Is the emotion missing?
Editor’s note: David Bradford is vice president of international sales and marketing of Itracks International Inc., a Saskatoon, Saskatchewan provider of online market research data collection services.
The author would like to acknowledge the help of the following moderators who shared their insights for this article: Pierre Belisle (Belisle Marketing Ltd.); Phil Glowatz (Phil Glowatz and Associates); Jim Ittenbach (SMARI); Donna Kasich (TNS); Samantha Kennedy (ASK Qualitative Consulting); Ilka Kuhagen (Ilka Kuhagen Marketing); Mary Beth Solomon (Solomon Solutions); and Monica Zinchiak (Z. Research Services).
Online qualitative research has certainly come a long way in the 14 years since the first documented online qualitative study took place in an AOL chat room. As the Internet becomes more ubiquitous, various types of online qualitative approaches have become recognized as important and useful methods to gain insights that might not be possible or easy to get using other means. Many are now acknowledged by researchers to be powerful and efficient implements in their toolbox.
However, I still encounter some misunderstandings and concerns about using online qualitative in my discussions with moderators, qualitative researchers and end clients. So I have compiled this article, with the goal of fostering a better understanding of the method. To assist me, I enlisted the help of independent online qualitative researchers and some end clients using online qualitative.
Missing the clues
The first concern is that emotion cannot be conveyed well in a text-based environment such as occurs in synchronous and asynchronous online studies. This milieu obviously is missing the verbal and non-verbal clues that are essential to many face-to-face studies. However, experienced online researchers know that there are many ways to elicit emotions if you know how to encourage and uncover them in the online environment.
Using a bulletin-board format, a number of experienced online moderators were invited to come together this past September to discuss various aspects relating to this topic. Without exception, this group stressed the importance of emotion within ANY method of qualitative research, regardless of whether it was conducted face-to-face or online.
Q: Based on your experience, what types of online discussion topics do you feel are especially well-suited to eliciting emotions with an online approach? Which ones do you feel are totally inappropriate for getting emotions? How different are the emotions expressed in online studies compared to those conducted in-person?
Samantha Kennedy: Honestly, the same type of topics that generate emotions in-person. If it is a topic that an individual feels strongly about, it really doesn’t matter if they express it online or in-person. For example, if you are asking people to describe a situation where they’ve had to contact their insurance carrier because they have a claim - let’s say homeowners - this is very likely an emotional topic. They’ve had some type of disaster, lost personal items, have felt vulnerable - all of this will come out regardless of channel. In fact, more may come out online because individuals are not being rushed or competing with others to “tell their story.” On the other hand, if you are talking to consumers about the process of buying home/car insurance, you likely will not get much emotion - other than frustration!
I’m not sure that I’ve come across a research objective that was “totally inappropriate” for the online setting - other than taste/smell issues.
Emotions expressed online are different from in-person expressions - there’s no question. That does not mean they are less impactful. Of course, in-person research allows a moderator to augment their analysis with body language and facial expression, which may provide more insight into the degree of the expression. That said, respondents are quite willing to express themselves online and have utilized many ways of expressing their level of emotion, using CAPS, underlines, quotation marks, ;), etc.
Phil Glowatz: If the respondents care at all about the topics, there’ll be emotions expressed. I’ve conducted bulletin boards on what would seem to be “boring” topics - industrial flooring, servicing MRI machines, etc., - but the respondents were engineers who cared about those topics, and expressed emotions aplenty.
When you have respondents in-person, the study obviously benefits from being able to observe emotions being expressed without any words being spoken or typed. The most common emotion I see expressed in groups, by the way, is boredom, typically because of boring product concepts. (And yes, I feel boredom is an emotion.)
Pierre Belisle: I tend to agree with Phil that any time there is involvement with the topic, whatever it is, it will result in emotional responses. I can’t really conceive of any topic that could not be dealt with online because it would not elicit emotions. On the contrary, even bulletin boards on supposedly dry policy issues like bilingualism in the public service have generated quite a bit of heat in an online context. Part of the reason for that, by the way, was because we had brought together online participants from across the country who had wildly different world views on this topic.
Ilka Kuhagen: Oh yes, [emotion is possible] even with diesel engines! But patients suffering specific diseases who are able to talk - anonymously - with each other can bring up a lot of emotions!
Mary Beth Solomon: I don’t think eliciting emotion from participants has as much to do with the topic or the approach as it does with how engaged the participant is with the topic. Of course, there are always hot-button topics that get almost anyone with a pulse to be emotional, but my market research studies are not usually about religion and politics. If the participant is fully engaged with the topic at hand, they will be enthusiastic in their responses.
I don’t think there are any topics - none I can think of, at least - that are totally inappropriate for getting emotions. I also don’t think the emotions expressed in online studies are that different to those conducted in-person, except that perhaps if it’s a sensitive issue, the participants may be more likely to speak up about it in an online setting.
