Editor's note: Dr. Murray Simon is president of D/R/S HealthCare Consultants, a pharmaceutical marketing research firm based in Charlotte, N.C. He can be reached at drsimon@mindspring.com.

One of the aspects of qualitative research that invariably gets my adrenaline pumping is the fact that as a moderator, you never know what's going to happen until you are actually in the interviewing process. A good moderator has to be able to think fast on his/her feet and often has to quickly make adjustments to move the interview (or group) in a more productive direction.

Of late, however, I often find myself questioning my true (perhaps changing) role in this dynamic drama called qualitative market research:

In qualitative research conferences that I have attended and in casual conversations with market research colleagues, I have frequently come across a pervasive note of negativity and cynicism aimed at those who have a direct impact on our paychecks, a.k.a. our clients. Over the past few years I have heard a lot of commentary from qualitative researchers related to primary client contacts becoming younger, levels of market research experience becoming lower and problems in the field (often predictable at a rather early stage) becoming more commonplace.

I began thinking about this scenario in earnest a while back when a tearful facility hostess took me aside to ask that I please try to establish a measure of control over "my people" in the viewing room (a continuously warring group of dissidents made up of representatives from brand management, internal market research, two ad agencies and a brand image consultant) because their combative tone was disturbing others who were working elsewhere in the facility.

My people in the viewing room? My control problem? My responsibility?

I hate to start an article with "I've been doing qualitative market research for a long time" because it calls to mind the image of a dinosaur attempting one last roar. But the fact is, I have been at it a long time and I think a bit of constructive roaring is very much needed today. And although I am an independent moderator, conversations with qualitative researchers who work for relatively large research suppliers have led to similar conclusions.

To quote Bob Dylan, "The times they are a-changing" - and that's the good news. The bad news is that many qualitative market research changes are being initiated by people (a.k.a. clients) who do not have a "been there/done that" historical market research perspective to guide their thinking. A lot of brand management and market research decision-making responsibility is being put in the hands of some very bright people who are young to the industry and are being challenged to "make something positive happen." In their fervor to respond to this challenge (and with insufficient research experience to guide them), they are sometimes motivated to try to reinvent the market research wheel, an often problematic endeavor.

Moderators should be partners in the research process, delivering experienced input on such matters as screener development, writing the discussion guide, suggesting interviewing techniques that will produce a richer array of cognitive input and, most importantly, acting as an unbiased third party in the development and analysis of study results. Too often, however, many of today's clients seem to consider the moderator to be a vehicle that gets them from point A (initiation of the study) to point B (completion of the study). I base this statement on a number of recent comments made by several colleagues with particular reference to issues such as:

Pardon me (sir or madam client), would you like to: ask the questions as written and wait for the responses or attack and take no prisoners?

How many of these situations have you experienced? When you walk into those interview rooms, who are you?

Perhaps you need to be a magician. A friend of mine who is a professional magician likes to say, "There is no such thing as a magician, only actors playing the part of magicians." In other words, it takes more than wearing a tuxedo and knowing how to perform tricks (or how to moderate); the key to success also involves conveying the image of a magician (moderator) to your audience (client).

I'm beginning to think this "actor/magician paradigm" may also have larger applications for qualitative market research. Perhaps some recent personal examples from the field will help further illustrate the many roles that the moderator must play:

Moderator as Superman: a potential client asks what I would charge to do 12 facility-based depth interviews and two focus groups per day in each of three cities.

Moderator as "The Human Copy Machine": a client (at least I think she was) in a crowded viewing room takes me aside and strongly suggests that I stick to the discussion script and not probe at my discretion.

Moderator as good cop/bad cop: a client insists I show a respondent a rather confrontational advertising concept despite my strong suggestion that it will represent a distinct ethnic slur to this particular respondent (it did!).

Moderator as psychic: a client demands that I phone back several respondents to ask a question that was not part of the original questionnaire nor listed among the original study objectives (I didn't!).

Moderator as tormented fictional playwright: a client insists on six revisions to a final report, constantly demanding specific input and "analytic interpretations" that were not a part of the original discussion guide design or study objectives.

Moderator as star of "Shoot the Messenger": a client-written discussion guide full of role-playing and abstract projection techniques results in confusion and flat group dynamics in a focus group of pragmatic professionals with advance scientific degrees.

Moderator as star of "Shoot the Messenger - Part II": a client insists that a single focus group will give him/her all the input needed.

Moderator as star of "Back to the Future - Parts I, II and III": a Friday telephone briefing to go over a client-written discussion guide for a series of complex interviews to begin the following Monday is canceled because the discussion guide is not finished. (Translation: the discussion guide is way too long and the marketing "team" cannot agree on which questions to cut or how to format it to work more efficiently.)

Suitable answers

Having personally faced these challenges - to my pride, to my experience, to my ego - and having heard similar commentary from a number of colleagues, I have embarked on an ever-widening quest for suitable answers to the dilemma of how best to serve the client's qualitative market research needs while doing what you know to be right. Are we innovators, chameleons or puppets? Or do we need to be the all-powerful Wizard of Oz?

Make no mistake about it, under the best of circumstances the moderator is often between a rock and a hard place. If you dispute the client's way of doing things, you risk losing that client. If you follow fallacious study guidelines, you risk compromising your professional principles.

While I do not claim to have definitive answers or solutions, I do have some thoughts that I hope may serve to spark a dialogue among those of you reading this article:

Hot button? So what do you think? Am I that dinosaur trying for one last roar or have I hit a qualitative market research hot button? Are there ideas you might want to share pertaining to the issues I've raised? Would you like to offer a different perspective or offer solutions I haven't thought of (or criticism of those that I have thought of)? Tell me where you stand. E-mail your comments to drsimon@mindspring.com and we just might wind up with some helpful suggestions and enough interesting input for a follow-up article. In the meantime, be happy! Do good research!