a reflexive look at qualitative research

8/7/2019 a reflexive look at qualitative research

1/15

Serpents with tails in their mouths: a reflexive look at qualitative research

Anjul Sharma and Gareth PughSynovate, United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION TO OUR GARDEN, ITS MAIN CHARACTERS AND THE STORY OF OUR GENESIS

Picture the Garden of Eden. Eve is standing at the foot of the Tree of Knowledge, and coiled in the Tree is the Serpent looking knowingly athat luscious apple. All it needs is for the Serpent to persuade her to take that first bite one bite of that apple and knowledge will be hersShe is, of course, being tempted. Or is she?

So what has that got to do with the ESOMAR Qualitative Conference, you may ask? Whether one subscribes to the Biblical perspective ornot, the fact remains that there are many more parallels with qualitative research than you might at first think. In our own ways wequalitative researchers are all Eves too yes even the male ones poised in front of our own Tree of Knowledge. Unlike the Biblical Evewe don't need to deliberate too hard about whether we take a bite from the apple because it represents the knowledge we hunger for andsymbolises the core of truth we seek when we create insights. Just like the Biblical Eve we have Serpents as well. Our Serpents arerespondents who tantalise us with their knowledge. And then, of course, there are our clients sitting at the opposite end of the Garden in a

tent with a small megaphone shouting instructions. They're certainly not close to the Tree, although some of them may like to be.

In our experience and those of our colleagues, most conference papers talk about everything other than how their respondents felt aboutbeing researched. If they talk about their respondents it is framed in the context of what they told researchers about the product or servicthey use as a consumer. The side of their life that experiences the research process is often not included. Well, we feel that the respondenneeds to be brought centre stage. We are here to inspire you with their experiences in qualitative research. In this conference paper weare researching research: turning the tables; reinventing research and situating it in a different paradigm.

Get ready and come with us on this fascinating journey into the Garden of Eden. Be prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged,your sacred truths questioned and your research world sent into a spin.

In Part 1, we open the scene in the Garden of Eden by exploring respondents' experiences of recruitment, venues, content, methodologiemoderators and clients. In Part 2, we turn our interpretive attention to unravelling the complex dynamics that ensue from, and during, aresearch encounter between Eve, the Serpent, the Apple and the client. In Part 3, we end our journey in and around the Garden bydiscussing the many implications for moderators, respondents and clients. Let us start by telling you about our Serpents.

BACKGROUND ON OUR SERPENTS

Our paper is based on original, primary research conducted in the United Kingdom, United States, India and China (London, Birmingham,Manchester and Newcastle; Chicago, Illinois and Paramus, New Jersey; Delhi, Bangalore and Chandigarh; and Beijing and Shanghairespectively). One rationale for this multimarket approach was to fully understand any cultural differences in respondents' experiences anbehaviour. However, beyond this we also wanted to see if emerging research markets were any different to more mature ones. As ithappened, we actually uncovered many similarities and consistencies (of course, any differences have been highlighted).

Fieldwork took the form of four three-hour workshops and four one-hour depth interviews in each country during August 2007. The mixedmethodological approach was designed to overcome any research effect from over claim in the workshops. Workshop participants wererecruited on the basis of having attended two or more research sessions (although in practice most had attended four on average). Theyhad experienced a range of different methodologies (in different venues), various types of research (e.g. creative development, packaginresearch and new product development), as well as a selection of subject matters subsumed under the following umbrella categories:drinks, food, medical, health, financial services, media, grooming, hobbies leisure and home. Depth interview participants were recruited othe basis of more frequent attendance than this, with other criteria mirroring the workshops.

PART 1 : THE OLD GENESIS HOW SERPENTS EXPERIENCE QUALITATIV E RESEARCH

Virgin Serpents Arr ive at the Gates of the Garden and are Afraid of their First Time

Most respondents' first initiation into research in the United Kingdom and China arises as a result of being stopped in the street by arecruiter or being phoned on the basis of a referral from someone they know or, for the United Kingdom specifically, a recruiter knockingon their door. In India, respondents are also stopped in the street by recruiters. For our cousins across the pond, telephone calls from theviewing facility predominate. However, across all four markets, a request for attending qualitative research is met with not only trepidatioaround 'doing something unusual' but with a great sense of fear and doubt. They simply do not know what to expect or, if they do, theirexpectations are framed within some highly negative points of reference: door-to-door selling, being duped and sold goods and servicesunder pressure. These concerns are further ignited by a media frenzy, its whistle-blowing mentality and the poor image of market researc(hassle from ladies in the street with clipboards rather than a chance to be part of something ground breaking and new). A second set offears relates to self-doubt about their own level of knowledge, anxiety over appearing ignorant and/or behaving inappropriately:

It's just like going to a 10thstandard exam (India)

ESOMARQualitative Research, Paris, November 2007

www.esomar.org


2/15

They are terrified that this could result in them not being invited to research again. In essence, no one wants to lose face especially in thepresence of seven other people. Third, in China there is also the fear that their views may disappear into a large faceless research projecwhere the value of their individual contribution is lost:

It will be something very big, lots of data analysis but an empty view (China)

Whilst these fears and anxieties dissipate in subsequent research encounters, these first experiences do raise some major issues. Despiteany reassurances that recruiters may give at the point of recruitment, they do not appear to be sufficiently convincing, neither does themoderators' introduction which emphasises the need for honest and frank answers. The moderators introduction is short, often not lastingmore than 15 minutes in total of which only 5 minutes is about frank opinions, confidentiality and anonymity. Is this sufficient to givereassurance to respondents? What else could be done to address this issue? How respondents first experience recruitment (and their first

30 minutes in the research session) is key, particularly for bringing in the all so-desirable virgin ones. We will tease out the implications ofthis in Part 3.

Serpents are Tempted into the Garden by Money and the Promise of Know ledge

There is a plethora of reasons for why respondents take part in research and these are largely consistent across the four markets. Figure summarises the main ones and these are discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1: Why serpents take part in research

Without exception, respondents in the United Kingdom, United States and China are heavily motivated by a cash financial incentive andeven more so for those who are heavy frequency (taking part in seven or more sessions a year). Most will not take part if they are notpaid, unless the research is for a government department (local council or state health service), charity or other such philanthropic cause.So what do they do with the money? Well, it goes towards compensating them for their time as 'time is money' for them. But beyond this,they need to spend money to arrive at the venue, pay for babysitters (in the United Kingdom and United States) and feel that their opinionis valued sufficiently. The giving of money also formalises the interaction from something potentially quite random to a contractualrelationship with commitments and obligations on both sides: committing Serpents to make a verbal and intellectual contribution to theresearch; committing Eves to conduct the session in an appropriate way. Cash incentives often do not make it into the household moneypot they are used to purchase treats or 'wants' for the respondent a rather more individual and inward looking approach:

I use this play money and spend it right away on things for me. It goes in and out (USA)

In addition to cash incentives, some in the United Kingdom and United States also receive gifts such as floral arrangements, lipsticks andproducts which have formed part of the research (e.g. clothes or shoes).

These are received with gratitude and, although, respondents will not want them to take the place of money, they go some distance inenhancing the enjoyment of involvement in research at both a practical and emotional level.

However, whilst the notion of compensation for time expended is also alive and well in India, the form this takes is slightly different. Indiarespondents are given gifts instead of the cash incentive and this sets up a different type of dynamic. The gift is not just to please therespondent but also to demonstrate the value of participation in research to spouses, family and neighbours and thus it needs to impressthem as well for gifts will be flaunted. The quality of the gift then becomes much more central to the process:

Poor quality glasses can't be shown at home but the family doesn't feel my time has been wasted when they see good


3/15

gifts (India)

It also sets up a sense of anticipation about what they will receive a bit like a birthday gift and the desire to not receive the same gifttwice.

In essence, not only is the 'incentive' about addressing rational practicalities but also about bestowing a sense of emotional value andstatus.

