holders may not be so clear what is finally going to happen, and this mis- understanding can have dramatic effects in the debrief! For this reason alone, it is always sensible to issue a final research specification as this removes any possibility of doubt – assuming of course that anybody reads it.
MANAGING THE PROJECT THROUGH
little time to familiarize themselves with it before launching into the actual research. Neither situation helps to get quality qualitative research done.
In many cases it is sensible to have the stimulus material ready in order that it can be discussed at the research design stage with the researcher or agency. If the stimulus material is absolutely crucial to the research, such as a concept, pack or advert, it is generally very use- ful that the end-user client has actually seen it and formally agreed that it is what he or she expected. It is a dreadful waste of time and money as well as being very embarrassing if, as can occasionally happen, the wrong stimulus material is researched. Stimulus material is a constant source of problems, as described in Chapter 8.
Attendance at the research
Occasionally, the end-user client wishes to attend some aspect of the fieldwork. It is rare for a client to want to go out and about with a quan- titative interviewer doing the interviewing, but if the research is held in a test hall the client might want to attend this, and clients are often quite keen to watch a group discussion in progress. Obviously end- user clients should be briefed as to what is expected of them, that they should be passive non-intrusive observers, leave the researchers to get on with their work, and not make ‘helpful’ comments to either the respondents or the interviewer.
These problems can be intensified in the case of people attending group discussions, because the very presence of observers can disturb the course of events. Viewers should be reminded that the respondents are people who have given up time to help them in their job and not objects of fun. The viewing should be taken seriously, and not thought of as a party. The sound of people laughing or making noises in the room behind an observation mirror does not put the respondents in a helpful frame of mind, is impolite, and is very disturbing to the researcher who is undertaking the difficult job of running the group.
Analysis needs peace and quiet
After the fieldwork has been completed, end-user clients are very keen to get the results, but as far as possible, they should restrain their impulses, as the very act of asking questions of the researcher can be counter-productive.
Ideally, by the end of the fieldwork, the researcher should have already given some indication of how the processactually went. This is the most basic feedback, and refers to things that are done and over with. However, when it comes to getting early feedback on the actual results, then the asking of this question is, in effect, asking the researcher to anticipate work yet to be done.
In the case of quantitative research, this question could lead to the data processing stage being run more quickly than was scheduled in order that ‘top-lines’ are available. If this has been planned in the orig- inal research design, then so be it. But if this question is just asked as a sudden afterthought, the work being requested will interfere with the flow of other work going through the agency and cause inefficiency, and even worse, mistakes.
It is at the early stage of quantitative analysis that ‘funnies’ can be resolved. These could be the result of some error in routing, a duff interviewer, data entry or data processing, and the process of acceler- ating the delivery time for ‘top-lines’ removes this safety check. In addition, ‘funnies’ can lead to very interesting ‘top-line’ conclusions if there is no time to think about them.
The situation is more pernicious in the case of qualitative research, as most end-user clients think that the findings are known before the last groups are completed. It is true, of course, that qualitatives researchers are formulating hypotheses about the research while they are actually in the progress of doing fieldwork, and may alter the lines of enquiry accordingly. However, this is a long way from ‘knowing the answer’. This comes about as a result of a considerable amount of reflection and simply cannot be hurried.
The reason that asking qualitative researchers to give early feedback is very bad indeed, is that often they do not knowwhat to say. Clearly they will have some impressions and some ideas, but the hard work of qualitative research is only just about to begin. This is the analysis stage, where an intellectual process is taking place with hypotheses emerging, being modified or put on one side until the researcher feels he or she has ‘got it’. If he or she gives ‘it’ out before finishing this pro- cess, he or she may never ‘get it’, because the ‘giving it out’ itself fixes that part of the analysis. It is always best to leave researchers alone while they are doing analysis and to have programmed a sufficiently long period in the design for them to have two goes at it: that is, start
the analysis, have a break, and then resume it. This is the way to get quality qualitative research done.