OK, I accept that there is lots of online qual in absolute terms! But, if we look back to 1999, online quant was about 2% of global quant revenues, now, according to the latest ESOMAR Global Report, online quant is the single largest modality by revenue for quant research.
By contrast, online qualitative has a longer history than online quant, but it is stil just a few percent of all qual.
My feeling is that online qual has not offered the same cost savings as quant (online quant is about one-third the cost of face-to-face quant). Also, although online quant has caused compromises to be made on quality (for example the acceptance of using panels), I think that mostly the compromises have been accepted or ignored.
By contrast, I think that many vendors and buyers of qualitative have a view that the quality compromise is much bigger with online qual.
What do you think about how we gor to where we are right now?
I totally agree with Catherine and Jim's points. This is an exciting time in qual research and one in which I have seen a team of senior qual researchers excited again by what they do because they are learning new skills and being challenged everyday.
The point you made Ray is very true, the difference in online qual is that it is fundamentally changes how and what we do. So for those practitioners who are comfortable doing what they do, it's a challenge to change after 10, 15, 20 years honing their craft.
But the fact is online qual is only now getting the attention it deserves because the world changed around us - people are embracing social networking and online communications more and more, and whether we like it or not, these new mediums are part of life today. So if qual researchers choose to ignore this, it is at their own peril. I for certainly look froward to the times ahead.
Posted by: DiGardiner | December 20, 2009 at 04:51 AM
Catherine has a very good point in that we have not yet cracked what online qual can actually do.
When we started doing online qual in 2000-2001, uptake was very slow by traditional qual researchers. Frankly, qualies had a system (focus groups) that worked, was well accepted and was very profitable and they were extremely bothered that online qual was almost wholly text based. They missed (and still do for the most part) the visual cues and "feel" that one gets when sitting down with an individual(s).
Online qual has been growing significantly not because these problems have been overcome. As a rule, they have not. Online qual has begun to grow because (1) travel is expensive and a hassle, (2) researchers have discovered the diversity of a range of qual techniques to solve various problems (its not just focus groups anymore) and (3) social media has shown everyone that effective communication online is possible and, for some, preferable.
Online qual will continue to grow though it may not reach the 60%+ market share of online quant for a long time. Online qual has significant hurdles to overcome, chief among them (1) making the online experience as close to "being there" as possible and/or (2) finding new and better ways of connecting with people.
Eventually online qual will become a method for a 360 degree type of immersion that we are only guessing at right now. It will be a new world for research as Catherine said. Its very exciting and challenging to imagine and make happen.
This is one ofthe reasons that communities and "netnographies" are big now. Researchers want more than a one dimensional qual aspect. This is the most exciting time in qual since I joined the club 23 years ago. Its a great ride.
Posted by: Jim Bryson | December 07, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Great stuff Doug.
I think the quality point is that in quant and online there were lots of researchers who thought the quality was the same or better or good enough and they pushed it, along with big cost savings.
In qual most of the researchers do not feel the quality is the same and they do not seem inclined to believe the side-by-side studies in preference to their own feelings (which is perhaps why they are quals).
One of the differences is that modality relates directly to what qual researhcers do. When a quant researcher does a project they write a questionanire and it goes away and some time later data comes back. The change from F2F to telephone to online may have changed the data (or not) but it has not changed what the quant researcher does.
In OLFG it is the qual researcher themselves who changes what they do from a F2F experience, scattered around country, meeting the client F2F to a new online medium.
Also, I think the position is most stark with OLFGs, the reluctance is less with BBGs, becuase it is not a challenge to qual moderators existing modus operandi. The position with e-ethnography and online researhc communites is even more stark, with a number of high profile qual researchers showing iterest.
As one exmaple, I do not think that there is a single high profile European qualitative researcher who would say that they did not have a preference for F2F focus groups to OLFGs (in fact most of the gurus are pretty sniffy about focus groups anyway). But some of them are showing real interest in communities (Dr Rachel Lawes for example) or e-ethnography (e.g. Siamack Salari).
I get the feeling that in the US the is probably a more open minded approach to OLFGs with some of the leading qual researchers happy to see it as a string to their bow? - Anybody care to comment?
In terms of failure to take off, I think the 11,000 groups is a great indication. 11,000 is in absolute terms a great achievement, and I believe well ahead of anybody else, but it is a tiny, tiny percentage of all the groups going on.
Posted by: Ray Poynter | December 04, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I would have to say the primary reason is that most qualitative researchers are not as technologically inclined a la Alastair's comments and perhaps they just didn't appreciate that the relentless progression of MR moving to the online environment would catch up to them as soon as it finally has for so many. I believe we are beginning to see the impact of that realization this year more than any year previous and that the growth of online qual will indeed "take off" over the next few years. It may not achieve the same level of conversion as online quant but it will still be substantial.
I can also say that I don't buy the quality compromise argument you mention Ray. If you aren't getting quality qualitative data using an online methodology then you are almost certainly just using the wrong methodology for your research project - period. Nothing we have seen in over 11,000 projects hosted for our clients would substantiate that view or any claim to it.
And Steve, I'm not sure who exactly you are referring to when you say that an online live chat focus group is an unsatisfying experience because I can certainly attest to the opposite based both on my first hand experience and on the thousands of live chats groups that we have hosted for our clients. Participants, moderators and observers find the experience to be more than satisfactory and almost always in excess of their expectations. To be able to participate in, moderate or observe a topical and lively discussion from the comfort of their home, office or wherever they may be vs. having to make their way to a brick and mortar facility has many positive benefits even when weighed against the drawbacks or limitations of this or other online qual methodologies.
