In defense of online qual
Or, why I’m so enthusiastic about online qual.
It’s not a compromise forced by the pandemic. It’s the right way to connect with people in a connected world.
I will admit it: I initially resisted online research as much as the next qualitative researcher pre-pandemic, holding up the view that to truly know a person and develop trust you had to be there in-person with them, reading the body language, immersed in their energy.
Pre-pandemic I was fond of blogs and diaries, and did some remote IDIs, but held fast to the notion that I needed to be in-person for most of my work.
When the pandemic hit and all quals shifted online, I had no choice but to try to find the positives, and wait it out until we could return to traveling, and once again be with people.
Early in the pandemic, my interviews were clunky, and a lot of time was wasted talking about, and making excuses for, technology.
As platform providers got better with tech support and bandwidth increased, I was able to focus more on the content of the interviews themselves. Technology was no longer a focus, but became a facilitator of connection.
As people became more accustomed to connecting via Zoom, I saw my interviews take on a new depth.
I started to see a real difference in how open people were. They’d log on at the top of the interview, often with coffee cup in hand, and sit back, relaxed and eager to chat with someone new.
I noticed more about them as people— the unmade bed, the baby crying in the background, the cat making an appearance mid-interview: all of these opportunities for storytelling about their lives.
The differences between these remote interviews and those conducted in central locations was clear: people were at home, surrounded by the familiar, dressed in comfy clothing, and showing up as their authentic selves.
Neuroscience tells us that when people are relaxed, they are better able to think creatively, express themselves effectively, and are receptive to what others have to say.
Add to that, the gratitude interviewees often express for allowing their thoughts to be heard in a place and time that is convenient for them. Doing so tells them their opinions are valuable, and heightens their interest in participating in research.
In contrast, in just about every focus group or IDI I’ve done in central location facilities, there is almost always chatter at first about traffic, how tough it was to find the building / parking / the office, etc. Though these are small complaints, they can have an outsized effect, with negative emotions stunting conversation as they close pathways in the brain and in conversation, and limiting our learning.
Fast forward to today — I’ve completely reversed my earlier stance on remote vs. in-person quals. Meeting people when and where they are comfortable has so many benefits for research. I get more out of people than ever thought possible, simply by connecting when and where it’s convenient for them.
For brands, the advantages are huge: connecting with people they wouldn’t have been able to the “old way” means they get more, varied insights.
Think of the advantages for product innovation: when more people from different walks of life participate in feature set development, more ideas are naturally driven.
And for advertising and communications development: what may seem like a great concept when explored in a- and b-tier cities might be problematic when shown to people living other lifestyles.
And let’s not forget the advantage to us, as researchers. As I write this I’m on vacation on the east coast, and have just wrapped up two IDIs with social media Influencers — one on the opposite coast in the US and another on the opposite side of the globe. The insight generated in these two hours far surpasses the return on traveling to these places to conduct the interviews.
The best part is, I have the energy to process and synthesize my findings because I’m not rushing to grab a flight or a train. I tend to focus better when I’m stationary, in my own little bubble writing with no distractions. I’m more productive, and more creative — and churn out better work product this way.
Of course, there are still times being in person makes a lot of sense for researchers. Group work sessions, co-creation, taste / product testing, client+consumer sessions — when empathy-building and task enablement is necessary, I’m all-in. And we can’t deny the experience of qual, and the magic that happens when client and agency teams come together. There will always be times we crave this kind of connection, and happily many facilities have responded to these needs by creating novel and engaging spaces — think Schlesinger Group, Open House Lofts, Catalyst Ranch, to name just a few.
And there are still times I’ll want to have extended visits with people, so in-home ethnography will continue to play a role in our toolkit, for those deeper, foundational research objectives.
And finally, scale. Conducting qualitative research online does mean we need to skew toward IDIs and small groups, which can really prolong the number of days we’re in field. I’ve learned that setting smaller sample sizes can help with this, and I’ve come to lean on fewer, more in-depth qual sessions to drive rich hypotheses to test quantitatively, so that qual becomes an important strategic element in hybrid research vs. a standalone methodology.
So, call me a convert or a flip-flopper, but this quallie is entirely grateful for the opportunities online research affords market research — and I can’t wait to see what is next: focus groups in the metaverse? Occulus-enabled IDIs? Mega groups held live on YouTube? Bi-monthly pre-planned focus groups clients can buy a seat at to hear what’s on consumers’ minds in real time (like we do at the She Lab?) I’m all-in!
