ESOMAR

Qualitative Research, Paris, November 2007

www.esomar.org

Serpents with tails in their mouths: a reflexive look at qualitative research

Anjul Sharma and Gareth Pugh
Synovate, United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION TO OUR GARDEN, ITS MAIN CHARACTERS AND THE STORY OF OUR GENESIS

Picture the Garden of Eden. Eve is standing at the foot of the Tree of Knowledge, and coiled in the Tree is the Serpent looking knowingly at
that luscious apple. All it needs is for the Serpent to persuade her to take that first bite – one bite of that apple and knowledge will be hers.
She is, of course, being tempted. Or is she?

So what has that got to do with the ESOMAR Qualitative Conference, you may ask? Whether one subscribes to the Biblical perspective or
not, the fact remains that there are many more parallels with qualitative research than you might at first think. In our own ways we
qualitative researchers are all Eves too – yes even the male ones – poised in front of our own Tree of Knowledge. Unlike the Biblical Eve
we don't need to deliberate too hard about whether we take a bite from the apple because it represents the knowledge we hunger for and
symbolises the core of truth we seek when we create insights. Just like the Biblical Eve we have Serpents as well. Our Serpents are
respondents who tantalise us with their knowledge. And then, of course, there are our clients sitting at the opposite end of the Garden in a
tent with a small megaphone shouting instructions. They're certainly not close to the Tree, although some of them may like to be.

In our experience and those of our colleagues, most conference papers talk about everything other than how their respondents felt about
being researched. If they talk about their respondents it is framed in the context of what they told researchers about the product or service
they use as a consumer. The side of their life that experiences the research process is often not included. Well, we feel that the respondent
needs to be brought centre stage. We are here to inspire you with their experiences in qualitative research. In this conference paper we
are researching research: turning the tables; reinventing research and situating it in a different paradigm.

Get ready and come with us on this fascinating journey into the Garden of Eden. Be prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged,
your sacred truths questioned and your research world sent into a spin.

In Part 1, we open the scene in the Garden of Eden by exploring respondents' experiences of recruitment, venues, content, methodologies,
moderators and clients. In Part 2, we turn our interpretive attention to unravelling the complex dynamics that ensue from, and during, a
research encounter between Eve, the Serpent, the Apple and the client. In Part 3, we end our journey in and around the Garden by
discussing the many implications for moderators, respondents and clients. Let us start by telling you about our Serpents.

BACKGROUND ON OUR SERPENTS

Our paper is based on original, primary research conducted in the United Kingdom, United States, India and China (London, Birmingham,
Manchester and Newcastle; Chicago, Illinois and Paramus, New Jersey; Delhi, Bangalore and Chandigarh; and Beijing and Shanghai
respectively). One rationale for this multimarket approach was to fully understand any cultural differences in respondents' experiences and
behaviour. However, beyond this we also wanted to see if emerging research markets were any different to more mature ones. As it
happened, we actually uncovered many similarities and consistencies (of course, any differences have been highlighted).

Fieldwork took the form of four three-hour workshops and four one-hour depth interviews in each country during August 2007. The mixed
methodological approach was designed to overcome any research effect from over claim in the workshops. Workshop participants were
recruited on the basis of having attended two or more research sessions (although in practice most had attended four on average). They
had experienced a range of different methodologies (in different venues), various types of research (e.g. creative development, packaging
research and new product development), as well as a selection of subject matters subsumed under the following umbrella categories:
drinks, food, medical, health, financial services, media, grooming, hobbies leisure and home. Depth interview participants were recruited on
the basis of more frequent attendance than this, with other criteria mirroring the workshops.

PART 1: THE OLD GENESIS – HOW SERPENTS EXPERIENCE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Virgin Serpents Arrive at the Gates of the Garden and are Afraid of their First Time

Most respondents' first initiation into research in the United Kingdom and China arises as a result of being stopped in the street by a
recruiter or being phoned on the basis of a referral from someone they know or, for the United Kingdom specifically, a recruiter knocking
on their door. In India, respondents are also stopped in the street by recruiters. For our cousins across the pond, telephone calls from the
viewing facility predominate. However, across all four markets, a request for attending qualitative research is met with not only trepidation
around 'doing something unusual' but with a great sense of fear and doubt. They simply do not know what to expect or, if they do, their
expectations are framed within some highly negative points of reference: door-to-door selling, being duped and sold goods and services
under pressure. These concerns are further ignited by a media frenzy, its whistle-blowing mentality and the poor image of market research
(hassle from ladies in the street with clipboards rather than a chance to be part of something ground breaking and new). A second set of
fears relates to self-doubt about their own level of knowledge, anxiety over appearing ignorant and/or behaving inappropriately:

“It's just like going to a 10th standard exam” (India)

They are terrified that this could result in them not being invited to research again. In essence, no one wants to lose face especially in the
presence of seven other people. Third, in China there is also the fear that their views may disappear into a large faceless research project
where the value of their individual contribution is lost:

“It will be something very big, lots of data analysis but an empty view” (China)

Whilst these fears and anxieties dissipate in subsequent research encounters, these first experiences do raise some major issues. Despite
any reassurances that recruiters may give at the point of recruitment, they do not appear to be sufficiently convincing, neither does the
moderators' introduction which emphasises the need for honest and frank answers. The moderators introduction is short, often not lasting
more than 15 minutes in total of which only 5 minutes is about frank opinions, confidentiality and anonymity. Is this sufficient to give
reassurance to respondents? What else could be done to address this issue? How respondents first experience recruitment (and their first
30 minutes in the research session) is key, particularly for bringing in the all so-desirable virgin ones. We will tease out the implications of
this in Part 3.

Serpents are Tempted into the Garden by Money and the Promise of Knowledge

There is a plethora of reasons for why respondents take part in research and these are largely consistent across the four markets. Figure 1
summarises the main ones and these are discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1: Why serpents take part in research

Without exception, respondents in the United Kingdom, United States and China are heavily motivated by a cash financial incentive and
even more so for those who are heavy frequency (taking part in seven or more sessions a year). Most will not take part if they are not
paid, unless the research is for a government department (local council or state health service), charity or other such philanthropic cause.
So what do they do with the money? Well, it goes towards compensating them for their time as 'time is money' for them. But beyond this,
they need to spend money to arrive at the venue, pay for babysitters (in the United Kingdom and United States) and feel that their opinion
is valued sufficiently. The giving of money also formalises the interaction from something potentially quite random to a contractual
relationship with commitments and obligations on both sides: committing Serpents to make a verbal and intellectual contribution to the
research; committing Eves to conduct the session in an appropriate way. Cash incentives often do not make it into the household money
pot – they are used to purchase treats or 'wants' for the respondent – a rather more individual and inward looking approach:

“I use this play money and spend it right away on things for me. It goes in and out” (USA)

In addition to cash incentives, some in the United Kingdom and United States also receive gifts such as floral arrangements, lipsticks and
products which have formed part of the research (e.g. clothes or shoes).

These are received with gratitude and, although, respondents will not want them to take the place of money, they go some distance in
enhancing the enjoyment of involvement in research at both a practical and emotional level.

However, whilst the notion of compensation for time expended is also alive and well in India, the form this takes is slightly different. Indian
respondents are given gifts instead of the cash incentive and this sets up a different type of dynamic. The gift is not just to please the
respondent but also to demonstrate the value of participation in research to spouses, family and neighbours and thus it needs to impress
them as well for gifts will be flaunted. The quality of the gift then becomes much more central to the process:

“Poor quality glasses can't be shown at home but the family doesn't feel my time has been wasted when they see good
 gifts” (India)

It also sets up a sense of anticipation about what they will receive – a bit like a birthday gift – and the desire to not receive the same gift
twice.

In essence, not only is the 'incentive' about addressing rational practicalities but also about bestowing a sense of emotional value and
status.

Heavily motivated they may be by the money, but there are other highly salient reasons for research involvement. One of the most key is
the desire to contribute their knowledge and learn about new and intriguing developments themselves: learn from other respondents and
hear their opinions, find out about new products, services, brands and advertising and learn from the moderator. In India, this is actively
encouraged by spouses and members of the family:

“My husband encouraged me to take part so I could see what is new” (India)

Linked to this is the self-satisfaction at being privy to a secret that has not yet been shared with others outside research, akin to being part
of an exclusive club. Thus in China:

“I hope that when I take part in research I want to attend a session on something that is new and not ever seen
before” (China)

And then there is the stirring of pride, elite-ness, coolness, accomplishment and fulfilment which means talking to friends and family about
their involvement and deriving some public recognition for the work they have done in the very private world of qualitative research. This
view is more prevalent in India where there is a strong desire to keep one step ahead of the neighbours and be party to knowledge that
they may not have.

