Conference review: AQR-QRCA Conference, 7-9 May 2008

Citation

Keegan, S. (2008), "Conference review: AQR-QRCA Conference, 7-9 May 2008", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 11 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2008.21611dab.001

Conference review: AQR-QRCA Conference, 7-9 May 2008

Article Type: Practitioner perspectives From: Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Volume 11, Issue 4

This was the fourth Association for Qualitative Research (AQR)-QRCA international conference; a collaboration between the AQR in the UK and the Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) in the USA.

About the AQR and the QRCA

For those readers who are not familiar with the AQR and the QRCA, I will briefly describe the two organisations. The AQR is the principal authority on the qualitative research industry in the UK. It was founded in the early 1980s as a non-profit organisation and sees its role as to develop understanding of the commercial value of qualitative research within the qualitative research community and among market research buyers, marketers, the broader business community and the media. This takes many forms, from promoting industry standards, providing training, creating forums for debate, promoting qualitative research as a career and facilitating networking and social events.

The QRCA is, broadly, the parallel authority on the qualitative research industry in the USA. It is also a not-for-profit association of consultants involved in the design and implementation of qualitative research. It sees its goal as to promote excellence in the field of qualitative research by pooling experience and expertise to create a base of shared knowledge.

The rain in Spain

The AQR-QRCA conference was held in Barcelona; that romantic, laid back city, where transatlantic differences are quickly dispelled by the wafting of flamenco music on a balmy breeze – and copious quantities of cava.

Sadly, however, the rain fell in Spain that week. Whilst London basked in its brief, soon to be forgotten, summer, the rain pounded relentlessly from slate grey skies for three solid days. But – glass half full – this did ensure that delegates rarely ventured from the conference room.

The conference attracted a truly international audience; speakers and delegates from Russia, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and more, as well as a hearty contingent from both the USA and the UK – and the papers were equally varied.

Themes that meandered through the conference included the interpretation of ethics in a “post modern” world; the death of the “focus group” (greatly exaggerated, it seems); the central importance of language in analysis and, not to be forgotten, of course, how we – intuitive, people focused, creative quallies make sense of research in a virtual world.

Here, are some of the highlights – well my personal favourites; the papers that make me think or laugh or gasp […]

The death of the focus group is greatly exaggerated

Peter Cooper and Simon Patterson of CRAM International launched into a splendid faux battle to attack and defend the much maligned “focus group”. Focus groups are outdated, artificial, rely on participants’ unreliable memories, with naïve reportage and simplistic interpretation, argued Simon. We must go forth and mingle; meet consumers in the act, capture the moment of decision, not the tired old story fished out of failing memory some months later.

Ah no, retorted Peter. Trial by “focus group” has become a term of abuse, much bandied about by those who have no knowledge or experience of “proper” focus group research. The group is the sacred circle, fundamental to knowledge-sharing through the ages. Ancients who huddled around the camp fire sharing knowledge are not fundamentally different from the circle of consumers in a focus group. Knowledge is created in the dynamic interaction of the group, however seemingly trivial. The present is always fed by reconstruction of the past and anticipation of the future, but it is still the “now”. It was a riotous, extravagant session and great fun.

Caroline Hayter Whitehall of Acacia Avenue and Chris Forrest of The Nursery, continued the theme of “focus group – friend or foe”, but in a more seemly manner. They argued for focus groups as a considered choice; tailoring the location, the number in the group, the length of time, the activities, to the research problem at hand. And they criticised the “sexing up” of research, through the use of novel techniques, fashionable notions of “herds”, co-creation and so-called Research 2.0 techniques. Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these research approaches, they warned against the dangers of becoming obsessed with gimmicks – toys for boys – ignoring the importance of good old fashioned analysis and thinking.

“Ethics creep”

Andy Baxter of YouGov plc built on this theme; the tension between thorough, disciplined research and the need to impress clients with innovative techniques. “Has qualitative research sold its soul?”, he asked. How do we maintain our ethical stance in the face of increasing demands from clients to “experience” the research, to be immersed in consumer culture; the ethnographic sheep dip? Is “ethics creep” the inevitable consequence of using ethnography and psycho-analytically derived techniques? Do we cross the ethical boundaries when we move into consumers’ lives? Are we totally honest about why we are there? Do we exploit vulnerabilities, consciously or otherwise? There were no easy answers here, but two later papers highlighted, in quite stark fashion, the theoretical issues that Andy had aired.

