Research is often despised for its ‘beta-faults’: in its worst stereotyped research is supposed to ‘kill ideas’. This is a strong theme. In a narrative research I conducted a few years ago with Marieke Smets, the theme came out loud and was cartooned as a research lab that is designed to kill ideas, the idea maker can only watch their superior ideas to be destroyed. The fear of this is so strong that every qualitative researcher has to deal with suspicious creatives or idea-owners. The suspicion is a strong influencer of the whole research process. In order to be able to ‘control’ the creatives and ‘idea-owners’ often create a negative atmosphere, commenting on all aspects of the research (lousy respondents, bad questions, bad interview). This in itself arouses a further hostile atmosphere that creates a bad environment for research on innovative ideas.
However, as bad as a beta fault can be, there is also the chance of an alpha fault. There are a few famous examples. A fairly recent one was the ‘new Coca Cola taste’. It was tested and found a major improvement. The innovation died a quick death, after consumer started a massive protest against the disappeared ‘trusted taste’. Another example is older: a few decades ago a cigarette without smoke was designed, and thoroughly tested. It had to be withdrawn in a few days. Nobody bought it.
Here the mechanism is completely different. A collective wrong focus. Together with the client, the researchers share a tunnel vision. Context is ignored, common sense replaced by a shared vision of Reality As It Could Be If Only It Was The Way We Wanted It.