How Brian Cox can help online qual research win in the battle between ‘science’ and ‘engagement’

One of the biggest battles in the world of research is being fought out between the ‘engagement’ and ‘science’ schools of thought. I believe that the best technology partners are the ones who can keep them both happy, by facilitating engaging experiences for participants and granting sufficient control to researchers.

The conflict raises questions about how scientific online qualitative researchers should be. For example, should they present stimulus in a controlled, private way? Or should they instead focus on getting more value out of participants by making the experience engaging, open and social?

In the scientific corner we have the traditionalists, dedicated to techniques that control the group effect. For example they might insist on getting private responses before exposing a piece of stimulus to the whole group. In general, they want online qualitative platforms that give them control and therefore produce higher levels of confidence in the results. That’s all well and good but it makes the experience less interesting for the participants (which in turn means they need to be paid more to take part).

In the engagement corner we have the progressives, trying to get more hours and higher participation rates out of participants. For example, they spend time building relationships with participants and encouraging discussion between them. They tend to prefer presenting stimulus in an open, public forum since it can inspire higher levels of efficiency and participant involvement. What it lacks in scientific rigour it makes up for in higher participation.

As with many conflicting viewpoints, there is value in both perspectives. I think what we need from technology for research is a Brian Cox-esque compromise: something that is both engaging and scientifically valid. The more research technologists can help make research engaging and fun, while retaining some of the lessons from science about how conversations should be controlled, the better it will be for clients, researchers and participants.