<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Zebra Research</title>
	<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au</link>
	<description>Qualitative research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:21:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.0" -->

	<item>
		<title>And now, the bedrock&#8230;</title>
		<description><![CDATA[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; First, that methodological considerations are so elementary that we don’t need to talk about them [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/and-now-the-bedrock/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The cornerstone</title>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8216;One big focus group&#8217; I’ve heard this term thrown around a bit (Google it) to describe ‘naturally occurring’ conversations on the internet as a rich source of customer insight. It annoys me. Listening to/gathering online content is absolutely nothing like a focus group. Beyond the obvious (ie there’s not a great deal of focus in [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/the-cornerstone-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Effectual fluff</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Fluffy techniques Useful qualitative research output has two defining features; depth and clarity. And perhaps surprisingly, this is where what might be perceived to be &#8216;fluffy&#8217; research techniques come into their own. They’re an efficient way to get depth and clarity. An example, asking the same question in two different ways, will help to explain [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/effectual-fluff-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Bang bang</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Do you agree or disagree with the following statement…? Data quality is critically compromised when double-barreled questions/statements are used in market research surveys and researchers who write them into their surveys should be shot. ;P]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/bang-bang/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Seeing the bigger picture</title>
		<description><![CDATA[What has Botticelli&#8217;s The Birth of Venus got to do with market research? Well, note the crop. But as nice as it is, it&#8217;s only the bigger picture that tells us the actual story. This is at the heart of the next issue for discussion; the ‘new’ (?!) practice of listening online. Of course ‘listening’ [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/seeing-the-bigger-picture-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>It’s a fine line</title>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; &#160; There’s been a lot of talk about engaging research participants in this ‘new’ research paradigm. I’m focusing on qualitative market research here because firstly, that’s my thing… : ) …and secondly, because I hear that ‘engagement’, within the context of market research online communities, is community-nirvana. The ‘best’ communities are engaged communities. This [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/its-a-fine-line/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The ‘new’ world of market research</title>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/the-new-world-of-research/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>‘Traditional’ vs what? ‘Unestablished’ research?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The term ‘traditional research&#8217; 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 [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/%e2%80%98traditional%e2%80%99-vs-what-%e2%80%98unestablished%e2%80%99-research-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>More stuff I wonder…</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Great post over at Ray Poynter’s (always) inspiring blog. The way Ray described a short-term community, I think, delineates a clever, and potentially efficient, research methodology. But I’m yet to be convinced of the long-term research community concept (although I’ve no doubt some readers are probably pulling their hair out over my apparent inability/reluctance to [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/more-stuff-i-wonder/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Black or white? Discuss.</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Coincidentally, after my last post, this came up in my Google Reader today; More on the Problems with Opt-in Internet Surveys Here’s the first article; Study Finds Trouble for Opt-in Internet Surveys I had the great privilege of attending an AMSRS Professional Development session earlier this year to hear Jon Krosnick speak. He was brilliant. [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.zebra-research.com.au/black-or-white-discuss/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
