True objectivity is a myth.

Years ago, when a certain politician was accused of misdeeds, I was convinced the charges were false. At one point, a teacher of mine asked me what information would change my opinion. The question made me uncomfortable. What’s more, I had no answer, which made me even more uncomfortable. This experience changed how I think about bias.

Whenever I begin a qualitative research study, one of my first actions is to conduct what I call a bias audit. This is when I think about my ingoing assumptions. Whenever possible, I encourage other stakeholders in the research to do the same. A bias audit involves asking yourself a series of questions. I’ve been compiling this list of questions for many years now, and it’s grown quite long. But here are a few of the most important ones:

• What do I want to be true? Acknowledging that there are results for which you are hoping is key to being aware of your own biases.

• Am I holding all points of view to the same standard? It’s natural to be easy on information that is consistent with our hopes and expectations, and tough on information we don’t like.

• What would change my mind? This may be the most important question of all. If the answer is nothing, or if you can’t think of anything, red flag! This suggests that you’re not engaging in true inquiry, and just seeking to confirm your beliefs.

A lot of factors work against our viewing things objectively and dispassionately:

• Our tribal nature. Information that is inconsistent with the values of our family or social group can feel threatening.

• Disfavoring uncertainty. Ambiguity makes us uncomfortable. So, we dislike changing our opinions, questions that don’t have answers and problems that don’t have solutions. Sometimes, a bad answer is better than none.

• Cognitive biases. There are numerous reasoning errors that, as a researcher, I’m always on the lookout for: confirmation bias, the illusory truth effect, the false consensus effect, just to name a few.

Given how much is working against us, it’s miraculous that we can be even a little bit objective. So, what do we do about this? Well, the bias audit – whether formal or informal – is a great tool. I also believe in having a sounding board. Run your thinking by friends, family or colleagues and encourage them to challenge your assumptions.

But mostly, realize that you’ll never be fully neutral – bias is the default, and impartiality is a risky self-deception. Remember what the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu once said, “The illusion of objectivity is the most dangerous illusion of all.”

Any word can be misunderstood.

Qualitative research is good for a lot of things. But its ability to test and refine language makes it indispensable.

An anecdote: in my previous life in brand management, we fielded a large, expensive segmentation study of the margarine category. the results were surprising. Not only were several of the findings counterintuitive, but they were inconsistent with previous research.

We were skeptical, but also excited: perhaps we had identified new insights. So, we did what you do when quantitative research results are unexpected: we conducted qualitative research.

What we learned was painful. The results were surprising because we had used the wrong terminology. Key terms in the questionnaire didn’t mean to consumers what they meant to us. ‘Spreadability’ and ‘baking performance,’ seemed obvious to the people who designed the study. But the respondents interpreted them differently.

In the end, after much handwringing, we were forced to admit that the entire study was useless. This was an expensive, embarrassing and completely preventable disaster.

How could we have avoided this catastrophe? By testing our terminology qualitatively before fielding the quantitative study. There’s no better way to make sure you’re using the right language than exploring it with the people you want to understand.

Whether it’s the language in your questions,  product concepts or attribute lists, all these can be tested Whenever we communicate with consumers, there’s always a risk that the words we use will mean something different to them than they mean to us.

And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this needs to be done by humans. It requires careful, detailed exploration of text, often word-by-word, along with the ability to probe when things aren’t clear. Here are a few techniques I use to see if words are correct:

Ask participants to identify the most important words or phrases in the passage. The language you think is doing the heavy lifting might not be what stands out to the reader.

Point out what you believe to be key words or phrases and see if the participant agrees. Sometimes, asking ‘is this an important word?’ can be revealing.

Once you’ve identified key terms, ask participants to define them in their own words. Know in advance how the writer intended terms to be understood. Then see how closely the participant’s definition matches the intended meaning.

Ask participants to restate key passages in their own words. Then compare their version with the original and see which they prefer, what they would change and why.

This can be tedious, but, it’s worth the effort. It forces you to slow down and focus on details. Not only will it help ensure that your research yields reliable results, but you’ll learn about how your consumers think about and describe your product, brand and category.

A final point: testing words is necessary because we all get tied up in jargon. The gap between the technical language those steeped in a specific area use and the colloquial language used by the general population is where miscommunications happen. Qualitative research is how you bridge that gap.

Even when people aren’t talking, they can still tell you something.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like gaps in conversation. If nobody’s talking, I get anxious and try to fill the silence. I’m hardly alone in this. In fact, this type of discomfort is so common that communication researchers have a term for it: interactional silence anxiety. Conversation has a rhythm to it, and when that rhythm is broken, it’s jarring.

This may be an evolved trait. Evolutionary psychologists speculate that gaps in conversation unconsciously suggest a breakdown in social cohesion. That’s why they make us uneasy.

Discomfiting or not, silence is useful in conversation. Even the bible says so. As a qualitative researcher I have trained myself to make good use of gaps when they occur, despite them making me so uncomfortable. I’ve learned that sometimes the best way to probe what somebody has said is not to probe at all.

