Selecting the Best Qualitative Methodologies

Selecting the individual or combined methodologies that will best fulfill the study objectives is a combination of art and science. When making this decision my personal process is more intuitive than scientific but the desire to write about it for this blog forced me to analyze things more carefully.

Ultimately, I reduced the process to plotting the answers to two key questions:

1. How “personal” is the required information? (To what extent must the moderator establish trust or intimacy?)
2. How complex is the required information? (To what extent must the moderator probe for depth and/or detail?)

The chart that follows plots the methodologies compared in the previous “Art of Qualitative MR”  post entitled “Comparing the Primary Qualitative Market Research Methodologies” according to the required level of intimacy (vertical axis) and the required level of informational complexity (horizontal axis).

Study it a moment and then read on…

You may have noticed that the listed methods habitat two quadrants and that those in the upper-right are synchronous (like a phone call), and those in lower-left are asynchronous (like exchanging e-mails). Depending on the needs of your study, one approach may be more suitable than another.

The chart reflects the following opinions:

• Individual interviews generate the most intimate experience and the deepest and most detailed information.
• Smaller groups are more personal and can more easily be probed and directed toward fulfilling specific study objectives than larger ones.
• The feeling of intimacy is most powerful when the methodology is live.
• Synchronous methodologies work best for generating deep and detailed information
• Online video (using webcams to view head shots) is more intimate than the phone but not by much.
• Asynchronous techniques work best for answering simpler questions and exploring issues in a more general manner.

Examples of choices I have made for using methodologies in the opposing quadrants may be instructive.

A bulletin board study was used to identify the common experiences of patients to help a client get a general overview of the impact of a specific disease on their lifestyle.

Live individual interviews were used to test the concepts for a television commercial and allowed the moderator to probe for understanding regarding what motivates each individual to proactively take steps to better control their condition.

Participants made two-part video journals detailing their expectations prior to making a purchase and then recounting their actual experience after completion. This was a “warm-up” exercise, prior to participating in a focus group.

Focus groups with 8-10 teachers helped to identify the key factors influencing their preferences between several different competing textbook programs.

Mini-groups with 4-6 surgeons provided feedback regarding the very specific strengths and weaknesses of a prototype medical device that required a hands-on demonstration.

I recognize that very often cost considerations drive the choice of methodology and are partly responsible for the trend of increasing use of online methods. However, in my experience, this sometimes results in a less desirable outcome, especially when the need for intimacy and the complexity of the required information are very high.

(Subscribing  by RSS feed or email notifies you about each new post to this blog.)

(Click the Share bar below to email this post to others or to share it on social networking sites.)