Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's webinar, Humanising the Research Experience. I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the various lands on which we meet today. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders, past, present and emerging, and extend the same acknowledgement to any First Nations attendees we have online today.
We're delighted to have the opportunity to host this webinar as part of the Queensland Marketing and Social Research Panel. We send a special hello to our Queensland attendees and congratulations on the win last night. League.
Yeah. My name's Kylie. I'm from Alan and Clark's Australian office.
Prior to joining Alan and Clark here in Melbourne, I worked across a number of agencies in Wellington in the UK. Since joining ANC, I've worked with our clients at Commonwealth and state level, including Queensland Health and the Department of Energy and Public Works. It's my pleasure to be hosting today alongside Emma and Tefadzwa, and I'll pass to them to introduce themselves.
Good morning, everyone, and thanks, Kylie. My name's Emma. I'm a Senior Consultant at Alan and Clark.
I've worked across federal, state and local government departments in Australia and in the UK and in a range of roles, primarily in relation to gender-based violence, primary prevention and community and public health. So I've delivered research across many different types of projects. I'll hand it to Tefadzwa.
Morning, everyone. My name's Tefadzwa and I'm a Senior Consultant at Alan and Clark. I've worked on a range of projects across different subject matter.
I've also worked in research roles across different institutions, particularly in the disability sector, but also in tertiary education. Back to you, Kylie. So today's topic is humanising the research experience, and we'll explain what we mean by that shortly.
But for some of you, this might be your first time joining us, so you might not be familiar with Alan and Clark. We're an Australasian consultancy dedicated to making a positive impact on communities throughout Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and the Pacific. Those areas of speciality include, unsurprisingly, research, evaluation, policy strategy, change management and programme delivery.
Before we get into the nuts and bolts of humanising the research experience, I'll just do a bit of housekeeping. You're very welcome to drop questions into the chat. We'll answer some of those as we go and we'll loop back to others in the Q&A at the end.
At the end of the session, you'll receive the video slides and some of our top tips in template form. To kick off today, I'm gonna ask Emma to explain what it is we mean by humanising the research experience. Thanks, Kylie.
So, for the purpose of today's session, humanising the research experience is about making the process enjoyable and safe for both your research participants, but also for you and your team of researchers. We wanna call out that there are, of course, some really critical parts of research such as ethics approval processes. We're not gonna be covering those today.
That's a topic of one or three on its own. And we'd also like to add, we're not covering culturally safe research in detail today, but that is, of course, a very important pillar of research and we advocate for doing specific training on that. And we've used the phrase safe and enjoyable.
Why is it important that these processes are safe and enjoyable? Yeah. So, ultimately, your goal is to maximise the input from your research participants and get as much reach as possible to make the research really valuable and worthwhile. And the best way to do that is if they and you and your team feel comfortable.
So, to give you an example, something I've learned over time is how much the physical and virtual environment can shape whether people feel safe to speak openly. In one project I was involved in, we had interviews that were being held from a government office, which was quiet and private, but it was still a really formal setting. And one participant shared with us afterwards that they felt nervous the whole time.
This was unusual for them. And so they were worried they were being assessed rather than listened to. So, since then, I've become much more intentional about where interviews happen, not just in terms of privacy, but also in terms of power dynamics.
So, if we're meeting in person with a participant, we might aim for a community-based or neutral space that those participants are familiar with. And when we're online, we take time to check in at the start, let people know that they have some control over the pace and reinforce that they can pause or stop at any time. So, it's not just about consent forms or support numbers, it's also about atmosphere, tone, and making sure people feel that they're in charge of their story.
So, that's why creating a safe and enjoyable research experience isn't just a nice-to-have, it's really fundamental to getting honest, rich input. When people feel relaxed and respected, they're more likely to open up. So, it shifts that dynamic from us studying them to a genuine exchange, which makes the research more meaningful for everyone involved.
So, that's a really important mindset shift. And so that leads to our five key reasons why it's important. Number one, co-creation.
These days, research isn't something we do to people, it's something we create with them because they know their world better than we do. Secondly, it's the social nature of research. We can't separate people's experiences from who they are or the world that they live in, and that's where the real insights come from.
Humanising the process allows us to get to the fundamental truths. Third, safety and wellbeing, as we've talked about. Humanising research means recognising and responding to the varied emotional impacts participation can have on people.
Even really seemingly simple topics can land differently for different people. We need to approach these with care and empathy. And respect and reciprocity.
