The challenges of research design: with so many tools, how to choose?
A commentary on today’s vastly different qualitative research landscape
I’ve been noticing a pattern with client discussions lately that goes along these lines. They want to know what method I suggest and how much it will cost. Seems like a simple enough question from their side of the table, right?
I envision a simple past where the choice was between focus groups or individual interviews, reserving on-site observational methods only for the most sophisticated clients.
But designing qualitative now is getting almost as complicated as a wedding reception. There are a thousand decisions to make, but it’s hard to start unless you have a vision of the final result, and some notion of budget.
We could start with a simple course of blogging in advance of focus groups. Or discussion forums in advance of focus groups. Or participant video after discussion forums. Or in-person interviews followed by web-enabled telephone interviews.
Confession to clients everywhere: it’s not that we don’t want to answer your questions, and that far-away look in our eyes is not because we’re bored. It’s that the options are frankly HUGE, and increasing all the time.
The only solution I can offer is that we have to work together, as transparently as possible, to figure out scope and objectives, based on how much leverage the research findings can bring to the organization. Then I can scurry away and fool around with spreadsheets trying to figure out the optimum strategy based on budget and objectives.
About Susan Abbott
Susan Abbott is a qualitative researcher with a passion for insight-led innovation. Prior to leading Abbott Research + Consulting, Susan was a vice-president of TD Bank Financial Group. She has an MBA from Ivey Business School, holds the CMRP research designation, and frequently speaks and writes on topics related to qualitative research, customer experience, and finding insight. She also publishes the CustomerCrossroads blog. In addition to her work on the Board of Directors of QRCA, Susan is active in the Canadian Association of Professional Speakers. In her free time, she paints, canoes, and rides a Dragon Red Vespa. She can be reached at susan@abbottresearch.com.
Andrea Thomas, Owner, National Service Research, Fort Worth, TX says:
June 2nd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
We determine the most effective method to reach the required target audience to maximize goals/objectives and does it gather quality data that is representative of that audience. Many of my clients think telephone surveys, but so many other more cost effective methods are available now. National Service Research, a full-service research firm in Fort Worth, TX, often does online surveys then we conduct telephone follow-up surveys to get high response rates for our B2B research. Our response rates are as high as 80% or above for some projects and our clients love us for that. That method can also be effective for many consumer audiences as well.
Susan Abbott says:
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Andrea raises the excellent point that there are a lot of multiple option approaches in quantitative now as well.
The design options when you are doing both qual and quant — as is often the case — are even greater. One client I work with often has a team meeting involving both suppliers to scope out and brainstorm ideas at the very beginning, before we send in quotes/proposals.
I’m involved in one such project right now where the survey is going to provide some of the participants for the qualitative phase.
Thanks for adding this Andrea!
Kristin Schwitzer says:
June 7th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I’m starting to see some interest from research buyers to want the qual and quant partners to work together more collaboratively, as you mention Susan. Curious if others are as well…?
Susan Abbott says:
June 7th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
It makes sense, doesn’t it?