<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Zebra Research</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.zebra-research.com.au/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au</link>
	<description>Qualitative research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:11:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by kelpenhagen</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-343</link>
		<dc:creator>kelpenhagen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-343</guid>
		<description>[...] saying is that methodology doesn&#8217;t count. I am DEFINITELY not saying that. Methodology is the bedrock as Katie Harris so righlty posts over at Zebra Bites. But chucking arrows out of your quiver [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] saying is that methodology doesn&#8217;t count. I am DEFINITELY not saying that. Methodology is the bedrock as Katie Harris so righlty posts over at Zebra Bites. But chucking arrows out of your quiver [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Dianne</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-332</link>
		<dc:creator>Dianne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-332</guid>
		<description>Methodology is crucial in what we do. But Ziggy makes a great point - if they are interested they will ask, if not they expect us to know what we are doing - that&#039;s why they have hired us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Methodology is crucial in what we do. But Ziggy makes a great point &#8211; if they are interested they will ask, if not they expect us to know what we are doing &#8211; that&#8217;s why they have hired us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Ziggy Zubric</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-328</link>
		<dc:creator>Ziggy Zubric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-328</guid>
		<description>Kelly,
You mention that skipping the methodology discussion means that you end up discussing it at the end anyway. Interestingly, I now COUNT on that happening.

After many big roomfuls of clients have said, “Let’s move along to the actual findings; we don’t have time for the nerdy methodological parts; we trust you did things correctly,” I’ve given up.

So now I just jump right to the main findings. And almost every time, some savvy observer will then ask, “Hey, how do we know this is validly collected data?” And THEN I can give my methodological talk without boring anyone, because now there’s interest and relevance for that part of the talk.

But had I started with that info, they would have yawned.

Cheers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kelly,<br />
You mention that skipping the methodology discussion means that you end up discussing it at the end anyway. Interestingly, I now COUNT on that happening.</p>
<p>After many big roomfuls of clients have said, “Let’s move along to the actual findings; we don’t have time for the nerdy methodological parts; we trust you did things correctly,” I’ve given up.</p>
<p>So now I just jump right to the main findings. And almost every time, some savvy observer will then ask, “Hey, how do we know this is validly collected data?” And THEN I can give my methodological talk without boring anyone, because now there’s interest and relevance for that part of the talk.</p>
<p>But had I started with that info, they would have yawned.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Trevor Godman</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-327</link>
		<dc:creator>Trevor Godman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-327</guid>
		<description>Does it make sense to suggest we can we innovate without using new and, well ‘innovative’, methodologies? They might be different to the sorts of methodologies we’ve talked about in the past, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t methodologies.

There’s not much point talking about either innovation or methodology without connecting them to a client benefit.

