This is where lab settings and quantitative methods fail. Sure there are focus groups, and other qualitative and quantitative methods that can be interesting in a lab setting, but they are only telling part of the story, and the accuracy of that story can be questionable (I’m not going to debate focus groups in this post). What is missing is context, which illustrates what people do, not just what they say they do as well as all of the things that go on around what they are doing. This knowledge can lead to insights and innovations that could only be gained by in-context observations.
In-context research reveals many more options than the ones that you bring to a focus group, or that your participants can think up or rationalize on the spot. It shows us things that maybe aren’t recognized as important, but really are.
Who cares what your product is supposed to do. If you don’t understand how it actually fits into people’s real lives then you will never be able to truly design a good product or experience and then market it properly.
By understanding the context that surrounds products and services, we are able to suggest innovations, improvements and communications that truly resonate with people. The upfront costs of this are definitely more expensive, but the ROI on this investment will definitely have positive ROI if done right.
4 comments:
I completely agree, but as you suggest, cost is always an issue. Any creative ideas on how to convince clients/employers to spend the $ upfront to do great contextual inquiries?
Janna - This deserves a separate post in itself :) It is certainly not an easy feat. It's something that I face all the time in my role. Furthermore, it's not just clients that have to be convinced, it's account/client services and business development people from within my company.
While not as easily done as it is said, the key is being able to articulate how contextual inquiry will get clients closer to meeting and achieving their goals than other methods. This can be done with compare and contrast, of course supported by strong case studies. I love showing examples of things learned through ethnography that we never could have identified using other methods.
Another technique that I like to use, is visually showing how ethnography compares to quantitative methods in terms of data points. This is a good method with number hungry organizations. Basically the argument is that ethnography provides the same (or more) number of data points as quantitative methods, but instead of those points being broad sweeping, they are deep.
Finally, if all else fails, I subscribe to the belief that some contextual inquiry is better than none. While not ideal, I would rather do a quick inquiry, requiring less time and less budget, but still garnering insights, than nothing at all. This often can lead to more ideal studies, when clients see the value that a quick study brings - especially if you involve them in the field.
I'd love to hear what you have to add on the subject!
See some of my past posts on the topic: http://applyinganthropology.blogspot.com/2010/03/earning-client-buy-in-on-ethnography.html
http://applyinganthropology.blogspot.com/2009/04/challenges-of-corporate-anthropology.html
Meg, I love the idea of using the number of data points for a justification in a quant-happy organization. I also tend to break down the costs of a focus group facility as a way of convincing folks.
It's strange that $40K on focus groups raises few if any eyebrows. I find the insights rather thin, to say the least.
I also attempt to enrol ethnographic participants in future research to create a cheaper, more engaged "panel" (of sorts) to "test" the prototyped product or service.
Sam, Love the idea of breaking down the costs and doing a comparison with other methods. What if we could assign an ROI to the insights themselves? That would be really powerful.
Also, I am a big believer in carrying participants through the various phases of research and validating as concepts come to life. It shows them that their opinions were taken into account, and to your point lowers costs.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Post a Comment