Heavily motivated they may be by the money, but there are other highly salient reasons for research involvement. One of the most key isthe desire to contribute their knowledge and learn about new and intriguing developments themselves: learn from other respondents andhear their opinions, find out about new products, services, brands and advertising and learn from the moderator. In India, this is activelyencouraged by spouses and members of the family:

My husband encouraged me to take part so I could see what is new (India)

Linked to this is the self-satisfaction at being privy to a secret that has not yet been shared with others outside research, akin to being parof an exclusive club. Thus in China:

I hope that when I take part in research I want to attend a session on something that is new and not ever seenbefore (China)

And then there is the stirring of pride, elite-ness, coolness, accomplishment and fulfilment which means talking to friends and family abouttheir involvement and deriving some public recognition for the work they have done in the very private world of qualitative research. Thisview is more prevalent in India where there is a strong desire to keep one step ahead of the neighbours and be party to knowledge thatthey may not have.

This social validation and valuation works in tandem with financial recompense for not only are their opinions sought they are also value

in tangible terms. It is, thus, not surprising that some respondents are keen to receive the research findings and/or the product uponlaunch and, in doing so, they are obtaining a sense of closure on this particular piece of research involvement, not to mention the furtherenhancement of their status and value.

Other reasons for involvement focus on the desire to disconnect with the daily reality of life and 'go out to socialise' and meet new peopleA break from the kids, a night out with adults, meeting people they would never normally see, an escape from a busy life and theopportunity to learn new skills and build up their confidence all represent motivating reasons to take part. Thus while clients see researchas part of their 'work' and expect respondents to be in 'work mode', respondents see themselves in 'play mode'. However, we still feel thisplay mind set can yield a different quality and quantity of information and insights compared to what is yielded when they are in workmode.

But what do they lose from taking part? Often, very little. After all what can they lose (once they know the endeavour is bona fide). Andthis may be one of the reasons, why no-one said that they thought research was a pointless exercise that is reassuring! But they do notthe time that could have been spent with the family and children cannot be re-wound. Hence, most will not miss significant family or socialengagements for the sake of attending research sessions (perhaps unless the incentive is doubled!)

Serpents Talk about their Fel low Serpents and not always in Flatter ing Terms

Serpents they l ike and disl ike

Respondents categorise each other in three ways and these are highlighted in Figure 2.


4/15

Figure 2: Serpents talk abou t other serpents

q Silent types they are disliked and, in some cases, even resented. We believe that this negativity is rooted in several basicphenomena. Respondents do not know what they are thinking and thus start to frame a set of questions. 'Are they judging me?' 'AI too stupid for them to bother with?' What do they know that I do not?' 'Are they broody or unhappy?' 'What is their problem?' 'Whais their agenda for not contributing given that they are being paid?' And ultimately, 'What right do they have to be here given theirsilence?' Indeed, there is an 'equity equation' taking place inside their minds. These silent Trappist monks in the session are buyingtheir silence at the expense of other respondents, who resent having to do more work to compensate and yet will not receive anygreater remuneration for their greater effort. Any attempts by the moderator to break this silence is appreciated as it means lesswork for other respondents and means that the moderator is in control of the session.

q Dominating vocal types they are resented even more for they are perceived to be overly self-important and too aware of theirown status. In this sense, they also disrupt the egalitarian make-up of the session and introduce an unwanted hierarchy. Thequestions that may be going through respondents' heads this time might be: 'why are they saying so much is it to show others holittle the rest of us know?', 'what do they know that I do not?' and, simply, 'why can't they just keep their mouths shut for a changeand stop giving others (respondents and moderator) a hard time?'. Again, respondents sympathise with the moderator who tries todeal with the dominating vocal types.

q Normal types 'like me' they are anxious not to dominate the discussion but make a real effort to give their opinions. Appreciatedfor their judicious balance of silence and verbal contribution, they give everyone the chance to have their say. They help police thesession and (in their own minds) set themselves up as the moderators' friend. They sympathise with and appreciate fellow normaltypes like themselves.

The return of the Serpent, again and again and a gain ... so what!

Whilst this three-fold typology helps us understand the relationship dynamic and frustrations between respondents, there is another factorthat operates underneath this typology. This factor is vital to research as it has for so long been seen as a taboo we refer to the issue ofheavy repeat respondents who take part in many sessions e.g. seven or more per year. These heavy frequency respondents (HFR) couldbe in any of the three categories listed above.

Respondents in the workshops (who we can define as medium frequency respondents MFRs) are not always aware that others can besuch heavy attendees. In the United States, MFRs assume that the viewing facility will be able to counteract such tendencies by screeningout anyone who has attended in the last six months. They assume the average respondent would not run the risk of being found out if thedid lie.

That said, MFRs and HFRs do not necessarily understand the fuss over HFRs. As long as they do not lie to gain entry to the session inscreening or during the discussion and behave like 'normal types' what is the harm according to respondents? Indeed, in their eyes, theycould be adding something valuable. They could be helping the moderator run the session and save time they know how to behave, thecan second guess how one should respond to the material (both rationally and emotionally) and they can bring shy respondents into theconversation. In India, they could also be a cast iron guarantee that the session will be a success because repeat respondents can use theexperience to make the session work!

A repeat respondent is an experienced guy (India)

In the United Kingdom, some additional distinctions are made. Participating in different methodologies is acceptable and does not constitutbeing a high frequency respondent, i.e. going to a group discussion and then a depth the following month is not seen as problematic,


5/15

neither is attending a session on a different topic. After all, they reason, the HFR is being paid (well) and offered refreshments thisappears to be a win-win situation surely?

In other words, our issue the perceived deception by heavy frequency respondents is not seen as a problem at all (unless lying isinvolved). So what does this mean? It means that respondents do not realise that we may actually value no or limited knowledge as agenuine reflection of reality and that this can give us greater learning than someone who has read up everything they possibly can on atopic.

How can we address this situation or even use it to our advantage? How can we minimise any damage? How can we optimise the potentiabenefits? We present some answers to these questions in Part 3.

Different Ways to Reach for the Apple and get a Mouthful of Know ledge

In the Garden, there are many ways to pluck the Apples of knowledge.

Eve talks to several Serpents at the s ame time ... super!

First and most frequently experienced by almost all respondents we spoke to in our four markets is the group discussion which is often theinitiation into the world of research for many. Although experienced less often, many of the pros and cons of groups also apply to creativeworkshops. Both approaches offer the advantage of safety in numbers and minimise the risk of being over-exposed to moderatorquestioning. Beyond that, they also tap into some of the main motivations for taking part in research the genuine desire to find out aboua topic, the creative buzz of bouncing ideas off others, the desire to have fun and the intellectual stimulation of debating views and opinionwith them. In normal life, this would hardly ever be possible and they certainly would not be paid for it. And specifically, in places like Indit is not always culturally appropriate for females to share their views in this way. Thus qualitative market research offers them anopportunity for self-expression and to be heard.

At home no-one listens but here we women are called on for our outlook (India)

They provide respondents with a sense of connection which is otherwise absent from their daily lives and the opportunity to develop skillsthey are lacking:

It has given me the confidence to stand up and present to colleagues at work from a flipchart (UK)

Add into this mix the opportunity to have a soap box for their own views and you have a heady cocktail of reasons for liking participation groups. But groups and workshops raise the fundamental question of whether the presence of others encourages respondents to push theopinions further, i.e. being more controversial or more forceful than they otherwise would. Do they? We know what we think but what doyou think?

However, there is a down side to these methodologies such as obnoxious, vocal respondents, sessions that are too long (workshops lastinthree or four hours), sessions that overrun and use of creative/projective techniques (which we discuss later).

Eve gives me her undivided attention ... but do I w ant it?

Praised for being a testimony to genuine interest in the respondent, depth interviews eliminate dissenting opinions and retain focus on thekey issues in the absence of other potentially wayward respondents. They allow the vocal respondent to give their opinions a thoroughwork out in their very own exclusive mental gym. Their shorter length and possibility of combining with accompanied shopping trips canmake them fun. However, the sole focus on the respondent is often intimidating and means they cannot 'zone out' and have to concentratfor the entire duration of the session. This leads to additional stress and nervousness. In addition, depths take away one of the keymotivations for involvement in research which is the opportunity to meet with and bounce their thinking and even their personalities ofothers. Whilst paired depths and triads offer the advantage of having a 'partner in crime' who can respond as well, many of the pros andcons of depth interviews still apply.

