Here’s a question I get asked a lot … “do I prefer doing online or face-to-face qualitative research?”  The answer I always give … “yes, I like them both”.  And here’s a closely-related question that I also often get … “what’s the right approach for a specific research study, online or in-person?”  And I’ll frequently give the same answer … “yes, let’s do both.”   For in fact, often the best approach is to use both.   In the past, our qualitative research toolbox was pretty limited. We had focus groups of various sizes, in-depth interviews (IDIs), and maybe some telephone interviews.  Now we have a dizzying array of tools available to us, and often the best way to get the most bang out of a research buck is to combine them.

The guiding principle here is that online (OL) and face-to-face (F2F) research tools have very different strengths and weaknesses.  So, by putting them together, we can create an approach that yields far more insight than any of its individual components can alone.

• F2F research approaches offer a high level of engagement. I don’t care what anybody says, no online approach can offer the same level of deep, personal connection that in-person research can.  Having everybody in the same physical location also allows a high degree of flexibility.  Because of all this, F2F is where new and unexpected insights are most likely to come to light.

• OL is highly time and travel efficient. It can also be a big problem solver for low incidence recruits, as it allows you to recruit out of a national sample.  What’s more, it’s a highly efficient way to get a lot of the preliminaries out of the way—introductions, basic attitudes and practices, etc., and it’s also a good way to test a large number of ingoing ideas or hypotheses very efficiently and discard the weaker ones.

You can approach ‘hybrid’ in two ways. Online can serve as a precursor to F2F research; by creating relationships with research participants online, you can set yourself up for maximum quality face to face interactions.  Because you’ve already established rapport with participants, you’re now positioned to have an especially candid, productive discussion. Conversely, the opposite can also true.  You can start a study with an in-person phase during which you develop some initial hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses in a variety of ways very efficiently online.

So, with all this said, the question we should always be asking ourselves … “how do we best combine OL and F2F tools to provide the richest, most insightful research?”

Here’s a fundamental dilemma qualitative researchers face: we want clients to perceive what we do as being of great value, and, at the same time, we need to make it look easy.  This is particularly important when conducting face-to-face research.  To establish rapport, it’s essential to create a nice, relaxed, ‘shmoozy’ vibe.  We certainly don’t want to look as if we’re nervous, or working hard.  Nothing kills the mood more quickly than that.

Unfortunately, while experienced, well-informed observers may understand that moderating is much harder than it looks, many do not.  And that’s not something that’s within our power to change.  So we’re confronted with a perceived commoditization of moderating skills.  This is unfortunate, because moderating skill is definitely not a commodity (it takes many years of training and experience to become proficient), but there you have it.

How do researchers rise above this?  Having fabulous moderating skills simply isn’t enough.  The best ones have an also – an additional area of expertise.  And, from where do those also’s come?  They come from formal education or a pre-qualitative career.  They come from hobbies and avocations, and from personal experiences and challenges.  We can say to current and potential clients something like, “I’m a great moderator and I’m also a licensed clinical psychologist.”  Or “I’m a fantastic interviewer and I’ve also written a book on co-creation techniques.”  Or “I also worked for many years as an ad copywriter.”  Personally, I have a number of also’s, including that I worked for many years in brand management, and that I’m a recognized expert on the application of analytical models to research design and interpretation.  In short, great qualitative researchers are deeply prepared for their work, and know things most people don’t.

A great Qually is a cultural and strategic interpreter who can tease out new information and tell clients exactly what it means.  And that comes from more than just moderating skill – it comes from those also’s.  So, if you’re a qualitative researcher, embrace your passions—they’ll make you better at your job.  And if you’re a user of qualitative, make a point of asking about those also’s —they’re an important part of the package.