<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Face to face is back. Not another false dawn. Not just wishful thinking\u2026 it is real this time, and rather than researchers having to sell it, clients are beginning to request it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online isn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it seems the tide has turned against \u2018online by default\u2019 and a pragmatic rebalancing of the two approaches is underway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From personal observation and chatting to peers, some patterns are emerging. F2F is more likely to be requested by clients for\u2026 foundational studies, co-creational work, developmental research, or exploring sensitive topics. Or simply, when there\u2019s a thirst from clients or stakeholders to get \u2018closer\u2019 to customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All encouraging stuff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But let\u2019s be honest, the backroom \u2018window\u2019 can feel a mile thick for some sensitive conversations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is it time then, to re-invite clients back into the front room?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1980s flashback. As a young researcher, \u2018viewing\u2019 typically meant clients dressing down into jeans (from office wear) and sitting quietly in the corner of a recruiter\u2019s suburban front room – where most groups used to take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
OK, the \u2018dressing down\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This isn\u2019t (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 \u2018the room\u2019 when they were \u201cbreathing the same air\u201d as participants – almost feeling like part of the group itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just to be entirely clear, I\u2019m 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And I\u2019m talking about one client in the room, not the whole team!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2018empathetic presence\u2019 (perhaps the topic of another blog) of the client in the room is a valid option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Either way, face to face is back firmly on the table as a serious option \u2013 so maybe it\u2019s a good debate to have\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don\u2019t dress up or down, come as you are!<\/p>\n\n\n\n