The risk of underestimating online qualitative

I am a long-term advocate of online qualitative research. What you can get from it in terms of depth and colour still blows me away. However, even though most agencies offer online and mobile methods, many researchers are yet to be convinced by it. I believe this is because online and mobile qualitative research is often poorly designed, under-resourced and under-funded.

This underestimation of online qual threatens the reputation of qualitative research in the future.  If researchers fail to sell through effective online qual studies, then less experienced consultants will enter the industry and mop up client demand for online methods. If new entrants don't meet the high standards set by experienced researchers, then the reputation of qualitative research will suffer. 

Too many researchers and clients underestimate online qual

The antipathy against online qual is partly due to researchers’ negative experiences of it. For example, it often takes longer than anticipated and so becomes less profitable, or it may not yield the right feedback. But this is because studies are often poorly designed and underfunded. 

Clients who underestimate the time it takes to run online qual exacerbate the problem. In a recent survey with the ICG (Independent Consultants Group) created by Liveminds, 30 of the 43 qualitative researchers who responded found that most clients underestimate the time it takes to do online qualitative research. This helps explain why researchers feel disinclined to offer it and under pressure to under cost it.  

To solve this, we need to quash three misconceptions:

1. Online qual is not necessarily cheaper or faster

Online qualitative projects are often under costed because of the false assumption that ‘online’ means ‘cheaper and faster’.  While this logic might apply to insurance, taxis and even online quantitative projects, in the case of asynchronous qualitative research, it is often slower and more expensive. More conversation means more consultancy time. Clients and researchers need to recognise this and arrange bigger budgets. 

2 . Online qual is not simply face-to-face qual done online

The other problem with design is to do with the false assumption that you can ask questions in the same way that you would in face-to-face research. In face-to-face you have a captive audience (although I did once have someone go to the toilet never to return – they may still be there), whereas in online you have to inspire them to want to take part to avoid drop out. This means framing the study to tap in to intrinsic motivations, for example, by making it fun, meaningful and creative. 

Therefore in online, qualitative researchers have to act like online community managers and even content strategists so that they frame questions in interesting ways. Again, this requires charging a premium in order to have the time and resources in place to manage it properly. 

3. Online qual is not more superficial than face-to-face

The truth is many still see online qual as more superficial than face-to-face.  If they have experienced under-resourced projects I can forgive that. But when it is properly designed it’s anything but superficial. 

Firstly, online qual gets you more feedback. To illustrate this, think about the two hours of input you pay participants for taking part in a group discussion. In face-to-face, only one person can talk at once. So over two hours you only get one eighth of that time per person.  In asynchronous online qual everyone gives at least a full two hours feedback in parallel, so you get eight times more feedback.

It’s not just about quantity, but also about quality of feedback.  People are often more willing to bare their soul online because they are less fazed by being in the same room as a bunch of strangers. Also people can give you feedback in a more natural environment, for example during their customer journey by mobile or in the comfort of their home.  This means you can get more real world responses.  Add to that how mobile video can tell such vivid customer stories and you have a strong argument for the quality of online qualitative. 

If more online qualitative projects were properly funded, designed and managed, then more researchers would want to do them (and be able to do them well).  In turn, this would protect the reputation of the qualitative research industry by ensuring that the highest standards are maintained (like avoiding leading questions, rotating stimuli and getting private responses). If online qualitative research continues to be under-funded and researchers turn their backs on it, then the future may not be so rosy.

Tom Woodnutt is founder of Feeling Mutual