I’ve heard a few times now – from some within (and some flirting on the edges of) our industry – that market researchers need to stop focusing on research methodology so much.

There are two main ‘reasons’ put forward here;

1. First, that methodological considerations are so elementary that we don’t need to talk about them any more [they’re not, and we do]
2. And second, that it’s simply passé to focus on methodology; if we do, the market research industry will be left behind [it’s not, and if that’s the reason the market research industry is going to be left behind – if, indeed, it isactually going to be left behind – I’ll eat my stripy hat].

The upshot of these discussions is the irritating and ill-defined – but always emphatic – argument that we, as an industry, need to innovate.

But sound methodologies and innovation are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Notwithstanding that research methodology, itself, can be innovative, we need not, should not, and must not sidestep careful methodological considerations for each and every market research project we undertake.

Careful methodological considerations – built into the research design, and used to frame the analysis – are a fundamental bedrock for useful innovation.

I’ve just come back from a fantastic trip to Chicago where I attended the ESOMAR Online Research 2009 conference. You can find Jeffrey Henning’s brilliant recap here (he pretty much live-blogged it – very impressive!).

Anyway, not surprisingly, there was lots of talk of ‘new’.

And it would have been easy to come away with the message that the market research industry really needs to get with the ‘new’ programme or, quite simply, it will wither away and die.

Because the new world of research is here! New methodologies. New technologies. New ways of engaging with respondents (Gasp! Did I say that? I meant ‘participants’, ‘co-creators’ or ‘collaborators’).

All well and good, but what does this actually mean?

New kinds of output?

Let’s all take a moment to think. What, as market researchers, is our purpose?

Market research is about understanding the market. At a very basic level, the end goal is to deliver information that will help our clients make relatively informed/better decisions about how to sell their products or services.

And here’s my point; the output (ie what our clients are paying for) is only ever going to be as ‘new’ as the questions they/we ask*.

Over the next few blog posts I’m going to take a look at some of the elements of ‘new’ I outlined above. Examine them closely. Explore what they mean for researchers at a practical level. Separate, if you like, the hype and theory from the actual task of delivering useful output.

Should be interesting…

: P

*If you’re in the ‘listening’ camp, ie “Oh no, no! We don’t ask questions, we just listen to the conversation!”, I’ll argue that you’re still (implicitly) asking questions when you choose to/not to include any particular content in your analysis.

How exciting –  The Age of Conversation 3 will be out in April!

In the meantime, a list of the authors;

Anyone working/playing in, or pondering the online research space would benefit from reading this excellent book.

To date it is, by far, the most erudite, interesting and useful book about online qualitative research methods I’ve come across.

As the editors note; “It’s not a ‘how-to’ guide. It is, rather, an exploration and explanation of vantage points, a project meant to stimulate thinking”.

Which it really does.

And you can never have too much of that.

Another question from the discussion.

Q3: Is consumer attitude shifting in regard to research participation?

A: Chinese whispers from quant-land suggest that long, boring surveys are failing to engage respondents. This isn’t new, but there’s more research on research now, and thus we’re hearing more about it.

I’ve no doubt that poorly designed surveys would spark a shift in terms of how many people are willing to give their time to participate in research, and the price they set for their contribution.

Things are a bit different on my side of the research fence; ie qualitative.

In this context, buzz words such as ‘collaboration’ and ‘co-creation’ are being thrown around as the new terms of research participant engagement; these concepts underpin the fundamental premise of online market research communities.

But actually, collaboration and co-creation aren’t new concepts in qualitative research. In fact they constitute the very essence of most qualitative research – on or offline.

It’s always been a dialogue between researcher and respondent/participant. We ask questions and they collaborate in answering. Or they ask questions and we listen and ask questions about the questions…etc. We show them stimulus and they co-create a vision.

Beautiful.

Following on from my last post, here’s the second question and answer…

Q2. Are there any lingering misconceptions that marketers attach to market research?

A: Four misconceptions de jour;

1. That online research is quicker and cheaper. It usually isn’t if it’s done well. The technology doesn’t provide the value. It’s the analysis that provides the value. And that’s what takes thinking and time (note, I can only really speak for qualitative here).
2. That numbers (quantitative research) are more important than the sentiment around those numbers (qualitative research). They’re both important.
3. That market research is a cost. Good research is an investment in managing risk.
4. That Maslow provides a good framework for interpreting research results. It doesn’t.

I recently answered a few questions about market research for Marketing Magazine. I must say, it was nice to be at the other end of the questions!

I think the article only appeared in the print edition (June, 2009), so over the next few days I’m going to post the nutshell version of the questions (4 altogether) and my answers.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts!

Q1: How do marketers get the best value out of market research when their budgets are being diminished?

A: Marketers will get the best value out of market research by making sure they do 3 things;

1. Ask good questions (ie have clear and well defined objectives)
2. Ask the right people the good questions (ie employ a useful sample)
3. Ask the right people the good questions in the right forum (ie choose the optimal methodology)

Sounds simple, but this is where the clever thinking is. If you get these 3 right, you’ll get useful data, efficiently.

I’ve always been a big fan of desk research and in particular, the literature review.

Even in the days when it meant searching the CD-Rom database at the UNSW library (any one remember Psych-Lit?) to find the ‘literature’.

