Strategy and Analysis Association invited Innsikteriet to give a talk during MAD 21 – the industry’s annual professional day. Lene Thorsen and Geir Tommy Hoset from Innsikteriet were asked to give their assessments of how the pandemic had affected qualitative research? What have we learned during the corona pandemic that we should take with us when everyday life is without restrictions?
Market analysis: digital opportunities and challenges
Like other industries, those of us who work in qualitative analysis had a hard and brutal encounter with the restrictions imposed by the government on March 12, 2020. There was an abrupt stop and all projects were postponed. After the initial shock, the realities quickly began to sink in. The closest parallel was the financial crisis of 2008 – but then qualitative analysis was little affected. In March and April 2020, uncertainty was high: To what extent will market budgets be cut, adjusted or reduced?
The restrictions on social contact greatly affected our qualitative toolbox: The majority of the qualitative research we conducted was F2F – either in the form of 1:1 conversations, dyads/triads or group conversations. We had to change the way we worked. There was simply no other choice. So, after a period of INACTIVITY – we started to look at different tools and platforms for how we could talk and interact with customers and consumers again. NO ONE questioned going digital – because there was no other option!
When the corona pandemic hit, video conferencing and overnight video calls became the norm for many people. At the expense of the physical conversation. Naturally, qualitative analyses followed the same path; there was no opportunity to ask critical questions about the method because there were few alternatives.
The technology for using text and video in qualitative methods had been available for many years. In Insights, we have used it extensively – but mainly in relation to asynchronous surveys – and primarily text-based. Home assignments that survey participants have answered electronically before participating in interviews or groups. Or “online panels” – where a selection of participants have answered various questions/issues over a given, defined period of 1 to 3 weeks. Early on in the pandemic, the Insights team had the opportunity to work on a large European project together with Insites Consulting (Human8) and Coca-Cola.
Qualitative analysis is a field that moves slowly. There are several reasons why digital tools were used to a limited extent before the pandemic:
- Laggers. Qualitative environments are traditionally very slow to adopt new technology.
- Choosing the safe and secure. Selects primarily the proven methods: Tested. Tried and tested. Works. Why change what works?
- Uncertainty related to the participants. Are they technically ready for it? Will it work?
- The emotional. Reduced opportunities to get those immediate and emotional reactions/feedback
The experience we had at Innsikteriet when we went digital was good. It worked very well. This was due to several factors:
- Selection/Target group. Fewer restrictions on who we talk to. This applies not least in relation to geography. We got a larger sample that made it possible to run surveys with user groups with narrower interests/attitudes.
- Comfortable. It lowers the threshold for participating in surveys when you can take part “from home”. Participants are in their comfortable and natural environment. It saves time for participants to take part. And, they’re at home when the group/interview is finished. In some cases, the dropout rate is also higher.
- Observers. It’s also easier for observers to own groups. In Insights, we noticed that the threshold for observing surveys is considerably lower. We’ve never had as many observers as when we ran digital group conversations during the pandemic.
- Economy. Slightly less expensive in terms of implementation, primarily related to recruitment costs (recruiting fewer participants for digital than physical groups). There are also savings in terms of venue rental and travel costs for out-of-town events. The job of a moderator is the same whether it is physical or online.
- Stable and reliable solutions. In the vast majority of cases, the video call platforms work very well. It’s only in exceptional cases that we experience: poor internet connection, old/outdated PC without camera or mobile phone that runs out of battery.
- Good tools. The online platforms have good, interactive tools such as chat/polls (individual response), whiteboard, sharing/displaying stimuli, control/management of participants (mute/eject), etc.
In Innsikteriet, we also see that the moderator role works differently when conducting digital group conversations:
- The dialog and flow of the conversation works in a different way. As a moderator, you have to be more direct towards the participants. In digital groups, the moderator has more of a conductor’s role.
- There is clearly less interaction between the participants – even though we encourage this. To a lesser extent, we can throw questions out to the “group as a whole”.
- Silence works in a completely different way digitally than physically. Silence is a natural part and part of the rhythm of a normal chat and conversation. Digitally, silence helps to create uncertainty and doubt about whether the technology is working properly.
In digital groups, the moderator has more of a conducting role.
We have good experience with digital channels, but they certainly have their weaknesses and will not be able to completely replace physical conversations. The topic will also greatly affect which method you should choose and the consequences of the chosen method. I think face-to-face conversations are best if you want in-depth insight and understanding of a topic, and especially if there are several respondents. Digital channels work better when there are few participants, testing, etc. So my professional opinion is that physical focus groups/interviews in general are definitely not dead. Qualitative methods will definitely suffer, and lose credibility, if everything is done digitally.
The pandemic will change much of how we work. Home offices will probably become more widespread, but will not be used 100% of the time. We see that meetings via Zoom and Teams will become part of the mix. And it’s largely about the social aspect. The digital “room” works, but not optimally in terms of immediate connection, atmosphere, relationship and a certain degree of intimacy. Humans are fundamentally social animals. We play, work, eat and fight with each other. We should not underestimate the importance of being physically together.
Insight sees more use of hybrid solutions in the future