IMHO …</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does it make sense to suggest we can we innovate without using new and, well ‘innovative’, methodologies? They might be different to the sorts of methodologies we’ve talked about in the past, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t methodologies.</p>
<p>There’s not much point talking about either innovation or methodology without connecting them to a client benefit.</p>
<p>IMHO …</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Annie Petit</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-326</link>
		<dc:creator>Annie Petit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-326</guid>
		<description>Without methodology, we have nothing. Why don’t I just ask my mom for all the answers and forget surveys and focus groups and such.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without methodology, we have nothing. Why don’t I just ask my mom for all the answers and forget surveys and focus groups and such.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-325</guid>
		<description>Katie – nicely said!
To me it also seems the people who are all about ‘removing the shackles of methodology’ are those who are a little flakey on methodology themselves.
Tom also raises a good point about assuming the audience (or a sector of the research audience) doesn’t want or need to be bogged down by the ‘boring methodology stuff’ – but I’ve always found if you don’t set up properly what you did to collect the data and with who (in both qual and quant) you end up having to backtrack and explain the process and the reasoning anyway, given all kinds of questions are generally raised. Audiences of research need to understand the foundations in order to have faith in the findings. Otherwise all research begins to feel like those surveys you read about on the free evening newspapers (4 out of 5 women prefer to shop rather than have sex, most men admit to wearing female underwear
with no explanation of sample size, methodology etc) – it’s treating your audience like a tired commuter who just wants a snappy headline. But all the CEOs I’ve ever presented too care very deeply about the foundations recommendations are made on; especially if they have to stand up on front of a board, or shareholders and explain about customer satisfaction results, or a new branding direction etc
The ‘anti-methodology’ hollerers remind me a bit of the ‘focus groups are to blame for all marketing sins’ people, and don’t get me started on them!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Katie – nicely said!<br />
To me it also seems the people who are all about ‘removing the shackles of methodology’ are those who are a little flakey on methodology themselves.<br />
Tom also raises a good point about assuming the audience (or a sector of the research audience) doesn’t want or need to be bogged down by the ‘boring methodology stuff’ – but I’ve always found if you don’t set up properly what you did to collect the data and with who (in both qual and quant) you end up having to backtrack and explain the process and the reasoning anyway, given all kinds of questions are generally raised. Audiences of research need to understand the foundations in order to have faith in the findings. Otherwise all research begins to feel like those surveys you read about on the free evening newspapers (4 out of 5 women prefer to shop rather than have sex, most men admit to wearing female underwear<br />
with no explanation of sample size, methodology etc) – it’s treating your audience like a tired commuter who just wants a snappy headline. But all the CEOs I’ve ever presented too care very deeply about the foundations recommendations are made on; especially if they have to stand up on front of a board, or shareholders and explain about customer satisfaction results, or a new branding direction etc<br />
The ‘anti-methodology’ hollerers remind me a bit of the ‘focus groups are to blame for all marketing sins’ people, and don’t get me started on them!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on And now, the bedrock&#8230; by Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/#comment-324</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zebra-research.com.au/?p=1133#comment-324</guid>
		<description>Isn’t “no methodology!” zealotry based on a conception (or misconception) of who the audience for research is? The time-poor businessman who just needs the actionable summary and to hell with the detail. By constructing this creature as our ‘audience’ we end up constructing an image of ourselves as method-obsessed nerds, and that becomes a straw man to kick against.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn’t “no methodology!” zealotry based on a conception (or misconception) of who the audience for research is? The time-poor businessman who just needs the actionable summary and to hell with the detail. By constructing this creature as our ‘audience’ we end up constructing an image of ourselves as method-obsessed nerds, and that becomes a straw man to kick against.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Satisfaction guaranteed? Hardly. by Zebra Research &#187; Zebra in Anthill!</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/satisfaction-guaranteed-hardly-2/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>Zebra Research &#187; Zebra in Anthill!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zebrabites.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/satisfaction-guaranteed-hardly-2/#comment-93</guid>
		<description>[...] The seedling is here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The seedling is here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporates on Twitter: a culture clash? by Zebra Research &#187; Corporates on Twitter – Revisited</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/corporates-on-twitter-a-culture-clash-2/#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Zebra Research &#187; Corporates on Twitter – Revisited</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zebrabites.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/corporates-on-twitter-a-culture-clash-2/#comment-77</guid>
		<description>[...] But things change very quickly in social media; Australian corporates on Twitter are now a dime a dozen. And my expectations of, and tolerance for, corporate tweeting has evolved. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But things change very quickly in social media; Australian corporates on Twitter are now a dime a dozen. And my expectations of, and tolerance for, corporate tweeting has evolved. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Follow The Zebra by Zebra Research &#187; Corporates on Twitter – Revisited</title>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/follow-the-zebra-2/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Zebra Research &#187; Corporates on Twitter – Revisited</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zebrabites.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/follow-the-zebra-2/#comment-53</guid>
		<description>[...] I first experienced “the corporate follow”, I felt a little wary. Here they were, in my personal corner of cyberspace, talking at me in a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I first experienced “the corporate follow”, I felt a little wary. Here they were, in my personal corner of cyberspace, talking at me in a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
