Gender and Cultural Biases as Determinants of Research Participation Proclivity: Evidence of the Moderating Effect of Study Setting (Digital vs. Face-to-Face)

Abstract

Background: The evolution of research methodology—from predominantly face-to-face interaction to reliance on digital media platforms—necessitates a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing research participation. While the advantages of both face-to-face and digital data collection are recognised, a critical gap exists in understanding how entrenched gender and cultural biases within a population act as determinants of an individual's willingness to participate in a study, a relationship which the specific research environment (digital vs. face-to-face) may uniquely moderate.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the extent to which gender and cultural biases serve as determinants of research participation proclivity and to test the hypothesis that the study setting significantly moderates this relationship.

Methodology: A descriptive survey research design was employed. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered to a sample of research participants in Nigeria. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis to test the specific hypotheses concerning determination and moderation.

Results: The multiple regression analysis utilised a robust model (R² = 0.485, p < 0.001) to evaluate participation determinants. Both gender bias (GB) (β = -0.35, p < 0.001) and cultural bias (CB) (β = -0.28, p < 0.001) were confirmed as highly significant negative determinants of participation proclivity, validating the inhibitory nature of socio-cultural factors.  The interaction terms revealed that the digital study setting (SS) significantly mitigated these negative effects. Specifically, the positive moderation of GB x SS (β = 0.41, p < 0.001) and CB x SS (β = 0.32, p = 0.004) demonstrates that the structural features of the online environment effectively mitigate the inhibitory impact of both biases. Conversely, the substantial magnitude of the negative main effects underscores the critical necessity of researcher training and intentional protocol design in face-to-face data collection to achieve equitable participation.

Conclusion: The choice of data collection setting (digital versus face-to-face) must be guided by the nature and presence of gender and cultural biases in the target population. Researchers should strategically deploy the digital setting to mitigate the exclusionary effects of these biases on participation, ensuring more representative and higher-quality data collection.