Ambitions and goals are often captured in concise maxims. The Olympic athletes go for “faster, higher, stronger”. In politics, for some time it was the pursuit of spreading income, power and knowledge. And in our field at the start of this century, “faster, cheaper and better” became the adage against the backdrop of the advancing digital technologies. We will look back to see what has become of the key attributes. And also look ahead: how can we characterise the near future? Here is a helicopter view.
Faster?
Without a doubt- we can now work much faster than two decades ago. The availability of data and analytical methods and in addition, the growth in presentation possibilities for example, have undergone deep change. Moreover, fierce competition in many industries often requires a more immediate approach. This partly explains the rise of so-called “agile” working.
We could question whether we still take enough time and care in handling questions, the quality of data collection and interpretation. The ever-shorter lead times that are now requested might be at odds with data validity.
Cheaper?
It cannot be disputed that the cost of research can be reduced in a number of cases. Think for instance of reduced costs for fieldwork and personnel, the use of technical resources and the storage possibilities. Do-it-yourself research, sometimes conducted by so called “instant professionals” and “quickies” also have the effect of depressing prices. But whether operating cheaper also produces good work is a matter to be discussed. Certainly for more complex questions that require more thought and in-depth consideration, working quickly and cheaply is certainly tempting, but also has its limitations.
Better!
Where researchers used to have to put their energy and thinking capacity into issues like research design, questionnaire structure and error-free reporting, this can now be invested in problem analysis, final conclusions and policy and advice reporting.
Previously, the latter sometimes tended to slip, particularly in the final report, frequently because of time pressure as deadlines had to be met. Research designs are now thought through once and form the basis of a large number of consecutive or benchmark related research activities.
It is crystal clear that the researcher of today has a much more powerful repertoire than say 20 years ago. The researcher from that time would be amazed at what is now in the tool-box. This is more comprehensive than ever before, certainly also in combination with the emerging methods based on data analytics. Also the options for delivering a contribution to business operations have risen sharply, including more attention to one’s own role as a guide or advisor. Ultimately, better in particular, also means adding value for the organisation. Better work through a more powerful repertoire and more attention to the role as a policy advisor. That is positive. But due to the developments just outlined, the working area has also become more complex.
Confusing Instances
Certainly: if we look back the concepts faster, cheaper and better cover what has occurred to a significant extent. But not sufficiently. The researcher is confronted with a number challenges. We mention some difficult, sometimes confusing instances as examples:
- As a consequence of technology, it seems as if the distance has disappeared: online, real-time, observers speak of the emergence of the internet as the death of distance. But does this mean that the ‘craft’ therefore disappears? With the gradual loss of direct contact with consumers and the possibilities of control it seems, it feels, as if the distance is increasing.
- The analysis methods have become more complicated and also less transparent. How does the analyst deal with this?
- Research has become part of transactions and the struggle for public opinion; the researcher experiences increasing pressure, certainly in a context with perverse incentives as it is implied. What then is truth and whose truth is that? In other words: with the Olympic games, the motto is being polluted by doping and manipulation but what about the presentation of research results?
- Data is available throughout the organisation; who organises it, integrates and who is in charge?
Sound data management
The data revolution continues: innovative, disruptive concepts keep on coming. The discussion is about robotisation, automated marketing, algorithms and artificial intelligence.
Already in 2017 the question was asked as to whether the giant data bosses did not have too much grip on democracy. The need for sound data management was pointed out. That applies of course not only in safeguarding the democratic process, but also in all respects of our daily lives.
Everything we do is monitored and measured. Do the databases now know us better than we know ourselves? One could say that the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith, founder of our economic system, has been replaced by the grip of the digital top five.
20 years ago there was “big brother”, on the TV in several countries, for a small group of participants. Now we all participate in a similar game.
It cannot be otherwise: concern about this situation is increasing. Artificial intelligence takes over too much control of our lives and our decisions says the German publicist Yvonne Hofstetter for instance. Humans are increasingly seen as an algorithm. That may sound like music to the ears of a researcher: more insight, more possibilities. But because of the new techniques it becomes even more difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is unreal – think of Twitter hacks, think of Deep Fake. We are moving towards a situation of total information disorder.
Exciting themes
Exciting themes are arising for the philosopher or ethicist. For researchers, it seems that they must strive to remain in charge of their own data. In some cases, block chains might be of service here, but these registers have shortcomings in terms of sharing content, of scalability and privacy. Possibly, the researcher may receive help from a different angle. In 2019 the WEF in Davos explicitly talked about “tackling the power of the tech giants”. Will effective regulation be introduced? The sector organisations will do everything to address this to play.
However: inclusive thinking, as an industry in a rapidly digitised society, leads to the oppressive question as to whether this is sufficient, whether it will still work or whether control has already been lost. As machines take over our role, is artificial intelligence going to rule, is the researcher still needed?
Researchers are happy to use the new technology, but at the same time does it also make their involvement unnecessary step-by-step? Will the market researcher soon disappear in the cloud?
Oversight and Control
One can say that the concepts of “faster, cheaper and better” relate primarily to the working methods of the researcher. In our opinion, the coming period will shift the context of our work. Regulation is of vital importance. With regulation, non-commitment can no longer be the starting point.
Standards and codes are desirable for each professional group. Governments must actually take action and restrict the power of the techno monopolies. A crucial topic here is reflection on the issue of control. Who is finally at the wheel? Who has control over what? Who owns the data?
Oversight and control are key concepts. If this is properly arranged, the company market researcher is a powerful ally. The CEO of the company should know that it is in his interest that decisions are made with the correct data and that the company does not violate legislation or run the risk loss of image, loss of revenue or financial penalties. Politics are at play.
This article is a translation from Dutch of a text that was published in Clou magazine (December 2019)