And finally Eve gets intrusive and personal ... do I really w ant this hassle?

Less often experienced but nevertheless vital to the qualitative toolkit is ethnography. Accompanied shopping trips are enjoyable who,they ask, would not enjoy being paid to go and indulge their desire for retail therapy especially if this entails keeping the purchasesafterwards? In essence, they fit with the mental template of going out or being treated and pampered a little bit. But understanding therationale for taking photos and video recordings of cupboards, kitchens and bathrooms is more puzzling. Not only does it become intrusive

it also causes them to query why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to take a picture of something as banal as this? In theabsence of a convincing explanation, no wonder they are confused. But even worse than this is the frightening thought of having aresearcher, or worse still a client, hanging around the house for four to seven hours. This is mainly seen as dragging out the experienceand often requires a rather hefty incentive to compensate for the pain and inconvenience. Anxiety over feeling the need to tidy up thehome and keep up appearances takes away much of the enjoyment of participating in this sort of session. As such, the 'hermeticallysealed' world of a particular, dedicated place into which respondents 'go' is very much part of why they value and appreciate a 'good'research session. We feel that this experience of ethnographic approaches is particularly problematic given clients increasing desire to getcloser to respondents and the negativity of the latter towards this. How should this issue be managed? Whose wishes are paramount hereThese are some of the questions we answer later in the paper.

Habitats for Research in the Garden

The quality of the venue in which research is held sends out some clear signals to respondents about how they are perceived. In general,plush venues equate to 'they value me' and, in some cases, 'this is a bit too expensive for my liking' and more modest and undesirablevenues equate to 'they could have made more of an effort'.


6/15

Peeping ou t from behind the trees into our gather ing hmmm, not sure about that

The viewing facility is lingua franca in so many markets in Western Europe and has also been adopted into other developing markets suchas China (but to a much lesser extent in India as yet). So how do respondents feel about them? This is where there are some notabledifferences in response by country.

In the United Kingdom, the first experience in a viewing facility is often rather daunting and scary as respondents simply do not know whato expect and these feelings continue even when they are actually inside the facility. Subsequent experiences serve to eradicate the initiafears but some still would not deem this type of venue their setting of choice in which to conduct research.

The first time I did it, I didn't like it at all (UK)

It is worth noting that in places where viewing facilities are the norm, e.g. London, respondents are slightly more accepting of them: theyhave become more desensitised. Going beyond initial reactions, respondents articulate the advantages and disadvantages of viewingfacilities too. On the plus side, they are 'proper' research places designed specifically for research to happen, they lend an air ofseriousness and professionalism to the proceedings and set up a 'work-like' mind set whereby respondents feel they ought to behave and'do the job' for which they have been paid. Hence facilities make them feel their opinion is valued. On the down side, the fear of who isbehind the mirror persists and no matter how much the moderator reassures them it is probably never going to be enough unless themoderator takes them behind the mirror but this has not happened for most respondents. As part of the fieldwork for this paper, weactually took respondents behind the mirror to see their reactions: most accepted that this was not the same as interrogation rooms seen US crime shows and even liked the idea that the respondent room was far nicer. The other issue with viewing facilities is that even thoughtheir opinion is valued, respondents themselves are not it is akin to being 'the latest batch to be processed in the sausage factory' (andarrogant staff in some facilities do nothing to assuage this feeling of being the latest in a long line of lab rats and guinea pigs). Apart fromthe emotional discomfort there are also practical issues. Their location in office blocks which become deserted after office hours and lack oparking are a pain especially given that research sessions often finish late into the evening.

By contrast, in the United States almost all have tasted research in viewing facilities and find this preferable to other types of venues. Theare seen as comfortable and familiar, easy to access with good parking facilities, often close to work or home. They represent a welcome

break from the distractions of home, allow total focus on the subject matter and are neutral ground for everyone. The downsides are thesomewhat sterile and bland environment which creates a rigid atmosphere for the discussion, abetted by standard chairs and tables whichfeel less than welcoming.

Similarly, in China viewing facilities feel professional and well suited to focusing on a subject but feel a little too much like a workenvironment and not terribly relaxing. The addition of comfortable furniture would go some way to dispel this feeling.

Viewing facilities are less prevalent in India: video links into a separate room are used as an alternative. However, in both cases there aresome initial fears. But whereas for men these are later assuaged, especially if they meet the client, for women they are not and there issome concern about how video tapes will be used.

There is clearly a need for some further thinking around making viewing facilities more amenable and the experience more enjoyable forrespondents. We touch on these issues in Part 3.

Eve is coming to my patch i n the Garden but can I get rid of her?

Across the United Kingdom, United States and China, being interviewed in their own home offers the benefit of convenience and potentiallsaves time for respondents (though this is not standard practice in India). But it also has some disadvantages too:

At my home it is ... convenient because I do not lose time travelling to the venue but I do not feel very safe. Sometimesthere are too many people in one party [group] (China)

The invasion into personal territory is met with reticence and means that a 'presentable front' has to be offered, i.e. fractious children neeto be kept out of the way, a mammoth cleaning exercise needs to be undertaken and this creates stress and tension. There is also theconcern around letting strangers into their own home and, in the United States, especially if video taping is involved and includes children.Then, once the interview is underway, the domestic environment is full of distractions. These issues are compounded by having more thantwo or three people coming to their home. Moreover, it is also accompanied by confusion over why the session needs to take place in theihome: this negates the whole 'going out for the evening'. So our rationale for using the respondents' own home to see their behaviour insitu and the truths in their lives comes up against the barrier that respondents do not always want to share this with us. Perhaps it isworth a phone call to the respondent several days beforehand explaining the purpose of the session, why it is being conducted in home,what is expected/not expected of them to put the respondents' mind at rest. It also calls for a limit to be placed on the number of observewho accompany the moderator.

Let's visit someo ne else's patch i n the Garden but try not to intrude on them

Using a recruiters' or someone else's home is not prevalent in all markets; it is very rare in the United States and China. In the UnitedKingdom this venue represents a happy balance in that it gives the comfort factor of being in a non-sterile, homely environment, is easy taccess and feels safe. However, it still feels akin to invading someone else's personal space especially if the sessions over-run. Neitherdoes it feel as if they are being pampered and taken special care of going to No.4 Western Road does not sound half as good as going tothe Hotel Du Vin: it feels more like the research is being done cheaply rather than professionally! In India, using someone else's homegenerates similar feedback but with the added dimension that it is easier to say to their own families that they are going to 'a friend's homand is less likely to instigate a barrage of searching questions. However, it does mean they have to be on their best behaviour and cannotget too rowdy. All of this leads us to believe that such environments are a welcome element in the venue repertoire but we as moderatorsneed to be sensitive to how respondents may curtail their behaviour to fit in with the environment.

Or there is Alw ays Hotel Patch Great if it's a Good 4 *


7/15

It would appear that hotels are not frequently used for research in the United States and China but in the United Kingdom and India it is adifferent matter. In the latter two markets, reactions to hotel venues can be polarised based on the quality of the venue and its ability todeal with the demands of research (especially group discussions or workshops). Thus the experience can be a great one if the place iscomfortable and gives respondents the impression of being pampered for this fits in with their mental template of 'being a night out'. Ampparking (or transport to the place), good food (not petrol station sandwiches but nicely made ones) and wine, plus the neutrality of thevenue are part of its reason for success. And in markets such as India, the ability to rely on waiters to answer to the respondents' beck ancall is flattering. It suggests the research is not being done on the cheap and confirms their need for status enhancement.

However, hotels which are run down, serve poor food, have poor lighting, or undesirable clientele can ruin the whole night out experienceIn India, female respondents feel hotels can also create suspicion from family members that they may be having secret assignations withstrangers and for both males and females there is the feeling of being slightly outclassed and out of place in some overly extravaganthotels.

Where bars and resultants have been used in the United Kingdom, United States and China similarly positive observations surface and theare often more relaxed. But there is the added irritation of being distracted by other customers if the session is taking place in a communarea or the risk of meeting someone they know (in the United States).