This social validation and valuation works in tandem with financial recompense for not only are their opinions sought – they are also valued
in tangible terms. It is, thus, not surprising that some respondents are keen to receive the research findings and/or the product upon
launch and, in doing so, they are obtaining a sense of closure on this particular piece of research involvement, not to mention the further
enhancement of their status and value.

Other reasons for involvement focus on the desire to disconnect with the daily reality of life and 'go out to socialise' and meet new people.
A break from the kids, a night out with adults, meeting people they would never normally see, an escape from a busy life and the
opportunity to learn new skills and build up their confidence all represent motivating reasons to take part. Thus while clients see research
as part of their 'work' and expect respondents to be in 'work mode', respondents see themselves in 'play mode'. However, we still feel this
play mind set can yield a different quality and quantity of information and insights compared to what is yielded when they are in work
mode.

But what do they lose from taking part? Often, very little. After all what can they lose (once they know the endeavour is bona fide). And
this may be one of the reasons, why no-one said that they thought research was a pointless exercise – that is reassuring! But they do note
the time that could have been spent with the family and children cannot be re-wound. Hence, most will not miss significant family or social
engagements for the sake of attending research sessions (perhaps unless the incentive is doubled!)

Serpents Talk about their Fellow Serpents and not always in Flattering Terms

Serpents they like and dislike

Respondents categorise each other in three ways and these are highlighted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Serpents talk about other serpents

● Silent types – they are disliked and, in some cases, even resented. We believe that this negativity is rooted in several basic
phenomena. Respondents do not know what they are thinking and thus start to frame a set of questions. 'Are they judging me?' 'Am
I too stupid for them to bother with?' What do they know that I do not?' 'Are they broody or unhappy?' 'What is their problem?' 'What
is their agenda for not contributing given that they are being paid?' And ultimately, 'What right do they have to be here given their
silence?' Indeed, there is an 'equity equation' taking place inside their minds. These silent Trappist monks in the session are buying
their silence at the expense of other respondents, who resent having to do more work to compensate and yet will not receive any
greater remuneration for their greater effort. Any attempts by the moderator to break this silence is appreciated as it means less
work for other respondents and means that the moderator is in control of the session.

● Dominating vocal types – they are resented even more for they are perceived to be overly self-important and too aware of their
own status. In this sense, they also disrupt the egalitarian make-up of the session and introduce an unwanted hierarchy. The
questions that may be going through respondents' heads this time might be: 'why are they saying so much – is it to show others how
little the rest of us know?', 'what do they know that I do not?' and, simply, 'why can't they just keep their mouths shut for a change
and stop giving others (respondents and moderator) a hard time?'. Again, respondents sympathise with the moderator who tries to
deal with the dominating vocal types.

● Normal types 'like me' – they are anxious not to dominate the discussion but make a real effort to give their opinions. Appreciated
for their judicious balance of silence and verbal contribution, they give everyone the chance to have their say. They help police the
session and (in their own minds) set themselves up as the moderators' friend. They sympathise with and appreciate fellow normal
types like themselves.

The return of the Serpent, again and again and again ... so what!

Whilst this three-fold typology helps us understand the relationship dynamic and frustrations between respondents, there is another factor
that operates underneath this typology. This factor is vital to research as it has for so long been seen as a taboo – we refer to the issue of
heavy repeat respondents who take part in many sessions e.g. seven or more per year. These heavy frequency respondents (HFR) could
be in any of the three categories listed above.

Respondents in the workshops (who we can define as medium frequency respondents – MFRs) are not always aware that others can be
such heavy attendees. In the United States, MFRs assume that the viewing facility will be able to counteract such tendencies by screening
out anyone who has attended in the last six months. They assume the average respondent would not run the risk of being found out if they
did lie.

That said, MFRs and HFRs do not necessarily understand the fuss over HFRs. As long as they do not lie to gain entry to the session in
screening or during the discussion and behave like 'normal types' what is the harm according to respondents? Indeed, in their eyes, they
could be adding something valuable. They could be helping the moderator run the session and save time – they know how to behave, they
can second guess how one should respond to the material (both rationally and emotionally) and they can bring shy respondents into the
conversation. In India, they could also be a cast iron guarantee that the session will be a success because repeat respondents can use their
experience to make the session work!

“A repeat respondent is an experienced guy” (India)

In the United Kingdom, some additional distinctions are made. Participating in different methodologies is acceptable and does not constitute
being a high frequency respondent, i.e. going to a group discussion and then a depth the following month is not seen as problematic,
neither is attending a session on a different topic. After all, they reason, the HFR is being paid (well) and offered refreshments – this
appears to be a win-win situation surely?

In other words, our issue – the perceived deception by heavy frequency respondents – is not seen as a problem at all (unless lying is
involved). So what does this mean? It means that respondents do not realise that we may actually value no or limited knowledge as a
genuine reflection of reality and that this can give us greater learning than someone who has read up everything they possibly can on a
topic.

How can we address this situation or even use it to our advantage? How can we minimise any damage? How can we optimise the potential
benefits? We present some answers to these questions in Part 3.

Different Ways to Reach for the Apple and get a Mouthful of Knowledge

In the Garden, there are many ways to pluck the Apples of knowledge.

Eve talks to several Serpents at the same time ... super!

First and most frequently experienced by almost all respondents we spoke to in our four markets is the group discussion which is often the
initiation into the world of research for many. Although experienced less often, many of the pros and cons of groups also apply to creative
workshops. Both approaches offer the advantage of safety in numbers and minimise the risk of being over-exposed to moderator
questioning. Beyond that, they also tap into some of the main motivations for taking part in research – the genuine desire to find out about
a topic, the creative buzz of bouncing ideas off others, the desire to have fun and the intellectual stimulation of debating views and opinions
with them. In normal life, this would hardly ever be possible and they certainly would not be paid for it. And specifically, in places like India,
it is not always culturally appropriate for females to share their views in this way. Thus qualitative market research offers them an
opportunity for self-expression and to be heard.

“At home no-one listens but here we women are called on for our outlook” (India)

They provide respondents with a sense of connection which is otherwise absent from their daily lives and the opportunity to develop skills
they are lacking:

“It has given me the confidence to stand up and present to colleagues at work from a flipchart” (UK)

Add into this mix the opportunity to have a soap box for their own views and you have a heady cocktail of reasons for liking participation in
groups. But groups and workshops raise the fundamental question of whether the presence of others encourages respondents to push their
opinions further, i.e. being more controversial or more forceful than they otherwise would. Do they? We know what we think but what do
you think?

However, there is a down side to these methodologies such as obnoxious, vocal respondents, sessions that are too long (workshops lasting
three or four hours), sessions that overrun and use of creative/projective techniques (which we discuss later).

Eve gives me her undivided attention ... but do I want it?

Praised for being a testimony to genuine interest in the respondent, depth interviews eliminate dissenting opinions and retain focus on the
key issues in the absence of other potentially wayward respondents. They allow the vocal respondent to give their opinions a thorough
work out in their very own exclusive mental gym. Their shorter length and possibility of combining with accompanied shopping trips can
make them fun. However, the sole focus on the respondent is often intimidating and means they cannot 'zone out' and have to concentrate
for the entire duration of the session. This leads to additional stress and nervousness. In addition, depths take away one of the key
motivations for involvement in research which is the opportunity to meet with and bounce their thinking – and even their personalities – off
others. Whilst paired depths and triads offer the advantage of having a 'partner in crime' who can respond as well, many of the pros and
cons of depth interviews still apply.

And finally Eve gets intrusive and personal ... do I really want this hassle?

