Is the Future of Qualitative Research Conservative?
Reading through the GRIT Fall 2014 survey of research habits and practices across the globe (http://bit.ly/1GSReMf), one thing in particular caught my eye: in qualitative research, it would seem that Groups and IDIs are enjoying a surge in usage:
the stated use of face-to-face groups rose from 59% to 70% YoY, in-person IDIs up from 45% - 53%.
Online focus groups in contrast dropped in usage from 25% - 16% in the same time period.
Amongst all the talk in MR of scalability, disruptive technology, neuroscience, behavioural economics, traditional qual. research seems to be remarkably resilient.... to the point of being conservative. The Group Discussion - survivor of wave after wave of digital, mobile, analytics, Big Data disruption?
For the qual. researcher, this apparent short-term trend has an upside and downside.
Positively, the qual. resurgence (increase of penetration of core tools) - if that is what it is - suggests qual. has a secure future in the MR toolkit arsenal, perhaps due to an increasingly broad recognition that Big Data can't get to the "Why", whereas qual. can.
On the downside - does that mean that qual. can forget innovation, and simply hunker down on the Group Discussion?
Whilst the GRIT Report doesn't touch on this issue, I'd say there's definite potential for innovation and value-add that Quallies can deliver to Clients looking for impactful insights. Here's my take.
1. MR Mash-ups will Deliver Huge Value.
One powerful trend in MR that offers huge potential for impact is the merging of boundaries in methodological approach:
Qualies that can do quant? Great.
Behavioural observation coupled with attitudinal assessment? Ditto.
Longitudinal interspersed with ad hoc?
Ethnographies with mobile-self-ethnographies?
A study designs that can embraces a mix-methodologies and triangulation approach effectively and economically (no mean feat admittedly) will very likely pack an insights punch, as it embraces many POVs.
Qual. has a huge role to play innovatively in a world of Mashed-up-MR, possibly even greater than quant. - there is often simply more room to experiment, the pressure on validation/ proof of concept less critical.
2. Creativity through Observation
The much-to-be-lamented decline of the Planner in the Advertising industry means that the simple transfer of phrases, words, context, moments, through to the Creative Department is often - lets say - freely managed. So many "Creative Agencies" declare themselves Insights-driven, except the Insights Department seems to have "merged" with eg Account Managers, Creatives, Sales people - you get the picture.
If quallies can form alliances and partnerships with those in the front line - copywriters, webdesigners, in-store architects - and collaborate effectively, it's a win-win, and there's more headroom for Quals.
3. Joining-the-Dots
Many large companies prefer to separate sub-disciplines of marketing (comms, research, digital etc) in the belief in both excellence through specialisation, and perhaps with a desire to ensure objectivity. Nobody wishes for creatives, for example, to evaluate their own ideas personally by moderating their own groups.
The downside of this is silo-thinking, and loss of insight richness and arguably accuracy in the transfer from one silo to "another".
Bringing disciplines together early on, with a mandate to collaborate, the classical RACI model used ACROSS disciplines has potential to real create sparks through bringing different thinking together. Powerful stuff in a growth project.
"Quallies" could effectively sit with more operational departments, and guide them in real-time, so to speak, as thoughts, executional ideas, operational aspects emerge. This is for many perhaps a new way of working- but one that could deliver value if all involved felt comfortable, and roles/responsibilities were clearly understood.
So back to my original question: "Is the future of Qualitiative Research conservative?" I think there is a real danger that this could become the case, especially if many powerful MR qualitative voices are "legacy defenders", more comfortable moderating Group Discussions than getting up to speed with new technologies that younger researchers can do better, quicker.
Should the move to traditional qual tools such as Groups and IDIs continue at the expense of more innovative approaches, it's eminently possible that a commoditisation process ensues, with low innovation and differentiation evident. Imagine the pitch: Buy One Get One Group Free? The BOGOGF so to speak? ;) Hmmm. Not necessarily good for either the one-woman/man-shows or the larger qual. operations.
I'd make a pitch for qualies taking a more centre stage position in the MR mix: the deep-dive partner of Analytics, mixing approaches, triangulating merrily, sitting with creatives, moving out of the Purist Researcher Box with confidence and energy.
Overly optimistic? Who knows. I would certainly hope that the Future of Qual. is more than simply about doing more Groups.
Curious, as ever, as to others' views.