Qualitative paths
Phelim O'Leary examines the route of qualitative research, from its shortcomings to its wider potential

David Fanning's Demise of qualitative article in last month's edition where he pointed out a vibrancy in the current state of qualitative research despite a growth in criticism of the discipline set me thinking about where it was going, but perhaps more importantly, where it had come from. It coincided with my reading Youngme Moon's book, Different, and being caught by a number of her thoughts. Firstly… “It's easy to forget that the moment you are in has a history and a future. Some may be better than none. But more may not be better than some, and more, more, more may not be any good at all.”

Secondly: “The paradox of progress is that it makes things better, until it makes things worse.” We have an inbuilt piece of thinking that tells us that we advance and that even if we like nostalgia, ‘back then' is lacking in the improvements of our contemporary world. No doubt, it is strongly conditioned by technological advance; the laptop and media systems of 2011 makes those of 2001 seem prehistoric. Reflections like these might be applied to communications. Yes, TV advertising is different than it used to be, but is it better? Marketing is much more complex than it was, but has it improved hugely?

Such musings led me back to my own area of specialty, qualitative research, and to a speculative questioning of its development. Great strides have been made, but simultaneously, there are features of it that are undernourished and even forgotten.

It is strange now to observe that qualitative research was, even in recent history, a fairly unusual side road off market research itself. For some people, it was a murky space and many on researchers and clients found it difficult to understand and explain its benefits.

The current populist nature of qualitative research (even tabloids make regular reference to it) can be traced back to those who insisted that, if we understood motivation, then we were in a better place to create solutions. Advertising then became a big driver for qualitative research as planning took a front seat in a total communications offer.

The emphasis on motivation (know the why) was linked to another seam of thought which held that understanding culture and values was a precursor to managing brands. I recall a marketing director who said he was not too interested in exploring his brand, but he was anxious to know about its culture. If such understanding was achieved, he could more effectively manage the brand and make it connect it with its consumers.

In a bid to go deeper, some multinationals looked to insights for a way of unclogging the sea of market information – Phelim O'Leary

The significance of a deep brand understanding in terms of culture and values was brought home to me in a three country NPD study. In the research planning with focus groups and in-depth interviews it was heartening to hear the client team be insistent on the requirements for a values/culture investigation as a framework for the innovation.

It transpired that the values/culture of two of the countries were sympathetic to the NPD, which is now progressing. But – and this is the rub – the third country did not fit with the NPD, due to a values mismatch. A potentially costly lesson was avoided.

As qualitative research has expanded and transformed it would seem there has been less, rather than more, training of its spotlight on motivation and the culture/values field. Research in the contemporary world is now much more focused on ‘insight'.

The shift to insights was encouraged by multinationals that realised they were in a sea of market information which was clogging things up rather than providing clear guidance, designing research templates (and a new language) which demanded insight rather than data. Qualitative studies became more prescribed in terms of corporate approach.

It has developed to a point where even the term ‘market research manager/ department' seems quaint, having been replaced by ‘insights managers/department'. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as we know what we mean by insight. At a recent insights conference many of the delegates who attended held various interpretations.

If all the researchers in the hall were working at a steady rate, 40,000 new insights would have emerged in the past year. So many insights in a short period suggested that one man's insight is another man's clich