This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here

Saturday, 20 December 2014

In praise of face to face

Shiny new methods might get most of the attention, but plenty of researchers are still standing up for face to face. Robert Bain meets them – in person, of course

Pop psychology books and executive coaches will tell you that 80% of communication is non-verbal. Or 95%. Or two-thirds. The figure doesn’t matter much – we all know the difference between an in-person meeting and a phone call, whether it’s with a loved one, a business associate or a market researcher.

In the early days of research, face to face was the only way to do things. But over the years technology has offered more and more ways of contacting people that don’t require you to actually knock on their door or stop them in the street – first telephone surveys and now a panoply of online methods.

“The core of qualitative research has always been authentic contact. No matter how well informed you might be, if you haven’t met people then what you think about them has an element of fantasy about it”

Roy Langmaid, The Langmaid Practice

The same is true in the wider world outside research: you can now order your shopping, manage your bank account, book a holiday and even meet people online - without really meeting anyone. Screen time is crowding out face time - research by Ofcom suggests that people in the UK spend half their waking hours looking at the screens of their TVs, computers and mobile phones.

All this is not necessarily a bad thing. If it works, people love not having to do things in person. When Nunwood recently ranked UK companies on customer experience, both the winner and the runner-up were firms that specifically avoid face-to-face contact: online retailer Amazon and the phone and internet bank First Direct.

But it would be wrong to conclude from the industry’s focus on shiny new techniques that face to face is a thing of the past. In fact qual and quant face-to-face methodologies were still bigger than either telephone or online in 2010, according to Esomar’s latest figures. Annual spending on face-to-face research amounted to $8.4bn, up from $6.4bn in 2006. Online methods may be growing more quickly, but they still remain smaller in revenue, at $7.5bn.

Nice to meet you
Who are the people standing up for face-to-face research in the digital age? Qual research veteran Roy Langmaid, who runs The Langmaid Practice, felt strongly enough to write a paper making the case for face-to-face research, which is to be published later this year in the International Journal of Market Research.

Langmaid is no Luddite – in fact he founded Promise, one of the leading proponents of online research and co-creation communities. Nor does he believe that any one research mode is better than any other. Rather, he argues that face-to-face qual research methods are not being used to their full potential because the process has become formulaic and unimaginative. He describes “90-minute focus groups with tight topic guides containing far too many questions about the product and far too few opportunities for people to share about their lives and the role of goods and services within them”.

This, he believes, leads to disillusionment with mainstream qual and an excessive enthusiasm for fresh approaches like behavioural economics and neuroscience which seek to “objectify” respondents. “Read any behavioural economics or neuropsychology texts and you will find interesting and exciting ideas,” writes Langmaid. “But you won’t meet any people there.” To explore his ideas further, Research had to meet him face to face.

“For me,” Langmaid said, “the core of qualitative research has always been authentic contact. No matter how well informed you might be, if you haven’t met people then what you think about them has an element of fantasy about it.”

Even sitting behind the mirror in a viewing facility is very different from being in the room with the participants in a group discussion, he says. “As soon as you see the attention that’s paid to the menu and the gossip and taking the piss out of the respondents, you see it’s not the same.”

Strangely, one area that Langmaid feels has harnessed “authentic contact” in a way that research sometimes fails to is reality TV. Granted, the authenticity of what makes it to the screen is usually doubtful, but shows that open a window into people’s everyday lives, or that rely on real relationships and interactions (however artificial the setting) have clearly captured the public imagination.

You had to be there
Like Langmaid, Firefish CEO Jem Fawcus finds it puzzling that behavioural economics has attracted quite so much attention in research. BE tells us that people are bad at articulating how they behave and why. No kidding, says Fawcus. “Qual researchers have had no choice but to believe that, because we sit and talk to people about how they behave, and you’d have to be blind and deaf not to see that what they say is only the tip of the iceberg of what they do.”

“There’s no substitute for sitting in a room with people to understand the rich context and layers of their reaction”

Jem Fawcus, Firefish

It’s obvious to Fawcus that sitting someone down in a room and asking them questions “will at best give you partial answers and at worst give you misleading ones”. But the value of face-to-face qual goes way beyond what people say out loud, he says. “There’s no substitute for sitting in a room with people to understand the rich context and layers of their reaction.”

Because of the importance of context and non-verbal communication “there’s no substitute for the research team being present face to face at the research,” says Fawcus. “That’s the ideal. Because you get a far richer understanding of what’s going on and you’re able to immerse yourself in the cultural context.”

Online qual methods have their uses and Firefish is no stranger to them. Video streaming with technology like FocusVision is handy, particularly for international projects, but researchers have to be careful not to get carried away and start seeing it as a replacement for being there. “It can add a lot,” says Fawcus. “It enables the client to keep track of the research without being there, but you have to be extremely aware of what it can and can’t do. It allows you to check that the topics that need to be covered are covered. What it can’t do is give you any more than a very superficial understanding of what actually happens in that group. As long as you understand that, it’s a valid tool to use.” Do researchers understand that? “Some do, some don’t.”

