In early June I traveled to Boston to attend the Marketing Research Association's annual conference. Thankfully, by the time I arrived, temperatures had cooled back into the 60's from the 90+ readings that had scorched the city during the previous week (though I of course packed for tropical conditions and thus needed to borrow a jacket during the chilly evenings). At the various presentations, meals, and events I attended during the three-day conference I had fun meeting people whom I've spoken to on the phone, putting faces to names and voices. As always, I found the folks in the research industry to be engaging, enthusiastic and committed to their profession.

When I wasn't traipsing along the Freedom Trail to learn more about our nation's history or trying to comprehend the scale of the Big Dig, I sat in on some very interesting conference sessions.

Cheaters/repeaters

Anndel Martin of Opinions Unlimited and Val Maxwell of National Data Research led a discussion on findings from a joint MRA/ Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) study on cheaters and repeaters. Cheaters are focus group respondents who don't meet study specifications as shown on the screener and lie in order to participate in the focus group and receive the incentive payment. Repeaters attend focus groups more often than once every six months but don't admit it when asked during the screening process.

While the exact scope of cheating/repeating is tough to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests the problem is common. Using a system like Sigma Validation to track and identify research respondents can help weed out the so-called professional respondents who participate in research for the monetary reward. But until its use somehow becomes mandatory, unscrupulous respondents will still mingle with the legitimate ones.

It's clearly something that needs to be addressed and the research organizations are actively engaged in figuring out how to do so. The Field and Joint MRA/QRCA committees are developing task forces to examine and implement the following measures: 1) require respondent identification as an industry standard; 2) develop better screening and rescreening instruments to detect cheaters/repeaters; 3) establish centralized tracking of respondent participation in major cities; and 4) measure and monitor cheating and repeating to see if the implemented measures are effective.

Reporting research results

Terry McCarthy from Directions Research gave a nice talk on reporting and presenting research results. Here are some of his best tips:

  • Get the dull stuff over with right away. Your audience will give you a few minutes to be boring, but after that, you had better hold their interest.
  • When planning the presentation development process, budget 10 percent of your time for analyzing the results, 30 percent for assembly and rehearsal, and 60 percent for putting the charts together.
  • The perfect chart is one that doesn't have to be explaine and in which the most critical finding is the first thing everyone notices.
  • Some don'ts: don't detail your valiant-but-failed attempts to uncover the truth in the data; don't include beautiful charts that confuse or contain no value; don't use jargon-laden char1s; don't include data that conflicts with the overwhelming majority of the evidence; don't beat bad news to death.

Going overseas

On Friday morning I attended an information-packed primer on conducting international research delivered by Simon Lunn of Research International USA. While the session was geared more toward those on the research supplier side, Lunn did have some good advice that applies to client-side researchers who may have to choose an overseas research supplier. When you find a supplier you're considering working with:

  • ask for the names of some of their other U.S. clients and get references;
  • ask them to describe exactly how they propose to sample and why;
  • ask them how they validate;
  • ask them who does their interviewing (is it students, stay-at-home moms?);
  • get a feel for their business (don't be afraid to ask questions);
  • make sure they ask you the right questions back.

Lunn's overall message was to assume nothing and verify everything. Though researchers share a common language, keep in mind that research is not the same in every country. There are a host of cultural, infrastructural, and political factors to consider and if you leave room for a misunderstanding, you'll probably get one.          Â