Why is Qualitative Research often undervalued? Part 1

Over a two-part series, Edward Appleton looks at why qualitative research is undervalued and how we can improve its value perceptions.

Qualitative research is unusual in the current market research climate – unlike much in the area of data and analytics, it’s relatively undisrupted. Famous last words, I might hear you thinking – but bear with me.

• Plenty of qual researchers – especially in the USA – report they’re on a high, more projects than ever, strategic stuff outweighing the tactical.
• Qual has learned to surf the digital wave: online communities are very often exploratory and thereby qualitative tools. So qual is part of the modern MR mainstream.
• Then there’s the shift many agencies have made from pure qual offerings to a qual-quant mix, enabling both exploratory work and validation in one swoop.
• The list of positives continues: implicit methods, ethnographies – just to name a couple – are valid qualitative System 1 type responses to the challenges posed by Behavioural Economics.
• And as documented in my recent blogpost, qualitative research enjoys an excellent standing amongst many leading MBA schools in the USA – at the MIT it’s even regarded as a core competence at their Sloan School of Management.

So why – despite all the good news – is there are a continued sense of qual being undervalued?

Undervalued in the sense that it remains a niche discipline – whilst 33% of all projects are qualitative, according to the GRIT Report (2016 Q3/4), it only takes 14% of global market share/spend (ESOMAR Global Market Research 2019 report).

And undervalued in the sense that DIY is creeping in to qual – it’s a deceptively easy thing to do from an outside perspective – chatting to a bunch of people and writing down what they say.

Plus there’s the ongoing downward pressure on price, accompanied by the sense that certain qual tools are commoditized.

And in the world of start-ups, who often have incentives to validate, move quickly, the granular outputs of qual, be it digital or analogue, can be easily trampled on.

Here’s some suggestions on why qual remains a back burner in the data-cum-research repertoire:

“So you do Focus Groups, right?”

One basic challenge is that qualitative research is still poorly understood – even within clientside research teams, but certainly amongst marketing and R&D folk. The qual repertoire has expanded massively – but perceptions are lagging.

If qual understanding is limited – with many thinking “you do focus groups don’t you?” – then getting stakeholders excited about its potential relevance and impact is difficult in an age of tech-excitement and ROI.

Time for a generic PR campaign? Nice idea but……

No voice, no music.

There’s a lack of megaphones in the qual industry.

The “average” qual agency – if such a thing exists – is likely to be a tiny operation of one or two people operating independently, and accessing a global network of partners when needed. It’s a very fragmented segment.

That means there are no sizeable comms budgets available – nor the time to spend on things like writing thought pieces, and perhaps most importantly sponsorship.

Giving a talk at a conference is a recognized tool but… conference organisers are very often dependent on sponsors to manage events profitably. If qual doesn’t attract sponsorship – then the economics of focused qual events don’t make sense.

The implications are severe: if Share of Voice relates to Share of Market, which it very often does – visibility and mental availability relating tightly to preference – then this is a big miss.

On a positive note: there are a number of qual conferences that showcase innovative qual thinking and talent.

Qual360 events – regional and qual-focused – succeed in getting a great range of clientside voices presenting qual-based work, including case studies, on stage.

The UK annual AQR AURA event is a great celebratory twist on best practice in qual.

ESOMAR events are of course always a great forum for best practice in qual thinking – and yes, Happy Thinking People were indeed delighted to be awarded Best Presentation at the Fusion 2018 event in Dublin.

This kind of peer-group recognition is immensely valuable, even if it’s not easily measurable.

We have received multiple subsequent invitations to present the same piece to other research audiences across the globe. AURA/ AQR (big thanks!) invited us to present recently at the Festival of Marketing in London, an event attended by a staggering 4000 brand marketers.

The upcoming ESOMAR event in Madrid – Fusion 2019 will no doubt be a great place to catch some of the best global qualitative thinking.

I’m sure the QRCA is doing great stuff too….next year sees their bi-annual global event shared with the AQR rolling into to Brussels.

So there is no lack of forums for qual thinking to be shared.

But how many people find out about what was presented on stage? I imagine still too few.

Lack of Creativity? Surely not!

So what more could be done to amplify qual voices in the absence of paid media?

Ironically for a community that bristles with great storytellers and people involved in the exploration of interesting emerging concepts such as evolutionary or moral psychology, there seems to be a lack of qualitative folk looking to raise their voices, make themselves heard, writing blogs, publishing on YouTube.

The famous qual proselytizers – thinking here of the UK in particular – seem to be of the receding past, and their names might not mean anything to anyone soon.

A recent LinkedIn effort I posted asking for a list of the heroes of qual research, brilliant qual practitioners, was a flop – no responses at all.

Modesty is a virtue with severe limitations. No more heroes anymore is a great song, but a questionable concept.

Tune in tomorrow to find out how qual can better use social media, up its business acumen and get to strategy level within businesses.