Face to face is back. Not another false dawn. Not just wishful thinking… it is real this time, and rather than researchers having to sell it, clients are beginning to request it.
Online isn’t going anywhere - and it certainly has its place in many projects, earned on its specific merits as a methodology, rather than just convenience or cost.
But it seems the tide has turned against ‘online by default’ and a pragmatic rebalancing of the two approaches is underway.
From personal observation and chatting to peers, some patterns are emerging. F2F is more likely to be requested by clients for… foundational studies, co-creational work, developmental research, or exploring sensitive topics. Or simply, when there’s a thirst from clients or stakeholders to get ‘closer’ to customers.
All encouraging stuff.
But let’s be honest, the backroom ‘window’ can feel a mile thick for some sensitive conversations.
Is it time then, to re-invite clients back into the front room?
1980s flashback. As a young researcher, ‘viewing’ typically meant clients dressing down into jeans (from office wear) and sitting quietly in the corner of a recruiter’s suburban front room - where most groups used to take place.
OK, the ‘dressing down’ might feel horribly antiquated now, more 1950s than 1980s but the client in the room is a different experience for them than observing from the facility backroom.
This isn’t (just) the predictable nostalgia of a qual veteran. I clearly remember conversations with clients about their comparative experiences. They talked about getting a much better sense of what was really going on in ‘the room’ when they were “breathing the same air” as participants - almost feeling like part of the group itself.
As ever there are pros and cons. The mirror can build backroom team cohesion, encouraging discussion, collaboration and hypothesis generation. But it can also be a physical barrier that creates psychological distance. The client in the same room can sometimes be a bit off-putting to respondents, but conversely better (often unconsciously) pick up on the nuances of body language and subtle shifts in group energy.
Just to be entirely clear, I’m specifically talking about group discussions here, not depth interviews, where the looming presence of a client can unbalance the 1-1 dynamic, more so than the more self-sustaining group version.
And I’m talking about one client in the room, not the whole team!
But for groups there is a decision to be made, depending on the viewing purpose. If the priority is creating customer closeness and understanding, or the subject is a sensitive one for the participants, then the ‘empathetic presence’ (perhaps the topic of another blog) of the client in the room is a valid option.
Either way, face to face is back firmly on the table as a serious option – so maybe it’s a good debate to have…
Don’t dress up or down, come as you are!
Peter Totman, Sept 25
English (United States) 
English (UK)