Inclusive Exhibition: How to Include Accessibility Needs from the Outreach Stage
Keywords: inclusive recruitment, user research, accessibility in research, inclusive research, participant recruitment, diversity and inclusion.
In many briefs, the same idea still appears: “general population sample”. It sounds neutral, but in practice it often leaves out people with physical, sensory, cognitive or digital accessibility needs… unless the study is explicitly “about accessibility”. That means a significant part of reality is systematically left out of the picture.
At quantica, we don’t see inclusive recruitment as “adding a few special cases”, but as integrating accessibility into how we define the sample, how we invite people to take part, and how we organise logistics. It’s not just about diversity as a principle; it’s about making better decisions because we’re bringing in barriers, workarounds and frictions that would otherwise never surface.
1. Sample design: bringing accessibility into the brief.
Inclusion starts before fieldwork, in how we define the sample:
Naming accessibility explicitly in the brief and in quotas.
Reserving real space for these profiles, not only “if they show up”.
Asking who might face more barriers to using the product or service, and what support they might need to take part in the study.
It won’t always be possible to cover every accessibility need in a single project, but we can be aware of who we are including and who we are leaving out – and make informed decisions about that.
2. Recruitment channels and messaging: the invisible filter.
Even with a good sample design, we can lose many people during recruitment itself.
Language: Review screeners and ads so they use a clear, respectful and non-paternalistic tone, avoiding expressions like “do you suffer from…?”. It’s better to focus questions on support or adaptations people might need.
Format and channels: Don’t rely only on online forms. Offer alternatives such as phone calls, voice messages, or reaching out via organisations, associations or communities when it makes sense.
Pay attention to the small things: Sometimes a clumsy expression or insensitive phrasing is enough for someone to drop out. Handling these topics with care and normality helps keep the door genuinely open.
3. Accessible logistics: beyond the invitation.
Getting recruitment right is only half the work. If logistics aren’t accessible, the experience breaks.
For online sessions: Use platforms with accessibility options (captions, pinning interpreters, clear screen sharing), reasonable timings, breaks, and the option to run a quick tech check beforehand.
For in-person sessions: Choose accessible spaces (ramps, lifts, adapted bathrooms), reasonable travel distances and, when needed, the option to attend with a companion.
A simple guiding question here is: “What would this person need to be able to take part comfortably and autonomously?”
4. Incentives and care: the experience also matters.
Inclusive recruitment is not just about “adding diversity to the sample”, but about ensuring that taking part is a dignified, safe and positive experience:
Adjust incentives to the real time and effort involved.
Clearly explain what will happen, how long it will take, whether it will be recorded and who will see the material.
Make sure consent is truly informed, and that people can pause or withdraw without pressure.
5. Mini checklist: 10 things to review before your next inclusive recruitment.
Does accessibility appear explicitly in the brief and in the sample definition?
Have you identified which accessibility needs are most relevant for this project?
Do your screeners and ads use clear, inclusive and non-paternalistic language?
Are you offering more than one channel for people to sign up or complete the screener?
Have you asked participants whether they need any adaptations to take part (and which)?
Are your time slots compatible with people who need support or assistance?
Is the online platform or physical location you’ll use truly accessible?
Does the incentive reflect the time and effort involved in these conditions?
Is the whole research team aligned on how to handle these topics with care and normality?
Are you transparent about who you are including and who you are not, and what that means for your conclusions?