Tools Designed to Bring out the Flesh of the Apple are not always Welcomed

Stimulus is a double edged sword

Stimulus is acknowledged as playing a useful role in the research process, according to respondents. It is critical to the testing of an ideaand more useful than a straightforward description on paper. Varying formats such as visuals, ads, videos, storyboards and products to teare all welcomed.

However, stimulus is also a double edged sword for them. They get very frustrated at having to comment on minutely different details onpackaging, ads and products which are almost invisible to the naked eye. An occupational hazard of this is the inevitable repetitivequestioning as moderators try to find differences where none exist in the respondent's mind. But there is more. Stimulus can be rather un

dynamic especially when it comes to advertising research. Here, static storyboards held aloft by a moderator desperately trying to do amultitude of voices in the voiceover do not appear to do justice to the ad in the eyes of respondents. They would prefer to have avideo/DVD to play even if it is a crude film of the same outline given on the above storyboard but with a 'properly detached' voiceover,distinct from the moderator's own voice. The change in media (rather than purely content) helps them focus. But it is not just about thetype of stimulus or the stimulus vehicle but the amount. Respondents are genuinely terrified by copious amounts of stimulus:

When you see 20 foam boards piled up next to the moderator, your heart just sinks to the floor (UK)

This subtly but definitely alters the role of the moderator from a facilitator of discussion to a 'foam board jockey' who surfs into the groupon the back of a pile of boards. And it sets up expectations (often borne out by reality) that the discussion is about to nosedive into tediumwith eight rather bored people hoping the ground can swallow them up as an alternative to looking at all those boards.

What does all of this tell us? Well, for respondents, stimulus can defeat its main raison d'tre to stimulate discussion by killing thediscussion altogether if used inappropriately. It also suggests that we have become lazy and assumptive in our approach to stimulus usingthe same old approaches time and time again. We have taken the approach that as long as we give respondents 'something to talk about'that will be sufficient rather than 'give them something to help them talk'. So how do we resolve this issue? Some suggestions are

presented in Part 3.

Project ive techniques are seen as w eird and unnecessary

Most respondents have been subjected to projective techniques at some point in their 'research career' including: collages, role play, branparties, brand personifications, free association, build your own ideal ... and the world of ... On the upside, they can help break up theconversation away from exchanging mere words verbally to actually doing something more interesting and fun. Not only do they fostercreativity, they also stimulate interaction with other respondents in the session.

But this stock in trade of moderators is not always recalled fondly by respondents. The rationale for using them and instructions on what tdo are not always articulated clearly. Second, the task itself can feel 'weird', artificial and difficult as not all respondents believe they arecreative and imaginative. This can lead to discomfort in the session:

It's like being back at school. It wouldn't interest me at all but I guess they get new ideas from them (UK)

Some people were quite freaked out at the thought of turning a bag of flour into a person (UK)

Across all of the markets, a few respondents claimed they had 'made things up' when asked to project onto an item. That sounds scarydoesn't it? Again the prominence of creative techniques in qualitative research requires that we think long and hard about how we use theand where we use them in the session (middle vs. end?) to maximise their usefulness. Part 3 delves into these issues in more detail.

All about Eve there are Eves that Serpents l ike and those they do not l ike

Given their rather substantial experience of research, respondents have a number of interesting observations on Eve in the Garden, i.e. thmoderator. It is implicit that the nature of the moderator has a big effect on the respondents' experience of the research session.Respondents have their own ideas about what constitutes a 'good moderator' or a bad one but most of their commentary is based on howmoderators behave in groups rather than depths.

Good moderators are comfortable with respondents, not nervous or afraid of them. They are personable, friendly, have a good sense ofhumour, are easy to relate to and have plenty of energy to keep the group lively and involved.


8/15

They listen to respondents carefully with empathy, politeness, courtesy and in a non-judgemental fashion which allows emotions to come tthe surface naturally. Their probing is carried out in a soft, inviting and cajoling tone and it is not repetitive. Allowing everyone to conveytheir views (nurturing silent types and dampening dominant vocal ones), they allow respondents to follow the rules and play the game ofresearch. Above all they are always in control of the session and are viewed as akin to a respected teacher firm but fair, nobody's foolbut with just a twinkle of collaboration in their eye.

Someone like us but clearly in control (USA)

By contrast, a bad moderator is the converse of this and lacks balance of control. Either they are more like an authoritarian headmasterwho only applies the rules of the game selectively or they are like a trainee teacher who cannot control the class. Bad moderators, inwhatever form they come, are a source of concern for respondents. The 'trainee teacher' moderator's loss of control over the group openthe door to dominant vocal types to take centre stage: they spoil the research experience for 'normal respondents like me' and; disrupt thotherwise flat structure of the group into a hierarchy. Loss of control also works in other ways: it pertains to being unable to manage timein the discussion leading to late running or rushed pace and it also translates into being intimidated by respondents. Again these are all nonos which de-stabilise the pleasure of attending the group in the first place. The authoritarian headmaster-moderator is also disliked forbeing impatient, barking orders, asking questions in an interrogatory tone, being confrontational, putting down respondents and notallowing everyone to have their say. They also stick to the script to the point of being boring and monotonous. In the worst case scenariosthese types of moderators sometimes don't even want to be in the research session. They deny respondents the opportunity to have 'alaugh'.

The appearance of moderators is also worthy of comment. Respondents like moderators that are attractive and well presented it makesthe time in the session pass more quickly especially if the subject matter happens to be rather dull. They also note issues with femalemoderators wearing revealing clothes: many who have to sit in a room for several hours in the presence of an eyeful of cleavage cansurely tell you about the havoc this causes with their concentration and hormones!

Other Characters in the Garden tha t Serpents do not see very much Clients of Course

The opportunity to meet clients does not arise that often and few can recall meeting clients. If they do meet them the most likely touchpoint is in viewing facilities. Here respondents are puzzled as to why they are behind the mirror and suspect they could be making rudefaces behind their backs. There is some preference for them being in the same room although this is counter-argued by the intimidationfactor of being overtly watched and thus being unable to express their views openly. Respondents also expect clients to behave in a certaway they should be seen but not heard (or not heard very much): a silent client is a boon; a vocal client is a pain. The latter disrupts theflow of the group and is seen as undermining the authority and skill of the moderator (who they often like to see as their ally). After all,they only want one person to ask questions. It also runs counter to the idea that clients want to hear frank and honest views, hence theneed for objective external moderators, yet they then choose to interfere in the session.

Client involvement is acceptable under certain circumstances, i.e. when technical product knowledge needs to be conveyed or to appear athe end of the session to give respondents a sense of importance and value in their participation.

In short, interaction with clients is worthwhile and value-added as long as it is within clearly defined boundaries that do not disrupt theexisting relationship dynamic between the key players and on the respondents' terms.

PART 2: MAKING MEANI NG FROM THE SERPENTS' EXPERIENCES

So we have discovered that respondents enjoy the experience of research. It offers them a life beyond their normal day-to-day work andfamily lives and helps them develop skills, meet people and debate issues that they otherwise would not be able to encounter.

Far from being nave, respondents understand their role in the group much better than we expected. They like to feel valued andconcomitant with this is the idea of having a slightly more involved relationship with the research process. But there is also much moreabout their experience that we have not covered thus far and it is to this area that we now turn our attention. We feel that underlying theSerpents' experience of research is a set of intellectual and interpretive frameworks that can be used to make sense of their feelings andthese are outlined below.

Being Part of Resea rch is like being Pa rt of a Club Welcome to the Eden Club

The whole experience, behaviours, attitudes, conceptualisation and perceptualisation of research is akin to being part of a club. We havecalled this the Eden Club. So what characterises this club?

Well, like all clubs, the Eden Club has members, i.e. our Serpents. It has rules of engagement some of which have been laid down by theorganisation behind the Club (the agencies and industry) and others which have been devised by Club members themselves as they havegradually learnt the way things work in this club a sort of self-policing for self-preservation. There is a set of shared values about howone should behave in the club and with other members. Being a member of the club bestows a sense of intrinsic value and community feeThere are status levels and privileges available to reflect this value and worth. Thus no one wants to be caught out breaking the rules bethat by lying, cheating, attending too many sessions or disrupting the rules in any other way. Members are rewarded for their participationin the range of activities they are invited to attend. This club has a physical space in which to meet although the specifics of this vary eachtime. Like other clubs, there is a password for entry (the recruitment criteria) and a gate-keeper (the recruiter) who allows/denies entry.And, you have guessed it; there is a leader or chairperson Eve our moderator.