The clipboard brigade
Alongside qual, face-to-face quant research is also a multibillion pound business. A huge amount of social research, in particular, relies on the people still sometimes referred to as the clipboard brigade, although nowadays they’re more likely to be wielding a laptop or an iPad. Some work was abandoned amid the recent spending cuts (notably the Citizenship Survey), but important studies such as the British Crime Survey and the longitudinal Understanding Society survey involve face-to-face interviews with tens of thousands of people every year.

Jon Burton of the Institute for Social and Economic Research says face-to-face interviewers are crucial to the success of Understanding Society, which tracks long-term trends in health, personal finances, family life, work and political views among 40,000 households. “The interviewer doesn’t just collect information, they also persuade the sample member to become a respondent, they motivate them through the interview and they leave them feeling that they have made a valuable contribution,” said Burton. Interviewers become familiar faces, helping to build loyalty and in many cases proving to be “the difference between getting an interview and not”.

Understanding Society faces the particular challenge of interviewing all occupants in every home sampled, and Burton says face-to-face interviewers are best placed to negotiate and arrange this. An experiment in 2010 found that using phone interviews in the first instance, and visiting only those people who could not be reached by phone, resulted in more people refusing to take part. As it is, the response rate for Understanding Society is at a very respectable 70%, while the British Crime Survey gets around 76%.

Face value
Face-to-face research accounts for around half of the work done by Ipsos, the world’s third-largest research company, and the agency recently appointed Jane A’Court to the new role of director of global face-to-face programmes. It’s a pretty hectic job since, as A’Court points out, face-to-face research is “the only bit you can’t have a global hub for, because you have to be there on the ground”.

The big users of face to face in the UK, A’Court says, are clients “who need really robust representative samples – big media contracts and government social research”, while in emerging markets the appeal of face-to-face interviewing goes wider because of lower telephone and internet penetration rates.

The company has managed to hold face-to-face response rates steady over the past five years, but only by working harder to stem the decline. “You have to go back to people more times,” A’Court explains, “so it becomes more costly.” Despite this, and the fact that more than three quarters of homes in the UK now have internet access, we’re still “quite a long way” from being able to take face-to-face surveys online, and “the move to mixed methodologies will happen slowly”, she believes. Despite the technological alternatives it’s still hard to picture what could replace in-home interviewing in many cases. “I think there will always be some [face-to-face research] going on, at least for the next 20 years. If you’re doing work that’s going to contribute to government policy, I’m not sure there’s a better way.”

There’s also a pool of skilled and valuable people working in face-to-face research. “There are some amazing people out there - the people who work in face to face are some of the best people you can meet,”
says A’Court.

Whether everyone recognises these strengths is another question. Jem Fawcus says that while there are plenty of big advocates of face to face in the older generation, younger researchers are less passionate about it, tending to be more excited about newer online methods. “I’m very conscious of where qual came from,” he says. “I wonder if in that next generation there’s as much understanding of the richness of the techniques we use. I don’t get the sense that that’s as well understood as it used to be.”


Faces from afar

Is technology reaching a point where it can provide a substitute for face-to-face contact? Maybe not, but it’s certainly edging closer. Technology startup Affectiva has developed a way to use webcams to read facial expressions and gauge emotion, and it now has the backing of ad research giant Millward Brown.

The firm demonstrated its technology by evaluating some of this year’s Super Bowl ads. Participants watched an ad over the internet while their webcam watched them back. The video is then analysed to identify the emotions expressed at various points in the ad (try for yourself at affectiva.com).

Facial expressions are, of course, just one aspect of what is missed when you don’t meet people in person, but according to Affectiva expressions are crucial to understanding the emotions behind our decisions.

Millward Brown has invested millions in the firm, and recently incorporated its facial expression analysis technology into its Link ad-testing product. The firm’s neuroscience boss Graham Page hopes the technology will help “get at the emotional response that people might not be able to articulate in surveys”.

Follow us on
Follow us on Twitter

Readers' comments (10)

  • On your bottom box on Facial Imaging technology - this is rapidly gaining wide acceptance: not only Milllward Brown's partner Affectiva, but GfK (with their own product EmoScan) and Swiss based nViso (who works with several MR companies and I am associated with) are currently offering commercial services. nViso also has a demo (www.nviso.ch) which readers can try. A key point is that this method does not have to be a substitute for FTF. While the best suppliers can do it remotely online, it is also possible to implement in conjunction with FTF questionnaires in a lab settings, CLT/Mall studies and several players are working on mobile/smartphone applications meaning emotions could be recorded anywhere. If the underlying software is good enough, Facial Imaging can be applied across cultures with results from CLT/Mall studies in say India that are comparable to online in the US, without issues about scale or methodology comparability etc. In many ways Facial Imaging could help to FTF work new life, not replace it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is indeed a very good article. Face to face interviews cannot be replaced, as machines, as of now, cannot sense the zeal, sadness or other emotions which respondent displays while taking online/telephonic surveys.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good article, and I'd certainly agree that face to face, and other traditional techniques have a role to play in modern research.

