Let the research define the method

Editor's note: Julia Eisenberg is VP, insights at Nashville-based 20|20 Research. 

According to the 2017 Q Report, quality data is the most important factor in choosing a new research methodology. Given that reliable data is non-negotiable, this can mean it’s easy to stick with what we know out of fear or complacency. Why challenge or change the approaches we trust, the ones that always deliver what we need? It often seems easier to wedge the research into the method or product we know instead of letting the research define our approach. Easy isn’t bad, it’s just not always best. Especially when ease becomes a substitute for thinking critically about the right solution for our research questions. This article will explore how to reap the benefits of creatively matching design to research objectives.

One of the most significant advantages of creative research design over templated design for custom market research is the absence of barriers. Instead of starting with a strictly defined approach and trying to solve for what the template can’t do, we get to start with a clean slate. This does require two things – the researcher must have a confident, well-informed perspective on research tools and methodologies and they must be a great critical thinker. There is a time and place for systemic, prescriptive research design but not when stakeholders need your expertise to explore new territory. Insisting on creative, tailored project design isn’t always the path of least resistance. Stepping away from dependable, in-the-box approaches can be uncomfortable and overwhelming. Staying current on tools and services can be time-consuming. But if stakeholders have taken time to ask for help solving a unique business issue, shouldn’t we take the time to prepare an informed, robust and thoughtful response? 

I’m not saying abandon your tried-and-true approaches completely. Rather, expand them so that instead of a couple of rigid boxes, you have a diverse number of tools at your disposal. What I love most about this shift in thinking is that it can elevate our status from “research order-taker” to “smart person who will have good ideas about what we should do.” Of course, OF COURSE we’re all the latter – but the more we reinforce it to teams, colleagues and cross-functional partners, the better. 

We recently had the opportunity to answer a request for proposal for a large body of research. We worked hard, internally and with the client, to recommend a winning design. That design was elegant (if I do say so myself) and we were thrilled to be able to present it to the client and their team. During the discussion, a paradox arose. The client loved the design and agreed it would get the job done but while praising our approach, they were also subtly asking for things the proposed solution did not address. 

“I know the report will be a quantitative summary of results but I want to be sure we really get a sense of the ‘why’ and the feelings behind the numbers,” one client mentioned. RED FLAG. 

“I know our audience for phase two will be small but we really want to understand significance and correlation, even if it’s just anecdotal.” RED FLAG. 

We’d run into some material departures from the original scope. Even though the client felt happy overall and was ready to move forward with the design as written, they were almost unconsciously signaling that a successful outcome was different than what the research would address as designed. It broke my heart to do it but I paused the meeting and suggested we rethink our design. The meeting continued, with a productive discussion on how to achieve success, and I scrapped the original proposal to better address the freshly unearthed definition of success. And you know what? We won the work. 

The client later shared that our willingness to work with them, to listen and to admit we’d all missed the mark a bit in our first pass helped them feel like they understood what it would be like to work with us. We’d listened, understood, course-corrected and ultimately succeeded as a result. Selecting our methodological approach based on the research needs, the businessneeds, instead of trying to wedge the research into what we wanted to sell was the right choice in this case (and I believe it’s the right choice in all cases where custom research is required).

Take the creative road

And wouldn’t it be lovely if we could sit around all day, musing about the very best combination of tools in our toolbox to apply to custom research objectives? I know the need for speed and efficiency is not diminished when a custom request arises, so here are some tips and structure I find helpful when working to take the creative road over the familiar/safe one when designing research.

Tools

Do you have a reliable set of tools that are flexible enough to meet a number of different needs? If so, do you work to keep it fresh and up to date? If not, it’s time to build. Here is how my toolbox looks today: 

Digital solutions: a reliable platform for qualitative discussion boards, ideal for short- or long-term things like journals, deep-dives and community engagements; a high-quality way to conduct individual and group video interviews, great for capturing non-verbals and group dynamics; an easy way to collect text-based qualitative interviews, suited for sensitive topics or paired with a quant survey for a context companion; a quantitative suite that can address quick, simple requests and also provide more complex data as a companion to qualitative work. 

In-person solutions: a network of reliable facilities and moderators when face-to-face is a must.

International solutions: resources that can easily fit into each of the methods above to help scale to global learnings.

You may be lucky enough to have access to these tools within your organization, or you may need to seek partners to help you. Regardless, make sure you stay up to date (and make requests for) enhancements and updates to get the most out of the tools you use.

Active listening

The act of responding to a request for custom research can be quite linear if we don’t work to actively listen and actively question ourselves and our clients or stakeholders. What I wanted most when I was a client, internal or external, was to feel a connection, to feel like the person on the other end of the line understood what I needed, wanted to help and had the chops to be able to. Feeling seen and heard was always more compelling than a perfectly composed proposal or research plan quietly waiting in my in-box. Without being a nuisance, work to find relevant points in the process of answering a request for custom research. It usually takes a couple of quick chats to start to get to the good stuff – Why this research question? Why now? How does the client or stakeholder feel about the research? What are their hopes for it? How will the results be used to help inform business decisions? Listen and use what you learn thoughtfully as you craft a solution.

Flexibility

The beauty of getting comfortable applying creativity when it comes to custom research design is that it opens up a wide world of flexibility. Free of the constraints of in-the-box approaches, we can recommend and execute solutions fortified with resilience. Instead of presenting one approach that, if rejected, basically amounts to a wrong answer, we can present options. Or, if not options, the reassurance that options exist. I find it rare that a request for custom research ever exactly mirrors the approach selected in the end. That’s why yes, a sound approach and reliable method that produces reliable data is critical.

But in research (as in life) there can be many paths to success. Expressing the option of options through a proposed solution is more art than science. It’s important your stakeholder is confident they are getting our best recommendation, but something interesting happens when we’re able to assert that it’s not our way or the highway. If we’ve done our job listening and creating a connection, flexibility, resilience and the ability to adapt with creatively sourced, sound approaches becomes almost as compelling as the research solution itself. The stakeholder wants and values your point of view, your voice, your support – not just your list of three ways to put research results into their hands. They start to envision you with them on this journey – a helpful sidekick, a supportive Sherpa – and that is how custom research ends up adding value to businesses again and again.

Humility

The idea of course-correcting has as much to do with being a savvy researcher as it does with self-awareness. We take pride in our work and the act of proposing anything forces us to put ourselves out there. It makes us vulnerable. It takes a swallowing-of-pride to admit first thoughts and drafts may not always be our best. It’s an uncomfortable place but it’s an honest one. While confidence is key (and we all work to present ourselves as the smartest researcher in the room), humility is critical when it comes to recommending research solutions. This trait does not come naturally and I’ve found working to hone it can create as much of an advantage as thorough understanding of the business objective, competitive pricing and experience.

Push to be better

By definition, there should really never a be a one-size-fits-all design when we are asked to answer a research question that is unique and custom to the state of the business at this point in time. By first considering the true research objectives of our stakeholders, then evaluating all tools available, it’s easy to customize just the right mix of methodologies. If we work harder to keep our tools fresh, listen with humility and infuse a sense of flexibility into our work, we push our industry to be better and give our clients and stakeholders more value, deeper insight and a tangible way to drive growth. By approaching research design this way, insights teams can build in learning stages, move from broad baseline knowledge to answering more specific questions and much more – ensuring better outcomes and more actionable results.