Question 1

What safeguards ensure informed consent for continuous data collection?

Accepted Answer

Safeguards for continuous data collection include obtaining explicit, detailed consent upfront and providing participants with ongoing transparency and easy opt-out options. At the outset, clearly explain what data will be collected continuously (for example, location, browsing activity, or biometric data), how it will be used, who will see it, and for how long. This consent should be documented (in writing or digitally) and meet any regulatory requirements for privacy (like GDPR's explicit consent standards). Throughout the study, participants should be reminded that data collection is ongoing and given the ability to pause or withdraw at any time. Providing a simple opt-out mechanism or periodic re-consent prompts ensures they remain comfortable. Additional safeguards include allowing participants to review their own data if appropriate, anonymizing or aggregating data to protect individual privacy, and securing the data storage. By maintaining transparency, control, and data protection, researchers keep consent truly informed over the entire period of continuous collection.

Question 2

What legal boundaries must CI respect in different regions?

Accepted Answer

Competitive Intelligence (CI) must operate within legal and ethical limits in each region, avoiding illicit methods of gathering data. For example, in the US and Europe, CI professionals cannot misrepresent themselves to obtain information or steal trade secrets-such actions violate laws like trade secret protection and anti-hacking statutes. Privacy regulations (like GDPR in Europe) also set boundaries: any personal data collected about competitors' employees or customers needs a lawful basis or consent. Many countries explicitly outlaw industrial espionage tactics (bribery, covert surveillance, etc.), even if gathering public information is permitted. Antitrust or competition laws further restrict sharing certain competitive information across companies, so CI cannot cross into collusion. In short, CI efforts should stick to publicly available or ethically obtained data and respect privacy, with practitioners following professional codes of conduct to navigate different legal environments.

Question 3

How can we gain more transparency into provenance/licensing in training datasets?

Accepted Answer

Achieving transparency in training data provenance and licensing for AI models requires both industry standards and technical tools. One step is to push for detailed data provenance documentation: developers should provide datasheets that explain what data sources were used to train models and under what licenses. In fact, some ethics guidelines and upcoming laws (like the EU's AI Act) are starting to require companies to disclose training dataset origins. Technically, new methods can embed metadata or watermarks into datasets to help track their origin and usage rights. For example, projects are exploring blockchain ledgers or digital fingerprints that tag data, so any model built from it carries a traceable record. Another practical approach is favoring curated, open-license datasets where provenance is clear from the start. In short, greater transparency will come from providers sharing source details and from using verification technology to audit what went into model training.

Question 4

How should we handle family accounts and shared devices in sampling?

Accepted Answer

Sampling needs to account for family accounts and shared devices by distinguishing individual respondents to avoid skewed data. If multiple people use the same account or device, surveys should include a question to identify who is responding (for example, capturing age, gender, or role in the household) so you know which individual's data is being collected. For instance, if a streaming service account is shared by a family, you might target only the primary account holder for feedback or include a survey question asking which family member is responding. In practice, researchers often limit one response per household or use unique links and screening methods to ensure each participant is unique; the key is to implement measures that either prevent duplicate entries from the same device or clearly separate household members in analysis, ensuring a shared account doesn't accidentally count as multiple respondents and bias the results.

Question 5

How are geopolitical risks reshaping market foresight research priorities?

Accepted Answer

Heightened geopolitical risks — trade tensions, conflicts, and shifting regulations — are pushing market foresight research toward scenario planning and resilience strategies. Whereas foresight teams once focused mostly on consumer trends, now they routinely model "what if" scenarios around geopolitical events (like supply chain disruptions or new trade barriers) to anticipate shocks. Research priorities have expanded to include tracking policy changes and regional volatility so businesses can plan contingencies. For example, a company might develop parallel forecasts assuming different tariff regimes or energy crises, using these insights to diversify suppliers or adjust market entry plans. In short, geopolitical uncertainty has made foresight efforts more about scanning for macro risks and stress-testing strategies, ensuring companies are prepared for sudden market shifts and not just consumer fads.

Data Quality Co-op

Features and attributes

What is Data Quality Co-op?

Research Software and Platform Details

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

What if We Rewarded Good Survey Participants Instead of Punishing the Bad?

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What safeguards ensure informed consent for continuous data collection?

What legal boundaries must CI respect in different regions?

How can we gain more transparency into provenance/licensing in training datasets?

How should we handle family accounts and shared devices in sampling?

How are geopolitical risks reshaping market foresight research priorities?