    However, I'd suggest that research techniques which incorporate the benefits of new technologies (e.g. the ability to contact an on-the-go urban commuter audience using Mobile), whilst acknowledging the strengths of traditional research methodologies, are most likely to have long term success.

    Shortlist Media launched two mobile communities with our insight partners Flamingo around six months ago, in order to contact readers at any time to carry out quick-response qual tasks.

    Gathering real-time, rich audio-visual content, this new approach takes qualitative research out of the focus group and into the moment. This adoption of new technology has provided a means by which we can gather instant insights at any given moment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes in praise of f2f, but more importantly in praise of great research :-) New technologies often swing the pendulum too far before sanity prevails. We have embraced both offline and online methodologies and use where appropriate. In fact often (particularly with qual) a hybrid of offline and online in one project leverages the best of both modes to yield the richest insights. BOTH online and offline qual can provide AUTHENTIC contact, it really is how it is managed, moderated and understood.....

    I too am mystified about the supposed 'newness' of behavioural economics ..... it is what good researchers have always done (no?). Thanks for the article. CCI

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a social media and online research community manager, I am totally in favor of the new techniques available to us. But I am also very aware of the role of F2F in good research. I don't think the two, traditional research and newer more technology based research, are mutually exclusive. Sometimes the situation calls for one or the other, but almost always a combination is what would actually enhance the results.

    Also, I am a junior researcher, so not all of us starting out are entirely just about the new technologies!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An added benefit to client observation of face-to-face research: it allows them to emotionally connect with the results. A colleague once ran two focus groups, one the primary client attended and one he didn't: both had unique insights but the client kept emphasizing the insights from the group he attended, because he had connected with the participants.

    Having started my career doing face-to-face interviews, I miss the opportunity of getting to know so much more about each respondent. But I don't miss the travel!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As an individual who has always been fascinated by human behaviour, I found the article very interesting and it really got me & my colleagues in the office thinking about some of the comments you made.

    I completely agree with what you said, and you can call me old-fashioned but I feel everyday tasks have become less and less personal; from speaking with your bank to even having conversations with peers, and as a result this has had an impact on research as an industry.

    Where I work we adopt a mix of research approaches and being relatively new to research, I love face-to-face, it really brings everything to life. We also adopt real life techniques, such as in-home trawls, fact finders and video diaries, which we feel really help gain greater depth and insight into true consumer behaviour & experiences.

    Whilst newer online methods can be enticing, there’s nothing quite like being able to meet with consumers, understand them and interact face-to-face. Myself & my colleagues are passionate about face-to-face as we’ve had the chance to experience a wide range of initiatives that have allowed us to see consumers in their real environment, interact with them more naturally and understand their behaviours. Face-to-face can provide more freedom to explore and understand consumers in their context, beyond a discussion group and these are especially the types of F2F techniques I’m passionate about.

    I completely agree with the quote from Jon Burton about aiding respondents through the process, our quant interviewers are such a valuable asset in ensuring we gain depth and understanding. Not only is it about guiding consumers through the survey but also about giving us valuable context.

    Having founded my career via a graduate recruitment scheme, myself and a number of my younger colleagues hope to expand our knowledge, passion & enthusiasm for face-to-face research and hope to pass this on to further generations of researchers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The 'pool of skilled and valuable people working in face-to-face research' that A'Court is proud about is a fast depleting lot and when it comes to f2f fieldworkers, the scene is terrible in places like India, Africa. Unwieldy questionnaires, shrinking time lines and unreasonable payment rates render f2f fieldwork data unusable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I completely agree with Ram. I think it's about time that giant research agencies assess the processes behind the selection, training and deployment of fieldworkers. How do we eliminate or minimize social desirability bias in conducting field research? How do we minimize the use of 'boosters' or buffers? How can we improve f2f response rates? What are the steps to make f2f processes more efficient? How do we empower the field interviewer? By addressing these crucial (long ignored?) issues f2f will become more credible, competitive and attractive to clients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a f2f interviewer, I feel that the only problem with f2f is that the respondent, very often, is not offered any incentive to be encouraged to give their time to the interview. I have people telling me at their door "why should I give you 'a good' 30 minutes of my time for nothing, when I can spend 10 minutes on the phone being interviewed for £5 or £10?". I think that they have a good point. Yes, it's more expense, but think of how many more interviews would be done in a 6 hr day, making the travel expenses worth it in the end. Mostly they are more than I earn for the 6 hrs due to the hour and a half total journey costs. Come on, you know it makes sense!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Please add your comment. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted.
Your email address will not be displayed on the site. All comments are moderated.

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory What are the fourth and fifth letters of the word: CORNMARKET