Brand and communication strategy nearly always has some type of consumer research at its heart. I am either observing it in real time with my clients (behind a one way mirror, in someone’s kitchen or via webcam), or conducting it for them.

The quality of research undoubtedly varies – from the downright robotic   (I will stick to the discussion guide at all costs) to the truly inspiring (I am committed to solving the bigger problem and will explore rich veins as they emerge).

In fact, Unilever initiated its much debated Qualitative Accreditation Program, because of the variance in qualitative researcher standards, and the consequent paucity of “new ideas and insights that serve to move the company forward.”

Manish Makhijani, global consumer insights director at Unilever has talked about “good” qualitative research being derived from “good” thinkers. I totally agree. But, I’m not sure how their accreditation program is going to inspire great thinking.

It works by giving applicants a mock brief for which they have to write a proposal and a discussion guide, and then recruit and moderate one live group of six respondents for an hour-long discussion. Independent assessors meet the researcher to talk through the brief, watch the group, and discuss afterwards with the researcher how she/he might analyse the findings and plan for the debrief.

All well and good, but it’s only one step on the path to great ideas.

In my experience, the research that has really helped to move brands or businesses forward has done so because of the quality of thinking it has inspired either during the research (in the “back room”), or shortly after it (in the debrief session)., not just by the researchers, but among the key stakeholders (clients and agencies).

In effect, it is when the researcher is confident and able to use the insights from the research to light fires among the strategic decision makers. These researchers are able to step away from the findings and feel comfortable in taking strategic leaps, often in real time.

The goal of any researcher shouldn’t be to just conduct good research and deliver a great debrief, it should be to engage as a provocateur, helping key stakeholders make business-changing leaps.

What we need to see more often from research practitioners are the facilitation skills and confidence that can galvanise a group of smart thinkers around the central problem. In effect, researchers need to take responsibility for “activating” their research findings.

The ability to do this effectively is, in my view, a premium skill. It is something that is usually honed through the experience of working in cultures where ideas are the end product. These are positively combative environments, where having the courage to introduce, defend, and even relinquish your ideas, is demanded, in order to have break-through ideas.

If we want research to be an even more powerful strategic weapon, here are four things that could help:

1. Researchers who encourage stakeholders to take big leaps from the research findings. Instead of “clinging on” to what’s been observed, “let go” and see where it might take your thinking. It’s far better to over-reach and be wrong, and have to work backwards, than try to get somewhere interesting from a safe place.
2. More iterative research methodologies that build time in-between groups or interviews, to allow the stakeholders to workshop the emerging findings, and evolve their hypotheses as they go. Your research ROI multiplies significantly when it fuels strategic thinking in real time.
3. More attendance by parties who are truly invested in solving the problem, versus “passengers” or passive observers. By elevating the exercise from research to a “hot house for strategic thinking “ you can ensure that you have more of the right brain power available to “activate” the findings.
4. More researchers who stand out, rather than fade into the background. You don’t want a researcher to dominate a group or interview, but you do want them to drive a “back room” or debrief workshop.

So, the next time you commission a piece of qualitative research, don’t just ask whether it will be a good piece of research, ask whether it will make you and your team think better.

McQ Thinking is a boutique brand and communication consultancy that partners with the marketing and advertising communities. Find out more at www.mcqthinking.com.

The post Do we need more great research, or more great thinking? appeared first on McQ Thinking.