; (2) generic gmail addresses; (3) IP address tracking to the same city for many participants in a row; (4) sharing of sexual orientations or gender identities that were uncommon to combine; are often considered offensive; are close in wording to terms listed in recruitment materials but not in meaning; or did not respond to the prompt; (5) shared experiences that were inconsistent with screening survey responses; and (6) were very concerned with payment. Limited guidance on identifying and handling potential imposters involves creating additional barriers to participants or actively questioning participant authenticity, and neither strategy was appropriate for LGBTQ+ trauma survivors. We instead used the aforementioned trends to deprioritize participant contact and employed additional screening questions if we were unsure about participant authenticity. Lastly, when unsure if participants were accurately representing themselves, we erred on the side of removing their data prior to transcription.

Conclusion: Imposter participants create challenges for qualitative researchers working with minoritized groups who frequently have their identities and names invalidated. Trauma survivors also continually navigate systems that disbelieve them and ask them to prove that their stories are true and valid. Our protocol provides a structure through which qualitative researchers can examine and prepare for trade-offs throughout their online qualitative interview-based study development and implementation process. For example, researchers could use this protocol to examine the accessibility advantages of measures like not requiring cameras be turned on for interviews against the potential increased risk of imposter participation. Further research is needed to establish best practices for trauma-informed equitable approaches to navigating the reality of imposter participation in qualitative research.