Research

Qualitative isn't soft

Our center of gravity is qualitative research, because we believe that talking to people is still the most durable way to surface contradiction, context, motivation, and forward-looking thinking.

Ironically, the one of the issues that makes quantitative research a challenge today (AI), is the same thing that unlocks the power of wide-based, census-level qualitative research. It makes it possible to analyze interview transcripts quickly, detect points of emphasis, and see patterns of agreement and disagreement without relying on memory, selective recall, or one's own biases. We can also extend qualitative beyond interviews by analyzing real behavioral artifacts, like sales calls, CRM transcripts, or interviews. 

Surveys have to sanitize and constrain. They force a messy reality into fixed answers and reward hindsight. And it isn't like people who run surveys want it to be that way. But, they also have to get completions. 

Interviews had to seed and lead to get viable answers, and limited ability to evaluate large data sets meant being intentionally reductive in sample size. Asking a salesperson to give themes from their prospects over the last quarter inevitably failed because we should've been asking their prospects directly (or evaluating it passively through call recordings). 

Eliminating the need for second-hand recollection and opening the aperture for the number of people who could be interviewed and fairly analyzed turns qualitative research into a stronger tool. 

We keep the mess because the mess contains the truth. We then impose structure after the fact, in a way that preserves the reality instead of flattening it.