2 Responses

  1. Annie Pettit
    Annie Pettit at |

    I’m very glad to see a rise in qual research. I think a lot of researchers, both quant AND qual, believe that quant research is inherently better, more valid, more reliable. But we need to be honest with ourselves. First, quant research is not a perfect science. Every ‘probability’ sample has bias. Every panel sample has bias. Every survey, questionnaire, analysis, and report has bias and errors. Quant research is chock full of bias and errors (as is qual research) so to put it on a pedestal above qual is silly. Second, qual and quant do different things. You can’t get qual discoveries and answers with a quant method so you’re really missing out on the entire picture if you only ever use quant.
    I’m glad to see qual being used more often.

  2. George Kuhn
    George Kuhn at |

    Always surprised by the number of firms and clients that jump immediately to quant without qual. I still argue nothing can provide more insight and value than 8 to 10 good IDIs. Glad to see it’s never forgotten and on the rise again. Most likely because everyone has access to online survey platforms, but they don’t have experience in focus group moderation or a facility.


Leave a Reply