“Gizzajob, I can run groups, go on, gizzajob”

I have recently been drawn into an online debate on the topic of DIY research and it has reminded me of one of my favourite dramas from the 1980s (yes, I’m that old).  It was a series written by Alan Bleasdale called Boys from the Blackstuff.  In the most memorable episode, a main character (Yosser Hughes, played superbly by Bernard Hill), rampages around the streets of Liverpool asking unsuspecting workers to give him a job. 

At one point he follows a council groundsman trying to draw white lines around a football pitch.  As Yosser becomes more manic the white lines become more jagged with the workman becoming more and more nervous as Yosser taunts him menacingly saying, ‘Gizzajob mate, I can draw lines, go on, gizzajob.’

This particular drama came to mind, not just because it is a particular favourite but also because I think there are parallels to be drawn with running groups and indeed with qualitative research as a whole.

And one of the key points surrounding this, I feel, is that sometimes as qualitative researchers, we can become the victims of our own success.  We run groups and conduct interviews so well that at times it probably looks as easy as drawing a straight white line along a football pitch.

This in itself of course ignores the fact that, as I have found to my cost, drawing a straight line along a football pitch is no mean feat.  And whilst Yosser might have felt himself well equipped to draw the lines, one wonders how he might have coped with other aspects of this particular groundsman’s role, such as perhaps looking after the pitches in general, cleaning out the changing rooms, being available all weekend to open up, clean up, close up etc.

By the same token, observers at groups might also be forgiven for not considering what has preceded the group in terms of designing a topic guide, recruiting the ‘right’ people, designing the project as whole.  They might also fail to acknowledge that this running of the group is just one part of the qualitative process, which will later involve analysis of what has taken place in the group and the crucial aspect of interpreting just what has been said and how it has been said.  Then the writing of a document and delivering a debrief, with strong conclusions and actionable recommendations.

Just like Yosser then, the danger is that an observer at a group sees what they want to see – great respondents (‘weren’t you lucky they were such a good bunch’), a discussion which flows (‘wasn’t that fortunate how you were able to bring that topic into play at that particular time’) and a group that bonds (‘it was great how they all felt able to say what they thought but they listened to each other as well’).

I’m not suggesting that all of the groups I have run have followed this particular pattern but when they have done so the result has been that some observers have suggested that what I did was easy and that how I did it was perhaps something they could do for themselves.

And there’s the rub – when we make things look easy we lay ourselves open to the likes of Yosser suggesting he too could do it himself.

So what’s the answer here?  I’m not suggesting we over-dramatise what we do (although I’ve seen many a qualitative researcher in action who already does just that) because that might suggest we protest too much.  But what I am saying is that we need to try and put across to people that there’s a lot more to qualitative research and running groups than turning up, having a chat with a few people and going home.

And what I’m also saying is that the more we educate clients and potential clients along these lines, then the less likely it is that they will ‘do a Yosser’ on us.  Surely no-one wants that!

'Traditional Group Discussions' - Discuss

‘Traditional Group Discussions’ – Discuss

In the multi-social-media world in which we live, it’s so easy these days to keep track of one’s competitors.  Indeed some of them make it even easier, updating you as their ‘close connection’ on LinkedIn with their latest company presentation, highlighting their new bell, whistle, flugel horn, vuvuzela et al. 

And it’s through a close connection of a close connection I came across the heading for this particular piece of bloggage. 

Here was a research company announcing the launch of its latest website, and a very fine job the company seems to have done with it as well. 

On closer inspection, however, or after further ‘stalking’, as my teenage daughter might say, I clicked on the qualitative offering for this particular company.  And top of the list was the mouth-watering prospect of ‘traditional group discussions’.

Having been a qualitative researcher for more years than I generally care to advertise these days, I can imagine why this particular heading might have been chosen.  Group discussions have not had a brilliant press for years, not helped in my view by programmes like The Apprentice, which on one level promotes the use of market research, and on another, devalues it completely by showing it done badly on a regular basis.

John Humphrys has not done us too many favours over the years either, often using his most disparaging tone when referring to the use of ‘focus groups’ when testing government policies and the like.

This having been said, however, I still don’t quite see why a company presumably trying to ‘sell’ group discussions would preface this term with the word ‘traditional’.  Is it just me or does this not sound as though these particular groups will be conducted by slightly out of touch researchers, clinging to a method, which the very title of this offering would seem to undermine.

Because ‘traditional’ to me suggests an apology for a method, and not one with which I personally would want to be associated.  My groups might use a ‘traditional’ format at times but these groups sound like they’ll be formulaic in the extreme.  Maybe they’ll have ‘traditional’ respondents thrown in for good measure too, whatever they might look like or act like.

Some might argue that my getting hot under the collar on this topic is my just reward for stalking competitors online.  But my answer to this is as follows:  Just because group discussions have been around for years, this does not mean we should potentially start to devalue them by referring to them as ‘traditional’.  To me this smacks of apologising for the technique, as opposed to celebrating and promoting the same.