So why is this club metaphor useful? Well, first, it helps us frame our knowledge of our Serpents into a set of parameters that can befurther developed. It helps us understand how and why Serpents behave as they do at present. Second, it guides us in terms of anysuggestions we may have for future development in research using the club metaphor we can decide whether any of these suggestionsshould be introduced into the club or not introduced as the case may be.

But the Eden Club is not just any old common club it is not just a club where members meet. It is infinitely more than this. This clubtouches on some very fundamental dimensions. What is the purpose of this club?


9/15

Playing the Reality Game is the Raison D' t r e of the Eden Club

We argue that the Eden Club is an environment where realities are traded, negotiated, translated, re-shaped and mastered. The real, thesurreal, the hyper-real and the meta-real all come together in this club. Our Serpents enter the club doors with one reality in their head their own hard reality of the outside non-Eden Club world. Not only do they attend the Eden Club to meet other members they also wantto validate their own sense of reality and confirm to themselves that they are 'normal'. By this they mean as normal as they can possiblybe or in line with the average definition of normality (whatever that may be). It is not as if they are not proud of their reality indeed, theare immensely proud of it but they wish to validate it in two ways:

q Emotional reality what kind of emotional reality should they be experiencing and expressing? Are they feeling about things the waeveryone else is? Are they as loved and valued as the other members in attendance by the moderator? By other respondents? By

the client? By family members when they go home?

q Intellectual reality are they thinking about things the way everyone else is? Is anything anyone else is saying causing them to re-evaluate their own sense of intellectual reality? Do they know the right quantity and quality of information to appear sensible andcomposed? Or are they going to look like a complete and utter fool? In undertaking this process of validation they want to feelaccepted and acceptable to others. They want to learn as much about the world as Eve does.

Once they enter the club, they leave their hard sense of daily, practical reality outside the door and enter into a world where their reality isuspended as we spend two hours talking about the topic in hand. But in doing so we are asking them to do a bit more than this. We areasking them to also consider the realities of other members, how they see the world and, specifically, this topic area, interact with it andnegotiate their way around it. This process of considering alternative realities then helps to heighten their sense of their own reality bygiving it a point of reference and a frame of comparison against which they can evaluate not only their own reality but also how it changesas the discussion progresses. In doing so, we play to their desire to learn as much about the world as we Eves do. Such a change can beintensification into a more distinct sense of hard, practical reality as it applies to the subject of discussion, or it can be a dilution into theless distinct and more surreal, even intangible. The way we do this is to touch their emotions and imaginations, for example, via creativeand projective techniques taking them into the realm of the surreal and then re-connecting them back to a different sort of reality. Thi

is not a surreality now but a more distinct, even harder reality that has been shaped and informed by the surreal experience of creativetechniques. This is the kind of reality that helps answer client objectives for the research. Grounded and more refined, it helps propelclients forward particularly when all the member realities are moulded into one and a single reality takes shape. Discussing this task leadsus neatly onto the topic of Eve's role in the Eden Club? What does Eve do? How easy or difficult is it?

Eve Seduces Serpents via the Discourse of Temptation

Eve's role is simple in theory but immensely complex, challenging and demanding in practice. Eve's task is to tease out these realities fromSerpents. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3: Eve as a deployer of real it ies

As Figure 3 shows, far from being a 'passive experiencer' of different realities, she is a reality deployer. Using her skill, charm, wit,expertise and knowledge, she brings out these realities further forward than they are to start with, taking Serpents out of their comfortzones and encouraging them to confront the realities of others. Eve uses her wiles and ways to get members to transport themselves intodifferent reality from the one they are in a little scary for them but not as scary as for Eve who needs to do this in the most fruitful waypossible. One of her chief tools in this endeavour is the promise of intellectual validation, confirmation of emotional worth and the promiseof seeing future realities (work in production and pre-launch) for the Serpents. Her second important tool is empathetic understanding, thais, as the interpreter of these realities she projects herself into the 'intellectual, emotional and physical space' of the respondent.

Both of these strategies go some way in teasing these realities out of them. We have called this the discourse of temptation that Eve usesto get her own way make them feel they are special, unique and prized and rewarded for their membership and efforts enough to open


10/15

and willingly share their realities with her and others. It is a kind of 'courtly-dance' designed to lure, entice and cajole.

So unlike the Garden of Eden in the Old Testament, in our Garden it is not necessarily the Serpent who is tempting Eve all the time.Admittedly that may happen every now and again. But essentially, it is Eve who is tempting the Serpent.

However, Eve's discourse of temptation is by no means indiscriminate. It is very targeted and specific and, in making it so, she is hopingthat she can sift through these realities to ensure that true realities are being presented. She has to be aware of, and resist, being fooledby the 'wrong' sort of realities. What she does not want to deal with is untrue-realities (lies), nonsensical-realities (totally weird andunintelligible to everyone in the room), totally inebriated-realities (as opposed to those only mildly drunk) and/or bullshit-realities (fromdominant vocal types). She does not want them to corrupt the other true-realities that she is so delicately and sensitively nurturing. Theseaberrant realities need to be left alone, discounted totally or, at best, taken with a pinch of salt.

In addition, there is, of course, the reality presented by the heavy frequency respondent who acts like a consultant which leaves Evefeeling a little puzzled what should she do with this? A special type of heavy frequency respondent who may be able to offer more insighon the topic, they may choose to be more expressive and articulate about their views (unlike other HFRs who may decide to say justenough to keep the moderator and fellow respondents happy). Traditionally, Eve has feared the realities they offer and, the marketresearch industry as a whole, has maintained this stance for many years. But should this be the way i t remains? Can Eve openly embracetheir reality and interpret it for what it is, that is, an alternative and perhaps even more sophisticated reality than that presented by otherrespondents?

That calls on us to raise the issue of the reality of the 'virgin respondent what should she do with this? Of course, our industry sets a grepremium on the reality of the virgin but should this really be the case? Is their reality over-prized relative to its usefulness? Yes, virgins aneeded to renew the Garden and start the Genesis all over again but why do we think that pure, first time responses are so important? Wthere is the obvious reason, namely, to take a temperature gauge of a representative sample from the universe and hear from those whohave not been exposed to the research process. But aren't there other rationales for why it may sometimes be better to accord this prizedstatus elsewhere? We think there are. What do you think?

The last piece of the puzzle is Eve's own reality. This acts as the canvas against which the other realities are seen. Serpents' realities are

pinned onto Eve's reality to give her a frame of reference by which to judge true-realities from other ones.

True-realities are re-worked into a harder sense of reality in fact, the hardest of all as she translates these into answers to the clients'objectives at debriefing stage and serves them up primped and preened with (hopefully) copious amounts of insight. This is the realm ofbusiness reality. And it is a reality to which one character in the Garden has most access of all the client. Unable to access the realities oSerpents most of the time as they are not really seen as a true part of the Garden, their only in-road into this world is via Eve and theresearch process.

But there are other dynamics operating in the Eden Club as well.

Reality Seductions and the Discourse of Temptation are about Forming Relations hips

Given the lengths that Eve has to go to intellectually tease and flirt her way into and around these realities, it is small wonder that there ismore to the interaction than at first we might think. Serpents in the Eden Club want to feel they have a relationship with her and with thegeneral activity in which the Club indulges, i.e. research. In their own minds, they ascribe more value to being in the Eden Club than wehad at first realised. From here stems their sense of almost-professional pride in what they do within the Club. And this desire to have a

relationship is not something that will just stroke the scales of the Serpents and keep them happy. It can also be beneficial for the Eves.Not only does a germinating relationship prior to the research session starting bestow upon her greater understanding of the Serpents, italso means she can more readily and quickly tease out the realities she is looking to bring to the surface during the session. In turn, notonly does this mean that Serpents are more comfortable about being subjected to this process, it also means that they can expect someinteraction outside the immediate session. Precisely what form this interaction takes is something we delve into in Part 3. Hence, thisheralds a shift from a purely client-focused approach to research to one that makes the needs and desires of the respondent more centrain the process.

