Advertorial – Oksana Bandurovych & Natacha Dagneaud, Séissmo

How do you recognize a good qualitative research agency?

A guideline to check whether your gut feeling informs you well – or not.

Choosing a supplier for qualitative research may be challenging. There is plenty of choice and options. How do you identify a good partner?  Here are some tips from Oksana Bandurovych and Natacha Dagneaud, Séissmo, with checklists and criteria to help you find the perfect match. 

 

1) In the consideration phase

• Consider both big companies and small agencies. Especially in qualitative research, small is a “normal” size – not only from a sample point of view!
• Check out the people, it’s ok to feel sympathy (and antipathy): It is a people business, after all.
• Experienced specialists are the “real brand” here: a remarkable experience, successful research cases, recommended by other people and owning a good reputation in the research community.
• Go for substance, a sign of passion for the content and less for the ego
• Prefer tailor-made to nicely “patented” ready-to-wear methodologies
• Note that you may want previous expertise in your area. But a research agency without the industry expertise might offer you a fresh view on your product or your brand. Choose what is more important for you in your specific situation.

Sign up for Séissmo's WoM22 webinars on qualitative research – the sessions will be held in German:

• B2B target groups: "Bitte nicht drängeln – Do‘s & Dont’s, um B2B Zielgruppen von der Teilnahme an qualitativen Studien zu überzeugen" (May 12, 13h CET)
• Financial market / stocks: "Sparst du noch oder investierst du schon – Wie qualitative Forschung die traditionelle Finanzmarktforschung bereichert" (May 11, 13h CET)

 

2) In the briefing phase

• Be sure that you know what you want. Because the researchers can’t guess your desires. Make explicit what your standards are.
• The agency recontacts you (in a timely manner) and wants to clarify things (oh gosh, you don’t have time… but be assured, it will be well-invested!)
• The agency challenges your internal view, and ends up with a twist in the outline of the problem, for instance more at the root cause (this is not exactly what you asked for, but rethinking it, it might be what you need)
• You get the feeling to be understood, even if they have a form of “disobedience” because they seem to own your problem (it is not comfortable, and it is not rebellion, it will guaranty that they are not just as blind as you are, you can then hold them accountable for discovering truly novel insights)

3) You received a proposal

• The proposal is thorough, clear, trustworthy – uses simple words while not oversimplifying it, with all information about the planned research (including cost, schedule, staff, etc.)
• While you may want various options to choose from (‘light’ and ‘thorough’ version, for instance), it is also ok to get one approach. (It’s called conviction!)
• They don’t try to cover all aspects of your market and are concentrated on the main goals. There is a distinction between business and research objectives.
• You know who will work with you and which qualification he or she has.
• It explains the approach and the output – without being from a ready catalogue – you really feel it applies to your very specific business question
• But you find it lacks the promise of what will come out? Well, that’s what qualitative research is about: You are smarter afterwards. So don’t let yourself be fooled by promises. Accept a certain amount of ambiguity. They are not here to validate your assumption – they eventually will – but give them a leap of faith.
• They spend time with the analysis: while you needed the results yesterday, be happy they spend time deconstructing the meaning. Why would you pay for 20 interviews if they end up reading quickly through 10 to be able to meet your deadline?

 

4) After commissioning, in the preparation phase

• You receive a guideline, and are surprised by its structure and/or its content: it does not look like a questionnaire, and it does not seem to cover all your questions (well, don’t worry, it is a good sign: they translated your questions into an empirical procedure and they may let people talk rather than checking out your assumptions)
• They are ready to explain you the reasons for including or not including the appropriate questions into the guide. And they have the reasonable arguments regarding to it
• You do qual research to obtain the whys, but they avoid using this word/ question in their procedure. Well, that’s really great (it avoids over-rationalization)
• There are weird questions inside, which you might not decode immediately (sometimes, it can be a projective technique, sometimes a different way to put it… the more indirect, the better!)
• The agency raises some limitations, for instance you receive the information that a specific target group cannot be found (it is a good sign, they learn from the very first contact with people out there, it is not meant to disturb you – they are rather brave!)
• You have to make choices about your test or stimulus material (they talk about fatigue, about framing effects, about bias, about effects of order… and they are probably right!)
• You receive timely information about the ongoing process.
• You feel that the company works along a well-established mechanism - without fuss, adhering to the timing and conditions of the study, promptly resolving possible difficult situations.
• You receive updates on the recruitment and the participants’ profiles.
• They are ready to replace participants if not fitting the research needs.