So what’s wrong with the term ‘group discussion’, or ‘focus group’ come to that?  Done well and done properly, this method has stood the test of time.  So let’s not start selling it like a quarter of humbugs from a jar, or a loaf of stale bread from Arkwright’s in Open All Hours.

Group discussions work.  It’s official.  Be proud.  Celebrate.

2013 - Get Real!

2013 - Get Real!

Another new year and early talk on the forums revolves around what’s going to be the next big thing. In research world, the tendency has been to big up all things virtual once more – let’s build pretend communities, let’s get people interacting as and when they feel like it, let’s invent games for them to play and then interpret them as if we’re fully trained psychiatrists. The list goes on.

Obviously I read these things and familiarise myself with potential new techniques which might be useful as part of my researcher’s kit bag. At times I even worry that I really am becoming that dinosaur which some ‘modern’ researchers would have me cast as.

And then I read a blog in a Harvard Business magazine which serves to inspire rather than to depress. Here there’s talk of the value of meeting people face-to-face, rather than ‘chatting’ over the ether. Here there’s talk of the value in the quality of conversation and communication, and not just in the quantity.

This sets me thinking about my own recent connections and reconnections with friends and family, some of which have been in person and some of which have been via various social networking sites.

It serves to remind me that the personae which some people use on the likes of Facebook can be very different from the person they are when you meet them face-to-face. It helps me to remember that whilst some can come across as very positive in the way they present themselves online, when you scratch the surface face-to-face, this can mask a whole host of issues they are facing in their day-to-day lives.

It turns out, for example, that one of my ‘friends’ has had one of the worst years of his life and I only get chance to find that out when we’re chatting in person rather than ‘bantering’ online. It also turns out that another ‘friend’, whilst appearing the life and soul from their social network ‘identity’, in real life leaves parties early and spends most of their time when at said parties interacting with virtual friends they can’t actually see.

What all of this does most of all is to reinforce my view on the fact that there is nothing more valuable, both in life and in research, than in meeting people face-to-face and getting to know them for real and not just for virtual.

So here’s my pledge for 2013. I’ll continue to engage with all things social media – I enjoy Facebook, I’m growing to love Twitter and I can see a great deal of value in LinkedIn.

 

But I’ll also remember that there’s nothing better both in life and in research than saying ‘let’s meet up and have a ‘proper’ chat.’

So yeah, I’m going to get more real in the year ahead and why don’t you?!

Happy New One! 

Just Add Skills

Just Add Skills

I was reminded of an ex-colleague the other day – someone for the purposes of this blog I shall refer to as Doctor No.  This was someone whose arrival at the company for which I was working at the time was heralded in almost messianic proportions.  Not only had he been working in London (and we were based in a sleepy Stockport suburb), he was in his mid-20s and already had a PhD on his CV.

So Doctor No arrived and was immediately entrusted with looking after some important clients and conducting some important group discussions.  Internally, some of us had our doubts about the Doctor almost immediately.  Openly flirting with respondents had not been a part of any training manuals we’d read on qualitative research.

Time passed and concerns over Doctor No grew as clients began to murmur about potential misgivings over his behaviour and perhaps more importantly, his intellectual capabilities.

My bosses at the time were reluctant to hear these negative views being expressed openly about the Doctor, by staff or by clients alike.  This may have had something to do with the fact that they had originally appointed Doctor No, agreeing to a high salary (well he had worked in that London) as well as a large percentage of the first year of the same to the agency from whence he came.

Concerns and complaints continued to surround Doctor No, however, and eventually he was summoned for a final showdown.  My then boss confronted the Doctor with the ever-growing list of misdemeanours to which he had few answers to offer.  And as the tension rose she finally made the suggestion which had been on everyone else’s lips ever since he’d arrived.

            “You know what” she cried, “I don’t think you’ve even got a PhD”

The Doctor remained brazen as ever as he looked my boss in the eye.

            “I said I’d started one, I didn’t say I actually had one” was his eventual retort.

Well, as you might guess, Doctor No’s stay was cut rather short at that point.  The agency was informed that their bill would not be paid and an agreement was made with the Doctor that if he walked quickly enough, he might be able to begin a new career elsewhere, preferably in a different industry.

The Doctor came to my mind as I reflected on what he might be doing now.

If he has a company website I’m thinking he might be the sort who’s pretty decent at making sure it remains pretty high on Google searches.  I can hear him now – ‘let’s say we work in every part of the UK and all over the world, and let’s make sure we take those key words to the max’.  Yes, he did like the odd cliché.

And if he’s on LinkedIn I’m reckoning that he’s bought himself a few thousand contacts on the internet and his profile appears on hundreds of other influential people’s profiles day in and day out.

And I wonder what his actual profile now contains.  Is he still claiming to be a doctor?  Is he still saying he’s a qualitative researcher?  Is he now saying that his career in the north went swimmingly well?

Truth is these days we all have more opportunity than ever to big ourselves up.  And these days there are plenty of companies out there ready to encourage us  and to help us do the same. 

So where do we draw the line?  And who will be the final arbiter?

The Doctor was exposed…eventually.  But what of all those other people currently designing their websites, filling in their LinkedIn profile pages?

