Just returned from the Istanbul ESOMAR qualitative congress. The only downside was that my stomach still is in bad shape, and the turkish food is not appropriate for stomachs with an attitude. Being at a congress, listening to so much presentations always has some ‘magic’, the magic of emerging subjects. I don’t know what that is, maybe a sort of ‘Zeitgeist’, because it is not in the parts, but in the whole: patterns in the subjects that emerge, patterns that emerge from the discussions. Two related interesting observations:
1: the quality of the presentations in terms of presentation skills and powerpoints was very high. This was a feeling most spectators had. It sets a standard. But it also introduces a complete new theme in the researchers grand narrative: researchers have always been more content driven. The qualitative now switch to the more emotional ‘looks’. I think this pattern of ‘better surface’ will continue to exist because the best presentations set the standards. I wonder how this theme will evolve further and how it will spread to the main conference (more quant driven and less ‘fancy’)
2: in conferences like this all of the cases about techniques and methods look like success stories. This is inevitable. You want to get a message accross, a new approach that you share. You are not going to show any downsides apart from the obligatory ‘problems’ that in these presentations always appear to be minor points, easily to be adressed. Your new method is always going to be the beauty and not the beast. I don’t want to argue that this makes the congress less valueble: new plants should be pampered and watered and so should new approaches.
For the latter I would like to share an initiative that I think is really brilliant: the mistake bank. I got the link from the website of John Caddell. Maybe we should open an anomynous mistake bank for our profession! Lets unleash the beast!
Tags: market research