By sitting with the stillness and waiting for the other person to fill it, you create an opportunity for interesting things to happen. You might get more detail. You might get an interesting anecdote or metaphor. You might even get a transition to a related topic, or maybe a topic that is seemingly unrelated but turns out to be unexpectedly relevant.

One thing I’ve learned about silence is that we need to be careful about how we interpret it. The fact that somebody’s not talking could mean a wide variety of things, including:

They need some time to process what has been said.

They’re formulating a response.

They’re struggling to find the right language to express their thoughts.

It’s also important to know when to be quiet. As a researcher, I have two guidelines:

If I’m not getting the information I need despite multiple tries.

If somebody’s demeanor clearly indicates a need for time and space to think and process.

Both of those situations suggest it’s time to shut up.

Here’s another valuable thing you can do – call out the silence. Make it a point of discussion: “wow, everything went quiet all of a sudden. I wonder why?”  This creates an opportunity to discuss what the silence might signify, such as disagreement, uncertainty or a loss of interest. Don’t try to interpret silence. Just wait and see where the conversation goes.

Gaps in conversation don’t have to be uncomfortable. If you think of it, the discomfort you feel is entirely created by you. So, learn to push past your own feeling of awkwardness and embrace the gift of silence. It’s a skill worth developing.

During a focus group among foodservice professionals, one participant said to another …

… “your restaurant is never going to make money. I’m just saying.” The second participant neither appreciated nor agreed with this statement. But it started a good, if emotional, conversation.

At one point I quoted what the first participant had said, including the ‘just saying’ part, and asked why he had added that. He thought a bit and admitted that he had included it without thinking about it. Eventually he realized that he was trying to be less harsh. This led to further discussion about the intense emotional commitment restaurant owners make to their businesses, which surfaced important insights for the client, a food manufacturer.

‘Just saying’ is one of those phrases we sometimes use without thinking. It’s what’s technically called a discourse marker – something that indicates how somebody wants a statement to be interpreted. Specifically, it signals that the speaker wants the remark to be heard in a particular way – or to avoid responsibility for how it might be taken. As a qualitative researcher, I pay close attention to these markers, as they can be clues to hidden meaning. I’ve learned that when somebody adds in ‘just saying,’ they’re probably not just saying. While ostensibly it means that somebody is merely making an observation, it usually means more.

Specifically, it might indicate the speaker is trying to:

Soften criticism by making it seem less personal or confrontational.
Create plausible deniability if the remark is challenged or poorly received.
Imply something without stating it outright leaving the listener to connect the dots.

So, by exploring these markers when we encounter them and questioning why the speaker included one in a statement, we can learn more about a person’s true meaning and feelings.  In addition to ‘just saying,’ here are a few more discourse markers that I watch for, as they suggest veiled subtext:

‘For what it’s worth…’ signals modesty while asking the listener to take the opinion seriously.
‘No offense, but…’ acknowledges that offense is likely while attempting to soften it.
‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but…’ is a way to soften criticism.
‘With all due respect…’ marks disagreement while paying deference.
‘Not for nothing…’ suggests a point deserves more attention than it’s getting.
‘I’m just asking the question…’ frames an implication or challenge as mere curiosity.

So, when you notice a discourse marker in the course of conversation, dig in. You’re likely to learn a little more, and maybe even a lot more.

There’s no substitute for experience and expertise.

We have been collaborating on research that combines qualitative methods and advanced technology for about 15 years. However, we’ve never actually told the world about this. So, here goes.

Market research is a team effort. High-quality outcomes require that all participants do excellent work and know how to work together. Today’s evolving landscape often requires the integration of traditional qualitative research with behavioral and emotional measures such as eye tracking and biometrics.  A high degree of experience working with these tools – and working seamlessly – is essential to producing quality results that yield unexpected insights.

Combining advanced technology with qualitative methods is an unbeatable combination. It allows us to uncover what people really notice and respond to – often beyond what they can articulate themselves. But only if everybody involved understands the tools and techniques.

We have worked together dozens of times on this type of research. Bob provides the advanced technology. Tom handles the qualitative research design, execution and analysis. This combination yields outstanding results because IVP is the leading provider of eye tracking and biometric technology to the market research world, and Tom is widely known for combining these tools with qualitative methods.

People often view biometrics as a plug-and-play solution. But success depends upon more than sophisticated equipment. If the qualitative researcher moderating the study doesn’t understand eye tracking or biometrics, important opportunities will be missed. The study design could be flawed, important questions might not be asked, perceptions might not be probed, and valuable insights will never surface.

What’s more, collecting and analyzing biometric data is both art and science. If the people responsible for the technology aren’t experienced, you could easily end up with useless data and wasted time and money.

The same principle applies on the back end. Biometric data has little value unless those responsible for its analysis understand marketing strategy, motivation, and decision-making. This allows data to be translated into meaningful stories and actionable insights.

That’s why collaboration matters. Successful studies occur when all parties understand one another’s disciplines. The difference between a good study and a great one is ensuring that every link in the chain is strong from the beginning to the end.