The Research Liberation Front, by many discarded as an annoying, but harmless joke, yesterday took a major step towards being an important player in the development of our industry. In a debate about two burning issues that our industry is facing - and should deal with - the loosely formed organisation demonstrated that it is willing and able to be an alternative to the grumpy old men and women discussing ethical rules and guidelines in our large and inflexbile industry associations. Does it sound like the RLF has become a part of the establishement?
Proud sponsor of SMRN:s MRS congress and London coverage:
The Swedish Market Research Day
Don't let yourself be fooled by appearance. The usual tongue in cheek was there and the revolutionary recruiters (guys passing out invitations for the evening), managed to get in conflict with the MRS staff!
RLF also has no intention of setting up its own, competing, ethical rules, but deemed it proper to ask whether we as researchers are actually breaching the human rights of respondents or if opinion polls should really be covered by the ethical rules for market research.
Fiona, Steve and John put up a great show under the motto: a concept that would have been rejected by the MRS. Too bad so many shun real debate!
Kommandante John G outlined the issues, first regarding the human rights issues:
- Is it in the interest of respondents that clients have the right to remain unknown to them?
- Respondents have no formal possibility to obtain redress if he/she feels distressed by research participation.
- Respondents have no possibility to find out how his/her answers are actually used and what they lead to.
Then regarding research used for non-research purposes:
- How do we distinguish between bad questionnaire design and manipulative design?
- How should we handle opinion polls used in marginal constituencies where the aim is to change voter preferences?
- Can the divison between market research and sales really be upheld today, when research buyers are increasingly using vouchers as compensation for research participation?
Real, live respondents...Uuuh, scary!
The issues were then brilliantly debated by subcommandante Steve P and subcommandantissima Fiona B, of which one in turn took the role as the devils advocate. To his help, il Kommandante also had two real respondents, Lucia and Ann (whose real names are not disclosed for their own safety), to answer questions from their perspective.
Last but not least, the audience was let in to comment and to vote which one of the two main topics was the most important for the industry to tackle. The "non-research" problems took a landslide victory, which of course doesn't mean that the potential human rights problems are ruled out. The question is just whether it is we who are violating the respondents rights, or if it is actually the respondents who are the stronger part in this "battle".
We didn't manage to rock the boat, litteraly, but we sure tried.
Plenty of representatives from the large organisations had been invited, as well as the press, but no one dared come. No one but SMRN of course. Did we get to see history in the making? Perhaps. Did we have fun? Certainly. Will the debate go on? It sure deserves to.
Henrik Hall
SMRN