But this also raises another set of issues. If Serpents are looking for relationship development in the Eden Club and Eve could be quitekeen on this as well, what implications does this have on what we call the sessions? Is focus group still the right way of describing theseinteractions? Is depth interview still the right way of describing it? We pick up this thread in Part 3.

But there is also Reality Manipula tion at the Point of Entry into the Eden Club

The encounter with Eve is not the only time that Serpents' realities are re-shaped and re-presented. This happens at the gates to the EdenClub as well. This is especially the case where heavy frequency respondents are involved. Some Serpents do not see anything wrong withmanipulating their realities when it comes to articulating frequency of product usage or brand repertoire to include those brands that theyhave not actually used. Are they correct in this assumption? Are we simply being too stringent in our application of the rules of engagemefrom the Eden Club and ignoring their interest and enthusiasm? Are these criteria really as sacrosanct as we can sometimes claim theyare? These are some of the issues we, as Eves, need to consider as we lead the Eden Club.

PART 3: TOWARDS A NEW GENESIS IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN

So we have established the nature of the Garden of Eden, the Eden Club and its various members. Now that we have led you on the path respondent experiences and interpreted the meanings underlying this path, it is time to explore other directions that need to be pursued.What are the implications for researchers, respondents, clients and the industry? How can we all benefit from what we have found out?

During the course of this research it has become implicitly and explicitly clear that, as an industry, we underestimate the value ofrespondents. They can offer us so much more than just sit around and chat for a couple of hours, then for us to 'call it a day' and sever ocontact with them. All we have to do is indicate to them that we value them enough to want to nurture a relationship with them even if it isonly for the evening, although, in practice, we would like this relationship to last for the duration of the project. So how can we address threlationship-value-respect dynamic? In dealing with such issues, we now present a number of strategies with supporting solutions that can


11/15

q Increase the value of respondents

q Draw out more value from them

q Look again at the content we put into research

q Explore the changes we can make to the role of the moderator

q Understand the implications for the role of the client

Central to all of these is the core principle of building a relationship with respondents and exploring the notion of value and being valuedand we deal with each of these in turn below.

Deriving more value from Serpents

Our initial steps on this journey of relationship and value are to draw more out from our respondents by re-shaping the format of the'research evening' and providing more reassurance for respondents who take part in research for the first time.

Pre-research accl imatisation sessions to 'share the love' before the research begins

Our first suggestion is to invite respondents to arrive a little earlier to the session. Current practice around warming up respondents usuallasts about 10 minutes of which only four to five minutes focuses on honest responses, confidentiality and anonymity. Asking them to arriv30 minutes earlier means that the moderator can spend this time warming them up. Precisely what would this involve?

Well, it would involve chatting informally (even about inconsequential things such as the journey or the weather) to respondents in arelaxed environment, for example, the bar or caf. This task is usually performed by the hostess if the session is in a hotel or in-home. Buin viewing facilities this often would not happen and respondents would have to 'do their own warm-up'. The second benefit is that thissession acts as a vehicle to impart research norms and values such as the need for honesty. We know that anyone who has lied their wayinto the session at recruitment is not going to suddenly confess to their actions and beg eternal forgiveness. But what it does mean is thatwe can invite them into our norms and values. It then becomes much harder for them to behave in a disruptive way in the session; it thenbecomes more difficult for them to remain silent; it then becomes more difficult for them to be too vociferous. We are not there to trainthem on how to respond as such but to give deeper guidance on what we see as the template for respondent behaviour within which theyshould operate. Furthermore, we can underline the importance of their contribution to the research not just by saying it but by tangiblydemonstrating it via the extra time spent with them.

The merit in asking the moderator to do these things is that it helps create a bond between the moderator and respondents even before tmain part of the session begins. Hence respondents enter the group/depth room with a different frame of mind and, what we envisage wilbe, more mentally receptive to the task at hand.

Post-research experience w orkshops to capture learnings and lessons from the f irst night

Our second suggestion is to run post-research experience workshops. These would take place on the first night of research. The first groumini-group or workshop would take place in a viewing facility or via video link into another room of the hotel where facilities are notavailable. This would run for its normal duration. However, there is a crucial difference. Rather than send respondents home straight afteris finished and welcome the second group in, we would ask the first group to stay on for an extra hour. During this hour we would exploretheir experiences of the session. Which areas/questions worked well for them? Which areas/questions did not work so well? How was theflow of the discussion for them? Too fast? Too slow? Just about right? What about stimulus? Appropriate for the task to be performed? Whasuggestions can they give for improving subsequent sessions? And above, all how did the process make them feel? Valued? Respected?Under-valued? To increase the value of this approach even more, respondents would have the opportunity to quiz the client first hand abotheir work and plans for further development of the ideas once they have aired their experiences to the moderator.

The main purpose of this first workshop is to act as a true qualitative pilot that is diagnostic in its role and insightful in its nature. Tofacilitate this, respondents would be recruited for the entire evening, that is, for three hours if the actual group is for two hours (plus the 3minutes required by the pre-research acclimatisation session). In the case of depth interviews, it would mean a depth lasting one hour anthen an additional 20 minutes for the follow-up to take place on the first three depths for a project.

If the sessions are longer than this, for example four hours, the post-research encounter could take the form of a follow-up phone call. In

this case, the moderator would call all the respondents the following day and conduct a short 20 minute depth interview to cover the issuecited above. Again respondents would be recruited for two stages the first interview and the follow-up tele-depth interview.

Giving more reassurance to virgins at the recruitment stage

We have already established that despite the invitation cards and recruiters' reassurances about the bona fide nature of research, first timrespondents are still quite afraid about what will happen to them if they attend a research session. To tackle this we suggest additionaltraining and briefing of recruiters. Based on the findings from our research, such training would highlight the kinds of feelings experiencedby virgin respondents and explain the rationale behind spending more time with respondents detailing what will happen in the session. Suca conversation would draw respondents' attention to how bona fide research is, policies and regulations in place to protect respondentsexplained in a consumer friendly way, and, above all, how they have been specially chosen to take part in the prestigious endeavour ofmarket research. It is not enough to hand over the invitation card with the number for the research industry contacts in each market. Whowould take the trouble to ring them anyway?

Another technique worth exploring is 'buddying-up' virgin respondents with those who have been to research before. The senior buddy, whas been to research, could provide the virgin buddy with a more on the ground view, free from the vested interest of the recruiter. They


12/15

could give confidence to the virgin and answer any questions they may have about what happens in the research process. This ispotentially as valuable, if not more so, than the recruiter's explanation as the recruiter may never have attended a research session beforand would, therefore, not be best placed to describe the process and experience as a fellow respondent.

Both of these strategies would also go some way to help tackle the rather dubious image of market research as pressure sales or someother undesirable venture. After all, personal recommendation and experience can be the best antidote to such negative perceptions andcan easily outweigh any more formal PR exercise on behalf of the industry.

Attributing more value to Serpents

Our subsequent steps on this relationship-value journey are to demonstrate the respect with which we hold respondents through theterminology we use for the sessions, how much information we share with them, where we hold the research, how we reward them and th

use we make of different types of respondents.

A rose by any other name? Cult ivating new terminology for focus groups and depth interviews

We feel the term focus group does not do justice or attribute respect to respondents it implies a focus on something but this is likely to bon the subject matter or on the client rather than focusing on the respondent per se. Likewise, depth interviews are about exploring asubject in depth and/or obtaining depth for a client although in this case also understanding the respondent in detail but does this justifythe current terminology in use? We don't think so. For neither of these terms feel particularly egalitarian and close to the respondent in anemotional and intellectual sense. What are the solutions then? What terminology can we use that will help improve the nature of theinformation captured by drawing out qualitatively different material? We believe that different terminology may help to get better and morinsights. How about using the term 'collective relationship sessions' to depict a group based methodology? How about 'individual relationshsessions' to reflect depth interviews? Using the term relationship in the name of the methodology forces us as moderators to keep thisimportant element of the respondents' agenda top of mind and allows us to constantly reference it whilst we conduct the sessions. This donot mean that we will stop focusing on the topic or the client. However, it does mean that we will also make fostering the relationship withrespondents the focus of the research too.

