White Paper: Reducing the High Cost of Qualitative Research with Bulletin Board Focus Groups
Abstract: This white paper compares and contrasts the cost differences between two categories of qualitative research studies: those conducted in-person (e.g. focus group and IDIs) and those conducted online utilizing bulletin board focus group technology.
The Problem: For years, in-person interviewing — in the form of focus groups, small groups (dyads and triads) and IDIs — has been a mainstay of qualitative researchers worldwide.
However, in-person studies have some inherent inflexibility:
• Studies are limited to a 1½-2 hour timeframe; there often isn’t enough time to dig deep into a particular subject.
• Participants, the moderator and client personnel need to be at a common location at a given time.
• Highly qualified participants are often eliminated from consideration because they are unavailable at the time of the study.
• Participant no-shows are a real issue — caught in traffic, family emergencies, stuck at work, bad winter weather or simply forgetting about the study.
• Finally, the logistical aspects of in-person research (for both the researchers and their clients) — facility rental, air travel, ground travel, hotels, meals, etc. — can often be as expensive (or more expensive) than the cost of the research itself.
The Proposed Solution: QualBoard™, a web-based platform for asynchronous, text-based discussions, was first launched by 20/20 Research in 2001 and has been proven in thousands of studies. QualBoard™ utilizes bulletin board focus group technology and provides text-based dialogue and simple uploading of multimedia stimuli.
Rather than participating around a table, the moderator and participants each sit at their own computer — anywhere in the world — and participate by logging in to a website and responding to questions posted by the moderator, as well as to comments posted by other participants. Moderators probe as they would in person. Clients, too, can log in and view the discussion at their convenience. Typical studies usually involve 15-25 participants and last 3-5 days, but can last for weeks or months.
Because QualBoard™ is asynchronous (not real-time), participants do not have to log on at the same time. In fact, they log in to QualBoard™ when it is convenient for them, even if that is at 3 a.m. The problem with no-shows is virtually eliminated. Participants can even go back to answer questions from a previous day. The entire discussion — all text and images — is available as a downloaded transcript immediately at the close of the study.
Results: Following are the costs associated with a typical focus group study compared to the costs from a similar study conducted in QualBoard™. Note: While the costs below are estimates and actual costs will vary somewhat from city-to-city, they are, nonetheless, very much in line with nationally accepted fees.
Conclusions:
1. Using QualBoard™ as a replacement for in-person Focus Groups on an “average” project can result in a 35.3% decrease in costs – a savings of $21,275.
2. Using QualBoard™ as a replacement for in-person IDIs on an “average” project can result in a 69.4% decrease in costs – a savings of $30,100.
3. What cannot be calculated here is the “lost opportunity” because of travel. How much productivity is lost (by the moderator and the clients) because of all the time spent on planes, in cabs and rental cars going to and from airports, time just sitting and waiting before, between and after the interviews take place and so on?
4. QualBoard™ provides a cost-effective, valid alternative to in-person qualitative research for three primary reasons:
• QualBoard™ is aflexible platform that allows for text-based dialogue and easy uploading of stimuli (images, videos, websites, documents) by both the moderator and participants.
• The web-based, asynchronous nature virtually eliminates no-shows, maximizes convenience for all involved and provides numerous creative options for designing the structure of a study.
• QualBoard™ can save thousands of dollars per project when compared to in-person studies.
