Question 1

How do I balance naturalistic observation with genuine informed consent?

Accepted Answer

Balancing naturalistic observation with genuine informed consent means disclosing enough about the study to respect participants' rights without revealing so much that they alter their behavior. In practice, researchers often obtain broad consent about the context of the observation (for example, letting people know you'll be observing their workday or shopping trip for research) but not the specific behaviors or hypotheses of interest, allowing participants to acclimate to being observed and then naturally revert to their usual habits. Ethically, participants should always know they're part of a study and agree to it, but this approach minimizes the observer effect. Many researchers also include a post-observation debrief, fully explaining the study's purpose and findings afterward to maintain transparency and respect once the natural behavior has been recorded.

Question 2

How do I build a business case to fund an always-on online community?

Accepted Answer

Building a business case for an always-on online community means quantifying its value in terms of faster, cheaper insights and better decisions. Start by highlighting how a dedicated community can replace or streamline many one-off studies — leading to cost savings over time — and provide instant access to customer feedback whenever stakeholders have questions. Use concrete examples or pilot data: for instance, show that the community could cut down concept testing time from weeks to days, or that continuous engagement helped another brand spot a market shift early. Include an ROI estimate in your proposal (e.g. how many traditional surveys or focus groups the community will offset annually) and mention qualitative benefits like closer customer relationships and more informed innovation. By framing the community as an asset that accelerates insights and reduces research spend long-term, you create a compelling, evidence-backed argument for funding.

Question 3

How do I design scales that minimize bias across cultures?

Accepted Answer

Design cross-cultural survey scales with neutral wording and clear, culturally appropriate anchors to minimize response biases across different cultures. Make sure each scale point is well-defined and equivalent in meaning after translation, avoiding idioms or emotional terms that might skew responses in one culture versus another. One best practice is to use balanced scales (with an equal mix of positive and negative phrasing or symmetric options) so that people aren't led toward agreement. For example, instead of a simple agree/disagree format — which some cultures might consistently agree with — pose direct questions with specific frequency or intensity options (e.g., "Daily" to "Never") to get more objective answers. Consider using visuals or icon-based scales (like smiley-to-frown faces or other universal symbols) to create consistency in interpretation; imagery can reduce reliance on language nuances. Also ensure that numeric scales are interpreted correctly: clarify which end is positive (since in some places "1" is seen as the top score, while elsewhere "10" is highest). Finally, test your scales in each culture and adjust any wording or format that seems to cause bias, ensuring that responses can be compared fairly across markets.

Question 4

How should we collect feedback from non-desk logistics workers fairly?

Accepted Answer

To fairly collect feedback from non-desk logistics workers, meet them on their terms with accessible, flexible methods that respect their time and working conditions. For example, use mobile-friendly surveys or text-message questionnaires that they can complete during a break on their own phones, or set up a kiosk or tablet in a common area for quick feedback. Keep the format short and simple — just a few straightforward questions, possibly offered in multiple languages — so it doesn't become a burden or require a computer. It's also critical to ensure anonymity and to communicate how their input will be used; these workers need to feel safe and valued when sharing opinions. By tailoring the process to their environment (e.g. scheduling around shifts and avoiding disruptive times) and providing multiple ways to respond (phone, paper, or in-person discussions if needed), you make feedback collection as inclusive and fair as possible.

Question 5

When does adding to the innovation pipeline become counter-productive?

Accepted Answer

Adding more initiatives becomes clearly counter-productive once it starts to dilute focus and overextend your resources. In an innovation pipeline, there's a tipping point where each new project actually slows down others-teams split their attention too thin, and critical projects get delayed or under-resourced. For example, if a team juggling five development initiatives takes on three more, priorities blur and nothing gets enough attention to succeed. Signs of an overfilled pipeline include slipping timelines and many concepts stuck with no real progress; at that stage, adding ideas creates noise and complexity instead of value. Effective pipelines set a strategic limit: beyond that, overall quality and momentum suffer, so it's wiser to prioritize and finish key projects before inserting new ones.

Moore Research Services

What is Moore Research Services?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do I balance naturalistic observation with genuine informed consent?

How do I build a business case to fund an always-on online community?

How do I design scales that minimize bias across cultures?

How should we collect feedback from non-desk logistics workers fairly?

When does adding to the innovation pipeline become counter-productive?