When we treat research as a relationship and not a transaction, people will feel safe, valued, and much more willing to open up. And our fifth one is about looking to the future. What we're doing today and how we engage with these people shapes their willingness to participate in future research, either with you or potentially with others.
So, we want to make it a positive experience. So, that's our why. Now we're going to give you a bit of information about the how to humanise research.
Tofadzwa. We're only human. Generally, there are several strategies that a person can use to humanise the research process.
And at the centre of all of these strategies is that we actually see the people, who they are, and what they are looking for in this process. So, we demonstrate understanding, we demonstrate empathy, like Kylie said, we demonstrate appreciation for their time and what they've contributed. But we also respect the co-creation and the respect aspect of how they're actually contributing and experiencing the world, the social world that they're living in.
Now, I would have loved to explore with you all these different strategies. Unfortunately, time limitations. So, we have chosen a journey map to kind of visualise this process of the humanisation aspect of research.
So, essentially, the first step is always to know your audience. Knowing your audience means understanding who your audience actually are, as that crucial first step. Because what this allows is it helps you plan better.
It helps you make informed choices about the research. So, it's more like upstream investments that will lead to downstream savings. So, what it means is, you know, as you look to the future today, you are thinking about what strategies to put in place to collect the data, what strategies you're going to put in place to recruit participants, and also then looking into that future aspect, how you are going to share that research.
So, you make all of these decisions upstream. And, you know, I like to use examples. And I've got one particular, I know, Kylie, it's not one that is, you know, related to the work that we do at Allen Clark, but I think it's very informational in terms of, you know, illustrating this whole process.
So, this is IKEA when they were trying to break into the Asian market, particularly the Chinese market. And they realised they were making a loss, despite being a global company already. And the reason when they did take that step back to know their audience is, and through research, was that they actually found that the people there in those markets did not adopt the concept of DIY.
They did not like to do it yourself. They like to assemble their own, you know, furniture. Tufadzo really just wants you all to know that last night he assisted in building the table that we're standing in front of.
Emma, have you got an example that's closer to what we actually do? I do love DIY myself, but yes, I have an example. So, one example that came to mind was a project I was previously involved in where we were researching the experiences of new parents. So, people who literally had newborn babies at home.
We knew that they were, of course, sleep deprived, overwhelmed. They couldn't be expected to complete long surveys or sit through interviews. So, we designed a process that really stripped the research right back.
We sent a simple text message with a survey link, and it just had three questions. That was all. And we repeated that then every few months.
This method met people where they were at, it respected their capacity, and it actually helped us build a stronger picture over time without adding stress for those parents. Oh, you know, my bad. I'm only human, like I said.
That's why I brought the IKEA example. My example was still better though. But anyway, the second tip along this journey of humanising research, again, and you see that's the middle part, is empowering the people.
How do we empower people? This means that as we go along that research process, that research journey, we need to make accommodations for the people. It means we need to have ethical recruitment of people. So, what that means is we are looking through to make sure that everyone understands the scope at which they are participating and what that involves, so they make an informed choice.
It means we appreciate people's feelings because, like we said at the beginning, it's always about their social world. So, in as much as we as researchers are looking for as much information, as much data as we can from these people, but these are people experiencing a social world, a social reality, and that impacts them and their lives. So, we need to always be ethical in those approaches.
We also then go deeper in terms of that empowering process when you talk about reflexivity. You did it. Yeah, thank you very much.
But it's always acknowledging and hopefully then separating our own bias that we bring because we also have a social world. We also have social constructs, but also we have objectives that we want to achieve. So, we need to be reflexive enough to understand these biases and strip them out from this research process so we empower the people that we are engaging with.
So, just some tips when we are, say, for example, interacting with people in a humanistic way during an interview or focus group. So, for example, someone becomes distressed. That's not part of the plan, but because we empower people, we recognise that we are engaging with people, we need to pause the interview even if it is not part of our objectives.
We need to express concern and support. We need to also then validate people's feelings because they are experiencing something that is personal to them. We need to offer those participants either a break or a pause in the interview or just ending the option to end the interview or focus group altogether because we have empowered them in that regard.
If possible, we can provide contact details for support services to assist, for example, Lifeline, depending on the situation. We need to reassure them that always their well-being is the priority more than the data that we want to collect. And then at the very end, so this is that research journey, is what we call reciprocity.
Reciprocity means we are appreciating that people have taken the time to speak to us. We've acknowledged and empowered and appreciate what they've contributed, their experiences of the social world. So it means we also have to give back, right? Giving back is diverse.
It means we check on those participants that were distressed during engagement because that helps them feel like you saw them, you understood what they went through and you are also caring enough to actually check on them. It can be as simple as a phone call or a quick email. We need also then to accurately represent what people have said.
So often because we have our own objectives as researchers, we want to answer some fundamental questions that we think are important. We try to make what people have contributed fit into what our predetermined narrative, but that is not the humanising process. The humanisation process is always going back to those fundamental aspects of what people have actually said.
And lastly, we need to debrief participants about the outcomes of this research process. So either dissemination or going back to them and providing them with a simplified report if it's confidential enough, but it helps close this loop in the research process. And we've talked a bit about doing right by the person.
And one of the questions that we've had in from attendees, so thank you to Sarah for this one. What's the best way to keep to a time limit when you have to do interviews and doing that without pressuring people? Yeah, that's a really good question. So some simple tips are to acknowledge with your participants at the outset how much time you have available and perhaps provide them with a bit of a breakdown of how you intend to use that time through the session.
Agree at the start with participants that you might occasionally need to move things along and that's not because you don't value what they might want to share, but it's important to ensure that you and the participant get what you need from the session. And this is really important, particularly in focus groups where there are multiple people that you want to hear from. Using tools like a parking lot are really effective as well.
And people can see that you have heard what they've said and it's been captured, but you can use then phrases like that's really important information, but in the interest of time, can we move to the next question and then come back to that if there's time. And in the interest of time, we're going to move to the next slide. Sometimes the best lessons I think for all of us are from those whoops moments where you think, well, I really don't want to do that again.
Emma, have you got an example of something that didn't go so well and that has contributed to our what not to do list? Yep, sure. So something that I've seen a bit and have experienced myself previously is where focus groups were scheduled at times that simply don't work for the target group that you're researching. They might be carers, parents, shift workers.
So an example is that we had a project where we ran a midday session for carers that on paper that looked fine, but in practise we had low attendance and the people that came were clearly distracted. So it just didn't work. It actually reminds me though, this is not IKEA related by the way, but it actually reminds me that there was a project that we were trying to engage with volunteers and we again organise those engagements during the day thinking, oh, this is actually a flexible time.
There are volunteers at the end of the day, but we met a very key stakeholder at the very beginning or it was midway. And they actually helped us realise that volunteers actually people were also working full time as well and have other commitments. So meeting them at the right place and at their own convenience was important.
So at the end of the day, long story short, we then managed to pivot and offered some times outside that regular nine to five, outside work, regular work hours. And we had a boost of engagement and over 50%, just nice. And you've done the same.
Yes, we were doing some research with players from sporting clubs. And so we scheduled evening focus groups that were right before their training sessions, which really helped with attendance as well. And wore active wear.
Of course. Blend in. Another pattern I think that we've sometimes seen and something that we caution clients against is putting people with lived experience in the same room as the service providers or the policy staff, particularly during a focus group type session.
And sort of going to Emma's example earlier of having interviews at the government agency. I think even with the best intentions, those power dynamics are real and people don't necessarily feel safe or empowered to speak freely. So we generally recommend separate sessions, even if the topic is the same, and it gives space for those people to have a really authentic dialogue and not worry about their status or perceived status in the system.
So what I'm hearing though, is that always these power dynamics can come in play in different circumstances. So for example, just in an interview room where you sit at the head of the table, gives different power dynamic concerns for different people and different groups. So always again, knowing that your audience is always the best way.
But anyway, every researcher does have a story like that. And the key thing is always to learn from it. So I assume you're not going to schedule different engagements with other people during the day? So we like to always make a snappy manageable list of what not to do.
So our key learnings anyway. So first, do not be the expert. Always remember that you are listening to people's stories.
We've got a better understanding of the social world and social environment. So they are the experts actually. Do not misrepresent what the commitment.
So do not tell people that it's going to be a 10 minute focus group, whereas you actually know in reality and practise, it's going to be an hour. Do not over promise what their contributions are actually going to lead to. So don't go and say, we are going to change the policy in as much as that is the intention.
But always understand that there are limitations to what we can do with the research that we also implement. Always don't listen to one voice like mine. Always remember that at times there are different power dynamics again at play, but also that people are different.
So sometimes the most vocal person is not always the person to contribute the most important things. Quieter voices also carry a punch, which is important to hear. Don't make assumptions and hear what you want to hear because we've got our own objectives.
Do not fail to give feedback. We go to that last step in that journey map and don't be ungrateful regardless of the fact that you did not hear what you thought you were going to hear or you wanted to hear, but always say thank you at least. So thank you.
Thank you. Here's a live question. So a question from Alice.
Thanks, Alice. How do you balance the need for risk coverage with making people feel safe to speak? E.g. a curly topic, you may send someone high up the chain like a GM or CE, but that might make people feel nervous. Oh, that is a good question.
Let's unpack it a bit. Do you want to take that one to Fudzma? Or we could come back to it if you want to think about it. I'm going to make the call.
We've talked quite a bit about feedback loops. And I think in our experience working across government, often that's the toughest one to navigate and it can have a real impact on the ability to humanise the research experience. So Emma, I know we've got quite a few people from government online.
What advice would you give them when they're thinking about feedback loops? Yes, we do come across this often, especially in government settings where approvals and timelines are often out of your control. So one of the most important things you can do is be really upfront with participants from the start about what will happen with the research findings to Fudzma's point about not over-promising. And then also follow through, even if circumstances change.
So for example, if a full report is not going to be published or there's been a delay, just letting people know is really valuable. In my experience, it's not the lack of a final product that breaks trust with your participants, it's silence. So a simple plain language summary or a quick update can go a really long way.
And if you can, within your organisation, advocate early for some kind of feedback loop, even if it's a one-pager or a quick email. It doesn't have to be polished, but it shows that people's input mattered and that there've been partners in the process, not just data sources for the research. We have hit the time where we will come to questions.
So one of you better be coming up with a good answer for that earlier one. And keep adding questions to the chat. If we can't get to everything today, we'll come back to you separately.
So Sarah, thank you for your question. And we've covered some of this a bit about unintentional bias, but that's exactly what Sarah's asking. How do you account for unintentional bias in the process? Yeah, it's a good question because we all have bias.
It's part of being human, but what matters is being aware of it and taking steps to check it. So that means doing things like asking who's been included? How are our questions framed? Do people feel safe to speak honestly? And the best way to do that is to test or brainstorm with colleagues or other people involved in the research and ask who or what might we be missing. So asking those questions of your participants can be really helpful as well.
They will have ideas about where you might be able to talk to more people. It creates that snowball effect that helps you reach more people or insights that you might not have thought of before. And on the theme of sort of questions that you're asking, so Christina asks us, how can I word questions so I find the answers I'm looking for? And we're presuming Christina means finds the relevant information she's looking for as opposed to a preconceived answer.
Yeah, I'll take that. Actually, so the best way is always to pre-design, you know, pre-test. So always inform the decisions that you make about the design of your questions through literature and other sources that you utilise to, you know, get to those questions.
But then importantly, pre-test your instruments. So it could be a survey instrument, it could be a focus group or interview guide, but just pre-test with maybe a sample of participants that you think you're actually going to want to engage with because that allows you to make those provisions, to make some adjustments, to see, you know, have that sample of what actually flavour is coming out of these instruments. And doing that with a range of people too as well.
Thank you, James, for this question. How do I stop people getting off topic in focus groups? And I think, you know, some of what you've talked about already around when you keep into time, James, and you're using some of that stuff, you know, that's really interesting, but let's put it in the parking lot or maybe we can loop back to it later. But it's always a challenge.
I don't think I've been in any focus group where someone hasn't just decided to share something maybe interesting, maybe not interesting, but irrelevant. Any other tips? Yeah, actually, it is. Well, you know, again, we are always trying to get to that end objective of getting the information and data that we want, but also remember that people are actually sharing their experiences as well.
So it may affect them differently. So while, yes, we want to keep things moving along, but it's always about the language as well that we utilise in that process. So it's not being dismissive, right? It's always like Kylie said, oh yeah, can we revisit this? Oh, can we unpack this first before we get back to that? But it's always that empowering language where someone has been heard, but also then appreciates that we need to discuss certain other things before we move on.
Another tip that I would give is not making your focus groups too big. Four to six really is really as big as you want a focus group. Otherwise, that just, yeah, exactly.
And it's really hard to manage all those voices. And I think some of that actually, so Alice's questions back team. So that's the one that how do you balance the need for risk coverage with making people feel safe to speak? So you may see someone high up the chain like a GM or CE, but that might make people feel nervous.
And I think a number of the things that we've talked about through the Q&A already are the things you need to do. So that's really, really thinking about even just the setup of the room and who that person is, the way in which you introduce people as well. So not making a big deal necessarily about the fact it is the chief executive or something like that.
And also potentially offering multiple ways to give that feedback. So if it's a face-to-face scenario and that you're designing the research and you think by having that person in the room, you won't get everything you need, offering that chance for either a follow-up conversation, a follow-up email, just another way to give that input. And there are lots of people who prefer to sit in a focus group and think, and then go away and provide their thoughts.
And that's not because they're not super engaged, it's just they've got a different way of contributing and you need to be aware of that. Something else that I think also works in that regard is always if you do have an understanding of who's coming to focus groups or who you are trying to engage with in the first place, there can be opportunities to group people differently. So offering different sessions for different groups of people also allows you to then mitigate some of this risk because you've grouped like-minded people, people who don't then have to feel that obligation.
And depends also on the topic because if you're engaging about a sensitive topic about a programme that was implemented within the department or organisation, that may be critical or reflect critically on the general manager. Yes, there are those power dynamics in play. So how do you group those people differently so that lower level stakeholders or stakeholders in a particular position can contribute fairly and without that risk of intimidation.
One more tip I thought of with that is using tools like post-it notes as well and encouraging people during sessions. If thoughts come to them or they don't feel comfortable vocalising at that point, writing down their thoughts. And that can be a nice way also for people to be able to really think through their perspective on questions.
You might even be able to then use a method where you're collecting post-its notes, but if there is somebody like a CEO in the room, they don't know where those contributions have come from and you as the facilitator can raise what's being said and ask people to help unpack. And I think too, I think the point here around risk coverage is really important. So do you really, is that the best risk management approach having that person in the room? Is that genuinely what you need? Or as a researcher, can you be a bit bold with the higher ups and say, look, I actually don't think that's gonna help, help us get what we need.
And the greater risk is not getting the information we need and putting off some of your participants. So Alice, I hope that helped and we're really happy to look back round with you if we didn't quite get there. And now we've got a question from Sonia.
So this is a cool one. We're doing a bit of this at the moment with Alan Clark about ensuring that you've got the experience and perceptions of young people aged 12 to 18, how you make sure they're sufficiently reflected within a research project or evaluation. Yep, so I think as you say, Sonia, young people are a diverse group, their age, gender, culture, location, their ability and life experience all shape how they see the world.
So we have to plan for that from the start. So if possible, get some input from the young people you're looking to engage with as part of your research design process, which gives you a better sense of what matters to them, what kind of language and methods might resonate and what would feel safe. I'm gonna assume that you've got ethics clearance of course, in engaging with young people, but based on that, I think it's really important to build in a range of methods.
And back to that example around young parents as well, meeting people where they're at. So not everyone wants to do a survey, not everyone wants to speak in a big group, offering multiple methods like one-on-one chats, maybe voice notes, if the group you're working with like to communicate in that way. Survey responses by text might also work.
I'd actually run a project during my university degree where I went to a skate park because I was interviewing young people as part of my research then. And it was a really good method. I've of course had my consent forms and all of those things, but it worked really well to meet young people where they were at and build trust with them from the start.
It actually reminds me of a time when we were trying to engage with young people as well. And we brought little things like fidget spinners, Legos, and it actually hit so well that they actually enjoyed. The downside is I still have some Legos left over.
Yeah, I play with them. And let's see what else have we got. And I think, sorry, just going back.
Tarita also asked, yeah, I guess suggestions on best to engage. So I think we've covered that around how to best to engage youth in research and consultation, but I'll probably just add too that never assume. So I think we've done it, and this is at both ends of the age spectrum, I guess, whether you think, oh, if I'm going to engage with youth, it needs to be online, or if I'm going to engage with the population, an older population, they won't be doing things online, but you shouldn't assume that because you just don't know what someone's preferences are.
So that's a big thing. And as much as I think sometimes we find the ethics committee process is quite difficult, those processes do make you really step out and think about what those things are going to look like for your different population groups. It also helps, for example, if you just give people an option to what type of engagement they actually want to.
Usually, again, to that point of, it applies across the age spectrum, but always giving people a choice is always important in that process as well. And asking those young people where you might be able to find more. Where do you find more young people? No, I mean, the people you're talking to, if they are part of the target group, they can also help you.
So we've learned today that sports clubs and skateboarding is where Emma would like to do more research. So let us know if you've got any gigs at the skate park, we'll come and help you. On that note, we have run out of time today to answer all of the questions that have come through, but we're really happy to catch up with you to discuss any further questions that you might have or to support you further.
You've got our details now and we've got yours. So we look forward to seeing you at a future webinar and thank you very much for joining us today.
