The term ‘traditional research’ is often used to describe offline methodologies; mostly, I’ve observed, in the context of selling what I assume must be ‘non-traditional’ (??) online methodologies.
In this context, the word ‘traditional’ conjures imagery of antiquated, moth-eaten and fusty research practices.
And clearly, many offline methodologies are anything but. Not to mention that many research solutions require a hybrid of both online and offline approaches.
But if we have to throw labels around, it’d probably be more accurate to substitute the word ‘traditional’ with ‘established’ (as Paul Vittles from TNS usefully suggested during question time at an AMSRS breakfast seminar I attended last week).
So does this make ‘non-traditional’ research ‘unestablished’ research?
: P
Wow. Doesn’t that put a whole new spin on it!?
Filed under: market research | 5 Comments
-
-
-
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. -
In terms of Qualitative Research methodologies I question using language such as traditional vs non-tradional. Both in-person and online qualitative methods have their place as research methodologies and can be used in conjunction with one another. Research techniques evolve as we continue to expand our knowledge in the area and with that expansion new methods are created this does not devalue the original method instead it is an additional tool to be used to reach ones research objective. For example online focus groups are great for conducting qualitative research across the globe.
http://www.itracks.com/Products/OnlineFocusGroup/tabid/73/Default.aspx
Great point! I’ve often thought about this when I’m putting together proposals. I try to say “in-person” methods instead of “traditional” now, since traditional sounds really boring (which it usually isn’t). I still find myself saying “traditional” now and then though, just because that’s pretty common :-/
(p.s. great to meet you at ESOMAR! I hope your had/have safe travels back…)
Like so many things context is everything.
When I hear the phrase traditional qual, I think offline, I think depths, groups, accompanied shopping. But I do not think online qual, but also not ethnography nor semiotics. If I sub in established, I might shift ethnography and semiotics into the established category, leaving online qual in the non-established. What the shift has done for me in this context is to say ‘has not taken off’.
When I hear the term traditional qual I think surveys, 5 and 7 point scales, forced completion, with a view to cross-tab, or factor, or cluster, or regress the data. Online quant is every bit as ‘traditional quant’, as in-person quant, and as CATI. Non-traditional quant brings up pictures of predictive markets, buzz mining, online communities, and arguably neuroscience. When I sub in established, for me, none of the techniques changes from non-traditional to established, or from traditional to non-established. However the implication of the term non-established changes for me, it now means something like “we haven’t fully worked out how to do this yet”.
Just to take one example. I think (looking at reports from people like Forrester) theat ORCs/MROCs are already much bigger than online focus groups (in terms of revenue). But while I think we have pretty much figured out how and when to use online focus groups, I think we are a few years away from sorting out how ORCs/MROCs should be used.
Hey Everyone!
Ray, you’re right! Context is everything… I relate the nomenclature very closely to the social media craze. Right now everyone is stuck on “new” media, inbound marketing, new web, web 2.0/3.0, etc. Soon, and very soon, it will just be called “doing business”. Similarly, these new “non-trad” techniques and methods will just be considered part of market research.
We often get caught up in the tools and forget about the method/concepts behind them. If we focus and explore the underlying concepts, then we can take and evolve them into things that propel our industry.
Ben
Don’t you just love the English language – so many different words or phrases that people like to use to describe the exact same thing. For me, when it comes to describing old or new research methodologies, my preference is to think of them in terms of their “appropriateness” for any described research situation.
Whether that methodology be “traditional”, “established”, “online” or whatever other description resonates with you, as a responsible researcher your primary objective is to ensure that you’ve got the right tool(s) for the project at hand. Once you have that settled to your satisfaction, feel free to describe the methodology however you want.
Doug.