Question 1

Is mobile research mainly useful for younger consumers?

Accepted Answer

Mobile research is valuable well beyond just young consumers, as smartphone use is now common among older demographics too. While it's true that Gen Z and Millennials are heavily mobile-centric — often preferring to answer surveys or diaries on their phones — research shows that middle-aged and senior consumers increasingly participate via mobile when the design is accessible. In fact, reaching certain groups during their daily routines (like busy parents or on-the-go professionals) may be easiest through mobile apps or texts regardless of age. The key is to tailor the mobile research experience (e.g. using clear large text and simple interfaces) so that even less tech-savvy participants feel comfortable. Mobile has become a mainstream data collection channel, so assuming it's mainly useful for younger people is outdated. Instead, researchers use mobile to capture in-the-moment feedback across age groups, deploying other modes only for those who truly can't or won't use smartphones.

Question 2

How do I minimize intrusiveness while capturing real behavior in-home?

Accepted Answer

You minimize intrusiveness by blending into the background and using participant-friendly methods to observe natural behavior. In in-home research, start by building rapport and clearly explaining the process so participants feel at ease with the observation. Using unobtrusive recording tools-like small cameras or having participants self-record parts of their routine-captures real behavior without a researcher hovering over them. When direct observation is needed, schedule sessions at convenient times and take a low-key approach: observe quietly and avoid interrupting or influencing their activities. It also helps to give participants some control, such as the option to take breaks or review footage, to maintain trust. By respecting boundaries and being as invisible as possible, you gather authentic in-home insights without people feeling spied on.

Question 3

Does bigger sample always fix noisy month-to-month tracker swings?

Accepted Answer

Increasing a tracker's sample size can reduce random noise, but it won't necessarily eliminate all the month-to-month swings. A larger sample does tighten the margin of error--meaning true shifts in metrics are easier to distinguish from statistical flukes--so volatility due purely to sample luck should lessen. However, if the noisy swings are being driven by other factors (like real seasonal changes, changes in who responds each month, or inconsistencies in how the survey is conducted), simply adding more respondents won't fix that. There are also diminishing returns: going from 200 to 600 respondents might noticeably steady the trend, but increasing to 2,000 yields only a minor additional improvement in stability for the cost. It's often better to ensure the tracker methodology is consistent and consider analyzing trends with rolling averages to smooth out outliers. In short, a bigger sample improves reliability up to a point, but understanding and addressing the root causes of volatility is equally important for a stable tracker.

Question 4

When should mobile diaries supplement surveys or in-home ethnography?

Accepted Answer

Mobile diaries should supplement surveys or in-home ethnography when you need ongoing, in-the-moment insights that one-time studies can't capture. They are especially useful for studying behaviors or experiences that unfold over time or vary by context. For example, if you want to understand how people use a product throughout a week, a mobile diary lets participants log their usage and reactions in real time. This fills gaps left by a one-off survey (which relies on after-the-fact recall) or a brief ethnography visit (which offers depth but only at a single point in time). Whenever recall bias might be a concern or continuous observation isn't feasible, diary studies ensure you catch day-to-day variations. Participants can note small frustrations, successes, or routine details immediately, providing rich detail that periodic surveys might miss. In short, if a static survey or a one-day in-home study might not tell the whole story, adding a mobile diary helps capture the evolving context and nuances of participants' experiences over time, leading to a more complete understanding.

Question 5

What regulatory hurdles complicate medical device research globally?

Accepted Answer

Global medical device research is often slowed by a patchwork of regulations, as each country imposes its own approval process, safety standards, and data rules. For example, a device trial that meets U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) requirements might need a completely different submission to satisfy European regulators under the CE marking system or newer EU Medical Device Regulation. Some countries demand local clinical trials or partnering with a domestic entity, adding to timelines and complexity. On top of that, patient data privacy laws like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) can restrict how trial data is shared across borders. All these varying requirements mean companies must plan for extra steps — multiple ethics reviews, translating documents, differing reporting formats — in order to run a truly global device study.

Ironwood Insights Group-Qualitative (fka Observation Baltimore)

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Ironwood Insights Group-Qualitative (fka Observation Baltimore)?

Recognition

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Is mobile research mainly useful for younger consumers?

How do I minimize intrusiveness while capturing real behavior in-home?

Does bigger sample always fix noisy month-to-month tracker swings?

When should mobile diaries supplement surveys or in-home ethnography?

What regulatory hurdles complicate medical device research globally?