As for suggesting that I might want to believe that all researchers are nerds, I think I made it clear in my post where I stand on the matter. I do not even think that “most” (as you originally stated, Peter) researchers are nerds and that the best researchers certainly are not. I’m a bit disappointed that you chose to focus on the misquote rather than the content of the message which was written in good faith. It seems incongruous to me to call for creativity on the one hand, and nitpick on the other.

Furthermore, I take offense at your statement that “that once you are misquoted, you then are frequently misquoted”. I see only one reference to the statement after my original post. In my book “once” is not a synonym for “frequent”.

I would like to thank all of you who have expressed a willingness to work on this issue. I am meeting with Ed Sugar in August about putting together a program/workshop, and will be in touch with those you indicated a willingness to help.

This reminds me of one of my first visits to Silicon Valley as an online researcher. It was sometime toward the end of the last century. We were meeting with a client and describing how our process worked. I asked the client if she was online (in 1997 you had to ask), and proceeded to bring up our online demo.

She remarked, “So, you’re the geek.” I didn’t know how to take that.

That evening at dinner a friend asked how my meeting went that day. I told her about the “geek” comment and she exclaimed. “That’s great. This is Silicon Valley. The geeks are the ones who make all the money!”

I haven’t worried about being called a “geek” or a “nerd” ever since.

We created it, we can fixit.

Okay, so “fixit” isn’t one word but count me in on any group that evolves from this. I think it’s a hurdle we can clear if we can get momentum.

I continuously preach simple and fun in my organization. We still have work to do, but in less than a year I’ve gone from fighting to reduce the length and complexity in the work we do to having internal clients first telling me that we have to “keep it under 10 minutes.” I know it’s working when I hear my words coming back at me.

Additionally, today’s internet surveys are still affected by bandwith issues for many and the reluctance to download any client-side programs. There is a delicate balance between “being taken seriously” vs. too much graphical/gaming content vs. interview length vs. boredom vs. respondents that are awake.

We have been conducting several research on research studies looking at simple ideas such as inclusion of a picture of an interviewer during a survey and MaxDiffs questions instead of rank-order questions. Such techniques have improved respondent “satisfaction” as well as test / retest validity.

Professor Vicki Morwitz just presented a paper at this years ART (Advanced Research Techniques – AMA) on the value of priming questions to improve respondent attention. The more granularity of answers you give respondents in the first few questions can influence how careful respondents are in answering the entire survey.

I agree interviews must improve and engage the respondents. Sometimes simple measures can be effective. I have seen many studies where it is obvious that the questionnaire was put together by committee and every department put in their two cents. The result of such questionnaires is respondent abuse. We can do better as an industry.

And for those who expressed concern above about bias, thoroughness, etc.: you are right to include these on the list of obstacles to be addressed. Hopefully folks will focus more on how to address those obstacles instead of simply accepting them as reasons not to try!

As someone who entered this field by way of documentary filmmaking and corporate communications, and as a writer and photographer, married a fine artist, and I ride a Harley, etc etc – I might say that although I may be one of the more creative types in this business, I have met some very right brained folks in my almost 20 years.

Who we are in background and experience and ethnography is what makes us what we are in whatever our vocation. It is our responsibility to stretch our arms and mind to the world, large and small. If the world were all creatives, we’d yearn for beancounters and they would be popular (i know heaven forbid).

In the big picture of our work, whether quantitative or qualitative, my encouragement and slant has always been to know your audience and build your house on that – a boring CPA will never “get into” a creative questionaire, whether on paper, on line, in person, or on the phone.

Your research is only as dull as you want to make it so if you don’t want dull, sharpen the pencil (or use a crayon). I have heard you speak several times Peter; you are not a dull guy in the least bit, so please take it easy on yourself.