Which qualitative method is right for you?

Now that you know the benefit of qualitative research, let’s investigate how to conduct it. Here are four of the top qualitative research methods most customer-centric teams leverage with their quantitative methods:

1. Remote unmoderated: In these self-guided studies, you create a series of tasks and questions, then submit them to a group of participants, either from a panel like the UserTesting Contributor Network or by recruiting your audience directly. Participants complete remote unmoderated tests in their own time, in their environment, on a desktop computer or mobile device.
2. Remote moderated: In these video interviews with your target audience, you have a one-on-one video conversation with your participant from your respective locations. Your discussion can be as structured or organic as you please, allowing you to explore more complicated tasks like navigating a non-functional prototype or getting feedback on an early-stage concept or idea.
3. In-person moderated: You conduct a one-on-one conversation with your subject in person. Similar to remote moderated studies, in this type of study, you can choose to stick to a script or ask free-form questions and probe deeper as needed. 
4. Focus groups: You conduct an in-person conversation with participants. These studies are generally used to explore the target market’s feelings and opinions about a brand or experience.

With a remote unmoderated study, you create a series of tasks and questions using some type of survey or user research software. Participants complete the study on a computer or mobile phone unsupervised and in their own time. 

Since questions and tasks are set, this style of testing is better for getting feedback on a more contained scenario, such as completing a certain goal or activity on a website. It’s also helpful for getting a user’s opinion about something specific. 

For this reason, remote unmoderated studies are commonly used for products closer to the end of the product development cycle or campaigns about to launch. You can also use it on live digital experiences, such as your current website or even a competitor’s website, to gauge audience reaction and understand perception.

Pros and cons of remote unmoderated studies

Pros

• Low time commitment: Since these studies are completed asynchronously, you don’t have to do anything after launching the study. It’s great if you need feedback and are short on time or resources. It also supports getting feedback from a larger number of people. 
• No geographic limit: Since it’s conducted using software, you can connect with people across the globe. This minimizes local bias and allows you nearly limitless access to your target audiences.
• Removes moderator bias: Since the participant’s name and face aren’t recorded or shared, you can secure truly anonymous feedback. 
• Conducive to honest, unfiltered feedback: By participating in their native environment and at a convenient time, study participants don’t feel like they are “being watched,” putting them more at ease to share their thoughts and opinions openly.
• Lower cost: Since studies are completed remotely and without supervision, this is one of the lowest-cost methods for securing qualitative insights, especially from more people.

Cons

• Fixed questions and tasks: Because elements of your study are set, you don’t have the opportunity to delve further into a participant’s response if they happen to say something interesting or confusing while completing the study. Similarly, if the participant’s response diverges from what was expected, you cannot redirect or get them back on track. 
• More difficult for some scenarios: Since this is completed unsupervised, getting feedback on early, non-functioning prototypes or concepts may be harder, which can confuse some test participants. Additionally, you cannot troubleshoot technical concerns or answer questions immediately.
• Bias toward more tech-savvy audiences: Since participants must be able to use technology independently, it may skew the audience base toward certain personas or demographics.

Live Conversation is UserTesting’s remote interview solution. Learn more.

An in-person interview entails a live and face-to-face conversation with your study participant. 

Since interviews are open-ended, flexible, and dynamic, they are great for doing discovery interviews or learning about customer pain points and other information in a conversational manner. 

Meeting in-person means that you can guide the participant through a digital experience, such as prototypes or “top secret” projects, to address any questions or points of confusion. You can also get feedback on physical products or experiences, such as unboxing an item.

Pros and cons of in-person moderated one-on-one interview studies

Pros

• More open opportunities for gathering insight: You can build a relationship by encouraging participants to open up more, especially if the topic is sensitive or personal. The free-form conversation also allows you to probe to uncover deeper layers of information. 
• Fully observe non-verbal responses: View your subject’s facial reactions and body language—from head to toe—which account for 93% of communication. 
• Full control over items shared or shown: Since it’s done in person, you can share and control access to specific products, including physical products or items still in development and thus top secret.

Cons 

• Higher risk of moderator bias: Unlike unmoderated options, the presence of a moderator naturally injects bias into the interaction through his/her facial, bodily, or verbal reactions, demographic status, or other physical attributes, which can impact outcomes. 
• Moderator costs: Compared to unmoderated options, studies that require the presence of a moderator will incur higher labor costs.
• High operational costs or risk of geographical bias: Recruiting local candidates can result in uniformity in feedback due to geographic bias. Bringing in participants incurs high costs, including travel and accommodation, as needed.
• Longer lead times: Compared to remote options, in-person studies take much longer from start to finish. Recruiting and scheduling participants can often take weeks.

No shows: If you have reserved a lab or other on-site location and hired a moderator for the interview, participants canceling unexpectedly can mean wasted resources and lowered productivity.

Focus groups allow you to gather feedback directly from subjects. The group setup, where up to 10 participants are matched with a moderator, provides operational and cost benefits by enabling in-person conversations at scale.

The group setting can positively or negatively impact the insights gathered, which should be considered in advance. It’s excellent for encouraging debate or brainstorming ideas; however, it can also lead to groupthink or the conversation being swayed by a dominant or very opinionated participant. Being in-person means, you can also get feedback on physical products.

Pros and cons of in-person focus groups

Pros

• Lower cost and time commitment: Focus groups are typically made up of 10 or fewer individuals matched up with one moderator, which allows for real-time insights gathering at scale. 
• Group dynamics can enhance the quality and volume of insight: Participants can work together to brainstorm or riff off one another to develop new ideas, stories, or feedback to share. 
• Encourages debate or consensus: The group setting is ideal for exploring differing views and encouraging discussion or debate, especially if you have cultivated a diverse group of people.
• Full control over items shared or shown: Since it’s done in person, you can share and control access to specific products, including physical products or items still in development and thus top secret.

Cons

• Group dynamics can impact the quality of insight: A group setting might drive similarity in feedback (due to groupthink or dominant personalities) or reluctance to share, given the sensitivity of the information.
• High operational costs or risks of geographic bias: Recruiting local candidates can result in uniformity in feedback due to geographic bias. Bringing in participants incurs very high costs in the thousands of dollars, including travel and accommodation as needed.
• Longer lead times: Compared to remote options, in-person studies take much longer from start to finish. Recruiting and scheduling participants, it can often take weeks. 

No show: If you have reserved a lab or other on-site location and hired a moderator for the interview, participants canceling unexpectedly can mean wasted resources and lowered productivity.

Qualitative research methods are great for hearing from your customers, in their own words, what is working, what is not working, and what they like, want, and expect. It’s a great complement or addition to quantitative research, offering you more context or explanation about why something is happening or the thinking and decision-making process that goes into your customers’ actions. 

The first step in selecting the right qualitative method is considering your goals and constraints. This can include what you want to get feedback on, like is it pretty confined or expansive? and your limitations, including time and resource constraints.

Finally, if you want to understand these research methods better to determine the best option for the insights you require, you can always reach out to the UserTesting team for advice and guidance.