Less often experienced but nevertheless vital to the qualitative toolkit is ethnography. Accompanied shopping trips are enjoyable – who,
they ask, would not enjoy being paid to go and indulge their desire for retail therapy especially if this entails keeping the purchases
afterwards? In essence, they fit with the mental template of going out or being treated and pampered a little bit. But understanding the
rationale for taking photos and video recordings of cupboards, kitchens and bathrooms is more puzzling. Not only does it become intrusive,
it also causes them to query why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to take a picture of something as banal as this? In the
absence of a convincing explanation, no wonder they are confused. But even worse than this is the frightening thought of having a
researcher, or worse still a client, hanging around the house for four to seven hours. This is mainly seen as dragging out the experience
and often requires a rather hefty incentive to compensate for the pain and inconvenience. Anxiety over feeling the need to tidy up the
home and keep up appearances takes away much of the enjoyment of participating in this sort of session. As such, the 'hermetically
sealed' world of a particular, dedicated place into which respondents 'go' is very much part of why they value and appreciate a 'good'
research session. We feel that this experience of ethnographic approaches is particularly problematic given clients increasing desire to get
closer to respondents and the negativity of the latter towards this. How should this issue be managed? Whose wishes are paramount here?
These are some of the questions we answer later in the paper.

Habitats for Research in the Garden

The quality of the venue in which research is held sends out some clear signals to respondents about how they are perceived. In general,
plush venues equate to 'they value me' and, in some cases, 'this is a bit too expensive for my liking' and more modest and undesirable
venues equate to 'they could have made more of an effort'.
Peeping out from behind the trees into our gathering – hmmm, not sure about that

The viewing facility is lingua franca in so many markets in Western Europe and has also been adopted into other developing markets such
as China (but to a much lesser extent in India as yet). So how do respondents feel about them? This is where there are some notable
differences in response by country.

In the United Kingdom, the first experience in a viewing facility is often rather daunting and scary as respondents simply do not know what
to expect and these feelings continue even when they are actually inside the facility. Subsequent experiences serve to eradicate the initial
fears but some still would not deem this type of venue their setting of choice in which to conduct research.

“The first time I did it, I didn't like it at all” (UK)

It is worth noting that in places where viewing facilities are the norm, e.g. London, respondents are slightly more accepting of them: they
have become more desensitised. Going beyond initial reactions, respondents articulate the advantages and disadvantages of viewing
facilities too. On the plus side, they are 'proper' research places designed specifically for research to happen, they lend an air of
seriousness and professionalism to the proceedings and set up a 'work-like' mind set whereby respondents feel they ought to behave and
'do the job' for which they have been paid. Hence facilities make them feel their opinion is valued. On the down side, the fear of who is
behind the mirror persists and no matter how much the moderator reassures them it is probably never going to be enough unless the
moderator takes them behind the mirror but this has not happened for most respondents. As part of the fieldwork for this paper, we
actually took respondents behind the mirror to see their reactions: most accepted that this was not the same as interrogation rooms seen in
US crime shows and even liked the idea that the respondent room was far nicer. The other issue with viewing facilities is that even though
their opinion is valued, respondents themselves are not – it is akin to being 'the latest batch to be processed in the sausage factory' (and
arrogant staff in some facilities do nothing to assuage this feeling of being the latest in a long line of lab rats and guinea pigs). Apart from
the emotional discomfort there are also practical issues. Their location in office blocks which become deserted after office hours and lack of
parking are a pain especially given that research sessions often finish late into the evening.

By contrast, in the United States almost all have tasted research in viewing facilities and find this preferable to other types of venues. They
are seen as comfortable and familiar, easy to access with good parking facilities, often close to work or home. They represent a welcome
break from the distractions of home, allow total focus on the subject matter and are neutral ground for everyone. The downsides are the
somewhat sterile and bland environment which creates a rigid atmosphere for the discussion, abetted by standard chairs and tables which
feel less than welcoming.

Similarly, in China viewing facilities feel professional and well suited to focusing on a subject but feel a little too much like a work
environment and not terribly relaxing. The addition of comfortable furniture would go some way to dispel this feeling.

Viewing facilities are less prevalent in India: video links into a separate room are used as an alternative. However, in both cases there are
some initial fears. But whereas for men these are later assuaged, especially if they meet the client, for women they are not and there is
some concern about how video tapes will be used.

There is clearly a need for some further thinking around making viewing facilities more amenable and the experience more enjoyable for
respondents. We touch on these issues in Part 3.

Eve is coming to my patch in the Garden – but can I get rid of her?

Across the United Kingdom, United States and China, being interviewed in their own home offers the benefit of convenience and potentially
saves time for respondents (though this is not standard practice in India). But it also has some disadvantages too:

“At my home it is ... convenient because I do not lose time travelling to the venue but I do not feel very safe. Sometimes
there are too many people in one party [group]” (China)

The invasion into personal territory is met with reticence and means that a 'presentable front' has to be offered, i.e. fractious children need
to be kept out of the way, a mammoth cleaning exercise needs to be undertaken and this creates stress and tension. There is also the
concern around letting strangers into their own home and, in the United States, especially if video taping is involved and includes children.
Then, once the interview is underway, the domestic environment is full of distractions. These issues are compounded by having more than
two or three people coming to their home. Moreover, it is also accompanied by confusion over why the session needs to take place in their
home: this negates the whole 'going out for the evening'. So our rationale for using the respondents' own home – to see their behaviour in
situ and the truths in their lives – comes up against the barrier that respondents do not always want to share this with us. Perhaps it is
worth a phone call to the respondent several days beforehand explaining the purpose of the session, why it is being conducted in home,
what is expected/not expected of them to put the respondents' mind at rest. It also calls for a limit to be placed on the number of observers
who accompany the moderator.

Let's visit someone else's patch in the Garden – but try not to intrude on them

Using a recruiters' or someone else's home is not prevalent in all markets; it is very rare in the United States and China. In the United
Kingdom this venue represents a happy balance in that it gives the comfort factor of being in a non-sterile, homely environment, is easy to
access and feels safe. However, it still feels akin to invading someone else's personal space especially if the sessions over-run. Neither
does it feel as if they are being pampered and taken special care of – going to No.4 Western Road does not sound half as good as going to
the Hotel Du Vin: it feels more like the research is being done cheaply rather than professionally! In India, using someone else's home
generates similar feedback but with the added dimension that it is easier to say to their own families that they are going to 'a friend's home'
and is less likely to instigate a barrage of searching questions. However, it does mean they have to be on their best behaviour and cannot
get too rowdy. All of this leads us to believe that such environments are a welcome element in the venue repertoire but we as moderators
need to be sensitive to how respondents may curtail their behaviour to fit in with the environment.

Or there is Always Hotel Patch – Great if it's a Good 4 *

It would appear that hotels are not frequently used for research in the United States and China but in the United Kingdom and India it is a
different matter. In the latter two markets, reactions to hotel venues can be polarised based on the quality of the venue and its ability to
deal with the demands of research (especially group discussions or workshops). Thus the experience can be a great one if the place is
comfortable and gives respondents the impression of being pampered for this fits in with their mental template of 'being a night out'. Ample
parking (or transport to the place), good food (not petrol station sandwiches but nicely made ones) and wine, plus the neutrality of the
venue are part of its reason for success. And in markets such as India, the ability to rely on waiters to answer to the respondents' beck and
call is flattering. It suggests the research is not being done on the cheap and confirms their need for status enhancement.

However, hotels which are run down, serve poor food, have poor lighting, or undesirable clientele can ruin the whole night out experience.
In India, female respondents feel hotels can also create suspicion from family members that they may be having secret assignations with
strangers and for both males and females there is the feeling of being slightly outclassed and out of place in some overly extravagant
hotels.

Where bars and resultants have been used in the United Kingdom, United States and China similarly positive observations surface and they
are often more relaxed. But there is the added irritation of being distracted by other customers if the session is taking place in a communal
area or the risk of meeting someone they know (in the United States).

Tools Designed to Bring out the Flesh of the Apple are not always Welcomed

Stimulus is a double edged sword

Stimulus is acknowledged as playing a useful role in the research process, according to respondents. It is critical to the testing of an idea
and more useful than a straightforward description on paper. Varying formats such as visuals, ads, videos, storyboards and products to test
are all welcomed.

