Jon Chandler, Paula Scott, Karen Stevens and Rina Valeny continue looking at the ‘must haves’ of market research. This month we look at narrative.
Jon Chandler 
Paula Scott 
Karen Stevens 
Rina Valeny 
21 Apr, 2009
The Keys to Analysis; Narrative
Last month we looked at the ‘must haves’ that any market research analysis should deliver against. We argued that from an output perspective analysis needs to deliver to three key needs:
- Narrative Portrayal: what is analytic best practice to ensure we get the best account of research data.
- Understanding: how can we move from the portrayal of data and the description of the world to a point where we understand how and why things happen?
- Insight: How can we take that final step to the point where we know how to bring about some kind of change?
This month we look in more detail at the first of these: Narrative.
In practical terms creating a narrative is about reviewing and sifting raw
data to create an intelligible and accessible account of what a market research
project has thrown up. Creating an effective narrative must be the backbone
of the whole analysis process. An effective narrative has firstly to provide
a clear and coherent narrative portrayal of what has been seen in research,
only with this firm foundation can we move on to develop understanding and
insight.
Specifically, the process of creating an effective narrative involves four interconnecting key elements:
- Developing an analysis frame
- Revisiting data
- Selecting and sorting the data
- Comparing and contrasting the outputs
In any market research project the focus for analysis is not a given. There is no fixed analytic recipe. Different projects will have different requirements in terms of where analysis needs to focus. Requirements will vary because no two markets are the same, no two brand situations are the same and so on. The creation of some form of analytic framework is thus crucial to the creation of an effective narrative. Analysis needs to be guided, directed and focussed. This is the role of the ‘analysis frame’.
The analysis frame should provide an articulation of the key areas of focus in the research and the detailed questions that must be addressed. Whilst an analysis frame can take a variety of different forms, ranging from those that are relatively open and implicit to others that may be very explicit and detailed, nevertheless all of these will serve the same core functions. The analysis frame will be informed by and developed out of the research objectives in combination with any working hypotheses and pre existing knowledge of the subject area. This analysis frame should generally be developed prior to commencement of fieldwork, but may be modified and adapted as the research develops.
The purpose of the analysis frame is to ensure that the focus
of the research outputs is always relevant. The analysis frame serves as a
crucial guide throughout the fieldwork process. The analysis frame will ‘shape’
the way that researchers listen to respondents, it will ensure that any notes
taken during fieldwork address the research needs, that any revisiting of interviews
and data is ‘on project’ and that discussions and brainstorming of results
work towards the project goals.
Once research fieldwork is completed a more formal process of analysis begins. Here the object is to turn raw research outputs into an effective narrative. At this point the analysis frame becomes paramount because it provides a central reference point that can help direct analytic operations.
Gill Ereaut emphasises the importance of ‘re-visiting the data’ as central to the analysis process in market research (for more details, see Ereaut1). Before embarking on this next key step in the analytic process it is important for the research team to collectively review headline outputs from the research and revisit the analysis frame in the light of these. Some form of ‘round table’ meeting amongst the research team can often be important here to share observations and compare findings from different researchers and (where appropriate) different locations/countries or different sample groups. At this point adjustments can be made to the analysis frame as appropriate.
With a modified analysis frame the research team can now properly
embark on the process of re-engaging with the research. Fundamentally this
means re-engaging with research outputs and the research experience and building
a narrative out of these. This is both an individual process involving individual
researchers revisiting their experiences and a collective team process involving
the sharing and discussion of outputs and observations.
Some key parallel and simultaneous overall processes are at work here:
- Revisiting the data
- Sorting and selecting
- Comparing and contrasting
It is axiomatic that the analysis process must involve some key elements of ‘revisiting the data’. This can mean reviewing audio, video or DVD recordings, reading transcripts and/or fieldwork notes or looking through the stimulus materials. In addition to reviewing what was said, this process can reveal what was not said, what was missed or any difficulties that arose during the discussion. Here, all aspects of the research are relevant, from what was heard and seen, to how this relates back to the original analysis frame, the key issues and the overall project objectives.
A key element within the process of revisiting the data is a parallel exercise of selecting and sorting. This dimension of the analysis process will be strongly driven by the analysis frame, which in turn will reflect upon the projects objectives and needs. Here the analysis frame will guide the focus of the analysis and determine the level of detail that is drawn out in any particular instance. It will, for example, determine whether a particular brand’s position is described in simple ‘headline’ terms or whether the brand is picked apart to infinite degrees, including its detailed imagery and associations, the relationships users and non users have with it, rational and overt properties and so on.
This process of revisiting the data is also simultaneously one of comparing
and contrasting the groups or segments within the sample. This may involve
comparing the responses from certain groups that were pre-set in the research
design (e.g. users or non users of a brand, or respondents from a specific
geographical location or GPs vs specialists etc.). Alternatively, differences
between sub-samples may emerge during the course of fieldwork or the process
of narrative portrayal (e.g. those nurses who favoured the brand vs those who
disliked it). Identifying the differences, commonalities or ranges in response
is important as these can highlight the need for a differential approach or
handling of segments of the target audience.
The limits of the narrative...
What the processes described above will deliver is a narrative … an account of what a research project has identified. This can mean narrative accounts of all types and varieties; what Doctors think and feel about a particular brand, the experiences that nurses have of working with different devices, how the patient is managed over time in a particular disease area. Where the processes outlined above fall short is in giving us an understanding of what is driving a particular situation and how a different situation might be engineered in the future. These are the other two analysis keys identified last month:
- Understanding
- Insight
Over the next two months we will look at each of these in turn. Next month we will look at analysis for understanding: how can we move from the narrative portrayal of data and the description of the world to a point where we understand how and why things happen? In June we will look at insight: how can we take that final step to the point where we know how to bring about some kind of change?
1 Ereaut, Gill (2002) Analysis and Interpretation in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications
Your response:
Login to respond to this article: