Question 1

Will agentic interviewing give me comparable depth to human moderation?

Accepted Answer

Agentic interviewing (using an AI interviewer) can deliver a good level of depth on structured topics, but it usually doesn't match the nuanced probing of a skilled human moderator. AI-driven agents are very consistent and can ask follow-up questions based on answers, but they might miss subtle emotional cues or opportunities for empathy and improvisation that humans catch. For example, a virtual agent will diligently cover all scripted questions and even some dynamic prompts, yet it might not notice when a respondent hesitates or needs gentle encouragement to elaborate. In practice, many organizations treat AI interviewing as a complement — using it to cover the basics or scale up the number of interviews — while relying on human moderators for deeper exploration and sensitive topics where personal rapport is key.

Question 2

What ethical questions surround the use of synthetic respondents in surveys?

Accepted Answer

Using artificial 'synthetic' respondents (AI-generated survey takers) introduces tough ethical questions around honesty, bias, and research integrity. One concern is transparency: if some survey responses are coming from bots or AI rather than real people, researchers and clients need to know - otherwise it's misleading and could undermine trust in the findings. There's also the issue of bias and validity: synthetic respondents might reflect the biases of their training data or algorithms, potentially skewing results in unknown ways. This raises the question of whether data from AI respondents truly represents a human population's views or if it dilutes the authenticity of insights. Another ethical aspect is consent and the value of human perspective; relying on AI-generated data might edge out genuine participant voices or use personal data to create those synthetic profiles without individuals' permission. In practice, most in the industry argue that if synthetic respondents are used at all, it should be in a very limited, clearly disclosed manner (such as testing a survey's logic) rather than mixing them into actual study results that inform business decisions.

Question 3

When is it cost-effective to centralize vs decentralize fieldwork coordination?

Accepted Answer

Centralizing fieldwork coordination is most cost-effective when studies are similar across regions and can benefit from standardized processes and economies of scale. If multiple projects use the same methods or vendors, a central team can negotiate better rates, eliminate duplicate effort, and maintain consistent quality, thus driving costs down. In contrast, decentralizing (having local teams handle their own fieldwork) is economical when each project or market has unique needs that a one-size-fits-all approach would only inflate. For example, highly localized studies might require specific cultural knowledge or on-the-ground flexibility that a distant central team cannot provide efficiently. In those cases, giving autonomy to regional coordinators avoids the overhead of central management. As a rule of thumb: centralize coordination to save money when projects are homogenous and scalable, and decentralize when local agility and customization are critical to avoid waste.

Question 4

How do I make a credible business case for ethnography versus surveys?

Accepted Answer

To justify ethnography (immersive observational research) versus just surveys, highlight what unique value it provides and how that translates to business outcomes. Emphasize that ethnography uncovers the "why" and unspoken behaviors that surveys often miss. For example, maybe surveys showed decent satisfaction scores, but an ethnographic study revealed customers struggling with a product in their daily context - a hidden pain point that, once solved, significantly increased retention or sales. Frame these insights in dollar terms or KPIs: the improvement might reduce churn by X% or open a new market segment, adding tangible value. Also compare costs: ethnography is more upfront investment, but point out how much a failed product launch or a misread customer need would cost the company (often far more than a few field studies). By providing a concrete success story and a clear ROI argument (value gained vs. research cost), you'll make a compelling, credible case that ethnography isn't a "nice-to-have" but a strategic necessity for deeper insights that drive growth and prevent costly missteps.

Question 5

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.

The Bartlett Group

Why choose Us

What is The Bartlett Group?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Will agentic interviewing give me comparable depth to human moderation?

What ethical questions surround the use of synthetic respondents in surveys?

When is it cost-effective to centralize vs decentralize fieldwork coordination?

How do I make a credible business case for ethnography versus surveys?

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