However, stimulus is also a double edged sword for them. They get very frustrated at having to comment on minutely different details on
packaging, ads and products which are almost invisible to the naked eye. An occupational hazard of this is the inevitable repetitive
questioning as moderators try to find differences where none exist in the respondent's mind. But there is more. Stimulus can be rather un-
dynamic especially when it comes to advertising research. Here, static storyboards held aloft by a moderator desperately trying to do a
multitude of voices in the voiceover do not appear to do justice to the ad in the eyes of respondents. They would prefer to have a
video/DVD to play even if it is a crude film of the same outline given on the above storyboard but with a 'properly detached' voiceover,
distinct from the moderator's own voice. The change in media (rather than purely content) helps them focus. But it is not just about the
type of stimulus or the stimulus vehicle but the amount. Respondents are genuinely terrified by copious amounts of stimulus:

“When you see 20 foam boards piled up next to the moderator, your heart just sinks to the floor” (UK)

This subtly but definitely alters the role of the moderator from a facilitator of discussion to a 'foam board jockey' who surfs into the group
on the back of a pile of boards. And it sets up expectations (often borne out by reality) that the discussion is about to nosedive into tedium
with eight rather bored people hoping the ground can swallow them up as an alternative to looking at all those boards.

What does all of this tell us? Well, for respondents, stimulus can defeat its main raison d'être – to stimulate discussion – by killing the
discussion altogether if used inappropriately. It also suggests that we have become lazy and assumptive in our approach to stimulus using
the same old approaches time and time again. We have taken the approach that as long as we give respondents 'something to talk about'
that will be sufficient rather than 'give them something to help them talk'. So how do we resolve this issue? Some suggestions are
presented in Part 3.

Projective techniques are seen as weird and unnecessary

Most respondents have been subjected to projective techniques at some point in their 'research career' including: collages, role play, brand
parties, brand personifications, free association, build your own ideal ... and the world of ... On the upside, they can help break up the
conversation away from exchanging mere words verbally to actually doing something more interesting and fun. Not only do they foster
creativity, they also stimulate interaction with other respondents in the session.

But this stock in trade of moderators is not always recalled fondly by respondents. The rationale for using them and instructions on what to
do are not always articulated clearly. Second, the task itself can feel 'weird', artificial and difficult as not all respondents believe they are
creative and imaginative. This can lead to discomfort in the session:

“It's like being back at school. It wouldn't interest me at all but I guess they get new ideas from them” (UK)

“Some people were quite freaked out at the thought of turning a bag of flour into a person” (UK)

Across all of the markets, a few respondents claimed they had 'made things up' when asked to project onto an item. That sounds scary
doesn't it? Again the prominence of creative techniques in qualitative research requires that we think long and hard about how we use them
and where we use them in the session (middle vs. end?) to maximise their usefulness. Part 3 delves into these issues in more detail.

All about Eve – there are Eves that Serpents like and those they do not like

Given their rather substantial experience of research, respondents have a number of interesting observations on Eve in the Garden, i.e. the
moderator. It is implicit that the nature of the moderator has a big effect on the respondents' experience of the research session.
Respondents have their own ideas about what constitutes a 'good moderator' or a bad one but most of their commentary is based on how
moderators behave in groups rather than depths.

Good moderators are comfortable with respondents, not nervous or afraid of them. They are personable, friendly, have a good sense of
humour, are easy to relate to and have plenty of energy to keep the group lively and involved.
They listen to respondents carefully with empathy, politeness, courtesy and in a non-judgemental fashion which allows emotions to come to
the surface naturally. Their probing is carried out in a soft, inviting and cajoling tone and it is not repetitive. Allowing everyone to convey
their views (nurturing silent types and dampening dominant vocal ones), they allow respondents to follow the rules and play the game of
research. Above all they are always in control of the session and are viewed as akin to a respected teacher – firm but fair, nobody's fool
but with just a twinkle of collaboration in their eye.

“Someone like us but clearly in control” (USA)

By contrast, a bad moderator is the converse of this and lacks balance of control. Either they are more like an authoritarian headmaster
who only applies the rules of the game selectively or they are like a trainee teacher who cannot control the class. Bad moderators, in
whatever form they come, are a source of concern for respondents. The 'trainee teacher' moderator's loss of control over the group opens
the door to dominant vocal types to take centre stage: they spoil the research experience for 'normal respondents like me' and; disrupt the
otherwise flat structure of the group into a hierarchy. Loss of control also works in other ways: it pertains to being unable to manage time
in the discussion leading to late running or rushed pace and it also translates into being intimidated by respondents. Again these are all no-
nos which de-stabilise the pleasure of attending the group in the first place. The authoritarian headmaster-moderator is also disliked for
being impatient, barking orders, asking questions in an interrogatory tone, being confrontational, putting down respondents and not
allowing everyone to have their say. They also stick to the script to the point of being boring and monotonous. In the worst case scenarios,
these types of moderators sometimes don't even want to be in the research session. They deny respondents the opportunity to have 'a
laugh'.

The appearance of moderators is also worthy of comment. Respondents like moderators that are attractive and well presented – it makes
the time in the session pass more quickly especially if the subject matter happens to be rather dull. They also note issues with female
moderators wearing revealing clothes: many who have to sit in a room for several hours in the presence of an eyeful of cleavage can
surely tell you about the havoc this causes with their concentration and hormones!

Other Characters in the Garden that Serpents do not see very much – Clients of Course

The opportunity to meet clients does not arise that often and few can recall meeting clients. If they do meet them the most likely touch
point is in viewing facilities. Here respondents are puzzled as to why they are behind the mirror and suspect they could be making rude
faces behind their backs. There is some preference for them being in the same room although this is counter-argued by the intimidation
factor of being overtly watched and thus being unable to express their views openly. Respondents also expect clients to behave in a certain
way – they should be seen but not heard (or not heard very much): a silent client is a boon; a vocal client is a pain. The latter disrupts the
flow of the group and is seen as undermining the authority and skill of the moderator (who they often like to see as their ally). After all,
they only want one person to ask questions. It also runs counter to the idea that clients want to hear frank and honest views, hence the
need for objective external moderators, yet they then choose to interfere in the session.

Client involvement is acceptable under certain circumstances, i.e. when technical product knowledge needs to be conveyed or to appear at
the end of the session to give respondents a sense of importance and value in their participation.

In short, interaction with clients is worthwhile and value-added as long as it is within clearly defined boundaries that do not disrupt the
existing relationship dynamic between the key players and on the respondents' terms.

PART 2: MAKING MEANING FROM THE SERPENTS' EXPERIENCES

So we have discovered that respondents enjoy the experience of research. It offers them a life beyond their normal day-to-day work and
family lives and helps them develop skills, meet people and debate issues that they otherwise would not be able to encounter.

Far from being naïve, respondents understand their role in the group much better than we expected. They like to feel valued and
concomitant with this is the idea of having a slightly more involved relationship with the research process. But there is also much more
about their experience that we have not covered thus far and it is to this area that we now turn our attention. We feel that underlying the
Serpents' experience of research is a set of intellectual and interpretive frameworks that can be used to make sense of their feelings and
these are outlined below.

Being Part of Research is like being Part of a Club – Welcome to the Eden Club

The whole experience, behaviours, attitudes, conceptualisation and perceptualisation of research is akin to being part of a club. We have
called this the Eden Club. So what characterises this club?

Well, like all clubs, the Eden Club has members, i.e. our Serpents. It has rules of engagement some of which have been laid down by the
organisation behind the Club (the agencies and industry) and others which have been devised by Club members themselves as they have
gradually learnt the way things work in this club – a sort of self-policing for self-preservation. There is a set of shared values about how
one should behave in the club and with other members. Being a member of the club bestows a sense of intrinsic value and community feel.
There are status levels and privileges available to reflect this value and worth. Thus no one wants to be caught out breaking the rules be
that by lying, cheating, attending too many sessions or disrupting the rules in any other way. Members are rewarded for their participation
in the range of activities they are invited to attend. This club has a physical space in which to meet although the specifics of this vary each
time. Like other clubs, there is a password for entry (the recruitment criteria) and a gate-keeper (the recruiter) who allows/denies entry.
And, you have guessed it; there is a leader or chairperson – Eve – our moderator.

So why is this club metaphor useful? Well, first, it helps us frame our knowledge of our Serpents into a set of parameters that can be
further developed. It helps us understand how and why Serpents behave as they do at present. Second, it guides us in terms of any
suggestions we may have for future development in research – using the club metaphor we can decide whether any of these suggestions
should be introduced into the club or not introduced as the case may be.

