Detractors of market research have long tried to pin a "pseudo" science label on our methods. And whilst we might strongly contest such a tag, how convincingly can we argue that we actively embrace science?
Perhaps some readers
watched the comedian Dave Gorman lampooning market research
in an hour-long TV episode of Modern Life is Good-ish recently, quite legitimately having a good
laugh at the grossly unscientific output of some established research
providers.
If you missed that, then you will
surely have noticed that in recent years we’ve been challenged by an extraordinarily
relevant array of scientific discoveries, such as:
From neuroscience we
have received a cascade of proofs on how our brains process the world, and make
emotion-led decisions.
From the behavioural
sciences we have behavioural economics, and a spelling out of the power and
influence of networks and social norms.
From computing and
statistics, we have the emergence of data science
How much does the average
Research Exec (or Director for that matter) really know about all these
science-y things? How likely are we to incorporate their findings into our next
proposal?
And there is much to be learned
from an hour or two flirting with the output of academic scientists. Yes, their
papers can be a daunting read, but punch a few keywords into the JSTOR website (or similar), and
discover an immodest wealth of knowledge just waiting to pep up
a proposal or add extra quality to a questionnaire. I might be wrong, but
I sense that we lack enthusiasm for engaging with academia, and I worry that
old-fashioned desk research might be falling by the wayside as we scramble around
under ever more aggressive time and cost pressures.
On maths and probability, how
many researchers know statistics beyond t-tests and the descriptive basics,
or how to calculate the optimal
sample size for their target
population? Adopting a more science-led approach here would help us do a
better job of communicating uncertainty and significance to our clients.
In communicating our findings are
we in danger of sacrificing authenticity on the altar of storytelling? I
don’t doubt that an effective story is the best way to get a message across but
stories can so easily distort or mislead. So much is dependent on how the
listener interprets. PR people need to know how to construct persuasive
and engaging stories, but I'm not so sure about us. We have a professional
obligation to convey the facts, even if they ruin a good story. I’m not suggesting that boring the pants
off people is the way forward, but if we need help constructing an authentic
narrative where better to look than to the skills of science journalism?
Many medical market researchers have
a science, and/or maths based higher education behind them, and – not
being amongst them – I’m a bit baffled as to why more of a scientific culture
doesn’t permeate medical market research. I suspect it may have something to do
with the fact that ultimately we all have to serve a Marketing agenda. Maybe
science just isn’t sexy enough to win the business?
John Aitchison, Managing Director, First Line Research (14/1/16) Twitter, @johnaitchison
Email, john@firstlineresearch.com
Detractors of market research have long tried to pin a "pseudo" science label on our methods. And whilst we might strongly contest such a tag, how convincingly can we argue that we actively embrace science?
First Line Research
Different types of UK Medics use different types of devices to complete online surveys, with almost 10% now using a smartphone. Taken together with tablets and iPads, almost one third complete on a mobile device.
First Line Research
The recent BHBIA Members Exchange Forum on Customer Engagement was about as controversial as it gets for healthcare business intelligence. First Line Research
You give proper thought to questionnaire design, editing your ideas via a trusty “Word” document as you go. Once done you wait a while for programming, then test the online version. Naturally there are a few things to tidy up, and you spot others that have come out a bit differently to your minds-eye view. That’s fine – tweak, test again, and sign-off when happy. Actually, it looked and worked great on screen (better than you thought), so you can relax and wait for the completes to roll in.
Yeh, right – if only…
First Line Research
We’ve known for some years now that we don’t, or can’t, accurately express our motivations for doing the things we do. So what can we, and what should we, do about that? First Line Research