How do we, as market research and insights professionals, interpret data in a way that ensures objectivity? It’s not easy. While we try to be objective, we humans are complex, and all have our own biases—the lenses though which we see and interpret the world around us. These subconscious lenses can be from our education, cultural background, familial influences and so on.
So how do we put these lenses aside in order to interpret our data objectively? As professional researchers, one of our goals is to practice critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of a topic in order to develop a factually defensible judgment. While in the field of market research we don’t often refer to the precise phrase, it is widely acknowledged as one of our profession’s tenets: the pursuit of objective analysis. The specific phrase “critical thinking” is more often used in the broader field of social sciences research (of which we are a part).
If critical thinking is our aspiration, how do we do it? By employing the values of critical thinking, which include accuracy, clarity, depth, breadth, precision, and my favorite—empirical data.
Resource Tip: if you’re interested in further definitions and discussions of critical thinking, check out The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Is Market Research Data an Example of Empirical Data?
Just like we don’t often refer precisely to “critical thinking” in the market research profession, we don’t often refer to “empirical data.” But the data we collect and analyze as market researchers is an example of empirical data. To paraphrase from Wikipedia, empirical research is research using empirical evidence; it’s a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. It should be verifiable. And it is inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative data. In contrast, assumptions or anecdotes are not examples of empirical data.
As market research professionals, we put a lot of effort into collecting and analyzing our data (qualitative and quantitative). But how can we be sure we are really practicing critical thinking? That we are doing a good job of keeping our personal biases in check?
Testing, Testing! Is your human showing?
Now some readers may be thinking, “I’m a pro! I don’t let my personal biases infiltrate my analysis.” Are you sure? Let’s try a little exercise and see.
- Take the most recent market research report you worked on. Maybe it was a project on message testing, customer satisfaction, brand awareness. Any topic will do.
- Select one of your top key findings. Something that has a conclusion or recommendation.
- Now re-write it…in the opposite. For example, if you originally concluded something like, “Segment B is likely to respond favorably to the new package design”, you will now conclude, “Segment B is unlikely to respond favorably to the new package design.”
- Review your data (empirical evidence) and seek proof points for your new point. Really try.
Chances are, you will find at least one or two points that could challenge your original conclusion. Indeed, you might see some points that you overlooked or automatically dismissed before. Will what you uncover lead you to change your original conclusion? Maybe, maybe not. But at minimum, you probably found that by simply and deliberately challenging your own conclusion, you could improve either your analysis or the presentation of its proof points.
Want to have some real fun? Try this in a team. With a group of colleagues, review the results and key findings from a recent market research study, and distribute some basic data (qual or quant). Then break into pairs. Each pair gets a key finding from the study. One pair member takes the original view, one takes the opposite. Give them 30 minutes to review their data and prepare their case. Then have each pair present. You will be surprised at what they learn from each other!
Empirical Evidence + Critical Thinking = Research Rockstars
The best researchers I have worked with are those who are willing to challenge their own conclusions. People who can take both sides of an issue, and build a logical, defensible synthesis that reflects accuracy, clarity, depth, breadth, precision, and of course—empirical data. These are the researchers who really are Research Rockstars.
