Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Not A Focus Group In The Bunch - Yay!

I just came back from an MRIA event where the speaker said he used extensive qualitative research to reposition Barilla, a leading brand of Italian pasta in America. Barilla had a seemingly unlimited budget and the research supplier threw just about every qualitative technique in the book at the study with the exception of - you guessed it Focus Groups.

I have to say as a psychotherapist-researcher this makes me very proud. When the objective is repositioning, or any branding work really, we must get respondents out of their head and get at deeply held emotions and opinions. To that end, to reposition Barilla, the research company conducted depth interviews lasting four hours, memory regression interviews, ethnographic interviews, on-site interviews and opinion leader interviews. Not a single focus group in the bunch, and I am proud. Focus groups produce head/logical/bullshit responses, and to take respondents out of their heads in a focus group requires a significant effort. In a two hour session, you would be lucky if five minutes were real emotions or opinions, and chances are the moderator would have to try very hard to get that five minutes (either that or it would just happen out of sheer luck).

What struck me most, however, was that during his research, the speaker himself developed a strong passion for Italy, Italian Food and the participants in his study. In Gestalt Therapy terms, he made what we call "contact" with his participants. Contact, in Gestalt Therapy, is kind of the be-all-and-end-all of human behaviour. Contact is basically a raw, honest and open interaction that occurs between two people where there is a confluence of beings, but at the same time an awareness of individuality that works as as an invisible "give-and-take" mechanism during the exchange. The end result of contact is a changed perspective in both individuals. It need not be a change in opinion of the person with whom you make contact, it may be another change (e.g. how one views themselves, or how one views life in general), but the point is that something has shifted in both participants. Contact cannot be "forced" - it just happens. Certain conditions are more condusive to contact, such as the type of research this individual did - with most of his research being lengthy one-on-one interviews.

While the presenter had a PhD and was obviously a very astute researcher in the way he set-up and deployed his reserach methods, I wonder if the real value to his research was simply his ability to make plain and simple contact with his participants so that he understood them on a personal level, and not on a theoretical one. He kept telling his audience not about psychological, anthropological or sociological theories - rather he spoke of how his participants spent hours telling him about the Italian meals they ate that had a significant imprint on their lives. He talked simply about the deep impressions that participants had about Italian food. I'm just wondering if his actual contact with his participants was much more worthwhile than any of the theory involved. Is a good qualitative researcher one that can make contact with participants regardless of whether it is in a group, a depth interview, a projective technique, an expert interview or an on-site interview?

Gestalt Therapy states that any time we manipulate or objectify someone, we devalue them, ourselves and our transactions together. I am really beginning to think that a good qualitative researcher need do nothing more than make contact with participants and experience a shift in themselves and their psyche (as opposed to a shift in the way they think about the results of the research). If the researcher can read and interpret this shift in themselves, then it is likely that they will be well ahead of a researcher that does not make contact but understands theory.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Ryerson University Gets An A- For Understanding Projectives

I continue to look at how the Canadian market research industry uses and understands projective techniques, and will often search Google to see the flotsam and jetsam of thoughts about projectives and their use in qualitative research. For the first time yesterday, I came across an understanding of Projectives from Ryerson University in Toronto that actually captures the fact that projectives are based on a complex psychological process.
Click here to see the link


What is of interest is the last sentence that says "While deceptively simple, projective techniques often require the expertise of a trained psychologist to help devise the tests and interpret them correctly." Nothing comes closer to the truth about projectives! I wish the Canadian industry would continue to reach-out to people who are trained in psychology to implement and interpret projectives.

The reason I only give Ryerson an A- in its understanding is because of what is contained in this link.

To quote from the page - "For instance, when asked why they might choose to go on an Alaskan cruise, the response might be because of the quality of the scenery, the opportunity to meet interesting people and learn about a different culture. But when the same question is asked as to why a neighbour might go on such a cruise, the response could very well be because of ‘brag appeal’ or to show off... By providing respondents with the opportunity to talk about someone else, such as a neighbour, a relative or a friend, they can talk freely about attitudes that they would not necessarily admit to holding themselves."

