Another parallel between quantum mechanics and (marketing) research. The Heisenberg principle. This principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one variable is known, the less precisely the other is known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher’s ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself.
If I remember it well there was the problem of research intervention: by looking at the one value, you influenced the other. At the time I was taught this principle in highschool (half seventies af the previous century) my teacher had to spend quite some time to explain this counter intuitivie notion. We discussed the consequences lengthy. Expecially the notion that we had to forget the idea of particles as ‘matter’ with a defined place and velocity. We should – he claimed – see it otherwise: there is a certain chance that the particle is at a defined place, but the particle cannot be ‘forced’ to a precision of 1: so of you measure one of the variables more precise, the other variable will therefore be less precise. There is no way of forcing it to certaincy. In other words: uncertaincy, not certaincy is the base of our universe. I have never been able to look at ‘large matter’ again after this, without thinking: so this is not matter, it is probability. It is the clustering of many probabilities, the sum of chance, clustering of nothing tangible.
I see a clear comparison to research as we know it, and to marketing as we know it. Marketeers like to see consumer behaviour as a sum of individual actions that can be completely understood. Either you like the I-Phone, and you buy it, or you hate it and you don’t. Either you are ‘looking for certaincy’ and you buy a Volvo, or you are looking for kicks and you buy an Alpha Romeo. The big theme in marketing and marketing research is about ‘understanding consumers’, and the the notion of ‘understanding’ is a bit in the way we understand Newtonion phsysics: the path of the bullit is completely predictable, we understand all forces at stake and basically we know everything.
I state that this is a completely wrong understanding of consumer behaviour. I think that consumer behaviour is better understood if you describe it as a fundamental uncertain concept. The more you try to look at it, the more it will escape you. I haven’t got the time to dive into this deep, but I will give some basic thoughts:
- in order to ‘understand’ consumers and behaviour we introduce concepts for measurement. Mostly questions. These concepts are simplifying reality in an extreme way;
- the questions act as influencers. So the info you get is a reaction to the question, rather then insight in the behaviour;
- concepts of understanding in all of the marketing models I know of, force the consumers to be in one state only: either safety seeking or not. Human mind is better explained as being in several states at the same time (and looking for safety and for fun, and optimising the combination for every situation, changing the combination for different contexts)