In qualitative research, choosing the right methodology is key. Although focus groups have their merits, there are cases where in-depth interviews (IDIs) are an objectively better choice. Still, when a client requests a particular research methodology, like focus groups, it can be challenging for a researcher to suggest an alternative—even if it’s the objectively better choice. However, clients ultimately want great insights, and a well-justified recommendation will (almost) always be welcome and can enhance the researcher’s credibility as a trusted advisor.
Let’s explore this in a hypothetical case study on Electric Vehicles (EVs).
Case Study: Focus Groups or IDIs for EV Market Research?
Consider a market researcher who has been asked to conduct focus groups to identify a broad set of potential barriers to purchasing electric vehicles (EVs). The client wants to get beyond the already known issues of cost, proximity to charging stations, and range anxiety. The client also wants to focus on people who plan to buy a new car in the next year (to avoid collecting data from people who may not be buying a car for a long time). After considering the client’s request for focus groups, the researcher proposed IDIs and provided three key reasons for this recommendation:
- Promoting Candor: Environmental topics can prompt individuals to overstate their eco-friendly actions in a group setting (this is an example of social desirability bias). IDIs can help counter this, ensuring authentic feedback by eliminating real or perceived peer pressure.
- Avoiding Dominant Respondents: The presence of an unintended auto enthusiast or someone with detailed knowledge of EV technology in a focus group could bias the conversation. People with less technical knowledge tend to defer to those who obviously know more than they do. IDIs eliminate the risk of such influence, ensuring less biased data collection.
- Reaching Hard-to-Find Audiences: Finding people who are planning to buy a new car in the next 12 months could be challenging. The researcher pointed out that once qualified people were found, it would be important to get them scheduled for participation, and being able to accommodate their schedules would maximize the chances they would be able to participate (versus having to offer them only two or three focus group scheduling options).
Methodology Recommendations Matter
Recommending IDIs over focus groups in this case was a defensibly sound choice. Further, by recommending IDIs, the researcher demonstrated a strategic, consultative approach rather than merely being an order-taker. By thinking critically about the client’s objectives and being brave enough to recommend an option other than what the client requested, the researcher reinforces their role as a strategic partner committed to delivering strategic, actionable insights.