While this is true in theory it faces significant issues in practicality. Specifically, we need to ask ourselves if getting a participant to talk about "a neighbour, relative or friend" tells us more about the participant, or more about the "neighbour, relative or friend". For example, I have relatives who would definitely "brag" (ad nauseum in some cases) about their Alaskan cruise, but I have a set of friends who would take the cruise more to discover the science behind Glaciers and Artic Life. As such, the response may vary based on the "friend, relative or neighbour" the participant is envisioning. One relative may be a braggart, another may not, and if this is the case, we need to question the validity of data obtained in this manner. In psychotherapy, a projective like this is used more to find-out about the relationship between the individual and "the neighbour, relative and friend" than it is to find-out about a person's hidden thoughts or desires.

If I wanted to get a person to project about an Alaskan cruise, I would ask them to project the following situation - "Say after your vacation you are contacted by a travel reporter who wants to know all about your vacation. Close your eyes, and start to talk to him about the vacation. What's he going to ask you about the vacation? How do you feel when you are responding? How will you tell your friends and family about the vacation? Will it be the same or different to the way you are talking to the reporter? Now, the reporter pulls out a video camera and tells you to make a silent motion with your body to describe your Alaskan vacation. He wants to include pictures of people in his article. It could be any type of motion or pose, but the point is that you have to communicate the cruise without using words - only your body. How would you do that?"

There are a few advantages to this technique:

- The projection to a reporter is an impartial stranger. There will be not be confusing inter-individual dynamics in the qualitative data. That is, we get the participant to project onto someone else, but without any of the interpersonal dynamics that may be involved in doing so with a relative, neighbour or friend.

- The qualitative researcher should probe the tone of the participant talking to the reporter. For example, the researcher should say things like "I notice you are excited when you are talking - tell me more about the excitement." or "You seem to be stating things very matter-of-factly. How does this relate to the cruise you just took?" or "Do I get a sense that you are bragging to the reporter?"

- Getting participants to use body language to describe the vacation also adds another layer of qualitative data. Besides the actual pose they take, we should be looking at the energy, creativity and effort put in to the pose as a way of understanding what the participant thinks of an Alaskan cruise.

Another projective may be to ask which relative/neighbour/friend that they know would be most likely to take the Alaskan cruise and then ask the participant to describe the person, and their pesonality traits. This way we will see if the participant chooses someone who is a braggart, a true world traveler, an adventurer, an intellect or whomever. The point is that we are not introducing noise into the projection.

Overall, I have to give Ryerson pretty high marks for being some of the first people I have seen in Canada to realize that projectives are both "deceptively simple" and that they require "a trained psychologist to devise and interpret the test." Where Ryerson's example does not get full marks is on its application, and in fact, this illustrates why someone who is trained in psychology is necessary to conduct proper projectives. The example Ryerson provided - having a person project what a relative, friend or neighbour would say about an Alaskan cruise likely tells us more about the relationship between the participant and the relative/neighbour/friend, than it does about the Alaskan cruise itself.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Do We Really Need Discussion Guides

I just returned from doing focus groups in Iqaluit. It is truly one of the most fascinating places I have ever been, and I would suggest that every Canadian take at least one trip to Canada's north.

As I was moderating two groups with Inuit population there one thing occurred to me - do we really need to have detailed discussion guides drawn-up and created for us to follow during the groups? Now sure, I know that the client needs to be reassured that their objectives will be met in the groups. I also know that moderators need reminders to cover certain aspects of the project. However, I found that every time I referred to the guide during my time in Iqaluit, participants lost interest very quickly. They much preferred me to engage them in conversation that I createdk, rather than looking at my guide as a reference.

If we are conducting qualitative research to better understand the consumer, then wouldn't it make sense to have that very same consumer lead us through the conversation and topic? While I have never moderated groups without a full discussion guide in front of me, I find that I am more relaxed as a moderator and get better results out of the groups the less I refer to a static guide. The more I am able to be spontaneous, the better the results tend to be.