On the other hand, I do agree that using a single existing online qualitative research methodology can be characterized as an extreme under-utilization of the current online medium. New to online qual researchers, however, will still have to learn and be comfortable in each new online methodology one application at a time. Keep in mind that just getting into doing their first online qual project is a huge leap for many.
As Steve says though, the true and fuller potential for online qualitative research exists in the realm of diverse and more complete ethnographic research where something like a live online focus group would represent only 1 of an array of potential activities for a research participant to do as a way to share their day to day human experiences. Online communities and mobile communication devices in particular have blown open the potential to "be everywhere at once and capture the moments researchers are most interested in: moments of decision, purpose, understanding and emotion"
So regardless of how or why we got to where we are right now, online qualitative research is well poised to be so much more than it already is. And like Catherine, I'm really looking forward to the journey - much like I think many qual practitioners already aware of or just waking up to this realization are as well!
Posted by: Doug Bates | December 03, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Catherine, are you referring to "monitoring the digital life stream"? That is, using people's online activities as a form of data to be used in qualitative research. Dare I say, "virtual ethnography"? (A colleague of mine presented on the subject recently http://tr.im/y2Yc )
Or are you referring to things like "interrupt interviews" on websites, where users are selected at random (or not) and asked to participate in an interactive chat session? (ala UserVue http://www.techsmith.com/uservue/ )
I think these methods, and others, are very interesting and much more inline with the spirit of quali research than the rather awkward methods such as online focus groups.
cheers
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Kennedy | December 03, 2009 at 05:31 AM
Another important aspect of qualitative research is it's event-character. Clients come to see, observe, 'feel' real consumers interacting with each other and / or a moderator. The discussions / explorations are (or at least should be) lively and full of emotions - you can't replace that by a virtual discussion room.
As a macuser I can talk via ichat & integrated camera with far away people as if they were sitting in one room with me. If that technology is common standard, then online qualitative will develop much faster. But still there's nothing like the 'real' thing!
Posted by: Bettina Wagner | December 02, 2009 at 12:07 PM
What I discovered in piloting/developing one of these systems an new online Quali approach for one of the majors was:
1. Biggest resistence is internal. Qualis, despite their reputation for "eccentricity", are really quite conservative people - they have a lot invested in current techniques and ideas and need convincing. Developing internal comfort is a big issue.
2. You need a "team" to make the projects work well - you cannot just hand it over to current Qualis. I also found that the best people to run Online Quali systems were actually slightly shy, "nerdy" quants who had an ability to think creatively and probe for information, but who had never got into Qual as they lack people skills to moderate etc. This is reassuring, as it is hard to find and keep tradtional Quals in most MR companies.
3. People have to invest in piloting and experimentation - the differences between a FGD off-line and online are substantive and people need to play with ideas and new techniques.
4. I totally agree with Catherine, the best of the new online "in-depth" approaches are not simply ports of the old FGD approach, but totally new ideas that utlise onlines visual/filtering and other capability to combine Quanti concepts with Quali ones. Potentially it's a completely new way of doing MR, but as yet people have not relaised this and have not designed "products" or services to go on top of very nice platforms that are emerging.
Posted by: Alastair Gordon | December 01, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Following on from the last comment. We need to consider what 'qual' skills are, and have been traditionally. Qualies typically arent computer geeks - they are people geeks (if they are geeks at all). Managing a technology platform to involve and evoke I dont think sits well with the skill set of listening (nodding), noticing, nuance. Is it possible that online qual hasnt taken off because many qualitative researchers dont really want to involve themselves in the technology?
Posted by: christine walker | December 01, 2009 at 07:04 AM
I agree with Catherine. Online qual has not taken off because the direct online analog for the dominant offline mode (focus groups)is a pretty unsatisfying experience online. Whereas an offline survey and an online survey do not differ so much in the experience, online surveys easily replaced phone and face to face.
On the whole, bringing people into virtual focus groups rooms is an extreme under-utilization of the current online medium. Where online qual really shines is not as a focus group replacement, but more in the realm of ethnography. The confluence of broadband, social software, digital media and wireless devices have given researcher access to day to day human experiences on a scale and with a reach not previously possible. We can be everywhere it once and capture the moments we are most interested in: moments of decision, purpose, understanding, emotion. And isn't that really the core of our mission?
Posted by: Steveaugust | November 30, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Hi Jeffrey, just a quick Euro update. In Europe telephone never did replace face-to-face. Even in 2005 face-to-face was bigger than telephone. Face-to-face has really declined in he last 4 years.
Posted by: Ray Poynter | November 30, 2009 at 06:45 PM
IIRC, Greenfield started with online focus groups before online surveys. It is interesting that online focus groups never took off - whenever I have discussed it with moderators and other qualitative researchers, it is because they placed a tremendous value on face-to-face interaction and on observational techniques.
If you think about where quant and qual were in the mid-1990s, telephone quant had already replaced face-to-face quanty. In comparison, there was very little telephone qual - it was still face to face.
If telephone quant had been successful (audio conferences, unstructured telephone personal interviews), that might have made it easier for online qual to succeed.
Posted by: twitter.com/JHenning | November 30, 2009 at 03:31 PM
I don't think we are yet to really crack what online qual can really do.
Too many people have been simply doing traditional qual online. I think it is a new world altogether and we need to see it as a totally different method. We probably shouldn't even call it online qual. That simply suggest the qual we know is now in a new online forum. In many cases online quant methods replaced traditional quant methods. Online qual is another story.
Online qual is a new craft altogether that is still in its infancy. I'm looking forward to the journey.
Posted by: Catherine Jolley | November 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM