Revisiting research priorities for data,market research,and insights

In March 2020, this journal published a list of research priorities (Nunan, 2020). The purpose was to inspire and guide potential authors and provide a barometer of what was important in research practice. This proved to be one of the most widely read articles of 2020 and generated much feedback, both in agreement and disagreement. The high levels of readership for papers that touched on themes from this research agenda demonstrates the relevance of such a list. The original aim was to update research priorities periodically to reflect changes in practice. At the time the editors felt it was unlikely that enough would have changed in a year to justify an update in 2021. As with many predictions made in the early part of 2020, we were wrong.

Research practice is characterized by evolutionary change over time, cautiously adopting and integrating new technologies while maintaining a core base of knowledge. Given this, why is an updated research agenda necessary now? One reason is that if the impact of COVID has shifted this equilibrium and sped up change, then it is worth some reflection on the changes authors should focus on. A second reason is that in asking for feedback on research priorities the way respondents define priorities has changed.

Research practice has always maintained a certain distance and independence from the products, services, and consumers that it seeks to understand. This brings with it benefits and strengths—market research and insight has remained relatively immune to the waves of hype that infect so much of marketing thought. Whether relating to hype about new technologies or the impact of the latest generational trends, researchers have maintained a healthy skepticism. As a result, requests for suggestions for research priorities typically produce responses that focus on micro-level phenomena—for example, developing better methods and analytical techniques, integrating new technologies, and understanding ethics or policy issues relevant to research projects. By contrast, responses this year have seen a broader concern around the macro level role of insight in society. Two categories of response stood out. The first was unease about the relationship between the research sector and major technology firms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google. This unease goes beyond long-standing fears about privacy to concern over the societal harm caused by ‘big tech’ and the implications of association with these firms. The second is a more positive view of the power of insight to actively benefit societies emerging from a pandemic, for example, ensuring inclusivity in research and developing understanding of the impact of the COVID pandemic on younger people.

Therefore, we present an updated research agenda. The challenge with presenting research priorities as a list is the implication of a homogeneous worldview. Reflecting the differing opinions from respondents in this year’s research agenda, the priorities are presented both by theme and by level, distinguishing between micro—project- or industry-level themes—and macro themes that consider the external environment. As with previous research agendas, readers should be aware that it is a set of themes based on the perceptions of a diverse group of stakeholders. Finally, this is not a list of topics the Editorial Board believes should be published, but rather a list of broader problems that practitioners feel are priorities for them, and by extension scholarly research would benefit from considering.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Themes	Micro level (project or industry)	Macro level (external environment)
Techniques	• Safety and the perceived willingness of respondents to take part in face-to-face research in an environment where there is ongoing concern over public health. • Embedding inclusivity and diversity into research techniques (e.g., through sampling or more representative panels).	• What happens when the online world replaces the offline world. How can we use research technologies to understand this phenomenon? • Addressing p-values, p-hacking, and the reproducibility crisis in research, particularly in the context of growing use of null-hypothesis testing in marketing practice and the implications for trust in research.
Technology	• Adaptation of technologies to recreate the benefits and engagement of face-to-face research in a virtual context.•  Developing exploratory research techniques based on non-text communication, including video or photos.	• The role of technology in automating data collection and analysis, and its ability to replace human researchers.
People	• Ensuring the research sector can attract the right people with the right skills and win the ‘War for Talent’. • Research and insight has growing credibility with senior decision makers. What can be done to even better integrate insights and evidence based decision making into board level decision making?	• How can the insight sector help shed light on the rapid behavior changes we have witnessed this year?• Addressing issues with public perception of the industry and creating a more positive view of insight.
Ethics and Policy	• Understanding when lower cost online panels and services such as MTurk exploit research participants.• Children and young people have been affected most by the COVID pandemic. How can insight inform this?	• Conducing political research in a fake news, social media, post-truth era. • Addressing the dependency of the insight sector on the data provided by big tech companies. As society becomes increasingly wary of ‘big tech’ should insight professionals also be more wary?
Economics	• Understanding technologies that can be applied to lower the cost of research projects without harming the quality of insights.	• Demonstrating the value of research in a resource constrained environment. • Reorienting the research sector to meet the needs of growing economies, for example, in Asia.

MTurk: Mechanical Turk.