Donna Kasich: I agree that the degree to which participants are engaged is most important in eliciting emotions during an online discussion. The difference between emotions expressed in online studies and those in-person is that many people feel the need to “talk” longer online to better express their thoughts/emotions. I absolutely agree with Mary Beth that people are more apt to express their emotions online about a sensitive topic.
Jim Ittenbach: Each product or service requires the consumer to engage in some form of need-based rational thinking and wants-based emotional interplay - yet the extent of each varies widely by type of product or service. Obviously, a discussion about potato chips would be less likely to support an emotions-based analysis than one about specialty health care for a child. Yet, when exploring the imagery surrounding names and logos for a pediatric hospital, online discussions worked. As such, when the intent of the discussion is to identify and understand the intensity of emotional-driven value constructs in decision-making and choice, an in-person group would likely work better. I have also found that when group problem-solving is needed in search of new product or service opportunities, emotional interplay produces better outcomes and is better accommodated by in-person discussion. On the other hand, when you are exploring product or service failures, the lack of emotional interplay minimizes group dominance or influence by the typical one or two who want to impose their opinions and feelings.
Q: How can any moderator be better equipped to understand the emotions that are being conveyed online?
Phil Glowatz: I think a moderator has to understand and have a feel for people, and has to be truly interested in getting at the truth.
Pierre Belisle: I believe that both face-to-face and online interviewers must share a number of characteristics to be effective. First and foremost, I think, is a genuine interest in people. Second is an ability to pay attention to what participants are stating. Third is the ability to quickly assess what needs clarification or amplification from the participants’ statements. The big difference between face-to-face and online is that the former deals with listening in the real world while the latter deals with reading in the virtual world. I believe therefore that an online moderator needs skills slightly different from their face-to-face counterpart.
Monica Zinchiak: Moderators and clients alike have to understand that how you phrase the question will do as much for soliciting emotional responses as probing.
Mary Beth Solomon: I agree that an interest in reading and hearing what people have to say is important. Simply being interested; having an insatiable curiosity; enjoying conversation of any sort, spoken or typed; and being in tune with participant cues - all these things are factors that enter into grasping emotions in an online world.
Donna Kasich: I would say it’s important to have regular interactions with other online moderators in order to learn about issues that arise in online qualitative, as well as how best to address them.
Jim Ittenbach: A moderator’s sensitivity and ability to realize the interplay of emotions - or desire to conceal it - by participants during a discussion is more likely to be acquired and developed by experience than from specific training. Most of my abilities were derived by traditional in-person discussions and then adapted to understand them within the virtual world. That being said, when faced with a new topic, the best way for me to prepare is by conducting a few in-depth discussions with the client and targeted consumers prior to the online discussion in an effort to heighten this type of situational sensitivity.
Samantha Kennedy: A good moderator is a good moderator, regardless of mode of communication. If a moderator has the innate capacity to understand their research subjects, they will still be able to do this online. Just as one listens for nuances in language, an online moderator should look out for nuances in written language. While they are less likely to receive those spontaneous remarks or outbursts - such as “I don’t know...” or “Well...” - they will still receive responses such as “I’m not sure I like this.” As a moderator, what would you read here? Uncertainty? Hesitancy? Reluctance? Ambivalence? This alone doesn’t tell the full story. But just as with in-person sessions, a moderator would probe: What do you like/dislike? What about this has you sitting on the fence?
Qualitative researchers like to use phrases like “active listening” and such. It is more apt a description to say that we are “active understanders” - regardless of channel.
Q: What are some of the more memorable instances that you can recall with respondents expressing emotion during online sessions? Were there any that moved you personally and convinced you that emotions can be very successfully conveyed online? Do you think that they would have been conveyed as well in a face-to-face setting?
Phil Glowatz: I’ve had respondents talk about their battles with diseases and their fear of death. I don’t know if they would have been as forthcoming in-person. Online is more anonymous, so people seem freer revealing intimate details of their lives. That’s also why, in online communities, some people curse out and/or threaten others. They’d never do that in-person because they’d get their asses kicked, but there are no consequences online.
Pierre Belisle: I agree, again, with Phil. The anonymity, lack of consequences, and opportunity to wax lyrical often provide examples of strong emotions. One additional reason for the often greater emotion of the online world is that groups can be convened from across the continent or the world. The realization that participants from different geographic or ethnic backgrounds can share other traits sometimes generates strong feelings.
In the study I mentioned earlier about bilingualism in the Canadian public service, I had to discipline a vociferous participant with intemperate views. I had another study about food in which many of the participants noted wistfully that they were rather “large” or had “problems with weight.” Another study, about allergies, demonstrated the courage and bravery of many of those afflicted with serious allergies. All of these moved me and convinced me that emotions CAN be conveyed online, very successfully, sometimes more than could be evoked in a face-to-face situation.
