10 Takeaways from Marni Martens’ Live Event on Asynchronous Qualitative Research
In the June 9th Live Event, qualitative research pro Marni Martens shared a practical look at how asynchronous qualitative research has evolved, where it fits, and how researchers can use it thoughtfully alongside other methods. Here are her top 10 take-aways:
- Asynchronous qual is no longer just “bulletin board focus groups.” Marni noted that when she first began using asynchronous methods, they were largely text-based bulletin boards. Today, these platforms can support richer participant responses, including text, photos, video, screen recordings, and other task-based inputs.
- It is especially useful when the research needs to capture behavior in context. One of Marni’s examples involved a subscription-based product where participants documented the experience over several months. They captured the opening/unboxing experience, recorded videos as they used the product, and shared how their perceptions changed over time.
- Mobile diaries can reveal moments that are hard to recreate in a live interview. Marni emphasized that some experiences unfold over days, weeks, or months. A single IDI or focus group may miss those moments. With mobile diaries, participants can share what is happening closer to the moment it happens.
- Asynchronous methods can reduce reliance on participant recall. Because participants can respond while they are doing, seeing, shopping, opening, using, or reacting to something, asynchronous qual can reduce some of the recall bias that comes with asking people to reconstruct experiences later.
- The method can work well for busy or hard-to-reach audiences. Marni described asynchronous participation as helpful for people with busy schedules, including parents, business decision-makers, and other participants who may not be easy to gather at the same time for a live session.
- It can give each participant more individual “airtime.” Marni made the point that in a 90-minute focus group, each participant shares the time with everyone else. In an asynchronous study, each participant may have more opportunity to contribute fully, especially when the study is structured across several days.
- It can be designed as private, social, or a mix of both. Marni noted that asynchronous methods can be set up to collect one-on-one-style responses, or they can allow participants to see and respond to each other’s comments. That choice should be driven by the research objectives.
- It often works well as part of a mixed-method design. Marni described using asynchronous methods alongside live interviews or quantitative research. For example, a short live interview might be used upfront to build rapport and explain expectations before participants begin a mobile diary.
- It is not ideal for every research objective. Marni cautioned that asynchronous methods are less useful when real-time probing is essential, when stimuli are complex, or when ambiguity in the task instructions could compromise the quality of the data.
- AI can help, but researchers still play the central role. Marni discussed how AI is increasingly being used for transcription, coding, theme extraction, sentiment analysis, conversational tasks, AI-assisted analysis, and reporting support. Her larger point was that technology can make researchers more efficient, it does make mistakes, and does not replace the need for thoughtful research design, interpretation, and strategic judgment.
In a 55-minute session, Marni could not cover every possible way to design asynchronous qualitative research projects. One area worth highlighting is that many online qual platforms, including Recollective, dscout, and Sago’s QualBoard, can support activities that go far beyond basic Q&A. These features can help participants show, sort, react, compare, and create, not just answer questions.
For example, imagine a study about kitchen remodeling. Instead of asking, “What matters most when planning a kitchen remodel?” a researcher could use:
- Card sorting: Participants could sort cards such as storage, counter space, lighting, appliance quality, resale value, family gathering space, ease of cleaning, and budget control into groups such as “must have,” “nice to have,” and “not important.” This helps reveal priorities and tradeoffs.
- Image markup: Participants could look at kitchen photos and mark the areas they find appealing, confusing, impractical, or inspiring. This can uncover reactions that participants may not naturally verbalize in a standard open-ended response.
- Ranking or prioritization: Participants could rank several kitchen layouts, finishes, storage solutions, or appliance packages and explain why they put one ahead of another. This adds structure while still preserving the “why” behind the choice.
- Photo or video diary tasks: Participants could upload photos or short videos of their current kitchen and explain what works, what frustrates them, and what they would change first. This gives the researcher in-context evidence instead of relying only on memory or description.
Used well, these kinds of activities can make asynchronous qualitative research more engaging for participants and more revealing for researchers. The goal is not to add bells and whistles for their own sake. The goal is to choose activities that help people express real experiences, priorities, emotions, and decision criteria more candidly and concretely.
Like this recap? Join a future free, 55-minute instructor-led Live Event on qualitative or quantitative research. See what’s coming up next: check out our schedule.
