Qualitative research has a wonderful heritage, of which it should be immensely proud. It has been used to unwrap some of the most challenging problems and helped develop profound human understandings – motivations, psychological needs, everyday truths and the deeper meanings that underpin life on this messy planet of ours.

Unfortunately, commercial qualitative research has lost its way. Yes, there are still ‘quallies’ doing great things and qualitative research remains a significant source of revenue. Times change – but the way we present and represent qualitative research hasn’t, at least to any significant degree. This lack of transformation has led to the sector becoming a ‘hostage to fortune’.

The meteoric rise of AI has thrown all manner of proverbial spanners in the works. Let’s be clear though – AI is not, in and of itself, the problem here; AI is a brilliantly bright light that is making more visible the inherent need for transformation in how qualitative research shows up and, critically, in how it defines itself.

However, the warnings were there long before AI came on the scene. The sector, once rooted in status and expertise, has been experiencing increasing commodification and de-professionalisation. ‘Qual’ has become something that anyone and everyone can ‘do’. Its ‘doing’ is, seemingly, an inherent attribute of being human.

A chatty route to obsolescence?

I’ve interviewed many candidates for qualitative roles over the years. One of the things I found most striking was the sheer number of people who stated that the love of ‘talking to people’ was a primary driver for them. I have always really struggled with the idea – talking is part of the toolkit, but only one part. 

The narrative (and belief) that commercial qualitative research is about talking to people has become a ‘cultural dominant’, one that has had significant implications. Through this narrative, identities, values and behaviours are formed, while other components are missed, neglected or seen as peripheral. Ultimately, this ‘descent into talk’ devalues the sector, removes many sources of true value-creation, and leaves us at the mercy of technologies that can do ‘talk’ faster, at greater scale and more cheaply. Enter AI. 

A funny thing happened on the way to the future. We forgot why we existed. Amid ‘talking to people’, qualitative research lost sight of the imperative to exercise critical self-evaluation. We never really tackled three fundamental questions, at least not consistently or at a sector level:

1. What is qualitative research?
2. Why does qualitative research exist?
3. How does qualitative research become more relevant in a changing world?

It’s now quite hard to talk about what commercial qualitative research is, above and beyond the fact that we talk to people. Even in ethnography, the quintessential ‘watch first, talk second’ approach, the talking element too often seems to dominate. 

This situation is problematic because it makes building an argument for why qualitative research exists much harder. Most human beings are fortunate to be able to talk to other people. So, if talking to people is what we are about, it’s not exactly a unique attribute, is it?

This creates major problems of relevance and worth. Without a developed and credible answer to the first two questions, it’s not possible to respond to the third question in any meaningful way. What we’re left with is looking back to a golden age (when qual reigned supreme) and/or ridiculing what could replace what we do (take a bow, AI). 

The madness of method

The commercial qualitative research sector has spent too much time talking about the wrong things – particularly method ‘innovation’, predominantly centred on ‘new’ ways of accessing people (and thus also what they say). We talk a lot about method, seemingly ad nauseam at times. Just wade through conference schedules and it’s plain to see. 

The sector feels its own vulnerability deeply, intensely and anxiously, and the response to this collective anxiety is that we strive for relevance through doing something new. We fixate on using methods that are quicker, shinier, preferably with the level of ‘bling’ that will get us noticed. But it’s mostly method madness. We aren’t answering the questions that really matter. 

Without borders

I have always hated being called a qualitative researcher, mostly for the reasons already outlined. I don’t want to be bound to methods or conversation. I want to be free to evolve, to be intellectually extrovert, and to understand people through a multiplicity of potential lenses. If commercial qualitative research is to prosper, then it needs to look closely at how it shows up, what it is and why it exists. 

My vision is for a disciplinary world without borders; where a multitude of approaches and outlooks – from semiotics, to anthropology, and neuroscience to philosophy – are vital to the qualitative mix. This is a world of beautiful blends, where the descriptor ‘qualitative research’ has been gracefully retired. We have a new name for what we do that is centred on an intelligent humanism, one that isn’t (and should never be) reduced to simply talking to people. 

Endings and new beginnings

Most agencies will not craft this transition on their own – some will see it as just too risky and/or onerous, while some will see it as unnecessary. A few will ‘get it’ and do their own thing in splendid isolation. Clients will respond to what is in the market – this is simply what always happens.

To achieve true transformation, the sector needs the representative bodies – AQR, MRS, Esomar – to take the reins. But this must be with full recognition that there is an existential threat at play. Do or don’t do – but be aware of the consequences of doing little or nothing.

Commercial qualitative research will be transformed, one way or another – the question is whether the transformation will be one that sits well with us all. Our sector can survive, thrive and prosper, but not as we know it. Will you be the change needed?

Dr Mark Thorpe is head of thought leadership at Truth Consulting