But the Eden Club is not just any old common club – it is not just a club where members meet. It is infinitely more than this. This club
touches on some very fundamental dimensions. What is the purpose of this club?
Playing the Reality Game is the Raison D'être of the Eden Club

We argue that the Eden Club is an environment where realities are traded, negotiated, translated, re-shaped and mastered. The real, the
surreal, the hyper-real and the meta-real all come together in this club. Our Serpents enter the club doors with one reality in their head –
their own hard reality of the outside non-Eden Club world. Not only do they attend the Eden Club to meet other members – they also want
to validate their own sense of reality and confirm to themselves that they are 'normal'. By this they mean as normal as they can possibly
be or in line with the average definition of normality (whatever that may be). It is not as if they are not proud of their reality – indeed, they
are immensely proud of it but they wish to validate it in two ways:

● Emotional reality – what kind of emotional reality should they be experiencing and expressing? Are they feeling about things the way
everyone else is? Are they as loved and valued as the other members in attendance by the moderator? By other respondents? By
the client? By family members when they go home?

● Intellectual reality – are they thinking about things the way everyone else is? Is anything anyone else is saying causing them to re-
evaluate their own sense of intellectual reality? Do they know the right quantity and quality of information to appear sensible and
composed? Or are they going to look like a complete and utter fool? In undertaking this process of validation they want to feel
accepted and acceptable to others. They want to learn as much about the world as Eve does.

Once they enter the club, they leave their hard sense of daily, practical reality outside the door and enter into a world where their reality is
suspended as we spend two hours talking about the topic in hand. But in doing so we are asking them to do a bit more than this. We are
asking them to also consider the realities of other members, how they see the world and, specifically, this topic area, interact with it and
negotiate their way around it. This process of considering alternative realities then helps to heighten their sense of their own reality by
giving it a point of reference and a frame of comparison against which they can evaluate not only their own reality but also how it changes
as the discussion progresses. In doing so, we play to their desire to learn as much about the world as we Eves do. Such a change can be
intensification into a more distinct sense of hard, practical reality as it applies to the subject of discussion, or it can be a dilution into the
less distinct and more surreal, even intangible. The way we do this is to touch their emotions and imaginations, for example, via creative
and projective techniques – taking them into the realm of the surreal – and then re-connecting them back to a different sort of reality. This
is not a surreality now but a more distinct, even harder reality that has been shaped and informed by the surreal experience of creative
techniques. This is the kind of reality that helps answer client objectives for the research. Grounded and more refined, it helps propel
clients forward particularly when all the member realities are moulded into one and a single reality takes shape. Discussing this task leads
us neatly onto the topic of Eve's role in the Eden Club? What does Eve do? How easy or difficult is it?

Eve Seduces Serpents via the Discourse of Temptation

Eve's role is simple in theory but immensely complex, challenging and demanding in practice. Eve's task is to tease out these realities from
Serpents. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3: Eve as a deployer of realities

As Figure 3 shows, far from being a 'passive experiencer' of different realities, she is a reality deployer. Using her skill, charm, wit,
expertise and knowledge, she brings out these realities further forward than they are to start with, taking Serpents out of their comfort
zones and encouraging them to confront the realities of others. Eve uses her wiles and ways to get members to transport themselves into a
different reality from the one they are in – a little scary for them but not as scary as for Eve who needs to do this in the most fruitful way
possible. One of her chief tools in this endeavour is the promise of intellectual validation, confirmation of emotional worth and the promise
of seeing future realities (work in production and pre-launch) for the Serpents. Her second important tool is empathetic understanding, that
is, as the interpreter of these realities she projects herself into the 'intellectual, emotional and physical space' of the respondent.

Both of these strategies go some way in teasing these realities out of them. We have called this the discourse of temptation that Eve uses
to get her own way – make them feel they are special, unique and prized and rewarded for their membership and efforts enough to openly
and willingly share their realities with her and others. It is a kind of 'courtly-dance' designed to lure, entice and cajole.

So unlike the Garden of Eden in the Old Testament, in our Garden it is not necessarily the Serpent who is tempting Eve all the time.
Admittedly that may happen every now and again. But essentially, it is Eve who is tempting the Serpent.

However, Eve's discourse of temptation is by no means indiscriminate. It is very targeted and specific and, in making it so, she is hoping
that she can sift through these realities to ensure that true realities are being presented. She has to be aware of, and resist, being fooled
by the 'wrong' sort of realities. What she does not want to deal with is untrue-realities (lies), nonsensical-realities (totally weird and
unintelligible to everyone in the room), totally inebriated-realities (as opposed to those only mildly drunk) and/or bullshit-realities (from
dominant vocal types). She does not want them to corrupt the other true-realities that she is so delicately and sensitively nurturing. These
aberrant realities need to be left alone, discounted totally or, at best, taken with a pinch of salt.

In addition, there is, of course, the reality presented by the heavy frequency respondent who acts like a consultant which leaves Eve
feeling a little puzzled – what should she do with this? A special type of heavy frequency respondent who may be able to offer more insight
on the topic, they may choose to be more expressive and articulate about their views (unlike other HFRs who may decide to say just
enough to keep the moderator and fellow respondents happy). Traditionally, Eve has feared the realities they offer and, the market
research industry as a whole, has maintained this stance for many years. But should this be the way it remains? Can Eve openly embrace
their reality and interpret it for what it is, that is, an alternative and perhaps even more sophisticated reality than that presented by other
respondents?

That calls on us to raise the issue of the reality of the 'virgin respondent – what should she do with this? Of course, our industry sets a great
premium on the reality of the virgin but should this really be the case? Is their reality over-prized relative to its usefulness? Yes, virgins are
needed to renew the Garden and start the Genesis all over again but why do we think that pure, first time responses are so important? Well
there is the obvious reason, namely, to take a temperature gauge of a representative sample from the universe and hear from those who
have not been exposed to the research process. But aren't there other rationales for why it may sometimes be better to accord this prized
status elsewhere? We think there are. What do you think?

The last piece of the puzzle is Eve's own reality. This acts as the canvas against which the other realities are seen. Serpents' realities are
pinned onto Eve's reality to give her a frame of reference by which to judge true-realities from other ones.

True-realities are re-worked into a harder sense of reality – in fact, the hardest of all – as she translates these into answers to the clients'
objectives at debriefing stage and serves them up primped and preened with (hopefully) copious amounts of insight. This is the realm of
business reality. And it is a reality to which one character in the Garden has most access of all – the client. Unable to access the realities of
Serpents most of the time as they are not really seen as a true part of the Garden, their only in-road into this world is via Eve and the
research process.

But there are other dynamics operating in the Eden Club as well.

Reality Seductions and the Discourse of Temptation are about Forming Relationships

Given the lengths that Eve has to go to intellectually tease and flirt her way into and around these realities, it is small wonder that there is
more to the interaction than at first we might think. Serpents in the Eden Club want to feel they have a relationship with her and with the
general activity in which the Club indulges, i.e. research. In their own minds, they ascribe more value to being in the Eden Club than we
had at first realised. From here stems their sense of almost-professional pride in what they do within the Club. And this desire to have a
relationship is not something that will just stroke the scales of the Serpents and keep them happy. It can also be beneficial for the Eves.
Not only does a germinating relationship prior to the research session starting bestow upon her greater understanding of the Serpents, it
also means she can more readily and quickly tease out the realities she is looking to bring to the surface during the session. In turn, not
only does this mean that Serpents are more comfortable about being subjected to this process, it also means that they can expect some
interaction outside the immediate session. Precisely what form this interaction takes is something we delve into in Part 3. Hence, this
heralds a shift from a purely client-focused approach to research to one that makes the needs and desires of the respondent more central
in the process.

But this also raises another set of issues. If Serpents are looking for relationship development in the Eden Club and Eve could be quite
keen on this as well, what implications does this have on what we call the sessions? Is focus group still the right way of describing these
interactions? Is depth interview still the right way of describing it? We pick up this thread in Part 3.

But there is also Reality Manipulation at the Point of Entry into the Eden Club

The encounter with Eve is not the only time that Serpents' realities are re-shaped and re-presented. This happens at the gates to the Eden
Club as well. This is especially the case where heavy frequency respondents are involved. Some Serpents do not see anything wrong with
manipulating their realities when it comes to articulating frequency of product usage or brand repertoire to include those brands that they
have not actually used. Are they correct in this assumption? Are we simply being too stringent in our application of the rules of engagement
from the Eden Club and ignoring their interest and enthusiasm? Are these criteria really as sacrosanct as we can sometimes claim they
are? These are some of the issues we, as Eves, need to consider as we lead the Eden Club.

