Qual Researchers Should be Well-Versed in All Qual Research Options – Guest Post

Our Toolbox is Getting Full

The Qualitative Researcher’s data collection toolbox has gotten fuller over the years.

• 50 years ago, that toolbox contained two items: in-person focus groups and one-on-one interviews (IDIs).  
• About 40 years ago, two additions were made to the toolbox.
  • Ethnography emerged as an alternative to interviews and groups conducted at research facilities – highlighting the difference between actual vs. reported behaviors and the potential for better insights.
  • Telephonic conference calling enabled over-the-phone versions of in-person focus groups and IDIs. (This has since been replaced by Zoom and Zoom-like platforms.)  
• Roughly 30 years ago, as the internet became more widely used, online data collection methods appeared in the form of real-time text-based group chats and asynchronous discussion boards.
• Approximately 20 years ago, video chat technology was introduced, but it wasn’t until five years ago that COVID – and the need for social distancing – forced Qual Researchers to embrace video chat focus groups and IDIs.

With the exception of telephone conference calls, all of the above tools remain viable options today. It’s possible that more qualitative data collection methods may be introduced in the future.

Researchers Need to Keep Up with All Options

Given the wide array of data collection options, Clients (buyers) of research should not be expected to know which option(s) would be appropriate for a given project. Acting as a trusted consultant, the Researcher (Moderator) can help guide Clients (whether internal or external) through the decision-making process, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the different options, and explaining whether and why some options should not be considered. To adequately fulfill this consultative role, the Researcher needs a strong understanding of all the options, and they should have at least some personal experience with each of them as well.

Some Qual Researchers believe that if they are expert in the use of one option, they are automatically expert in the other. They feel this way because the same set of core skills are required for all data collection options. Those core skills include things like:

• Having a clear understanding of the purpose of the project,
• Designing a guide that addresses all of the Client’s needs,
• Asking good questions,
• Making Respondents feel comfortable participating,
• Assuring that all voices are heard,
• Probing effectively,
• Exercising unconditional positive regard while moderating/interviewing,
• etc.

While some Researchers are “natural” Moderators who quickly learn and excel in all data collection options, all Researchers benefit from training (coaching) in the use of data collection tools with which they have little to no experience. Here is where RIVA is helpful, offering courses in all of the qualitative data collection methods, including recently-added Moderator training classes in each of the three online research options – real-time text chats, real-time video chats, and asynchronous discussion boards.

Clients Benefit from Researchers Who Have a Full Understanding of All Options

Those without a solid understanding of the pros and cons of each qualitative data collection option will likely favor the methods with which they are most familiar. This is a form of bias. Recommending methods based purely on what one is familiar with could result in missed opportunities to uncover insights needed by Clients to make the wisest business decisions.

To minimize this bias and optimize the value Clients get from qualitative research, Researchers should continually take advantage of learning opportunities that increase their experience with – and depth of understanding of – all data collection methods. By extension, managers should support Moderators’ professional development by encouraging them to pursue such learning opportunities.

Examples of How Viable Methods Are Identified

This blog isn’t meant to provide an exhaustive list of when to consider one qualitative data collection method versus another, but here are some quick examples of how to begin sorting options into more viable and less viable ones.

• Demographics:
  • Time-strapped people (e.g., heads of dual-income households with more than one young child, physicians, or C-Suite executives) would probably be more apt to participate in an online discussion board than in any in-person option, because boards allow Participants to contribute to an interview or discussion in short spurts of time over an extended period.
  • Since younger adults are adept at texting, they would be more likely to want to participate in real-time text-based chats than in any in-person sessions.
  • Seniors would probably be more likely to participate in any type of in-person research than in online research because no technological expertise is required. In addition, if they are retired, they tend to have more time to commute to and from a research facility.
     
• Information Needs
  • When we seek a lot of depth, IDIs (online or in-person) are probably more appropriate than group discussions. IDIs permit deep probing.
  • When we need a quick qualitative read on a large number of topics and/or concepts, a small number of group discussions is likely to be more efficient than a larger number of IDIs.
  • When we don’t want Participants to influence each other in any way, IDIs (online or in-person) are typically the best way to go.
  • If we know that a report will need to include impactful videos of Participants, IDIs (in-person or online) are probably best, because the video camera will capture the Participant’s full face.
  • If we need to show something to Participants (e.g., highly proprietary ideas, physical products for Participants to interact with, food products to taste), in-person options are the best choice.

Sometimes a Multi-Method Approach Should be Considered

Typically, a single data collection method is used in most qualitative research projects. Choosing a single approach keeps things simple and makes the execution of the project more efficient. In many instances, using a single method is all that’s needed.

Over the past two decades, however, there’s been a growing acceptance of using more than one data collection method in a given project. Considering multiple methods usually happens when we want to talk to different segments of the population – each of which gravitates to a different option (see above), or when we anticipate doing some follow-up research with some Participants (e.g., in-person focus groups followed by online IDIs with a few select Participants). While using multiple methods introduces complexity in the design and may cost more, the team needs to decide whether the benefits of using multiple methods outweighs the additional costs.

Summary

All of this speaks to the continued need for continued training. Keep the ultimate goal in focus: enabling Clients to make the best decisions.

Even if a Moderator prefers to use one or two data collection methods and has no interest in personally using other methods, they have the fiduciary responsibility to recognize when one method (or combination of methods) might best serve the Client, and inform them of this.

The continuous training mentioned here isn’t just for Moderators. Many have taken Moderator training classes from RIVA without intending to be a full-time Moderator. Rather, they take courses to better fundamental understand when one method may be recommended over another, to know what to look for when partnering with a Moderator for a particular project, and be able to comfortably take on the challenges of occasionally moderating when the need arises.

Written by: Jeff Walkowski, President of QualCore, RIVA Alliance Trainer, and Moderator