TY - JOUR
T1 - Recruitment of research participants from U.S. jury pools
AU - Cooper, Crystale Purvis
AU - Roter, Debra L.
PY - 2001/6
Y1 - 2001/6
N2 - Psychological research is often criticized for routine use of a narrow and unrepresentative study population - college students. This study investigated the feasibility of recruiting research participants from U.S. jury pools, which by law must include a representative cross-section of the public. A questionnaire was mailed to the jury administrators in the 217 U.S. state court jurisdictions with populations of 250,000 or more. Court officials representing 79 jurisdictions in 30 states and the District of Columbia returned surveys (36% response rate). In addition, respondents who indicated in the mail survey that their court had previously allowed outside investigators to recruit jurors also completed a follow-up telephone interview. While the majority of jurisdictions (61%) opposed participation of jurors in research, 31 jurisdictions (39%) did not object to this practice. Only 8 of the nonopposed jurisdictions had been asked to host research, and 7 had agreed to do so. The jurisdictions that opened their jury pools to researchers employed a number of strategies to circumvent potential problems and generally reported that hosting research was a positive experience. Jury pools represent a viable and relatively untapped source of research participants. Many courts are open to the possibility of hosting research but have never been asked to do so. Both researchers and court officials should be reassured by the positive experiences of courts that have hosted research.
AB - Psychological research is often criticized for routine use of a narrow and unrepresentative study population - college students. This study investigated the feasibility of recruiting research participants from U.S. jury pools, which by law must include a representative cross-section of the public. A questionnaire was mailed to the jury administrators in the 217 U.S. state court jurisdictions with populations of 250,000 or more. Court officials representing 79 jurisdictions in 30 states and the District of Columbia returned surveys (36% response rate). In addition, respondents who indicated in the mail survey that their court had previously allowed outside investigators to recruit jurors also completed a follow-up telephone interview. While the majority of jurisdictions (61%) opposed participation of jurors in research, 31 jurisdictions (39%) did not object to this practice. Only 8 of the nonopposed jurisdictions had been asked to host research, and 7 had agreed to do so. The jurisdictions that opened their jury pools to researchers employed a number of strategies to circumvent potential problems and generally reported that hosting research was a positive experience. Jury pools represent a viable and relatively untapped source of research participants. Many courts are open to the possibility of hosting research but have never been asked to do so. Both researchers and court officials should be reassured by the positive experiences of courts that have hosted research.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0347871794&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0347871794&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2466/pr0.88.3.981-986
DO - 10.2466/pr0.88.3.981-986
M3 - Article
C2 - 11597090
AN - SCOPUS:0347871794
SN - 0033-2941
VL - 88
SP - 981
EP - 986
JO - Psychological reports
JF - Psychological reports
IS - 3 PART 2
ER -