PART 3: TOWARDS A NEW GENESIS IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN

So we have established the nature of the Garden of Eden, the Eden Club and its various members. Now that we have led you on the path of
respondent experiences and interpreted the meanings underlying this path, it is time to explore other directions that need to be pursued.
What are the implications for researchers, respondents, clients and the industry? How can we all benefit from what we have found out?

During the course of this research it has become implicitly and explicitly clear that, as an industry, we underestimate the value of
respondents. They can offer us so much more than just sit around and chat for a couple of hours, then for us to 'call it a day' and sever our
contact with them. All we have to do is indicate to them that we value them enough to want to nurture a relationship with them even if it is
only for the evening, although, in practice, we would like this relationship to last for the duration of the project. So how can we address this
relationship-value-respect dynamic? In dealing with such issues, we now present a number of strategies with supporting solutions that can:
 ● Increase the value of respondents

● Draw out more value from them

● Look again at the content we put into research

● Explore the changes we can make to the role of the moderator

● Understand the implications for the role of the client

Central to all of these is the core principle of building a relationship with respondents and exploring the notion of value and being valued
and we deal with each of these in turn below.

Deriving more value from Serpents

Our initial steps on this journey of relationship and value are to draw more out from our respondents by re-shaping the format of the
'research evening' and providing more reassurance for respondents who take part in research for the first time.

Pre-research acclimatisation sessions to 'share the love' before the research begins

Our first suggestion is to invite respondents to arrive a little earlier to the session. Current practice around warming up respondents usually
lasts about 10 minutes of which only four to five minutes focuses on honest responses, confidentiality and anonymity. Asking them to arrive
30 minutes earlier means that the moderator can spend this time warming them up. Precisely what would this involve?

Well, it would involve chatting informally (even about inconsequential things such as the journey or the weather) to respondents in a
relaxed environment, for example, the bar or café. This task is usually performed by the hostess if the session is in a hotel or in-home. But
in viewing facilities this often would not happen and respondents would have to 'do their own warm-up'. The second benefit is that this
session acts as a vehicle to impart research norms and values such as the need for honesty. We know that anyone who has lied their way
into the session at recruitment is not going to suddenly confess to their actions and beg eternal forgiveness. But what it does mean is that
we can invite them into our norms and values. It then becomes much harder for them to behave in a disruptive way in the session; it then
becomes more difficult for them to remain silent; it then becomes more difficult for them to be too vociferous. We are not there to train
them on how to respond as such but to give deeper guidance on what we see as the template for respondent behaviour within which they
should operate. Furthermore, we can underline the importance of their contribution to the research not just by saying it but by tangibly
demonstrating it via the extra time spent with them.

The merit in asking the moderator to do these things is that it helps create a bond between the moderator and respondents even before the
main part of the session begins. Hence respondents enter the group/depth room with a different frame of mind and, what we envisage will
be, more mentally receptive to the task at hand.

Post-research experience workshops to capture learnings and lessons from the first night

Our second suggestion is to run post-research experience workshops. These would take place on the first night of research. The first group,
mini-group or workshop would take place in a viewing facility or via video link into another room of the hotel where facilities are not
available. This would run for its normal duration. However, there is a crucial difference. Rather than send respondents home straight after it
is finished and welcome the second group in, we would ask the first group to stay on for an extra hour. During this hour we would explore
their experiences of the session. Which areas/questions worked well for them? Which areas/questions did not work so well? How was the
flow of the discussion for them? Too fast? Too slow? Just about right? What about stimulus? Appropriate for the task to be performed? What
suggestions can they give for improving subsequent sessions? And above, all how did the process make them feel? Valued? Respected?
Under-valued? To increase the value of this approach even more, respondents would have the opportunity to quiz the client first hand about
their work and plans for further development of the ideas once they have aired their experiences to the moderator.

The main purpose of this first workshop is to act as a true qualitative pilot that is diagnostic in its role and insightful in its nature. To
facilitate this, respondents would be recruited for the entire evening, that is, for three hours if the actual group is for two hours (plus the 30
minutes required by the pre-research acclimatisation session). In the case of depth interviews, it would mean a depth lasting one hour and
then an additional 20 minutes for the follow-up to take place on the first three depths for a project.

If the sessions are longer than this, for example four hours, the post-research encounter could take the form of a follow-up phone call. In
this case, the moderator would call all the respondents the following day and conduct a short 20 minute depth interview to cover the issues
cited above. Again respondents would be recruited for two stages – the first interview and the follow-up tele-depth interview.

Giving more reassurance to virgins at the recruitment stage

We have already established that despite the invitation cards and recruiters' reassurances about the bona fide nature of research, first time
respondents are still quite afraid about what will happen to them if they attend a research session. To tackle this we suggest additional
training and briefing of recruiters. Based on the findings from our research, such training would highlight the kinds of feelings experienced
by virgin respondents and explain the rationale behind spending more time with respondents detailing what will happen in the session. Such
a conversation would draw respondents' attention to how bona fide research is, policies and regulations in place to protect respondents
explained in a consumer friendly way, and, above all, how they have been specially chosen to take part in the prestigious endeavour of
market research. It is not enough to hand over the invitation card with the number for the research industry contacts in each market. Who
would take the trouble to ring them anyway?

Another technique worth exploring is 'buddying-up' virgin respondents with those who have been to research before. The senior buddy, who
has been to research, could provide the virgin buddy with a more on the ground view, free from the vested interest of the recruiter. They
could give confidence to the virgin and answer any questions they may have about what happens in the research process. This is
potentially as valuable, if not more so, than the recruiter's explanation as the recruiter may never have attended a research session before
and would, therefore, not be best placed to describe the process and experience as a fellow respondent.

Both of these strategies would also go some way to help tackle the rather dubious image of market research as pressure sales or some
other undesirable venture. After all, personal recommendation and experience can be the best antidote to such negative perceptions and
can easily outweigh any more formal PR exercise on behalf of the industry.

Attributing more value to Serpents

Our subsequent steps on this relationship-value journey are to demonstrate the respect with which we hold respondents through the
terminology we use for the sessions, how much information we share with them, where we hold the research, how we reward them and the
use we make of different types of respondents.

A rose by any other name? Cultivating new terminology for focus groups and depth interviews

We feel the term focus group does not do justice or attribute respect to respondents – it implies a focus on something but this is likely to be
on the subject matter or on the client rather than focusing on the respondent per se. Likewise, depth interviews are about exploring a
subject in depth and/or obtaining depth for a client although in this case also understanding the respondent in detail – but does this justify
the current terminology in use? We don't think so. For neither of these terms feel particularly egalitarian and close to the respondent in an
emotional and intellectual sense. What are the solutions then? What terminology can we use that will help improve the nature of the
information captured by drawing out qualitatively different material? We believe that different terminology may help to get better and more
insights. How about using the term 'collective relationship sessions' to depict a group based methodology? How about 'individual relationship
sessions' to reflect depth interviews? Using the term relationship in the name of the methodology forces us as moderators to keep this
important element of the respondents' agenda top of mind and allows us to constantly reference it whilst we conduct the sessions. This does
not mean that we will stop focusing on the topic or the client. However, it does mean that we will also make fostering the relationship with
respondents the focus of the research too.

Leaving the communication loop open after the research session has finished by sharing findings with respondents

Respondents are keen on research and the intellectual and emotional benefits they derive from it are clear to see once the right questions
have been asked. They are especially interested in increasing their involvement to beyond the actual research session and they cite
sharing research findings as one of the mechanisms to facilitate this. We strongly believe that such a venture will enhance their relationship
with the research. Furthermore, it will generate brand warmth and positive associations in general and also increase their regard for the
client by underlining the clients' commitment to the people who took part in their study. This plays directly into respondents' desire for self-
validation and respect for their endeavours. A short one-page summary of the key findings is all it needs. If this is likely to worry clients
then let us add this: the very act of sending something can be highly effective; it does not have to give away confidential new product
development plans, advertising strategy or corporate secrets.

Conducting research in more amenable physical surroundings

We are fully aware that there are currently no perfect venues where research can be conducted: each has its own pros and cons. Hotels
and private rooms in restaurants and bars go some way to meet respondents' needs and we encourage clients and agency side colleagues
to use these types of venues more often and more effectively by utilising the range of facilities available in them. Also these venues most
closely resemble the mental template carried around by respondents that attendance at research is akin to 'going out for the evening'.
Going to a pleasant but often un-glamorous home in the suburbs of the city is not 'going out for the evening': being invited to go to 'X Y Z
Hotel' is a much better approximation.

