Not so fast
My qualitative toolbox has grown with current online technologies. And the possibilities promised by evolving technologies are endless.
It’s intriguing to contemplate how these changes influence not only the way I might do research, but no doubt, the way I think about and frame research issues.
Never a dull moment, that’s for sure.
But exciting as it is, it’s always a good idea to stop and think. And here’s something to think about…
Lunch
You catch up with a friend (in real life) for lunch. You talk about this, that, and the other.
While between catch ups you talk on the phone, email each other often, are Facebooked, and have been members of the same online community for over 5 years, sitting down, face to face, puts a whole different angle on your understanding of their life. It provides a completely different context.
Watching their face light up when you ask after their kids, seeing the micro-frown when you discuss topic X, and observing their extended search through their handbag to avoid discussing topic Y; these are all things you could never pick up online.
The conversation takes paths that your online conversation couldn’t have travelled (and this works the other way too, but stay with me here…).
Take this into a research context, and you realise that while you can get some (often surprisingly) deep and passionate reads on emotion through written words, images etc via online methods, there are times when you’re just going to need more.
Springboards
The nuances of body language provide the researcher with cues and real life stimulus. A pause, a frown, half a giggle; all invaluable springboards to discussion.
And this dynamic is something that, quite patently, offline research can provide over and above an online dialogue.
I stress, this is only important if it’s important; it depends solely on the task at hand.
But for the most part, I like a side of offline context to go with my analysis.
And because of the above, I don’t think qualitative market research methods will change quite as fast as one might be led to desire or believe.
At least not the ones that provide the relatively comprehensive insights I need in order to do my job well.
Filed under: market research | 6 Comments
Tags: offline research, online research, reality check
-
-
-
Click here to subscribe with RSS
-
-
-
Zebra Bites by Katie Harris is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License. -
Great post – but…
Why then does so much qual happen in what amounts to laboratory conditions?
If you learn so much from going for a coffee with someone you’ve got to know – then why not take a respondent out for coffee?
Hi Tom
Good question – but…
Not one I can answer, because in my many years of doing this, I’ve rarely seen qualitative research happen under laboratory conditions!
So back to you; tell me more about the “laboratory conditions”…I’m both surprised and fascinated by this idea!
One of the key principles of qualitative research (I think) is matching the venue/forum/approach to the task at hand.
For example, I *do* (very) often conduct in-depth interviews in cafes. Or in-home. Or part in-store. Or a mix of all of the above. It depends on both the respondent/participant’s profile and of course, the research objectives.
I use group rooms mostly (but not always) in situations where I want a group effort and/or discussion about something. Much like a workshop.
In these cases, the forum isn’t so different to ‘real life’. Depending on participants’ profiles, it may well replicate the kind of environment they’d be used to for work meetings, or when they go to Tupperware parties or mothers’ group, or sports meet committees etc.
And most of the time, what we’re asking from them isn’t all that different to what they’d be doing in those situations in ‘real life’, ie having a chat, having a point of view.
It’s not as though we’re trying to use this forum as a laboratory to observe behaviours per se; we’re focused on understanding an issue. That’s why they’re called focus groups!
P.S Having said all that, a lot of sensory research is conducted laboratory style, but that’s quite a different kind of research, and it makes sense to use that approach.
Thanks for some great insights, Katie. One worry I have about collecting qualitative information online is that the conversations in this medium are missing many of the nonverbal cues we count on to bring meaning to our words — facial expressions, inflection, tone of voice, volume, speed, hesitation, body posture, etc. It’s pretty easy to misunderstand what people intend. I see this happening a lot, even someplace as innocuous as my Facebook page, where I see people post comments, and then spend a few more posts trying to clarify their posts to the other posters who have misunderstood them. I’d be interested in your thoughts about how a market researcher moderates an online discussion that makes things clearer instead of muddier.
Hi Vicki
This is why I think that the research objectives should ALWAYS inform the methodology – and to that point, it’s important to understand the kind of information you’ll get with each approach.
For example, we did a BBFG project with financial planners, and got *exactly* what we needed; a range of opinions on some topical industry issues. The type and depth of information we got was excellent in terms of answering the research objectives.
Importantly though, we didn’t need to understand how they personally used a product, or how a brand fit into their lives etc. It wouldn’t have necessarily been the optimal forum for that.
There were several other benefits in going online in this case;
1. We wanted them to interact, and being financial planners, it would have been difficult (and inappropriate) to get them to come to a focus group. Besides having to offer them very big incentives, it would have been the wrong forum for the discussion we wanted to have.
Interestingly, because they saw value in being able to discuss the issues with their peers, they were happy to participate in the online discussion without any incentive per se.
2. Geography. We got to talk to people right across Australia.
Of course, I can only speak from my experience, but in most cases, to get the kind of information *my* clients currently need, I think online is only (sometimes) useful as a slice of the overall pie.
If the forum doesn’t allow the discussion to answer the objectives, the issues you highlight are more than likely to arise.
(Love your latest blog post by the way!)
#2 – Touche! I withdraw my comments – they were coloured by my experience as a marketer in Big Research, where I was offered the use of a lot of pretty sterile viewing facilities. But there’s a big difference between such things existing and people actually using them.
#3 – I think the better people know one another online the less these kinks in conversation appear. When I’m talking on email, or in communities I’ve been for years, my tone of voice is never an issue any more: the people I’m talking to just get it, even if I don’t know them well (because print tone of voice is often set partly at community level). On Twitter, though, where I’m communicating with a lot of people new to me, I’ve had to do the “no I meant *this*” thing a few times.