Deception in research

The first paper was given by a researcher and client team from the USA. They described a study in which the client adopted the role of a patient with schizophrenia in order to explore the patient-physician interaction. Previous studies had repeatedly demonstrated discrepancies between the reported behaviour of the physician and the behaviour as described by the patient. Unable to reconcile these differences, they decided that the client would take on the role of the patient in order to evaluate the “true” interaction between patient and physician. She would attend a 90 minute appointment with the physician, maintaining the role of someone suffering from schizophrenia throughout. Apparently, she played the part successfully with a large number of physicians and unearthed a rich seam of understanding which probably could not have been tapped in other ways. However, a question from the floor led to heated debate:

“Were the doctors aware that you were role playing?” asked a delegate.

“We only told them if we were asked”, was the response.

The ethics of this research project reverberated throughout the conference, as it was discussed in lifts and in toilets, over breakfast and dinner.

Did the means justify the end? The research outcomes might be of great help to future patients with schizophrenia, but did that justify deceiving the doctors in this way? How could deception ever be justified? Delegates polarised; the large majority seemed to believe that the research process overstepped the boundaries of ethical research? I do not know what the QRCA code of conduct has to say about this, but the UK Market Research Code of Conduct is quite clear. It states that, “Respondents must not be misled when being asked for cooperation to participate in a research project”.

Research or PR?

A second paper raised ethical issues which were less extreme but were interesting because they apply to much current qualitative research. The paper highlighted the current trend for using research data to illustrate research outcomes and the use to which such data can be put. With the increased usage of videos, blogs, photography, online methods, facebook, etc. as research tools, there is a greater tendency to use these materials to illustrate the research outcomes to clients. To do so, they need to be selected and edited. This raises questions; are we selecting and editing to add drama to the presentation or simply to illustrate the outcomes of the research? Or both? Are we absolutely sure that the material will not be used by the client for purposes other than research? How do we ensure research participant anonymity?

Patrice Wooldridge and Shaili Bhatt of Wooldridge Associates, Inc. presented an innovative and relevant methodology to address a difficult research problem, which raised some of the ethical issues outlined above. Woolridge and Bhatt needed to explore the ways in which contact lenses “performed”, as input to new product development, but it was difficult for contact lenses users to recall fairly minor problems retrospectively, as many had become so accustomed to their difficulties that they no longer paid attention to them. The researchers devised a triangulation method of multiple qualitative approaches in order to identify “moments of pain” and asked research participants to describe these experiences in the moment of their discomfort. Participants were provided with clickers to help them become aware of and count moments of discomfort and they also reported their experiences daily in online bulletin board blogs, which allowed them to share with others and become more aware of moments of discomfort. Webcams were also mailed to their homes and they were asked to create online video logs. So far so good.

Using the material generated, the researchers then narrowed down the group by selecting research participants who were “videogenic”. They conducted “light ethnographies” (i.e. focused, shortened ethnographic approaches) in the locations participants had mentioned in their blogs (at home, whilst driving, playing golf, etc.). During these in-person interviews, participants re-enacted their experiences and, in many cases, were able to capture the exact “moment of pain” on tape. The interviews were recorded by a professional crew and edited to create a short video, “Life Beyond the Chair” which was used to educate – and promote to – eye-doctors.

The methodology was ingenious and effective but, as the researchers themselves acknowledged, it raised ethical issues. Selecting participants who were “videogenic”, and using research interviews to, effectively, create promotional material, even with the express permission of the research participants, raises concerns about the “true” purpose of the research. The researchers, accepting this ambiguity, stressed their clear intent to differentiate between the research project and the development of the video, but less professional researchers may be tempted to conflate the two tasks. On this point, the MRS Code of Conduct states, “Any such non-research activities must always, in the way they are organised and carried out, be clearly differentiated from marketing research activities”.

The importance of language

On a very different tack, Rosie Campbell of Campbell Keegan Ltd won “Best Paper”, by reminding us of the critical importance of language in research. She argued that we have become seduced by the plethora of new qualitative data sources, forsaking analytical rigour for the quick fix of ethnographic immersion or first impressions gleaned from a focus group. We take these impressions as the research “findings” rather than the raw ingredients which need to be carefully worked and analysed and nurtured to become “more than the sum of the parts” – solid, well thought out strategic recommendations. She cited Steven Pinker and his view that the brain is hard-wired for metaphor and urged more attention to textual and narrative analyses, stressing that language tells us how people think and how they create meaning. This was qualitative thinking at its best; the nuts and bolts of what we do as qualitative researchers – when we do it well.

The philosophy of research

More esoteric issues were addressed in an excellent trio of papers by Chris Barnham of Chris Barnham Research and Strategy, Luigi Toiati of Focus SRL and Reyn Kinzey of Kinzey & Day Qualitative Market Research. Who ever said that commercial researchers cannot get their teeth into existential truths? In their different ways, the three papers circled around the knotty issues of perception, belief and “objectivity”.

