Editor’s note: Bridget Shirley and Sally Evans are joint managing directors of The Research House, London.

A growing number of American qualitative research projects now require fieldwork in one or more of the major markets in Western Europe. Increasingly, U.S. qualitative companies are forging international links and overseas partnerships with European agencies to accommodate this demand. All too often, European projects create huge anxiety - everything from travel scheduling and terrorist threats to coping with cultural diversity and language, as well as the perplexing array of public, religious and private holidays, etc.

The biggest frustration for European fieldworkers is learning to cope with the continual U.S. client pressure for daily updates on respondent profiles and the difficulty of obtaining this information from European agencies not used to such fast-moving, instant-feedback-demanding American ways. The cliché of Americans moving much faster than “slower” Europeans is all too often encountered when trying to apply tried, tested and trusted domestic qualitative project management procedures and service standards to international projects. So why is everything so different in Europe when it comes to project management of qualitative focus groups?

Different history

Well, for a start, America  and Europe have a different market research history. Qualitative research in America can broadly trace its origins and growth back to the quantitative model where systems, structures and procedures were much more rigid and formalized right from the beginning. There was always more of everything - more markets, greater sample sizes, bigger budgets and larger business strategies to satisfy. Consequently, a more consistent domestic model developed with the earlier use of databases, in-house phone rooms and a plentiful choice of efficient facilities.

In Europe, qualitative research developed much more independently and fluidly with closer links to planning, creative understanding and experimental psychology. The result is a much more diverse and eclectic European model with greater informality, variety and recruitment style across cultures and within individual markets. Europe lacks the standardization and consistency that most Americans expect to find in their domestic marketplace. There are now some excellent agencies and an increasingly wide choice of efficient facilities in Europe. But there are also some truly terrible ones.

Tales of woe

All U.S.  international researchers have their tales of woe and dreadful experiences. And with each difficult or disastrous focus group experience in Europe, their anxiety increases. What they seek are the comfort levels that they find at home; American procedures within European cultural diversity.

In examining the differing history of focus groups in America  and Europe, one of the biggest variations is in the use of databases for qualitative recruitment. In the U.S., recruitment via databases is a mature and accepted methodology. Respondent databases and the use of in-house phone rooms in one form or other have been standard since the arrival of computer technology. In Europe , their use is very much in its infancy and indeed many are still a subject of much methodological controversy. Many European agencies remain reluctant to embrace the new technologies. Many European respondents are suspicious of the process. A confident infrastructure is only just arriving.

Effectively, much European recruitment is a generation behind America  and has its feet firmly rooted in old, traditional ways. The majority of European qualitative recruitment is still done using these established methods - little black books, “cardigan” recruiters, Rolodex addresses and face-to-face or telephone contacts. Purists can sometimes frown upon even e-mail communication with respondents.

All in all, European recruitment can be much more covert, protective and limiting. Recruiters “guard” their contacts and agencies will often avoid asking awkward questions of their fieldwork suppliers for fear of upsetting them. There are greater levels of timidity and nervousness when booking out projects. Many agencies use external freelance recruiters who are less easy to monitor and who can afford to be very selective about which respondents they will or won’t recruit.

By contrast, the American system is much more overt, accountable and easier for clients to monitor and track. There is a much more businesslike approach in America  - faster, more efficient and more consistently procedural in all ways. Much of the recruitment is done in in-house phone rooms where conversations can be openly monitored and respondents re-screened. Accountability is easier to track and monitor in the U.S.

Longer screeners

Another reflection of this can be seen with U.S. versus European screeners. American screeners are generally longer (nine to 10 pages), more complex and intensive. European screeners are generally shorter (three to four pages) with many more open-ended questions - once again more suited to the more traditional interviewing approach. European agency personnel often describe U.S.-generated screeners as obsessive. It is quite common in Europe to hear agencies apologizing to their recruiters for the length of U.S. screeners: “Sorry it’s so long but it’s another blockbuster from America. ” Their American clients would, of course, simply describe themselves as being justifiably meticulous - an approach all the more necessary in overseas markets where respondent quality can be so variable and project costs so much higher than in the U.S. Quality of customer service and client satisfaction seem to be much more part of the American business psyche. Europeans, by contrast, focus very much more on quality of life. Hence the difference in pace.

Another difference involves respondent confidence. In America  , respondents (whether medical, business-to-business or consumer) have been in focus group databases for years. Most have had good experiences with research - comfortable facilities, big incentives, interesting sessions. So much so that referrals are a major component of agency databases in the U.S. Good focus group research experiences have created a culture of confidence in focus group methodology and mutual respect. Once again, in Europe the whole industry is much more fragmented and diverse. Yes, there are now some agencies following the U.S. model and building up a similar rapport with respondents. Yes there are some excellent viewing facilities where respondents enjoy their experience. But the covert nature traditional methods of European recruitment, the suspicion of both researchers and respondents of databases (as sales rather than research tools) and a general reluctance to see respondents as a sustainable resource means that there is much too much variation.

As before, there is the very, very good but also the very, very bad - poorly recruited samples, low turnouts and inadequate focus group experiences all around. No wonder European projects create high stress levels for U.S. clients. They want the certainty and guarantees of quality and service that they find in their tried and trusted home market agencies. They want no unpleasant surprises.

Settling down

Happily, the unpredictability of European project management is gradually settling down with the arrival in Europe of several of the large U.S. qualitative service agencies, who have responded to client demands for the same consistent project management procedures in Europe that they expect in America.

Many U.S. clients can see the advantages of a one-stop shop through which all their project bids can be coordinated. More significantly, there is a new generation of international project managers in European who are familiar with the high service expectations of U.S. clients commissioning overseas research and are able to provide an effective European bridge to carefully guide clients and their projects through the cultural diversity and higher costs of carrying out focus groups in Europe while at the same time fulfilling U.S. procedural expectations and making sure that the project is successfully completed.

A key element in the formation of this strong, effective European bridge has to be the adoption of a set of best practices so that the commissioning client knows what to expect in Europe and is aware of aspects of the project planning which may need adjustment in different countries. Examples of guidance may include lead times and deadlines, market and facility selection, language and translation issues and specific specialties and conditions. The most effective way of running pan-European projects is to seek input from local suppliers and accept their guidance where appropriate.

Great communication

Conducting successful international focus groups requires a great deal of social and cultural understanding. Key to the success of any project is great communication between client and agency as well as a thorough understanding of the local markets involved. Many agencies now have a best practices guide, so that challenges faced in certain European markets can be appreciated. Some U.S. clients may know, for instance, that over-recruiting for groups in Europe is not standard practice; others welcome advice on local recruitment policies. Some agencies feel it best to advise that most Europeans do not speak English to the level required for groups/IDIs. Many European cities become ghost towns during the summer months and successful recruiting can be a real challenge at these times. Either way, a guide to best practices in Europe issued to the client up front by the agency can be invaluable in avoiding misunderstandings and assumptions about local markets.

To get the most from research projects out of U.S. settings, one must have an open mind and an aptitude for embracing the unknown. People from different cultures and countries behave differently. It is not a United States of Europe: one cannot and should not assume that all Europeans behave like Americans. Ultimately, the most successful and rewarding projects are those where clients have embraced the differences and applied a good dose of common sense and cultural understanding.