Feb
Can AI & Human Researchers Coexist In Market Research?
jerry9789 0 comments artificial intelligence, Brand Surveys and Testing, Burning Questions
AI In Market Research Today
With 90% of the world’s data created in just two years time between 2021 and 2023 and the global data volume standing at 149 zettabytes by 2024, it’s understandable why AI would be readily adopted by the market research industry. Traditional methods of data collection and analysis would hold a place in market research but they simply aren’t as powerful as AI when it comes to handling all that staggering volume of data. But is AI powerful enough to take the place of human researchers?
AI enables research teams to move, process and analyze massive datasets with speed and accuracy, efficiently handling all the repetition and scale involved in the research process. From drafting questionnaires to monitoring survey data quality, from analyzing open-ends to formulating dashboards and charts, AI fully automates the research process leading to faster and better decisions at a scale beyond the capabilities of human researchers.
But is AI the endgame for market research? Does it make human researchers obsolete?
Image: geralt
Cascade Strategies and AI
Cascade Strategies conducted a member perceptions study for a company looking to develop and implement a brand typology. The overall goal of the study was to help them better understand their different customer type’s overall motivations and aspirations for more effective engagement. As part of the study, we conducted an online survey with over 1,500 of their randomly selected members. We then utilized an AI-assisted Self-organizing Map (SOM) to run all the cases recursively, sometimes millions of times, until it optimizes the separations among the groups. The SOM produced a 6-group solution, with each group having a dominant passion that is served well or poorly by the company, ranging from proclivity for deals and new brands to yearning for customization and connection with other users.
The AI has done the heavy lifting of scanning all that dataset, surfacing themes, and summarizing the respondents. It has done enough to structure the story of each group but not enough tell or paint the whole picture.
This is where the human researchers at Cascade Strategies step in. We came up with names for each group that best described their dominant passion, names resonant enough that they not only convey an immediate idea of what they’re most passionate about but makes them fundamentally relatable even if one doesn’t necessarily share the same propensities: Shopper, Seeker, Learner, Sharer, Individualizer and Intellectual.
In isolation, each group achieves the study’s goal of guiding the company on the most effective way to engage with them. Their sum, however, grants the company an overview on how to improve and further develop its platform by considering and introducing new features that matter to one particular group, but would essentially benefit its membership base as a whole when implemented. For example, the Sharer would appreciate increased opportunities to connect and interact with other experts and enthusiasts of the same interests in the platform by making it easier to make reviews and share content.
AI surfaced all those patterns and signals from all that survey data, but it lacked the judgment and context to elevate it into a meaningful and coherent narrative. Human researchers, on the other hand, saw what story can be told from all those themes and by layering in human understanding, they’re able to tie them down to actionable business decisions.
Image: Christina Morillo
Leveraging AI In Market Research
So would AI replace human researchers? We’d like to frame our response to this question with the words of Joseph Weizenbaum, one of AI’s early researchers: “We can count, but we are rapidly forgetting how to say what is worth counting and why.”
Yes, AI is powerful enough to handle large amounts of data to identify patterns, cluster themes, and summarize respondents, but it generates outputs rather than insights. Outputs foster decisions rooted in logic and reasoning, but insights spring from judgment and context. Outputs can provide directions and surface themes from which stories can be framed, but insights take it one step further by asking what matters and why it matters, adding depth and resonance to the story.
In addition, Weizenbaum posits that computer programming can make decisions but it can’t ultimately choose. Just like insights, choosing requires judgment which takes in emotions, values and experience.
We at Cascade Strategies are among a growing number of proponents who believe that AI works best as a tool and extension of human intelligence and talents. AI strips the friction from manual, repetitive work without compromising methodological rigor and accuracy, but rather than adopting it for the sake of automation, we choose to see it as a freeing and empowering agent that enables researchers to focus more on interpreting data with the context of human understanding and values, translating insights into sensible and confident business decisions. Just as quantitative and qualitative research can coexist in the same study, we choose to live in a world where AI and human researchers work together towards the same goal of finding and crafting meaningful and relevant stories worth telling.
Image: Pavel Danilyuk
Featured Image: Ron Lach
Top Image: kc0uvb
Dec
Can AI Replace Human Respondents In Qualitative Research?
jerry9789 0 comments artificial intelligence, Brand Surveys and Testing, Brandview World, Burning Questions
Like most industries these days, market research is no stranger to AI with its broad applications including the employment of synthetic respondents, which are individual profiles constructed by Large Language Models (LLMs) from real or simulated data. They offer fast, cheap, and scalable synthetic data that closely mimics how human participants would respond, a boon for quantitative research. But can synthetic respondents be just as effective in qualitative research? Can AI-powered profiles fully take over the role of human respondents in market research?
