Question 1

Can remote ethnography deliver quality comparable to in-person work?

Accepted Answer

A well-executed remote ethnography can deliver insights close to the quality of in-person fieldwork, though it requires careful planning to bridge the distance. With today's technology--high-quality video calls, smartphone cameras, and digital diaries--researchers can observe participants in their natural environment and capture rich qualitative data without being physically present. In fact, remote ethnography can sometimes reach more diverse locations and make participants feel more at ease in their own homes, which adds authenticity. However, there are trade-offs: you might miss some contextual details or subtle non-verbal cues that an on-site researcher would catch, and building rapport through a screen can take extra effort. Overall, remote ethnography can yield very comparable findings for many topics, as long as moderators use the right tools (multiple camera angles, screen-sharing, follow-up interviews) and preparation to compensate for the lack of physical presence.

Question 2

Can a global KPI framework be defined that fits every category and culture?

Accepted Answer

It's challenging to define a single global KPI framework that perfectly fits every category and culture, because different markets and industries prioritize different performance metrics. That said, companies often establish a high-level set of KPIs (like growth, customer satisfaction, or efficiency measures) that apply broadly, but they allow for local tailoring. For example, a global retail firm might use an overall customer satisfaction index worldwide, yet recognize that what drives a good score in one country could differ in another. Cultural differences can influence how KPIs are interpreted or the targets that are realistic_x000D_. The best practice is to define common definitions for key KPIs to maintain consistency, but build flexibility so regional teams can add category-specific metrics or adjust targets. In sum, a unified framework can exist at the top level, but expecting one size to fit all without adaptation usually falls short.

Question 3

How can I be sure of AI object-/scene-detection in ethnography footage?

Accepted Answer

To trust AI object and scene detection in ethnography videos, you need validation steps that confirm the system's accuracy in context. Researchers typically start by testing the AI on sample footage where the true contents are known, comparing its tags to human-coded results. High agreement (or precision/recall metrics) gives confidence, and any mismatches highlight where the model needs tuning. Additionally, using AI tools that provide confidence scores or flag uncertain detections lets you or a human reviewer double-check critical moments, ensuring the final analysis of ethnographic footage is reliable rather than blindly accepted from the AI. Also, ethnographic contexts can be unusual for off-the-shelf models, so fine-tuning the AI on footage similar to yours or using a human-in-the-loop for tricky cases helps ensure nothing important is missed.

Question 4

How do I quantify ROI from maintaining an in-house research panel?

Accepted Answer

Quantifying the ROI of an in-house research panel involves measuring how it saves money and adds value compared to not having one. Start by tallying cost savings: calculate what you would have spent on external sample or recruitment fees for all the projects where you instead used your panel. Those avoided costs directly contribute to ROI. Next, factor in speed and efficiency gains — if the panel allows you to complete studies faster (say, cutting a typical project timeline from eight weeks to four), consider the business benefits of those time savings (faster decision-making or quicker product tweaks that might prevent revenue loss). You can also quantify improvements in data quality or engagement: for instance, higher response rates and the ability to run longitudinal studies with the same panelists can lead to better decisions, which translates to avoided mistakes or seized opportunities. By assigning dollar values to these savings and benefits (e.g., cost avoided per project, value of time saved, improved outcomes), you can demonstrate a strong return on investment for maintaining your in-house panel.

Question 5

Is AI interviewing more likely to protect or compromise respondent privacy?

Accepted Answer

Using an AI (artificial intelligence) interviewer can in theory protect respondent privacy by reducing human exposure to personal answers, but it can also raise new privacy concerns if not implemented carefully. On the plus side, people may feel more comfortable disclosing sensitive information to a bot, knowing no individual is judging them, and the data goes straight into a secure system. However, the privacy outcome depends on how the AI is set up: if the conversation data is stored on servers or used to train models, there's a risk of breaches or misuse just like any digital data. Also, respondents might not fully trust who ultimately sees their answers if AI is involved. Overall, an AI interviewer can be privacy-protective, but only if companies use strong data encryption, limit access to the raw responses, and are transparent about how those responses are handled behind the scenes.

RemCal Insights

What is RemCal Insights?

Services and Expertise