I’d scribble down the references on a scrap of paper and go, on foot, to hunt for the hard copies. These would invariably be housed up on the fifth floor, down the very end, where the heaters didn’t work in winter. But it didn’t diminish the thrill of the ‘find’.

I danced with (some might say nerd-like) delight when it became possible to access the library catalogue via the internet (albeit in the early days, you could still only get information on the item’s location, not the actual item – but it was still exciting!).

Things have changed considerably since then.

From the way we source information, to the type of information we end up with. All changed.

But importantly, it’s not just the content that’s changed, it’s probably also the quality.

Why? Because some information is (a lot!) easier to get than other information.

I sometimes wonder whether we’re too quick to stop at the easy-to-get-to stuff.

Do we know when and how to dig further for better information?

Are we teaching the next generation of researchers how to do this?

A skill worth honing

Being able to weave a literature review together is a skill worth learning and/or a skill worth honing, particularly for researchers.

Beyond the likelihood of increasing the quality of information one ends up with, the process can be enormously enlightening.

It provides a feel for the breadth, and often surprising depth, of knowledge around any particular subject; inspiring and humbling at the same time.

It provides exposure to confronting, yet compelling views, often contrary to one’s own.

It’s a way of learning what wheat looks like vs chaff.

More context. Better information. Better research.

I think a key part of our role, as professional market researchers, is to advise and steer our clients on, and towards, the research methodologies that will effectively and efficiently answer their research questions.

“Yeah, and…?” I hear you mutter. “You’re stating the bleeding obvious”.

If it is the bleeding obvious, then I’m confused.

Because while I busy myself with answering that brief, the passionate embrace of all things 2.0 (for the want of a better descriptor) by some researchers – along with the often alarming and dire warnings for the future of Research 1.0 (for the want of a better descriptor) – suggest that marketers must have suddenly changed their questions.

Have they?

In some cases, yes. The world itself has changed/is changing, and the marketing context is changing too. But it’s not changing entirely, and importantly, it’s not always changing in parallel.

A Research 2.0 solution suggests that marketers’ questions have changed as quickly and as radically as online technologies and forums themselves.

But marketers still want to know how to sell stuff. Does Research 2.0 output help them do that? Does the information gleaned from the ‘new’ listening posts answer their fundamental market research questions?

Or are those at the helm of the Research 2.0 front actually changing the brief itself? Shaping the research questions to fit the new technologies?

Is it research?

Perhaps what we’re defining as Research 2.0 isn’t, in fact, market research at all. Maybe it sits outside the realm of market research; more in the customer relations/customer service domain.

Without doubt, the online environment provides marketers with invaluable feedback – but of a very specific kind. Quite clearly, because of its skews and tip of the tailness, it’s not the kind that’s of much use in making big-marketing-budget-decisions.

Maybe, as market researchers, we are in pole position to harness and distill that specific feedback for what it may be worth. We can certainly lend our experience and caution to the analysis.

But are Research 2.0 methodologies really the silver bullet they’re being sold as? Is it a marriage of the right questions, with the right sample, in the right context?

Or is it a shotgun wedding?

It’s almost 5 months to the day since the first Side of Porcupines * post; definitely time for another one!

The criteria is the same as before, but just to highlight the 3 most important things;

1. You have to have written it,
2. The post doesn’t have to have attracted hits/comments (but it’s ok if it did),
3. You just have to like it and/or want to share it.

Link away!

: )

* An overview of Porcupine reads

I’d almost forgotten about this. It’s from my earlier days as a researcher, a project I helped my mum with.

And here’s a lovely overview of her work from when she won the University of Sydney’s Vice Chancellors Award for Outstanding Teaching 2001.

Now she’s retired, she’s taken up botanical painting (as you do); that’s her work above.

Quite a woman indeed.

: )

It’s the time of year for the Zebras to make way for reindeer (or the Six White Boomers).

We’re still working, like little elves behind the scenes, so if you need to contact us, please do. The blog, however, is taking a break until early in the New Year.

And on that note, wishing you all a very happy and healthy 2009!

I think I’ve found my blog-soul mate.

Nice to find someone who shares my passion for user friendly research.

*Just in case* you missed my rather excited tweets or Facebook update, here’s my opinion piece in this issue of Anthill magazine.

: P

The seedling is here.

The words we use, the way we put them together, and even the words we don’t use play a key role in shaping how we think and what we do. Not just ‘we’ as in you and me, I’m talking bigger picture. My case in point, for which I have a fascinating example, is public heath.

The very clever Dr Julie Smith, from ANU, has (amongst other things), conducted a study to look at the way peer reviewed articles report the health risks of women not breastfeeding.

What she found;

“Just as Voldemort in the popular Harry Potter story was hardly ever named because of fear of attracting attention, researchers fear naming infant formula as a cause of ill health”.

Her analysis found that;

“… even where research shows artificial feeding increases health risks, the researchers systematically do not mention the association of artificial feeding with increased illness and morbidity”

And that;

“…the research mislead readers by associating breastfeeding with the illnesses. Formula is very rarely named as a risk factor for various illnesses.”

The reason I’m blogging about it is that not only is it fascinating research, I also think it’s brilliant research. A well considered, well informed framework for inquiry (Julie knows her stuff). Sharp questions and, in effect, actionable results.

P.S On topic, also interesting, is this piece by Diane Wiessinger. A great example of the incredibly powerful effect language can have on our attitudes and behaviours.