Ilka Kuhagen: I had patients talk about how it was when they woke up from being unconscious and realized that one or both of their legs had been amputated or that they were paralyzed. I had to stop moderating because I had to get fresh air and needed light in my eyes to be able to continue.
Mary Beth Solomon: The one that comes to mind for me was an online bulletin board I did several years ago with alcoholics. Some of the participants were drunk while answering the questions, and - while I didn’t necessarily assume that their emotions were better-conveyed online - I did realize that it’s a good thing we were conducting the study online, because there would have been no way we could have conducted it face-to-face.
Donna Kasich: The most memorable instance I can recount is hearing about a Hurricane Katrina victim’s challenges and his family’s chaotic life subsequent to the flood. His ability to provide specific details painted a clear picture of his situation. He just simply conveyed his story by providing as many details as he could. I do not think he could have conveyed his sense of emotion as well in a face-to-face setting.
Jim Ittenbach: Like the others, the more memorable emotional discussions were ones that invoked inner feelings of joy, sorrow, disappointments, etc. Two come to mind. One among seniors about “what does your home mean to you at this time in life?” With this question you almost could hear the tears hitting the keyboard as the words appeared on the screen. The other was among alumni of a stress center where recovering alcoholics and drug addicts were able to reveal their innermost feeling without having to face others.
Very powerful ways
Based on the experiences of these online qualitative researchers, it is clear that emotion can certainly be expressed online, and sometimes in very powerful ways. Most moderators can develop the necessary skills to elicit these types of responses if they so desire. As with any research project, it is the responsibility of the researcher to choose the right approach to best accomplish the objectives of research.
Another misconception I have encountered is that most end clients are not open to online qualitative techniques, so I asked several that are using online qualitative research in their overall marketing efforts for their thoughts on this subject. I would like to thank Judith Bramson, AVP, marketing of U.S. Insurance Group, MassMutual; Regina Lewis, vice president, consumer and brand insights group, Dunkin’ Brands Inc.; and Andy Kopitske, senior market analyst for Vision Service Plan, for contributions their views here.
Q: How do you see online qualitative research fitting in your toolbox?
Andy Kopitske: The greatest value-add for us over traditional focus groups has been in gaining broader national representation with time-constrained publics (doctors, brokers, clients), enabling more broadly applicable discovery. In traditional approaches aiming at discovery with these publics, we would typically gain representation from three to four markets. We often struggled with the observation that the views in each of those markets were represented by the stronger voices at each of those tables. We wondered what we might have missed in the way of discovery, from the weaker voices and from the unheard voices in other markets.
Regina Lewis: Online qualitative fits in perfectly at Dunkin’ when we want to garner quick response from our VIP customers, but we also use it in myriad other scenarios. For example, we used online bulletin boards when positioning our new Dunkin’ smoothies. And, we regularly use online focus groups for logo testing and much more.
Judith Bramson: Online qualitative research is a great complement to one-on-one or group face-to-face methodologies. We have used the online approach to validate directional findings extracted from face-to-face focus groups, and to drill down on specific consumer value-to-benefit, or motivation-to-purchase among a select constituency. This strategy has enabled us to refine our findings through a more iterative process (i.e., three-day bulletin board) than the single session face-to-face focus group. The technology allows us to achieve our goals in a very cost-effective manner and the immediacy and multiple reporting capabilities easily allows for slicing the data in a multitude of ways.
Q: What has been the overall reception internally of online qualitative research?
Judith Bramson: Reception of the technology, cost-effectiveness and immediacy of response has been excellent. The one question is how valid are the findings relative to the typical size of the participant group (in our case approximately 20-25 participants). We use the online qualitative research as a cost-effective complement to additional research on the same project, never as the sum total.
Andy Kopitske: The reaction has been mostly positive, especially given our voicing of some of the perks, including broader representation, detailed responses, time sensitivity to the publics and relative cost advantages realized through less travel.
Regina Lewis: The overall reception to online qual at Dunkin’ Brands has been terrific. People here love its reach and its flexibility...when we conduct online groups, we have great attendance, with all managers involved and IMing away to one another. I have faced almost no barriers to the adoption of online qual, regardless of its format - and I consider it daily along with all of the other methodologies in the research toolkit.
Powerful applications
Online qualitative has evolved from being just a virtual imitation of the face-to-face focus group into a variety of powerful applications that take better advantage of the unique nature of the Internet. As the general public, and especially the younger generations, spend an increasing amount of their time on the Internet, it is certain to continue to change and grow.
E-mail, blogs, text messages, SMS and other forms of electronic communication have increased our ability to communicate via text and are likely to continue to do so. More sophisticated programming and technology will allow even more powerful online qualitative applications to be developed. And, the buyers and providers of research will need to seriously consider online qualitative as a way to better understand how people think and feel.