 

5) During fieldwork

• The moderators communicate with the respondents using their vocabulary, are on the same wavelength with the respondents, instead of just asking questions like in school. The interview resembles a friendly conversation, not an interrogation according to a pre-determined scheme.
• The moderators unobtrusively monitor the respondents, encouraging the participation of shy respondents and limiting the excessive activity of other respondents.
• At the same time, the moderators do not dominate the respondents, do not express his/her point of view.
• Good moderators do not always respect the guideline and take some freedom (yes, it is a good sign! This way, you will learn more!)
• They also suggest making changes to the guideline after the first focus group or in-depth interview, if necessary.
• They may ask unexpected or provocative questions that were not in the guideline, but which help to understand the opinion of respondents better. Don’t be afraid of it!
• Respondents and you feel uplifted and inspired after the session. Wonderful! But careful: if respondents were not very engaged or talkative, this is not the sign of a bad moderation – but already a precious result: the subject and/or tested material does not create enthusiasm. Instead of feeling disappointed, you should feel smarter!
• The moderators might not accept to debrief you right away (especially in case of truly exploratory projects where the whole picture comes slowly together like a giant puzzle), and it’s a sign that they will defy their first impressions/ instincts, because we all filter things out and these researchers seem to know their limits!
• They have quality notes/transcripts and make them accessible if you wish (but they are right in telling you that it’s their job to know what to keep and what to filter out)
• They provide you with recordings if desired in alignment with GDPR rules (incl. limitation of using the final faces and voices… that’s what it is, folks!), and they document every single access point to the data (it better be so, otherwise you company might pay a strong price for any misconduct)

 

6) The final outputs

• There is a clear, well-structured report: it all flows nicely; there is enough detail to comprehend in-depth and with nuances, but overall, the information feels dense, concentrated
• The report conveys all the questions you agreed with the agency before – and contains aspects you didn’t think you didn’t know. Overall, it is a good mix of confirmation of previous hunches and truly novel insights. Both will be valuable!
• Sometimes the results may not be in line with your point of view and you may want to disagree with them by criticizing the agency. Find out the root cause.
• In the final report, there are selected illustrations, via pictures and consumer verbatim – you can empathize with people, it makes “click” in your head!
• The report has the optimal ratio of the visual materials and the text. The visual materials play a supporting role, reinforce the message – not the contrary.
• The oral presentation is convincing, lively, you can ask all your questions. You may receive the answer that some can’t be answered. Well, it’s also a good sign, no research can cover everything. Good research partners know their limits.
• After receiving the analytical report, the agency is ready to supplement it with the additional information at your request. But do not abuse this, contact the agency for the additional information only if such information is really important to you. Maybe there is a good reason why it was not included in the first place.
• Last but not least: when you take this report a few years later, you notice that so much is still true – or has become true – you realize you could share the report internally again and prove your point. This report has the potential to become an internal point of reference. It was well-invested money indeed.

 

 

ABOUT

Oksana Bandurovych and Natacha Dagneaud, Séissmo, both work in qualitative research and know each other from previously and commonly conducted projects. Oksana has a PhD in sociology from the Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Natacha graduated from Sciences Po in Paris and studied social & political science in Berlin. Using their brains and bridging their intelligence felt to be a useful way to counteract the devastating mental effects of the Ukraine war. 

 

 Advertorial in German: marktforschung.de - here

Photo: 2789759 © Dana Bartekoske Heinemann | Dreamstime .com