From a blur to an oasis?

As chairman of the Market Research Standards Board (MRSB), I read with interest the article in October’s Research magazine about the blurring of the definition of research. The recent MRS Code of Conduct update and particularly the new rules restricting client incentives precipitated this feature and discussion. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what is really going on.

The purpose of research has remained relatively unchanged since the introduction of the MRS Code back in 1954. In a nutshell the aim of research is to collect and analyse information, and not to directly create sales nor influence the opinions of anyone participating in it. The recent changes in technology, legislation and society have not changed the research purpose. What has changed is the demand for researchers to provide more outside of research. Invariably this requires researchers to utilise their research skills and research techniques, but for purposes other than research.

Want to build a client engagement panel, incentivising respondents with your own product and taking direct steps as a consequence of that engagement? No problem, researchers can help with that. Is that research? No. Is it using research techniques? Most certainly. There is nothing wrong in being in the research business and using research techniques for non-research purposes. What is wrong is to assume that by using research techniques you must be doing a research project. And if this feels like MRSB and MRS being too pedantic, think again.

The MRS Code of Conduct and the MRSB are the self-regulatory compliance framework for research. In addition to being answerable to the sector we are also answerable to the government and associated regulators to ensure that we are setting appropriate rules and advising the sector accordingly. What we cannot do is ignore the legal framework which exists. Statistics and research are defined in legislation. In most applicable legislation, like the Data Protection Act 1998, research has specific exemptions which other activities such as direct marketing and sales promotion do not have. When researchers start building customer relationship panels for clients to engage with their customers this is clearly a promotional activity, which is regulated by additional data protection and electronic communications legislation. Not to follow the appropriate legislation would be illegal. Removing or losing the research exemptions would be detrimental to the sector.

MRS and MRSB wishes to embrace the exciting new fields which researchers are traversing and provide a framework for practitioners to undertake these exercises whilst doing so in an ethical and legal manner. The other half of this ‘psychological contract’ is researchers need to recognise the reality on the ground, work with MRS to improve understanding of the distinction between using research techniques and conducting research, and embrace the new changes introduced by the MRS Code.

Geoff Gosling is chairman of the Market Research Standards Board and a senior research director at Synovate.