Leaving the communication loop open after the research session has f inished by sharing f indings with respondents

Respondents are keen on research and the intellectual and emotional benefits they derive from it are clear to see once the right questionshave been asked. They are especially interested in increasing their involvement to beyond the actual research session and they citesharing research findings as one of the mechanisms to facilitate this. We strongly believe that such a venture will enhance their relationshwith the research. Furthermore, it will generate brand warmth and positive associations in general and also increase their regard for theclient by underlining the clients' commitment to the people who took part in their study. This plays directly into respondents' desire for selfvalidation and respect for their endeavours. A short one-page summary of the key findings is all it needs. If this is likely to worry clientsthen let us add this: the very act of sending something can be highly effective; it does not have to give away confidential new productdevelopment plans, advertising strategy or corporate secrets.

Conducting research in more amenable physical surroundings

We are fully aware that there are currently no perfect venues where research can be conducted: each has its own pros and cons. Hotelsand private rooms in restaurants and bars go some way to meet respondents' needs and we encourage clients and agency side colleagueto use these types of venues more often and more effectively by utilising the range of facilities available in them. Also these venues most

closely resemble the mental template carried around by respondents that attendance at research is akin to 'going out for the evening'.Going to a pleasant but often un-glamorous home in the suburbs of the city is not 'going out for the evening': being invited to go to 'X Y ZHotel' is a much better approximation.

We know viewing facilities do not meet all respondents' needs. Whilst viewing facilities send the message of 'this is proper, serious researtaking place in a proper research place' they do not endear themselves emotionally to respondents. This is because respondents are keento come to comfortable, relaxed, spacious venues which are easily accessible: they also do not want to intrude on anyone's privacy(including their own) which often happens in in-home venues.

Whilst we might prefer not to hold any research in viewing facilities to save respondents from the artificiality and pretence of this venue,the fact remains that clients have been weaned so effectively on to them that they will never really give up their love of viewing facilities. that is the case, where do we go from here? The answer is we work within the viewing facility framework and improve it in line withrespondent needs and desires. The issues around viewing facilities can be remedied by developing more comfortable viewing facilities thaactually do resemble a living room environment complete with comfortable sofas, plants, candles and decorative items. (Incidentally, thiscan also be applied to other types of venues too). However, it is hard to reconcile this with the feeling that viewing facilities continue tomake respondents feel uneasy and suspicious of the types of clients behind mirrors and their roles.

One way of dealing with this issue is to insist that clients meet respondents at the beginning of the group via a visit to the client viewingroom. This will help respondents feel that they are 'one-up' on clients as they have a more spacious and well-lit room something thatwould not be achieved if clients came into the respondents room. Of course, we know that some clients may not be comfortable doing thisbut if they want to have the privilege of seeing respondents perform for them and share their views in this most artificial environmentperhaps they owe it to respondents to meet their side of the bargain. After all, why should they gain something at the expense ofrespondents but not give something in return? Why should they peep into the world of respondents like voyeurs but not allow respondentsinto their world?

One other obstacle that we cannot overcome easily is the location of viewing facilities. Being situated in office blocks which feel scaryduring evening time cannot be helped, although it can be taken into consideration when new facilities are set up. We can however, offer aservice where viewing facility staff accompany respondents to their cars. They would leave the facility en masse and the entourage wouldwend its way around to the different areas where cars are parked. But a better alternative would be to offer transport home. This wouldmean that the incentive is lower as the travel element is taken out but it would mean that respondents feel safer.

Of course, all of this means additional costs to add to the clients' bill but what would they rather have? Happy respondents who go and


13/15

share their experiences with their friends? Or unhappy ones who are unhappy because they have had to walk around alone late at night?Would they rather have respondents speak lyrically about the clients' brand? Or would they rather have respondents lambaste them? Andfinally do clients want those who are keen to return to a research setting in the future? Or do they want to put respondents off from takingpart in research in the future? We know what we need them to do, the question is will they do it.

Money is not the only motivation, so think about other incentives that can be offered

Nothing will ever replace giving hard cash for participation in research. However, there is scope to build in more inventive gifts andincentives to give respondents a warm glow about their participation and make them feel more appreciated for their efforts. These could bproducts or vouchers from the client company or from another reputable company, e.g. Respondents taking part in research on beautycould be given their monetary incentive as well as a voucher for a local department store where they can buy beauty products. Or theycould be items that are difficult to acquire (although not necessarily expensive). If sent after the research has happened and in the post,

this could be a very pleasant experience not to mention a huge surprise. Imagine the good will that would generate for the client brand.

Heavy frequency respondents are they treated unfair ly? Steps towards making more use of their 'expert ise', experiencand knowledge

We do not necessarily concur with the wider belief in the research industry that all heavy frequency respondents should be excluded fromresearch. We need to encourage a climate of honesty where these respondents are not automatically vilified and treated as criminals. Thais not to say that we are agreeing with how they choose to behave and attend research on a repeated basis we think this is wrong. But iwe continue to treat them like criminals we will never get to the bottom of the deception they are operating. By fostering a moreaccommodating approach, we are encouraging them to be more open about the amount of research they undertake. That way we canmake a choice about when to include them in our forthcoming research, that is, when this sort of frequent attendance will not jeopardisethe findings or may positively enhance them. Essentially, this is about minimising the worst effects and optimising the best ones instead.

It also goes without saying that we, and other respondents, do see a value in their contribution if they are thoughtful in their feedback anddo not remain silent or become too dominant. They can become 'consultants'. They can give us a window into how other moderators handa topic and thus, in a strange sort of way, help create 'better practice'. They can draw upon their knowledge of a topic if it has been

gathered over a series of groups and genuinely add an alternative dimension of value to the data. And they can subtly help bring nervousrespondents out of their shells.

Getting a virgin is it over-rated? Re-evaluatin g the value perceptions w e hold

This also raises the topic of virgin respondents and their position. We do not hold virgin respondents in quite the same degree of awe assome of our colleagues in the industry nor do we put them on a pedestal. They are useful but just because they are virgins does not meanthat they will be of great value to the research indeed, in some cases, it is quite the opposite. That said, we are not advocating thatvirgins are excluded from research. We are saying that we need to think more carefully about when they are truly needed rather than justake a blanket and blinkered 'virgins are best' approach to every project. And moreover, we need to educate clients about this issue tooand encourage them to be more discerning about their recruitment criteria rather than adopting the 'one size fits all' mind set.

Re-visiting Research Content

The less is more approach to st imulus

Based on our own experiences as moderators and the comments made by respondents it is self-evident that stimulus is a potential problearea and a possible cause for ruining the enjoyment of the research session. We should no longer be forcing board after board down thethroats of unsuspecting respondents. We advocate that stimulus be introduced earlier in the discussion (that is, towards the middle) than iscurrent practice to negate the effects of respondent tiredness if it is shown at the end. There would also seem to be a strong case forresearchers to lean back on clients and ad agencies and resist the temptation to acquiesce to 'death by foam board'. Indeed, theconversation we should be having with them is perhaps how little stimulus can we put in. The optimum number can be derived from runnina pilot session with internal non-research staff acting as respondents. The outcomes would be fed back to the client or better still the clienwould watch. The other alternative is to use the post-research experience workshops to test the amount and type of stimulus that should bincluded. (It is worth pointing out that this process of piloting the stimulus not so that moderators can decide how much to put in theyalready know based on their experience). It is linked more strongly to drawing the clients' attention to stimulus issues and convincing themof the potential problems. Both of these strategies can also test how much repetitive questioning is possible and where the line should bedrawn in response to respondent boredom.

The format of stimulus also needs to be re-examined to make it more dynamic, multi-dimensional and user-friendly. If respondents find ithard to relate to animatics mounted on boards, why do we continue to use them? Could the advertising industry leverage its creativity tore-work the format of stimulus for creative development? If they can't within their green houses of creativity then what hope for us poor

qualitative researchers?

