Question 1

How should we test spec-sheet clarity with engineers and operators?

Accepted Answer

Testing a specification sheet's clarity requires involving both its expert users (engineers) and practical users (operators) in realistic scenarios. One approach is to give each group tasks or questions that they would normally use the spec sheet for and observe where they struggle or misinterpret information. For example, ask engineers to locate a critical technical parameter or confirm if the design meets a spec using the sheet, and see if they find it quickly and accurately. Similarly, have machine operators use the spec sheet to identify an operating limit or maintenance step. If engineers are confused by how data is presented, or operators misread instructions, those sections likely need simplification or better formatting. Recording feedback from both perspectives helps ensure the spec sheet is clear, whether it's a highly technical detail for an engineer or a user-friendly instruction for an operator. Ultimately, a spec sheet passes the clarity test when engineers can trust its technical accuracy at a glance and operators can follow it without hesitation.

Question 2

What practices improve diversity in clinical trial participation?

Accepted Answer

Improving diversity in clinical trial participation starts with reducing barriers and building trust in underrepresented communities through deliberate outreach and inclusive trial design. Successful practices include partnering with local healthcare providers and community leaders to vouch for the trial's importance (overcoming historical skepticism), and making participation easier by offering flexible visit times, providing transportation or telehealth options, and using simple, translated materials for those with different languages or literacy levels. Trials can also employ staff or liaisons who reflect the target community and involve diverse patient advisory boards to help shape the study in culturally sensitive ways. By proactively addressing convenience, understanding, and trust, these efforts lead to a broader, more representative pool of trial participants and more generalizable results.

Question 3

What can go wrong when I run the same focus group guide across cultures?

Accepted Answer

Running the same focus group guide across different cultures can backfire if questions or activities don't translate well, leading to confusion or shallow responses. What seems like a straightforward question in one country might be inappropriate or meaningless in another due to language nuances or social norms. For example, asking participants to openly critique a concept might work in one culture but feel too confrontational in a culture that values harmony. Additionally, idioms or examples in the guide could be misunderstood, and even the pacing of a discussion can clash with local conversational styles. Without adapting the guide with local experts--adjusting wording, references, and facilitation style--you risk collecting data that misrepresents true attitudes, as participants may shut down or give surface-level answers to avoid discomfort.

Question 4

Is an RCT always the gold standard for public programs?

Accepted Answer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard for evaluating public programs because they can show cause and effect clearly, but they are not always feasible or appropriate. In real-world public interventions, strict random assignment may be unethical, too costly, or impractical — if an initiative must serve an entire community or it's urgent, you can't withhold the program from a control group just to run an RCT. For example, a city-wide education reform or disaster relief effort can't randomly exclude some residents; instead, evaluators might use quasi-experimental methods like matched comparisons or pre-post studies to assess impact. In essence, an RCT is ideal when conditions allow, but many public sector evaluations rely on alternative rigorous designs to get credible results when an RCT isn't possible.

Question 5

How should we sample buying committees across engineering and procurement?

Accepted Answer

Sampling buying committees that include both engineering and procurement means intentionally recruiting participants from each of those roles at every target account. Rather than surveying just one person per company, you should include the key stakeholders from both the technical side and the purchasing side to reflect how real decisions are made. For example, if a typical purchase involves an engineering lead and a procurement manager, set quotas or targets so you interview both roles from each company in your study. This ensures you capture the technical requirements and the cost/contract considerations equally. In practice, that might mean reaching out to an engineering manager and a procurement officer in each organization on your list, and analyzing their responses both separately and combined to understand the full committee's perspective.

Rosenthal Research

What is Rosenthal Research?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How should we test spec-sheet clarity with engineers and operators?

What practices improve diversity in clinical trial participation?

What can go wrong when I run the same focus group guide across cultures?

Is an RCT always the gold standard for public programs?

How should we sample buying committees across engineering and procurement?