To tell it as it is, as we say at Park Lane Research, or to ‘just add skills’? You decide. 

Oh, and if you endorse me for my skills, I’ll endorse you for yours.  Cheers.

New Verb Please

Considering the number of group discussions I’ve moderated over the past couple of decades it’s interesting that one comment made in one group comes to mind more often than most.

I was conducting some work on behalf of Waitrose and during the group one man, having realised that he was in amongst fellow Waitrose shoppers came out with the following line, ‘of course you know why we all go to Waitrose it’s because it’s full of PLUs’.

‘PLUs?’ I asked.

‘Yes, people like us’ he replied and looked around the room for approval.  And approval was indeed forthcoming.

I was reminded again of this incident at the weekend when I asked my wife whether we should go and buy something for Sunday lunch.  ‘Oh it’s ok,’ she said, ‘I went shopping this morning when you were out. Well it wasn’t really shopping, I went to Waitrose’.

This has set me thinking about shopping in a more general sense because I knew exactly what she meant.  Shopping at Waitrose is a somewhat different experience to shopping at some other supermarkets.

Somehow it feels more relaxed, you feel better looked after, you feel like the products have been looked after too, and nothing will be too much trouble if you have a question for any member of staff.

So I’m wondering whether to put forward a new verb for the next Oxford English Dictionary; it’s the verb ‘to waitrose’.  The definition would be something along the lines of having a pleasant shopping experience during which one feels at home and during which one has confidence that all will be well.

Because all tends to be well at Waitrose, and of course you shop in the knowledge that you tend to be surrounded by PLUs…

'Cheap Gourmet'

‘Cheap Gourmet’

Please see above the name for a new chain of restaurants I’m considering. 

It’s inspired by the name of another company I came across recently which calls itself ‘Easy Insights’.

After twenty plus years in research I was quite taken aback to find a company whose name suggests that it can provide insights that are simple.  The truth is I’ve always found them quite difficult to unravel.

Or was I just behind the times in terms of word definition I wondered?

The dictionary was consulted:

‘Insight’(Noun)	1.	Clear or deep perception of a situation
	2.	A feeling of understanding
	3.	The clear (and often sudden) understanding of a complex situation
	4.	Grasping the inner nature of things intuitively

It seemed to me that the definition in my mind had not been too far from the truth.

But here’s a company that can discover deep perceptions easily.  Here’s a firm that can presumably make complex situations seem simple.

So good luck to them I say, maybe it’s time for me to consider my future career options.

And thanks to them, I had the inspiration for ‘Cheap Gourmet’.

We’ll create amazing dishes using inexpensive ingredients.

We’ll offer succulent meals made by untrained chefs.

Soufflés will be our speciality and ours will be simple to make rise.

If I build this, do you think people will come?

You see I’m not so sure.

I think there are still plenty of people who understand that top meals require the best ingredients and trained chefs.

And there are still plenty of clients, most of mine included, who believe that insights come from high quality research conducted by the best researchers.

So I’ll tell you what, scrap the ‘Cheap Gourmet’ idea, I’m off to gather some insight. 

And I really don’t think it’s going to be that easy.

Of Style & Substance

It’s always interesting to be given the opportunity to see how your competitors approach proposals and debriefs. Theirs is never as good as yours of course; either they’re asking too much for too little when it comes to the proposal; or they’re stating the obvious and delivering minimal insight when it comes to the debrief.

These days, though, another element has become a major issue, if not the major issue when it comes to how people judge both proposals and debriefs. And this is the way in which both these elements of a project are presented.

You see already in writing this I’m starting to get worried that I’m becoming a tad wordy. And already I’m beginning to have concerns that because I haven’t provided illustrations for the words ‘style’ or ‘substance’ in my title that many of you have switched to trying to find something else to read instead.

But for those who have made it this far I would like to make a point about what I see as a case of style over substance in some of the research documents to which I have recently been exposed.

In these documents I have seen colour aplenty, photographs in abundance, numerous videos, and musical accompaniments too; and whilst some of this serves to complement and support a given argument or story, much of the rest I feel is often verging on the gratuitous.

What I also feel is that in some cases such devices are employed at times when argument generally is lacking and when a narrative has not even been considered, much less thought through.

Please don’t get me wrong here; I’m all for the use of graphics, illustrations, video material et al if it is being used for a purpose and not just for effect. I’m all for the use of any means by which a proposal can be made more interesting, a presentation can flow more smoothly and be better communicated.

But I’m only in favour of this if a proposal is strong on substance already and a presentation has been thought through properly. If this is not the case then I believe that many of the devices mentioned above might eventually serve to devalue our industry more than enhance it.

The written word, I feel, has been fundamental to the way this industry has grown and developed to date. I’d like the use of words to remain a key part of how we continue to communicate. Let’s not gloss over this in our obsession with all things bright and shiny and new.

Now I’m hoping you made it this far in your reading. Otherwise I’ll start to wish I’d kept the original title for this piece. It was ‘fur coat and no knickers’, so you can imagine how much fun might have been had on Google image with that.