“For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.” –Margaret Heffernan
Debate has been a classic method in qual research and in intellectual pursuits more generally. There’s a fundamental power in arguing your case – not just in the thrilling moment where you realize you’ve possibly “won”, but also in the time, effort, and care you’ve taken in crafting a skillful argument. It can feel empowering to have a platform to express yourself and your views and to fight passionately for what you believe. People want to be heard, and in being heard, change others’ hearts and minds.
As most qual researchers know, debate can sometimes fall flat, especially when there’s only one respondent involved. But reviving debate in a lively and creative way can illuminate emotionally powerful perspectives on brands, products, and categories. It can ignite passion and electrify what could otherwise be dull questions to discover what people feel about consumer journeys and decision-making.
Making choices as consumers, becoming loyal to a brand, and being open to trying new products or brands are not things experienced in a vacuum. Consumers are strongly influenced by others – by the people in their lives, by the ads they see, the influencers they follow. We also influence others in significant ways by our loyalty and consistency in decision-making. It’s in debate that we can understand how influence works at a more fundamental level. Where we can uncover what details matter the most, what communications are most convincing, and what, perhaps surprisingly to brands, might not matter as much for consumers.
We believe that innovation and inspiration can arise from debate, and who better to spark this creativity and imagination than consumers themselves? As we reflect on the ways we incorporate debate into our own research, here are a few ideas we have for accessing debate-inspired richness and detail:
Inflame and provoke.
This is a place where the “Some people say…” device for question creation can be enormously useful. As an example, in a study where you’re recruiting diehard loyalists to a particular brand, you could say, “Some people say this brand is dead, that they would choose literally any other brand over this one, and that people who choose this brand don’t have good taste.” You’ve set up an opponent, you’ve said something inflammatory, and the person is compelled to respond passionately. You get at the nitty gritty details of why someone is loyal to a brand, what the brand’s core strengths are, and how to communicate that – inspired by respondents’ own words – in marketing comms.
Challenge respondents to take the opposite position.
Empathy is about understanding and feeling the emotions and perspective of others. Debate is an access point for this kind of understanding. Prompt participants to take the position opposite their own on a hot-button topic, perception of a brand, or trend. It’s easier to argue for what we already believe in; it doesn’t take us out of our comfort zone. We can argue our point without even listening to the perspective of the other person, having our case carefully laid out ahead of time through preparation or simply habit, without being open to really hearing someone else. Arguing for the perspective opposite your own takes thought, research, consideration, and at a deeper level, an empathetic exploration of not only what a person different from them thinks but why they think that way.
Ask participants to argue with themselves.
This technique takes on a highly effective role-playing dimension, and it’s especially evocative when asking respondents to make video content for their response. Ask them to pause and think about two distinct people – their personalities, their affects, and their positions on the issue at hand. Then ask them to role-play both sides. They argue from these two perspectives, illuminating the nuances of each argument, channeling the quirks and personalities of these opponents. They lose themselves in these characters and the results form incredibly rich pitch theater, as well as being a treasure trove for qual analysis. In the process, participants often find themselves changed, willing to take – or at least respect – positions different from their own. In essence, engaging in debate can be a vehicle for change and finding common ground.