Quality Research Perspectives
At Thinkpiece, we talk a lot about quality research. On its own, “quality” is vague term that’s open to different interpretations. And in the world of research, specificity matters. So for our newest Perspective series, we’re breaking down the concept of “quality research” to see if we can pinpoint the key aspects that define it.
In the first of our new series, we’re focused what makes for a quality respondent, and why finding just the right respondents is critical to revealing richer insight. Kicking off this conversation are our rockstar senior field manager, Cori Bussetti; our super-smart technology moderator, Chris Dethloff; and our fearless COO and technology/finance lead researcher, John Dibling.
Along with the right set of experiences, skills, and knowledge that meet the client’s requirements, finding respondents with other attributes — communication skills, curiosity, openness, self-reflection, agile thinking — is key to revealing profound insights that can be a game-changer for the client. Identifying these traits isn’t always easy, and requires an experienced research team.
There are some practical aspects we look for in respondents, such as the technical skills to be able to participate in a remote interview or focus group. Obviously, you’re looking for relevant experiences or knowledge, particularly for our healthcare and technology studies. For our healthcare studies that require clinicians, for instance, we usually look for respondents who have less than 25 years in medical practice.
We’re also looking for certain soft skills in respondents: people who are curious and engaged in their fields or profession, who think outside the box, who are talkative and express their ideas. You want respondents who are articulate and reflective, who can not only share their views and feelings but delve into why they think or feel that way. These qualities help the moderator get to deeper and richer insights into behaviors and motivations that pure data won’t reveal.
We look for respondents who are open and truthful, in the experience they tell us they have, their answers on screeners, and their responses during the interviews or focus groups. We rely heavily on the screener to determine the professional qualifications and experiences of respondents. It’s a bit more challenging to identify those other, less tangible qualities with a screener. We’ll sometimes add open-ended questions to help us assess a potential respondent’s creativity or empathy, for example.
I think being able to identify the best respondents for each study also comes down to experience — the experience of the research team, the field manager, and the recruiting partners. After a while, you start to get a sense of who’s going to be a great respondent that leads to breakthrough insights, and who isn’t.
In the simplest terms, a quality respondent is someone who meets the client’s specific needs. When it comes to technology, they also need to know the tech or subject we’re talking about, fairly fluently.
To find that person, the research team should have a clear understanding of the clients’ goals from the study, what they’re after. Since those goals can change from day to day or start to finish — especially in the rapidly shifting tech landscape — it can sometimes be a challenge. I think the moderator in particular plays a key role in understanding the client’s intents and wishes, and in creating an environment where those wishes can be manifested.
Even when you’re looking for a very specific set of skills or experiences, there may be some value in talking to a broader group of respondents. It really depends on the type of study. A larger pool of respondents may be good for getting on overarching view of the market in general. A small, hyper-focused group of respondents may be best for capturing insight into a particular technology solution or application. We tend to take the middle road in search of both a broader perspective and nuanced reactions.
First of all, finding quality respondents — respondents who fit exactly the criteria clients want and need — is hard, especially when it comes to complex technology studies. You’re often looking for respondents that have very specific domain expertise. So, for example, it may not be good enough to find someone who’s familiar with AI when what you really need is an expert on AI in the Edge. That distinction can make all the difference in the relevancy and richness of the findings. That’s how you get profound insight.
In my experience, finding just that right, very specific respondent requires you to be laser focused. You concentrate first and foremost on finding the people who have exactly the experience and knowledge you’re looking for. You only open it up to a wider scope of experience as a last-ditch effort. You may end up talking to 30 different people and only five of them provide the precise insight your client wants and needs.
That’s why the screener is so important, and the one of the hardest parts of a research project. You have to come up with questions that are in no way ambiguous, that leave no room for misinterpretation. Since you can’t get on the phone with the person to question them, you’re relying on that screener to identify those ideal respondents for you. At my core, I believe that whatever answer I want to evoke from a potential respondent, there’s always a right question to ask on the screener. The challenge is in identifying that question.
The fall back is to be more open-ended with the screener. In those cases, it’s up to us as the researchers to interpret what the respondent is saying in their answers and whether they’re right for the study based on those answers.
Besides the specific expertise we’re looking for, it’s also a prerequisite for respondents to be curious. A quality respondent is also a good communicator who is clear and succinct, and who can think fast on their feet when asked thought-provoking questions. At least, that’s who we seek out for our studies.