If you have ever wondered if expanding use of quantitative data means declining use of qualitative research methods, think again.
I absolutely see signs of strong demand for qualitative research. Or, to be precise, I “hear” signs. I hear them in my conversations with various market research & insights team leaders, and in the questions I get from Research Rockstar students.
Too anecdotal for you? I understand. I also see a high level of interest in qualitative methods coming from CX-focused organizations (I maintain that CX is part of the market research profession). Just do a search on “CX “and check out how many articles—even the ones that primarily talk about data analysis—also mention qual as an important input (see one recent article from the WSJ, written by Joe Dworak and Ann De Villiers of Deloitte). Indeed, some of these articles and examples specifically cite ethnography as a key methodology.
Rigor, Speed & Scale for Hard-core Qualitative Research
And here is where the chainsaw juggling comes in. My hypothesis is that over the next year we will see strong demand for qualitative research, but it will skew to what we might call hard-core qual. That is, projects that are using qualitative research with rigorous attention to methodological and analytical execution. Thus, researchers will be expected to deliver projects that meets the persistent needs for scale and speed while also being rigorous.
Organizations that embrace customer-centric, data driven decision making (which is most of them) often do value qual. But as these organization have become more data-centric, their business decision makers have become more aware of data reliability concerns. Thus, it’s not surprising that while we are seeing strong demand for qual, we are also seeing higher expectations about the methodological rigor with which it is conducted.[1]
Qualitative Research Career Reality Update
I believe there are some exciting career opportunities ahead for professionals specializing in qualitative research—but the bar on methodological rigor is getting higher.
Methodological rigor has always been desirable for qualitative research (that’s a “duh”), but we all also know that the level of expertise demonstrated by qualitative researchers runs the continuum from very low to very high. Of course, that same continuum exists for other specialties as well, and I’m not singling out qualitative researchers. But it does exist in qualitative research.
Have you ever had the experience of talking with someone who presents themselves as a qualitative specialist, and realized that what they are saying reflects a low level of factual knowledge? Low awareness of known research on research? Just a few months ago, I was talking to someone I have known professionally for years, and I used what I consider to be a pretty common phrase. I was surprised, and saddened, that this “qualitative research pro” didn’t know what I was talking about. The phrase? Projective technique. And honestly, I think that’s a pretty low bar. A professional qualitative researcher who doesn’t know what a projective technique is? Yikes.
BTW, many research professionals advocate for training. For example, I’ve always preferred working with moderators who have done formal moderator training at Burke or Riva (full disclosure: I did my moderator training at Burke). And we all know there are a lot of moderators out there who are lovely people, but don’t have proven tools to optimize their (qualitative) data quality. These folks have some work to do in order to adapt for clients seeking demonstrable rigor.
How to Gauge Level of Rigor in Qualitative Research
How do I know if my qualitative research is rigorous (as either a self-assessment or considering the work of my colleagues or partners)? Typically, indicators of rigor in qualitative research include some combination of:
- Evidence that the specific methodology used was well-aligned with project objectives and populations of interest (e.g., the researcher didn’t just default to methodology X because that’s their specialty).
- Evidence that the data collection mechanisms (instruments or platforms) were neutral, to ensure objectivity.
- Evidence that the data collection was implemented with consistency, to ensure trustable comparisons and summaries. This does not mean we should suck the creativity out of qualitative explorations, just that an appropriate level of consistency is needed so that we can deliver insights that are credible.
- Evidence that the research participants were authentic and correctly qualified.
- Evidence that the qualitative data was analyzed in a systematic way that ensured objective, thorough and verifiable summarizations. Hint: cranking out a focus group report based entirely on moderator recall doesn’t cut it.
Can we get more precise on all of these? Oh, yes! But this is a start.
How to Convey Rigor When Reporting Qualitative Research Results
Let’s imagine you are now the Director of Customer Insights & Analytics at Ya Ya Yogurt, a brand of organic yogurt. Your team is preparing a research report and wants to convey that the project was executed with excellence (and rigor!). In practical terms, how do you accomplish that?
There are many options, but here are three easy ones that will convey your qualitative market research excellence:
- Documenting how the selected methodology is the best choice for the stated objectives and the population of interest. Qualitative market research is much more than focus groups and IDIs these days, so a concise explanation of why a given project used one qualitative methodology option over another conveys transparency and credibility.
- Documenting how key questions or tasks were selected and structured. Especially any that may seem odd or confusing to a research novice. For example, “In support of objective X, we took an indirect approach in order to mitigate the risk of bias from XYZ.” Followed by a brief description of the exercise/task.
- Providing tallies of select items. As a researcher, I have always eschewed the idea of charts in qual research reporting. But I do know tallies are important (I just don’t put them into charts). And my research weathervane tells me that tallies are getting even more important. To demonstrate rigor, provide tallies and precisely document the coding process and rules used to create them.
Now what?
There’s no shortcut to hard-core qualitative research. But for those who want to adapt for changing demand, understanding what it means to be rigorous as described in this article is certainly a great first step.
Oh and yes, here’s a job opening from Cisco Systems that specifically cites chainsaw juggling. Glad to see employers know that this is hard!
[P.S. if you found this article helpful and would like to chat, please contact me at 877.Rocks10 ext. 705, by email at [email protected] or make an appointment with me.]
[1] At the same time, we are also seeing higher expectations about scale, speed and authenticity—but those are huge topics for another day.
