Can Qualitative Research Improve Cultural Discourse?
For me to say that the past 18 months have been difficult would be a criminal understatement. Beyond the COVID pandemic, our collective experience of political discourse has degraded in the US and elsewhere, and deep cultural divisions that many expected were present beneath the surface have been laid bare. Our seeming inability to collectively listen well and respond thoughtfully feels abundantly apparent.
And yet, in the midst of this, I’ve seen some encouraging developments in the past year that give me hope.
I’ve recently shifted my professional focus from managing a business to directly moderating research. In the past year, I’ve listened (and probably talked more than I should have) to moms who’ve endured pregnancies and labor & delivery during COVID, small business owners in Malaysia managing supply chain disruptions, real estate agents navigating dramatic upheaval in the US housing market, and charitable donors worried about the state of those receiving their support.
In these conversations there’s been disagreement — sometimes strong disagreement. And without fail I’ve experienced these discussions as vulnerable, open, honest, and respectful. Maybe I’ve been starved for something positive, but I’m excited by these conversations. Maybe I sense something new happening in the midst of such difficult times.
I posit that the insights industry — especially qualitative — has the power to affect our discourse. I know of few other venues where people are brought together to simply share experiences, listen and compare notes, and to be heard. As moderators, we have the opportunity to set the stage for the conversation — to establish ground rules, to set the tone and tenor for an open exchange, and to make sure that everyone is heard to the degree they want to be.
I don’t think I’ve taken this seriously enough. I’m guilty of being too focused on the commercial aspects and the logistical facets of our work: setting dates and times for fieldwork, making sure stimuli is correct, reviewing recruiting grids, etc. But when I make the space for honest reflection on the privilege we have to meet people across the globe and hear their stories, I’m frankly sobered and a little floored by the opportunity to be intentional about the ways we approach research.
I hope I’m not coming across as a dewy-eyed realist. Our abilities to listen and to respectfully enter people’s worlds means we give clients better insights and guidance. When we successfully capture the -emic view of culture we are better translators and guides for brands to meet the needs of those we’ve shared time with. Better connections yield better insights yield better decisions.
In the spirit of starting a conversation, I offer 4 small things we can do as moderators, observers, as research suppliers, to make little differences to improve our cultural discourse.
1. Acknowledge the collective struggle. Begin each encounter — focus group, depth, online board — with a simple “how are you / is everyone doing?”. This simple, human acknowledgement that the struggle is shared is enough to give some people a chance to safely and confidentially voice what’s on their mind and heart and connect in meaningful ways with others.
2. Encourage debate but maintain decorum. As moderators, we‘re trained to look for divergent experiences and points of view. This is where insights emerge. But doing this well, especially now, is an opportunity to demonstrate civil debate and honest but respectful disagreements. And since we are driving the discussion, we have the responsibility and privilege to demonstrate decorum.
3. Intentionally search out new conversations. The qual industry has relied too long on major metropolitan areas — we all know the markets — as standards for recruiting and interviewing. The demographic shift in the US in the past year is proof enough that we need to look to secondary and tertiary markets to better understand people. Meet with people who aren’t in commonly researched markets.
4. Be self-reflexive. The moderator / participant relationship can be problematic: With the privilege of setting the tone / tenor / dynamics of the discussion comes the potential to skew the conversation or de-emphasize a participant’s experience. Let’s find ways to ensure we’re as open and accepting as possible. Peer review of screeners, guides, and analysis models is one way to address this. Having colleagues watch us moderate and give feedback is another.
This is just a start — I’d benefit from the community of practitioners: what are other things we can be doing to affect discourse and be good “researcher citizens”?
