Question 1

How do ethnography and path to purchase surveys complement each other?

Accepted Answer

Ethnography and path-to-purchase surveys work hand-in-hand by pairing deep context with broad validation. Ethnographic research (through in-home observations or shop-alongs, for example) reveals the why behind purchase decisions — uncovering emotional drivers, timing, and contextual influences that a structured survey might miss. Path-to-purchase surveys then quantify these insights, showing how common certain behaviors or touchpoints are across a larger customer sample. For instance, ethnography might reveal that peer recommendations at work heavily influence a purchase; a follow-up survey can measure what percentage of buyers cite colleague input versus ads or online reviews. In practice, doing ethnography first helps inform the survey design, and the survey results confirm which ethnographic findings are widespread. Together, they provide a full picture of the customer journey, both rich detail and reliable metrics.

Question 2

Can AI coding shorten analysis time for focus groups while respecting nuance?

Accepted Answer

Yes - AI-driven coding can dramatically speed up focus group analysis, provided you pair it with human oversight to preserve nuance. These tools can rapidly sift through transcripts, tagging common themes or sentiments in minutes rather than days. However, focus group conversations often include irony, anecdotes, and cultural context that a blunt AI might misinterpret. For instance, if participants repeatedly say a product is "fine," an automated analysis might tag that as positive sentiment, whereas a human reader hears the lukewarm tone. The best approach is a hybrid: let AI do the heavy lifting on initial categorization and pattern-finding, then have an experienced researcher refine the results. This way, you get the efficiency boost without losing subtle insights - nuances like tone or unique outlier comments still get noticed and correctly interpreted.

Question 3

How do we test jobs-to-be-done hypotheses quickly yet credibly?

Accepted Answer

To test jobs-to-be-done (JTBD) hypotheses rapidly but reliably, mix quick experiments with a layer of validation. Start with fast qualitative checks: for example, present your hypothesis to a handful of target users via interviews or a sketch of a solution and see if they identify with the "job" you think they're hiring a product to do. Then, validate quantitatively by running a lean survey or a smoke test — perhaps an online ad or landing page that pitches the outcome of that job and gauges interest or sign-ups. This two-step approach (small-scale discovery followed by a mini-market test) can happen in a matter of weeks. The credibility comes from converging evidence: if both the anecdotal feedback and the data signals line up in support of the JTBD hypothesis, you can be confident in it, all without a drawn-out research process.

Question 4

What techniques help IDIs minimize confirmation bias and leading prompts?

Accepted Answer

In in-depth interviews (IDIs), you can minimize confirmation bias and leading questions by using open-ended, neutral phrasing and training interviewers to probe impartially. For example, start with broad prompts ("Tell me about your experience with...") so the interviewee sets the direction, instead of yes/no or overly specific questions that box them in. Avoid wording that suggests an answer or assumption - asking "What do you think about X?" is better than "You liked X, didn't you?" which is leading. Interviewers should also be aware of their own expectations and consciously set them aside (a practice called bracketing) so they don't subconsciously steer the conversation or only hear what confirms their hypothesis. Having the interview guide reviewed by others for neutrality and recording sessions for later analysis by a second person are additional techniques that help keep IDIs unbiased and open-ended.

Question 5

How should we adapt innovation pipelines to manage disruption?

Accepted Answer

Managing disruption requires making the innovation pipeline more agile and proactive; companies should shorten development cycles and set up early warning practices so they can pivot quickly when new technologies or market shifts emerge. For example, some firms now include a 'horizon scanning' step to regularly monitor emerging trends and inject those insights into pipeline decisions. It also helps to adopt an iterative approach (rapid prototyping and test-and-learn) instead of a rigid stage-gate process that might slow down reactions. Building a diverse innovation portfolio balances core improvements with some higher-risk, disruptive bets, ensuring the company isn't caught off guard by change. Finally, empowering teams to make swift decisions and adjust priorities in real time keeps the pipeline resilient in the face of disruption.

Ad Hoc Research

What is Ad Hoc Research?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do ethnography and path to purchase surveys complement each other?

Can AI coding shorten analysis time for focus groups while respecting nuance?

How do we test jobs-to-be-done hypotheses quickly yet credibly?

What techniques help IDIs minimize confirmation bias and leading prompts?

How should we adapt innovation pipelines to manage disruption?