Toiati discussed the importance of synaesthesia – when one sense triggers a response in a different sense – and its, largely neglected, importance in marketing. “Language … influences the senses and modifies our mental images, and thereby our expectations”, he declared. Toiati called for a greater understanding of metaphor and synaesthesia as bridges for communication in the analysis of qualitative data.

Kinzey concentrated on the work of Michael Polanyi, the chemist and philosopher who, back in those heady, hippie days of the early 1960s – simultaneously, a positivist epoch – was espousing the “delusion” of science and arguing that knowledge resides in people, not objects or words and that all knowledge is experiential. These ideas may seem commonplace today, but in the 1960s they were radical indeed. Adopting Polanyi’s philosophy, Kinzey described how he approached research experientially; seeing, hearing feeling, absorbing, understanding; a whole body experience, not just an intellectual one.

Barnham completed the trinity with his talk on brand essence. He argued that marketers have completely misunderstood brand essence by regarding it as fixed and immutable which, in turn, has limited the scope and power of the brand. Quoting from the German philosopher, G.W.Leibniz at the turn of the eighteenth century and borrowing from pre-modern thought, Barnham built up a convincing case for viewing brand essence in a more complex light; as relational, fluid and contextual. For example, Coca Cola contains the value of “Americanness”, amongst other values. By increasing, or decreasing, the saliency of this value – and others – different patterns or hierarchies emerge which change the nature of the brand and its meaning for consumers. By liberating ourselves from the notion of a single brand essence, we open up opportunities for emphasising “good” aspects of the brand and compensating for the “bad”.

Going virtual

The conference would not have been complete without a good dose of virtual reality and it certainly delivered on this score. There were some excellent, pragmatic papers on how Research 2.0 techniques complement old fashioned earthly methodologies.

There were those of us, I include myself amongst them, who viewed online research with suspicion and much nervousness. We, as quallies, are “touchy feely” and online groups, blogs and so forth had us squealing about the need for eyeball contact, body language and the importance of intuition.

Sarah Davies of Henley Centre Headlight Vision was having none of this. Sarah, who has been using virtual methodologies for the last 15 years chided us gently as she pointed out that the virtual world is a reality that complements the real world and we need to understand virtual activities if we, as qualitative researchers, are not to be left behind. She urged us to dispense with the artificial distinction between “virtual” and “real” research and simply choose the methodology that is best suited to the project. In other words, do what we have always done, but use (and most importantly know how to use) the “virtual” and “real” approaches that are available. She pointed out that now, more than ever, consumers are in the driving seat. They are communicating directly with clients. They are setting their own agendas. Without an understanding of how consumers are using new technology, we will fall by the wayside.

Second Life

I could go along with Sarah’s argument, but the presentation that was truly mind boggling was given by a researcher from the USA; Jack Tatar of GEM Research Solutions. He described how he conducted focus groups on Second Life. Research participants were both Second Life residents and real life respondents who entered the virtual world for research purposes. It was fascinating to watch the avatars on screen, sitting in a circle mimicking a real live focus group. They were discussing “Restaurants of the Future”. I was somewhat mystified about the need to use avatars on Second Life, when a bunch of perfectly human research participants would do just as well, but Jack explained that using avatars enabled him to conduct an International brainstorming session, including participants from Japan, the States, Europe and Australia at the same time. It was an amazing glimpse into possible futures for qualitative research, but I remain to be convinced.

Conclusion

The conference offered an enticing mix of the pragmatic, the esoteric and the weird. It provoked, it informed and it challenged. Wine flowed. The dancing became manic. What more could you ask for? It was one of the best conferences I have attended.

Sheila KeeganCampbell Keegan Ltd

About the author

Sheila Keegan holds a PhD and is a Chartered Psychologist and Founding Partner of Campbell Keegan Ltd, a business and social research consultancy, working with multi-national, blue chip companies and government departments providing a psychological grounding for understanding people’s motivations, drives, fears and motivations. Sheila is a fellow of the MRS, a regular speaker at MRS, ESOMAR, AQR, BPS conferences and teaches on MRS and AQR research training courses. She has written and presented programmes for BBC Radio 4. She has written for various publications including The Sunday Telegraph, The Times, The Psychologist, Psychologies Magazine and Mensa Magazine. She is a committee member and a newsletter Editor for the British Psychological Society in the “Qualitative Methods in Psychology” Section. Sheila Keegan can be contacted at: sheila@campbellkeegan.com, web site: www.campbellkeegan.com