Question 1

How is Gen Z reshaping expectations for research participation?

Accepted Answer

Gen Z participants expect research to be fast, engaging, and mobile-friendly, and their habits are reshaping study designs. This cohort grew up with smartphones and bite-sized content, so they respond better to short, visually engaging surveys or interactive polls rather than tedious 30-minute questionnaires. They also value authenticity and social impact: Gen Z wants transparency about how their feedback will be used and gravitates toward research topics that align with their values. Because they're comfortable with multimedia, many are open to sharing opinions via video responses or chat-style interfaces, pushing researchers to adopt creative digital methods. For example, a gamified survey with instant feedback is far more likely to hold a Gen Z respondent's attention than a traditional form. In short, to engage Gen Z, studies need to be tech-savvy, respectful of their time, and transparent about purpose.

Question 2

How is digital exclusion affecting research access to certain populations?

Accepted Answer

Digital exclusion — the fact that not everyone has reliable internet or digital skills — is creating blind spots in research by making certain populations harder to reach. When studies rely on online surveys, communities, or mobile apps, groups like some older adults, rural residents, or lower-income households with limited internet access often get underrepresented. For example, if you conduct an online-only poll, you might miss input from seniors who aren't tech-savvy or from people in areas without broadband, skewing your results toward more connected demographics. This challenge is forcing researchers to adapt methods. Many projects now use mixed-mode sampling: combining online data collection with telephone interviews, mailed surveys, or in-person outreach specifically to include those offline individuals. It can add time and cost, but it's crucial for getting a truly representative sample. In short, digital exclusion is turning into a data exclusion issue — reminding us that to capture insights from all segments of the population, we need to bridge the gap with alternative recruitment and research modes.

Question 3

When should DEI metrics be included in broader insights dashboards?

Accepted Answer

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) metrics should be integrated into broader insights dashboards whenever understanding demographic differences can inform decision-making or track progress on inclusion goals. If a company aims to reach diverse customer segments or ensure equitable experiences, metrics like audience representation, satisfaction by demographic group, or inclusivity indexes belong alongside the usual performance KPIs. For instance, a brand tracker might segment customer satisfaction or loyalty scores by ethnicity or gender to reveal if any group's experience consistently lags behind others — an insight missed without DEI data. Ideally, you incorporate DEI measures from the start of building a dashboard rather than adding them later, so they become a natural part of reporting. In practice, include DEI metrics any time you have sufficient data to break down results by group reliably; doing so highlights potential gaps or disparities and demonstrates a commitment to transparency on inclusion outcomes.

Question 4

Can AI reliably simulate responses to choice-based experiments?

Accepted Answer

AI is improving fast, but it's not yet a fully reliable stand-in for real people in choice-based experiments. Advanced models can analyze past respondent data or use machine learning to predict choices, offering a rough simulation of how consumers might respond to certain product or price combinations. However, these simulations often fall short of capturing the true complexity of human decision-making — factors like emotions, context, or completely new preferences that weren't in the training data. In practice, researchers sometimes use AI to augment or pre-test scenarios (because it's quick and cost-effective), but they still validate those findings with actual survey respondents to be sure. So while AI-generated responses can hint at patterns, they're not yet dependable enough to replace the insights gained from real human choices in a conjoint or choice model study.

Question 5

What are the pros and cons of normalizing NPS across countries or segments?

Accepted Answer

Normalizing Net Promoter Score (NPS) across countries or segments can make cross-group comparisons fairer by accounting for cultural differences in scoring, but it also muddies the simplicity of the metric. On one hand, adjusting scores (say, by using z-scores or index scaling) helps correct for the fact that some cultures or customer segments naturally give lower or higher ratings on average. This prevents teams from penalizing a region just because its customers are tough graders, allowing a more apples-to-apples view of loyalty. On the other hand, once you alter NPS, it's no longer that straightforward "percent of promoters minus detractors" figure people easily understand. Leaders might question the adjustments, and if done poorly, normalization could obscure real sentiment differences. So while normalization has its benefits in fairness, it should be used sparingly and transparently — often the raw NPS and a qualitative context are still needed to tell the full story across diverse groups.

G3 Translate

Why choose Us

What is G3 Translate?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How is Gen Z reshaping expectations for research participation?

How is digital exclusion affecting research access to certain populations?

When should DEI metrics be included in broader insights dashboards?

Can AI reliably simulate responses to choice-based experiments?

What are the pros and cons of normalizing NPS across countries or segments?