Why Research Clients Should Be Involved in Respondent Cooperation
by Rich Boone - E & J Gallo Winery
01-Sep-00
“You actually monitor interviews?” Yes we do, and there are
many good reason why a Research Analyst should.
Jane Sheppard of CMOR seemed genuinely surprised at something the
Gallo Consumer Research Department staff has always taken for granted:
that all phone studies are monitored by the sponsoring Analyst as
an integral part of the research process. There are many good reasons
to monitor interviews; no viable reasons not to. By listening to
interviews as they are being conducted, the Research Analyst can:
- Gain a qualitative insight into the nature of respondents’ open-ended
answers far beyond that which can be communicated by tabbed codes;
- Gain a first-hand understanding of: problems respondents may
have in answering certain types of questions; respondent problems
in understanding the wording of certain questions; interviewer
problems in pronouncing certain “self-evident” words, etc.
- Gain a first-hand understanding of the problems related to excessive
probing, excessive interview length, complex questions, sensitive
questions, and other similar issues
- Determine when interviewers are inadequately trained and standard
interviewing protocols are not being met.
This monitoring directive does not emanate from the Research Department;
rather, it draws its inspiration from the top of our organization:
Ernest Gallo. For virtually every research presentation made to
him, he precedes his review of the data with a review of the data
collection – can the presenter personally attest to the quality
of the input from which the data was produced? If the answer is
no, he walks out of the room. He is justified in that action.
What surprised me was Jane Sheppard's surprise that Gallo monitors
interviews, and doesn’t just leave it up to the research companies.
How can we, as clients, as well as an industry, intelligently address
the issue of respondent cooperation without fully understanding
– and experiencing – the issues that have led to our current situation.
To assume that sugging and related incursions on the integrity of
our discipline are solely to blame is myopic. Much of the blame
is ours.
In today’s environment, if a legitimate marketing research interview
is poorly conducted or leaves a negative impression, that respondent
is lost forever. There remain far too many instances of poorly trained
interviewers and poorly designed questionnaires for the health of
our industry. When we at Gallo encounter problems with studies in
general or question wording in particular, we change them. When
we encounter a data collection provider with poorly trained interviewers
or poor respondent management, we offer them one opportunity to
improve – then we replace them. Our industry’s situation is too
critical to reinforce poor practices.
My advice to other client companies is simple: if you are not monitoring
interviews as standard study protocol, start. If you are not validating
interviews – independently – start. And include questions on the
validation form to determine respondent satisfaction with the process
and not just to reaffirm respondent qualifications. As we focus
on protecting ourselves from others, we must also protect the respondents
from us.
Rich provides a much-needed perspective on the importance of clients
participating in the research process by actively monitoring interviews
and providing feedback. He may be reached at rich.boone@ejgallo.com
for further comments or questions.
Source: ©2001 Marketing
Research Association, Inc.
©Copyright 2004 by Venture Data, LLC.
All Rights Reserved. Contact Scott
Spain with Web site questions and feedback.
Site Sponsors: W3 Surveys and Venture Data
|