Image: Diana
Synthetic Respondents and Qualitative Research
L&E Research recently hosted a webinar sharing their findings and observations testing synthetic respondents across a variety of qualitative research tasks. They shared that AI characteristically produces quick, structured, and consistent surface-level insights. It does well with detecting macro trends in usage or preferences, concept screening if you need to compare multiple ideas at scale, and spot issues with survey testing. It is also capable of gap-filling or simulating missing segments from known data, as well as bulk analysis for summarizing large open-ends quickly.
The key takeaway L&E found is that AI can describe what people do, but it falls short of telling why people do it. AI fundamentally excels in following patterns, but it would struggle with finding out the emotional driver, the motivation behind certain responses. AI can match logic but it won’t be able to fill in tone, nuance nor context like human insight and experience can.
Most AI models are also built on public data and may not have access to knowing how real people would respond to certain questions. When the engineers tried to influence AI agents in the direction of how real participants would respond, it rejected this notion and firmly stood by the perspective formed from the vastness of public data.
Additionally, AI can be absolutely and confidently wrong. Synthetic data can look convincingly human but since AI relies on patterns instead of experience, the air of confidence it puts up doesn’t guarantee accuracy.
Of course, the hosts added a disclaimer that this is where synthetic respondents are at right now, as no one could tell how things could possibly be so much different in the years to come. But the continued utilization of AI in market research- or any other industry, for that matter- is inevitable thanks to the operational and executionary efficiency it grants, and that is enough reason to continue studying and developing synthetic respondents.
Image: Ron Lach
Why The Human Factor Matters
In market research, emotions matter and context counts. AI can prove to be a powerful partner but it is no replacement for lived insight or validation. Human researchers are simply going to remain essential.
AI’s inherent structure and consistency is representative of its pursuit of perfection; however, humans aren’t perfect, nor simple. Humans are emotional and oftentimes, irrational. AI participants would respond based on their perfect approximation of how a human being would, but the synthetic logic behind that would be narrower and more consistent, as it discounts the fact that humans are imperfect.
Humans also bring incredible complexity and a broader range of perception to the table. We can contradict ourselves, and this would be natural. One human participant’s perception and experiences could inform the difference in how they respond from the next, while synthetic data would be uniformly shaped by congruence and invariability, no matter how much effort or work is put into making AI come close to mimicking humanlike responses.
The complexity, variability, and randomness of human nature is desirable in qualitative research. The engineers recognized this and cautioned about overly guiding or influencing randomness in AI that it “will hard-code your picture of randomness to the point where it is no longer random.”
AI can quickly give you bulk analysis but you might not want to rush in bringing it to your stakeholders, as they would question and challenge the quality and reliability of synthetic data. Human insight continues to be vital and irreplaceable when it comes to trust, nuance, and real-world complexity in market research.
Image: Kathrine Birch
The Hybrid Approach
At the end of it all, the hosts made a point that the webinar wasn’t meant to scare people away from synthetic data but rather bring a valid conversation on when it makes sense to take advantage or steer clear of AI-generated personas. In fact, they recommended utilizing a hybrid approach of employing virtual respondents and recruiting human participants, striking a delicate balance between synthesis and empathy.
Synthetic data would be great during the early exploratory stages of market research when you want to get an initial pulse check, something quick and good enough before getting people involved. But once you’re at the point when you need to uncover the emotional driver behind responses and decisions, understand or predict behaviors, or even gain a bit more confidence and trust in your findings, that’s when you bring in your human respondents.
This all aligns not only with a recent growing trend of companies coming around from the AI hype of the last few years but also with our stance on the appropriate use of AI, where we advocate for the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence. Instead of handing AI complete reins over all aspects of a business- or in this case, all stages of research work- we at Cascade Strategies encourage the thoughtful and practical application of artificial intelligence in combination with or enhanced by human experience, values and discretion.
To find out how our brand of inspired and enlightened human thinking can help you with your market research needs, please contact us here.
Additional Reading:
Can Synthetic Respondents Take Over Surveys?
Featured Image: Darlene Anderson
Top Image: Michelangelo Buonarroti
May
As technology progresses, older tech is often rendered obsolete. This idea, known as creative destruction, can be applied to any industry and any technology. For an
easy example, just look at how a single smartphone has made obsolete digital cameras, CD players, watches, and a host of other technologies. The market research industry is not immune to creative destruction, and these five past staples of the industry are on their way out.
info@cascadestrategies.com
2032 Newport Way NW,
Issaquah, WA 98027
(425) 677-7430