Being more judicious about using project ive techniques

Respondents would have us believe that projective techniques give them a massive headache and we are inclined to believe them as wellSo what can we do about this? Well, we cannot throw out what we feel is one of the most useful devices in the qualitative researcherstoolkit, so we have to think of the best way we can use the techniques without creating discomfort for respondents. First, this means wetake the time to explain their purpose clearly, the thinking behind it and we check they are comfortable in attempting to project. We needto ensure that this explanation is sufficiently detailed but does not overwhelm them: neither should it position the task as too difficult toattempt. Second, we need to ensure that, as moderators, we do not jeopardise the flow of the group by persisting with a projectivetechnique even if it is clearly giving respondents anxiety. This should have been an integral part of our training as qualitative researchersfrom the very start or reinforced by senior colleagues. Yet, if you ask respondents, they will tell you that it does not happen like this. Theyclaim that they are forced to persevere with techniques that do not appear to work. Third, we need to be much more judicious in our use projective techniques. They are not something that is randomly included in a discussion guide to liven it up they need to have a specificpurpose linked in with the clients' objectives. Fourth, perhaps our techniques have got too old and worn out. Perhaps we need to developsome new ones that will be more dynamic and illuminating.


14/15

Re-birthing key players

Eve is born again

A re-birthed moderator could be rather different from the one that currently exists. But how would they be different? If the moderator toothe feedback of respondents into consideration there are a number of strategies she would deploy. They would be striving much harder tocreate and retain a relationship with respondents. This translates into adopting the persona of a friend to the respondent rather than apurely dispassionate observer. In advocating this, we are not saying that moderators lose their sense of objectivity no they have to holdonto that very tightly. But what we are saying is they temper this with an open and more personable stance, willing to share their own lifeand research experiences without giving the game away and revealing anything that could bias responses. For example, sharing anecdotefrom their childhood or their own life helps to make them appear more human and helps respondents feel more confident about sharingtheir views. The pre-research acclimatisation session we mentioned earlier in Part 3 can go some distance in helping to achieve this

outcome.

Building on the mental template that respondents liken research sessions to 'going out', it makes sense for the moderator to make an effowith their appearance. We do not want to sound derogatory of our colleagues in the industry but consider this: who wants to go out for theevening with someone who looks like they haven't shaved in three days. Who wants to go and meet someone who appears to have been their clothes when they put themselves inside the washing machine while it completed the spin cycle, hence they came out with clothes thalook like they have not been ironed for a decade? 'Not me mate' says the respondent!! So the moral of the story is for moderators to alsotreat going to moderate as a special occasion which requires additional effort to woo respondents. And lest we forget the troublerespondents have concentrating in the presence of moderators who 'let it all hang out', no revealing or suggestive clothing please!!

Transformation of the cl ient

Our findings have some major implications for clients and their behaviour. It is laudable that clients wish to get closer to respondents butwe have also established that this is not always what respondents want or need to give of their best. We feel clients need to think aboutrespondents differently and not as lab rats that can be scrutinised.

Thinking about ethnographic or immersion approaches the direst example we have heard is where clients have not realised the respondenmay feel overwhelmed at having five or six members of the marketing and product team pile into their house!! Perhaps there is a seriousargument for turning the tables and asking five or six researchers to visit the client in their own home to watch them carry out some tasksof interest to the researchers. This is not a 'revenge of the respondent' exercise but instead an opportunity to share experiences thatrespondents have to sometimes endure. It could also make for a useful pilot of the interviews. How would this make the client feel? At thevery least, it may help them understand how respondents are human beings and will feel intimidated by the experience. All of this amountto encouraging clients to think of respondents as people with whom they should build relationships and not as mono-dimensional objects ostudy who are seen in isolation as 'things' that interact with their brand or product. In doing so, we can ensure that ethnographicapproaches are used in a more sensitive way. We suggest that if clients (and actually researchers as well) want to use ethnographicapproaches they spend time with respondents before hand. Perhaps take them out for a drink or go for a coffee and get to know them alittle better as well as explain the purpose of the ethnographic approach. Ideally we suggest this is done a few days in advance toencourage the respondent to get used to the idea of the visit. There is little point in meeting them 10 minutes before the ethnographicsession is about to begin.

Building on this thinking for conventional group discussions held in viewing facilities, perhaps there is scope for clients to mingle withrespondents before hand as well and get to know them a little better. This helps eradicate respondent fear about who is behind the mirror

and helps them see clients as real people rather than people with funny shaped heads, four legs and wearing strange looking laboratorycoats!! It helps them realise that clients are not aliens!!

In many matters, guidance from moderators can be invaluable in helping clients behave appropriately with respondents and we feellistening to them will make all the difference.

There are Consequences of Implementing these I nit iat ives

The consequence of these initiatives being put into practice are multi-faceted but fundamental to this is the idea that as researchers we wibe able to acquire richer, more insightful and meaningful data as we tap into the emotional and rational side of the respondents' sense ofself. Deeper insights into consumer motivations are the name of the game. We always strive for this and feel that this should be theculmination of what we endeavour to achieve. Now based on respondent feedback we know that there are means to achieve this byenhancing the respondents' experience. From the client's point of view, richer data is clearly a desirable goal as well: it helps them meettheir needs more effectively, helps them sell more and helps consumers develop better engagement with their brands. But beyond this theenhancements to research which we recommend here will increase the return on investment that they make. Each or $ spent on researccan stretch that bit further. So whilst it may feel like our suggestions are going to mean the price of projects goes up, in actual fact, the

amount spent for the benefit gained is going to tell a different story which indicates that they are getting more value for each or $ spent

Concluding our Argument

Our journey around the Garden of Eden is now completed and on the way we hope we have instigated a re-evaluation of how we qualitatiresearchers think about what we do and how we do it. Over the course of this journey, we have revealed that aspect of research that is soften hidden from us the experience of being a respondent in all its multi-dimensional complexity. Fundamental to the researchexperience is the need to feel valued and respected and this leads onto them wanting to build a deeper relationship with the moderator anresearch process. This is exemplified in several ways. Amongst other things, we have shown that although financial incentives to take parin research are strong, other social, personal and emotional benefits are also prevalent to a greater degree than we at first imagined.Groups offer the most fulfilling environment for respondents as they ease the pressure away from any single individual to talk all the timeand are the best setting in which they can quickly build workable relationships and validate themselves. Despite clients' love of viewingfacilities, respondents have more mixed feelings towards them, in some cases, preferring to opt for the pamper and comfort of a goodquality hotel instead. Finally, the discomfort created by some research content notably too much stimulus and use of certain more taxingcreative techniques also runs counter the need to be intellectually and emotionally comfortable in order to yield their best learning valueto us.


15/15

Participation in qualitative research is akin to being in a club our Eden Club. But this Eden Club, as we have described it, is a club wherethe moderator draws out, understands, re-interprets, and absorbs respondents' realities using the discourse of temptation. She facilitatesthe validation of emotional and intellectual realities. She transforms and translates them into the hard business reality of the clients'objectives and presents them with copious amounts of insight.

All of this begs the question of what should we do now? Taking as our core the relationship-respect-value dynamic we have advocated anumber of initiatives that will address precisely this configuration of factors. Pre-research acclimatisation sessions and post-researchexperience workshops draw respondents into the research process in a much more meaningful way by sharing certain research values witthem such as the need for honesty and allowing them to constructively critique the session respectively. Likewise, reassessing how we useviewing facilities and taking into account respondents' reservations about them, we suggest a number of infrastructural and process-basedenhancements that make the whole experience more comfortable and amenable for them, for example, taking them into the client viewinroom or using more comfortable seating. And then there is the terminology we use to describe our sessions: this needs to change to refle

the way we should now be looking at what we do. Fundamentally, we also call for an investigation into the roles and behaviours of the clieand moderator. Both need to relate to respondents in a deeper, more meaningful way. In the case of the client, it is about thinking aboutthemselves as a respondent but also thinking of respondents as human beings and not just mono-dimensional consuming objects. In thecase of the moderator, it is about making respondents feel that the moderator is a part of the group and behave like a friend Who is outwith them

a reflexive look at qualitative research

Documents