Last month we explored the use of Adjective and Emotion lists as a qualitative technique, this month Daniele Buccheri continues this series and explores a very different technique; Stones.
Daniele Buccheri 
21 Apr, 2009
Stones – Reinventing the Rorschach Inkblot Test
Qualitative research embraces an enormous variety of different styles and approaches. What unites the ‘qualitative method’ is its flexible, responsive and reactive approach. The adaptability of qualitative research methodology allows the research to go beyond ‘typical’ or ‘stock’ responses and explore ideas, views and feeling that can remain hidden.
Projective techniques have been used for many years in qualitative research
to understand the mind of the customer and they are constantly evolving to
or adapting in order to push the boundaries of research. Some of these techniques
have their roots in the world of psychology or psychoanalysis and in this article
we will explore a technique which is a loose adaptation of a renowned psychological
test: the Rorschach Inkblot test. This test was first developed in 1921 and
has been refined over the course of the last century. Patients are assessed
on their interpretations of abstract inkblot images to examine personality
characteristics and emotional functioning.
In qualitative research, this test has been adapted to use a set of semi-precious stones instead of the inkblots. These tactile, multidimensional stimuli are a canvas by which respondents can use texture, colour, shape and size to help stimulate more subconscious or hidden thoughts and feelings.
A full set of stimuli would comprise of a number of semi-precious stones (around
7 to 9) of different sizes, cuts, textures and colours, which the respondents
are first encouraged to handle and familiarize themselves with. Unlike the
Rorschach test which is left very open, the interviewer sets the context for
interpretation of the stimuli. This is important in order to avoid projection
of unrelated issues, keeps the discussion on track and generates the desired
content. For example, we may wish to understand why certain patients are given
one treatment plan whilst others, although at face value ‘look’ the same are
given a completely different one.
In order to understand the less easily recognisable or more abstract characteristics
that differentiate these patients, Doctors will be asked to look at and touch
the stones, explore their different characteristics and relate these to their
patients. The technique can start simply with a couple of stones, for example
with one smooth and one more rough in texture to reflect a patient that is
easy to manage versus one which is more challenging. It can then be gradually
expanded to include stones which vary in colour, size and texture. Doctors
use the distinctive features and qualities to help visualise different patient
characteristics, building a picture of what constitutes an easy vs. more difficult
patient or what characterises patients on one brand of drug verses another.
This stones technique, although relatively abstract in its approach, has proven to be highly valuable in the research setting. It is especially useful in assisting in the development of patient segmentation in therapy areas where no clear differentiation is perceived. It can also help in the assessment of brand attachment by overcoming the stereotypical answer of ‘familiarity’, providing a route to vocalise preference of a drug over another.
Your response:
Login to respond to this article: