The Society invited comments on a possible overhaul of the six-month rule at the request of Market Research Quality Assurance (MRQA) Inc. It asked members to say whether they thought the rule was still relevant, given declining response rates, the increase in the use of panels of respondents for ad hoc and on-going research (in particular online research), the increased use of more tightly targeted groups for consumer research, and the difficulties of imposing a broad restriction in the complex research environment.

The NSW Recruiters Group comprises 16 recruiting companies, primarily based in Sydney. It met on 13 March, following the call for input, to discuss the viability of the current six-month rule. After lengthy discussion, which involved reviewing many alternatives, the group decided that it would recommend to the industry as a whole that:

• The six-month rule be maintained for consumer qualitative research for in-depth interviews and for standard focus groups i.e. where between two and 12 people are recruited.
• The six-month rule be abolished for all quantitative research, online research, panel research and for qualitative research involving non-standard sized focus groups.
• The six-month rule be abolished for business to business research & other ‘specialist’ type recruitment (e.g. doctors, CEOs, IT managers).

The group believes that, due to the sheer volume of quantitative and online research being performed, maintaining the six-month rule for this type of research is, in a practical sense, unworkable and impossible to enforce.

However, the group does believe that the six-month rule is necessary for consumer focus groups and in-depth research. In its written submission the group states: ‘Abolishment of this rule would lead to a lowering of current standards, which would not be acceptable to buyers of such research’.

The group also urged Market Research Quality Assurance (MRQA) to continue to encourage all providers of recruitment to become members of the AMSRS and seek ICQA accreditation, while at the same time encouraging all buyers to use only accredited suppliers.

Three other submissions were from individual recruiters, who all put cases in favour of retaining the six-month rule. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that most practitioners agree that the six-month rule for qualitative recruitment should be bent a little - or broken completely - in some cases, as long as the recruiter communicates clearly with the researcher about such exceptions. Those exceptions include business-to-business groups (particularly general practitioners and IT consultants) and consumer groups with very detailed, multi-layered specifications.

‘For a basic consumer group, there is no reason why the six-month rule should be abandoned,’ argues Carmel Symons, director of Melbourne-based recruitment company Cooper Symons & Associates. While conceding that the situation differs from state to state, Carmel stresses that recruiting companies should always be looking at new ways of finding “fresh faces”.

Sue Brown from Rivercity Research in Brisbane agrees that the six-month rule should be used ‘whereever possible’.

However, she argues that, in certain circumstances, it should not apply and that it should be up to the client and recruitment company to agree when it should be relaxed.

Sue believes other exceptions include groups requiring respondents:

• From a very specific suburb or area
• Who eat or drink a specific brand and have to fit a whole lot of other demographics 
• Recruited from client lists, as most times there are ‘barely enough people’ from which to recruit a group.

However, Graham Chant, director of Chant Link & Associates in Melbourne, said: ‘I think you will find that many experienced group moderators are somewhat skeptical about the worth of the six-month rule’.

Graham argued that:

‘1. There is research evidence that suggests that there is value in having, as some group participants, people who have recent experience in group environments (see paper by Bruce Smith, Max Sutherland and Suzy Dickerson presented at the conference some years back). But as far as I can see there is no evidence to suggest the presence of people with group experience less than six months ago has an adverse effect on group outputs.

‘2. The six month concept has essentially been introduced to avoid “groupies”. From this perspective the rule is undoubtedly a failure because serious “groupies” can still lie to gain access to groups.

‘3. In effect the six-month rule only serves to limit availability of group participants.

‘I realise some people believe that frequent group attendance educates people to group practices and group speak. But as far as I can see there is little evidence for this opinion. And even in this case the six month rule won’t necessarily exclude people who really want to attend groups.’

Graham suggests that a better solution to the ‘groupie’ phenomenon would be to encourage recruitment agencies to take a much more rigorous approach to screening group participants. ‘I know this would entail greater recruitment costs. But you get what you pay for. If we want to run good quality groups we should be prepared to pay for good quality recruitment.’

MRQA will consider the NSW Recruiters Group recommendation at its next meeting.

Related articles:
Call for input – Qualitative recruitment and the six-month rule

Print this page



Other Articles in this edition