This paper examines the issue of consultancy as an inherent and inevitable element of much qualitative research and looks at the way this affects the relationship between buyers and suppliers. Some difficulties of definition are explored, especially in the light of the enormous variation in qualitative research applications. The paper acknowledges that it is difficult to draw a useful divide between research and consultancy across the variety of different projects, and goes on to suggest that the more interesting question is how consistent buyers are in their attitudes within any one project. It is argued that at some stages of a project buyers show considerable concern for the rigour of the process, but at others are cavalier about the process and appear to be placing their trust much more in the researcher than the research itself. The paper concludes that some buyers apply a sort of double standard. They want a consultancy product from a research process. The quality of research conducted and the usefulness of the findings would both be enhanced if buyers had a more honest and better examined understanding of the relationship between the process and the findings.
This paper falls into two parts. First we consider the UK governments use of qualitative research, looking both at the circumstances in which it is employed and the means by which it is assessed. Our initial and somewhat imprecise hypothesis - that government under-uses qualitative research - is examined, and is found, on balance, to have been pessimistic: in certain sectors of government, qualitative techniques make a valued contribution to descriptive and evaluative research, both in policy and publicity work. Second, we explore the extent to which those buying research may often be buying a commodity perhaps better described as research-based consultancy. We look at some of the reasons why both clients and practitioners find it expedient to treat qualitative findings as if they resulted from a more rigorous process than is usually the case. We also consider what might be lost and what gained if qualitative researchers were treated less as ad-hoc researchers and more as consultants with a distinctive and effective discipline. Our overall objective is to encourage more open debate rather than impose a particular view on a difficult issue. The two sections of the paper share a concern about the nature and value of qualitative research, and suggest that although an equilibrium seems to have been established between supply and demand, greater clarity - and perhaps greater honesty - in thinking about what is being bought and sold will be to the benefit of both client and researcher