We know viewing facilities do not meet all respondents' needs. Whilst viewing facilities send the message of 'this is proper, serious research
taking place in a proper research place' they do not endear themselves emotionally to respondents. This is because respondents are keen
to come to comfortable, relaxed, spacious venues which are easily accessible: they also do not want to intrude on anyone's privacy
(including their own) which often happens in in-home venues.

Whilst we might prefer not to hold any research in viewing facilities to save respondents from the artificiality and pretence of this venue,
the fact remains that clients have been weaned so effectively on to them that they will never really give up their love of viewing facilities. If
that is the case, where do we go from here? The answer is we work within the viewing facility framework and improve it in line with
respondent needs and desires. The issues around viewing facilities can be remedied by developing more comfortable viewing facilities that
actually do resemble a living room environment complete with comfortable sofas, plants, candles and decorative items. (Incidentally, this
can also be applied to other types of venues too). However, it is hard to reconcile this with the feeling that viewing facilities continue to
make respondents feel uneasy and suspicious of the types of clients behind mirrors and their roles.

One way of dealing with this issue is to insist that clients meet respondents at the beginning of the group via a visit to the client viewing
room. This will help respondents feel that they are 'one-up' on clients as they have a more spacious and well-lit room – something that
would not be achieved if clients came into the respondents room. Of course, we know that some clients may not be comfortable doing this
but if they want to have the privilege of seeing respondents perform for them and share their views in this most artificial environment
perhaps they owe it to respondents to meet their side of the bargain. After all, why should they gain something at the expense of
respondents but not give something in return? Why should they peep into the world of respondents like voyeurs but not allow respondents
into their world?

One other obstacle that we cannot overcome easily is the location of viewing facilities. Being situated in office blocks which feel scary
during evening time cannot be helped, although it can be taken into consideration when new facilities are set up. We can however, offer a
service where viewing facility staff accompany respondents to their cars. They would leave the facility en masse and the entourage would
wend its way around to the different areas where cars are parked. But a better alternative would be to offer transport home. This would
mean that the incentive is lower as the travel element is taken out but it would mean that respondents feel safer.

Of course, all of this means additional costs to add to the clients' bill but what would they rather have? Happy respondents who go and
share their experiences with their friends? Or unhappy ones who are unhappy because they have had to walk around alone late at night?
Would they rather have respondents speak lyrically about the clients' brand? Or would they rather have respondents lambaste them? And
finally do clients want those who are keen to return to a research setting in the future? Or do they want to put respondents off from taking
part in research in the future? We know what we need them to do, the question is will they do it.

Money is not the only motivation, so think about other incentives that can be offered

Nothing will ever replace giving hard cash for participation in research. However, there is scope to build in more inventive gifts and
incentives to give respondents a warm glow about their participation and make them feel more appreciated for their efforts. These could be
products or vouchers from the client company or from another reputable company, e.g. Respondents taking part in research on beauty
could be given their monetary incentive as well as a voucher for a local department store where they can buy beauty products. Or they
could be items that are difficult to acquire (although not necessarily expensive). If sent after the research has happened and in the post,
this could be a very pleasant experience not to mention a huge surprise. Imagine the good will that would generate for the client brand.

Heavy frequency respondents – are they treated unfairly? Steps towards making more use of their 'expertise', experience
and knowledge

We do not necessarily concur with the wider belief in the research industry that all heavy frequency respondents should be excluded from
research. We need to encourage a climate of honesty where these respondents are not automatically vilified and treated as criminals. That
is not to say that we are agreeing with how they choose to behave and attend research on a repeated basis – we think this is wrong. But if
we continue to treat them like criminals we will never get to the bottom of the deception they are operating. By fostering a more
accommodating approach, we are encouraging them to be more open about the amount of research they undertake. That way we can
make a choice about when to include them in our forthcoming research, that is, when this sort of frequent attendance will not jeopardise
the findings or may positively enhance them. Essentially, this is about minimising the worst effects and optimising the best ones instead.

It also goes without saying that we, and other respondents, do see a value in their contribution if they are thoughtful in their feedback and
do not remain silent or become too dominant. They can become 'consultants'. They can give us a window into how other moderators handle
a topic and thus, in a strange sort of way, help create 'better practice'. They can draw upon their knowledge of a topic if it has been
gathered over a series of groups and genuinely add an alternative dimension of value to the data. And they can subtly help bring nervous
respondents out of their shells.

Getting a virgin – is it over-rated? Re-evaluating the value perceptions we hold

This also raises the topic of virgin respondents and their position. We do not hold virgin respondents in quite the same degree of awe as
some of our colleagues in the industry nor do we put them on a pedestal. They are useful but just because they are virgins does not mean
that they will be of great value to the research – indeed, in some cases, it is quite the opposite. That said, we are not advocating that
virgins are excluded from research. We are saying that we need to think more carefully about when they are truly needed rather than just
take a blanket and blinkered 'virgins are best' approach to every project. And moreover, we need to educate clients about this issue too
and encourage them to be more discerning about their recruitment criteria rather than adopting the 'one size fits all' mind set.

Re-visiting Research Content

The less is more approach to stimulus

Based on our own experiences as moderators and the comments made by respondents it is self-evident that stimulus is a potential problem
area and a possible cause for ruining the enjoyment of the research session. We should no longer be forcing board after board down the
throats of unsuspecting respondents. We advocate that stimulus be introduced earlier in the discussion (that is, towards the middle) than is
current practice to negate the effects of respondent tiredness if it is shown at the end. There would also seem to be a strong case for
researchers to lean back on clients and ad agencies and resist the temptation to acquiesce to 'death by foam board'. Indeed, the
conversation we should be having with them is perhaps how little stimulus can we put in. The optimum number can be derived from running
a pilot session with internal non-research staff acting as respondents. The outcomes would be fed back to the client or better still the client
would watch. The other alternative is to use the post-research experience workshops to test the amount and type of stimulus that should be
included. (It is worth pointing out that this process of piloting the stimulus not so that moderators can decide how much to put in – they
already know based on their experience). It is linked more strongly to drawing the clients' attention to stimulus issues and convincing them
of the potential problems. Both of these strategies can also test how much repetitive questioning is possible and where the line should be
drawn in response to respondent boredom.

The format of stimulus also needs to be re-examined to make it more dynamic, multi-dimensional and user-friendly. If respondents find it
hard to relate to animatics mounted on boards, why do we continue to use them? Could the advertising industry leverage its creativity to
re-work the format of stimulus for creative development? If they can't within their green houses of creativity then what hope for us poor
qualitative researchers?

Being more judicious about using projective techniques

Respondents would have us believe that projective techniques give them a massive headache and we are inclined to believe them as well.
So what can we do about this? Well, we cannot throw out what we feel is one of the most useful devices in the qualitative researchers
toolkit, so we have to think of the best way we can use the techniques without creating discomfort for respondents. First, this means we
take the time to explain their purpose clearly, the thinking behind it and we check they are comfortable in attempting to project. We need
to ensure that this explanation is sufficiently detailed but does not overwhelm them: neither should it position the task as too difficult to
attempt. Second, we need to ensure that, as moderators, we do not jeopardise the flow of the group by persisting with a projective
technique even if it is clearly giving respondents anxiety. This should have been an integral part of our training as qualitative researchers
from the very start or reinforced by senior colleagues. Yet, if you ask respondents, they will tell you that it does not happen like this. They
claim that they are forced to persevere with techniques that do not appear to work. Third, we need to be much more judicious in our use of
projective techniques. They are not something that is randomly included in a discussion guide to liven it up – they need to have a specific
purpose linked in with the clients' objectives. Fourth, perhaps our techniques have got too old and worn out. Perhaps we need to develop
some new ones that will be more dynamic and illuminating.
Re-birthing key players

Eve is born again

A re-birthed moderator could be rather different from the one that currently exists. But how would they be different? If the moderator took
the feedback of respondents into consideration there are a number of strategies she would deploy. They would be striving much harder to
create and retain a relationship with respondents. This translates into adopting the persona of a friend to the respondent rather than a
purely dispassionate observer. In advocating this, we are not saying that moderators lose their sense of objectivity – no they have to hold
onto that very tightly. But what we are saying is they temper this with an open and more personable stance, willing to share their own life
and research experiences without giving the game away and revealing anything that could bias responses. For example, sharing anecdotes
from their childhood or their own life helps to make them appear more human and helps respondents feel more confident about sharing
their views. The pre-research acclimatisation session we mentioned earlier in Part 3 can go some distance in helping to achieve this
outcome.

