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

How do I reduce drop-off in multi-week online qual studies?

Accepted Answer

To keep participants from dropping out of a multi-week online qual study, you have to keep them engaged without overburdening them. Plan a mix of activities so it doesn't feel repetitive or too time-consuming--one week might involve a quick photo upload or poll, the next a short discussion prompt or diary entry. Consistent communication is key: send friendly reminders before each task and share occasional updates or highlights from the findings to show participants their input matters. Also, structure incentives to reward ongoing participation, not just completion, so people have a reason to stick around (for instance, small weekly rewards or a bonus for hitting certain milestones). Finally, make participants feel valued; a simple thank-you message or shout-out for great contributions can boost motivation. By keeping the experience varied, manageable, and rewarding, you'll see far fewer people drop off before the study concludes.

Question 3

Will benefits from AI-generated discussion guides outweigh potential bias?

Accepted Answer

Yes, the benefits of using AI to draft discussion guides often outweigh the potential bias, as long as a human reviews and refines the output. AI can produce a solid first draft in a fraction of the time it would take a person, ensuring key topics are covered and even suggesting fresh questions. This saves researchers time and can improve consistency across guides. However, AI models might introduce subtle biases or leading phrasing based on patterns in their training data, so a researcher should always vet the guide for any problematic wording or gaps. In practice, teams that use the AI's version as a starting point, then edit for neutrality and context, find they get the best of both worlds. The bias risks are managed by the human touch, while the speed and thoroughness benefits of AI make the overall process more efficient.

Question 4

Which decisions benefit most from shop-alongs or in-store observation?

Accepted Answer

Shop-alongs and in-store observation are most useful for decisions that hinge on real-world shopper behavior — especially things like store layout, shelf placement, packaging design, and point-of-sale marketing. For example, if a product is underperforming, observing shoppers in the aisle can reveal whether the item is hard to find, poorly merchandised, or losing attention to a competitor's display — insights that surveys or sales data alone might miss. These methods excel at uncovering the "why" behind shopping choices, informing decisions on everything from signage and store navigation to assortment mix and in-store promotions. In short, any decision aimed at improving the in-store customer experience or shopper journey benefits from the firsthand perspective that shop-alongs provide.

Question 5

When are conjoint results more convincing than sales team's pricing instincts?

Accepted Answer

Conjoint analysis results become more convincing than the sales team's gut instincts when you need objective, customer-backed evidence to settle pricing debates. Sales instincts are valuable, but they often come from a handful of big deals or personal impressions, whereas a well-run conjoint study quantifies preferences across a broad market sample. If conjoint data shows, for example, that customers are willing to pay a premium for certain features (or that a mid-priced bundle is optimal), you can use those numbers to challenge or confirm a sales team's hunch in a concrete way. It's especially powerful in situations where instincts conflict or stakes are high - like launching a new product or entering a new segment - because conjoint provides a simulation of market choices rather than anecdotes. By illustrating trade-offs (perhaps revealing that customers would drop an ancillary service to get a lower price, contrary to what sales assumed), the conjoint results give a fact-based narrative that can sway skeptics.

Strategic Research Associates - Spokane

Why choose Us

What is Strategic Research Associates - Spokane?

Recognition

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

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

How do I reduce drop-off in multi-week online qual studies?

Will benefits from AI-generated discussion guides outweigh potential bias?

Which decisions benefit most from shop-alongs or in-store observation?

When are conjoint results more convincing than sales team's pricing instincts?