Building on the mental template that respondents liken research sessions to 'going out', it makes sense for the moderator to make an effort
with their appearance. We do not want to sound derogatory of our colleagues in the industry but consider this: who wants to go out for the
evening with someone who looks like they haven't shaved in three days. Who wants to go and meet someone who appears to have been in
their clothes when they put themselves inside the washing machine while it completed the spin cycle, hence they came out with clothes that
look like they have not been ironed for a decade? 'Not me mate' says the respondent!! So the moral of the story is for moderators to also
treat going to moderate as a special occasion which requires additional effort to woo respondents. And lest we forget the trouble
respondents have concentrating in the presence of moderators who 'let it all hang out', no revealing or suggestive clothing please!!

Transformation of the client

Our findings have some major implications for clients and their behaviour. It is laudable that clients wish to get closer to respondents but
we have also established that this is not always what respondents want or need to give of their best. We feel clients need to think about
respondents differently and not as lab rats that can be scrutinised.

Thinking about ethnographic or immersion approaches the direst example we have heard is where clients have not realised the respondent
may feel overwhelmed at having five or six members of the marketing and product team pile into their house!! Perhaps there is a serious
argument for turning the tables and asking five or six researchers to visit the client in their own home to watch them carry out some tasks
of interest to the researchers. This is not a 'revenge of the respondent' exercise but instead an opportunity to share experiences that
respondents have to sometimes endure. It could also make for a useful pilot of the interviews. How would this make the client feel? At the
very least, it may help them understand how respondents are human beings and will feel intimidated by the experience. All of this amounts
to encouraging clients to think of respondents as people with whom they should build relationships and not as mono-dimensional objects of
study who are seen in isolation as 'things' that interact with their brand or product. In doing so, we can ensure that ethnographic
approaches are used in a more sensitive way. We suggest that if clients (and actually researchers as well) want to use ethnographic
approaches they spend time with respondents before hand. Perhaps take them out for a drink or go for a coffee and get to know them a
little better as well as explain the purpose of the ethnographic approach. Ideally we suggest this is done a few days in advance to
encourage the respondent to get used to the idea of the visit. There is little point in meeting them 10 minutes before the ethnographic
session is about to begin.

Building on this thinking for conventional group discussions held in viewing facilities, perhaps there is scope for clients to mingle with
respondents before hand as well and get to know them a little better. This helps eradicate respondent fear about who is behind the mirror
and helps them see clients as real people rather than people with funny shaped heads, four legs and wearing strange looking laboratory
coats!! It helps them realise that clients are not aliens!!

In many matters, guidance from moderators can be invaluable in helping clients behave appropriately with respondents and we feel
listening to them will make all the difference.

There are Consequences of Implementing these Initiatives

The consequence of these initiatives being put into practice are multi-faceted but fundamental to this is the idea that as researchers we will
be able to acquire richer, more insightful and meaningful data as we tap into the emotional and rational side of the respondents' sense of
self. Deeper insights into consumer motivations are the name of the game. We always strive for this and feel that this should be the
culmination of what we endeavour to achieve. Now based on respondent feedback we know that there are means to achieve this by
enhancing the respondents' experience. From the client's point of view, richer data is clearly a desirable goal as well: it helps them meet
their needs more effectively, helps them sell more and helps consumers develop better engagement with their brands. But beyond this the
enhancements to research which we recommend here will increase the return on investment that they make. Each £ or $ spent on research
can stretch that bit further. So whilst it may feel like our suggestions are going to mean the price of projects goes up, in actual fact, the
amount spent for the benefit gained is going to tell a different story which indicates that they are getting more value for each £ or $ spent.

Concluding our Argument

Our journey around the Garden of Eden is now completed and on the way we hope we have instigated a re-evaluation of how we qualitative
researchers think about what we do and how we do it. Over the course of this journey, we have revealed that aspect of research that is so
often hidden from us – the experience of being a respondent – in all its multi-dimensional complexity. Fundamental to the research
experience is the need to feel valued and respected and this leads onto them wanting to build a deeper relationship with the moderator and
research process. This is exemplified in several ways. Amongst other things, we have shown that although financial incentives to take part
in research are strong, other social, personal and emotional benefits are also prevalent to a greater degree than we at first imagined.
Groups offer the most fulfilling environment for respondents as they ease the pressure away from any single individual to talk all the time
and are the best setting in which they can quickly build workable relationships and validate themselves. Despite clients' love of viewing
facilities, respondents have more mixed feelings towards them, in some cases, preferring to opt for the pamper and comfort of a good
quality hotel instead. Finally, the discomfort created by some research content – notably too much stimulus and use of certain more taxing
creative techniques – also runs counter the need to be intellectually and emotionally comfortable in order to yield their best learning value
to us.
Participation in qualitative research is akin to being in a club – our Eden Club. But this Eden Club, as we have described it, is a club where
the moderator draws out, understands, re-interprets, and absorbs respondents' realities using the discourse of temptation. She facilitates
the validation of emotional and intellectual realities. She transforms and translates them into the hard business reality of the clients'
objectives and presents them with copious amounts of insight.

All of this begs the question of what should we do now? Taking as our core the relationship-respect-value dynamic we have advocated a
number of initiatives that will address precisely this configuration of factors. Pre-research acclimatisation sessions and post-research
experience workshops draw respondents into the research process in a much more meaningful way by sharing certain research values with
them such as the need for honesty and allowing them to constructively critique the session respectively. Likewise, reassessing how we use
viewing facilities and taking into account respondents' reservations about them, we suggest a number of infrastructural and process-based
enhancements that make the whole experience more comfortable and amenable for them, for example, taking them into the client viewing
room or using more comfortable seating. And then there is the terminology we use to describe our sessions: this needs to change to reflect
the way we should now be looking at what we do. Fundamentally, we also call for an investigation into the roles and behaviours of the client
and moderator. Both need to relate to respondents in a deeper, more meaningful way. In the case of the client, it is about thinking about
themselves as a respondent but also thinking of respondents as human beings and not just mono-dimensional consuming objects. In the
case of the moderator, it is about making respondents feel that the moderator is a part of the group and behave like a friend Who is out
with them for the evening yet still maintain their objective distance to avoid biasing the data.

So where do we go from here? At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is for us to do 'better research' which generates more and
better insights and better helps our clients run their business. Bringing respondents centre stage and making them the focus of what we do
can help us achieve this. The exciting challenge this offers to us is to move our thinking away from old paradigms and open up the
possibilities that the Garden of Eden has presented to us. In other words, the challenge, if we can rise to it, is to recognise the potential for
a more dynamic and insightful paradigm in which to understand and practice qualitative research.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chandler, Jon and Owen, Mike. (1989). Genesis to revelations the evolution of qualitative philosophy. MRS Conference Papers Qualitative
Philosophy, pgs. 297–305, Issue, 17, MRS.
Feldwick, Paul and Winstanley, Lorna. (1986). Qualitative recruitment: policy and practice. Market Research Society Conference.
Gordon, Wendy and Robson Sue. (1982). Respondents through the looking glass: towards a better understanding of the qualitative
interviewing process. Market Research Society Conference.
Gordon, Wendy. Qualitative research – new or old discipline?' Good thinking: a guide to qualitative research.
Hayward, Wendy and Rose, John. (1990). We'll meet again...': repeat attendance at group discussions – does it matter?' Journal of the
Market Research Society, pgs. 377–407, Vol. 32, Issue 3.
Lyons, Mat. (2007). What's in it for them?' Research magazine, August.
Robson, Sue and Wardle, Judith. Who's watching whom? A study of the effects of observers on group discussions. Journal of the Market
Research Society, pgs. 333–359, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
Robson, Sue and Hedges, Alan. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative findings: Report of the MRS Qualitative Interest Group.
International Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 35, Issue 1.<

© Copyright ESOMAR 2007

European Association of Communications Agencies
152 Blvd. Brand Whitlock, Brussels 1200, Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)27 40 0711, Fax: +32 (0)27 40 0717
All rights reserved including database rights. This electronic file is for the personal use of authorised users based at the subscribing
company's office location. It may not be reproduced, posted on intranets, extranets or the internet, e-mailed, archived or shared www.warc.com
electronically either within the purchaser’s organisation or externally without express written permission from World Advertising Research
Center.