What makes good research?

For a couple of recent pieces of work, I’ve had to think about what makes good research. Not so much how you conduct it, as how you conduct yourself. Not what you do, but how you do it.

And I’ve got it down to two things that research absolutely should be:

1. Simple 
2.  Commercial

Yes, simplicity is about turning complexity into clarity. But it’s about making the process simple too. There’s a temptation when you’re the expert to blind with science. But you can really demonstrate expertise by making a knotty question or a complicated process seem accessible and achievable. Experience of understanding what you can and can’t know will help.
There’s a temptation too to think you must get to all the answers straightaway. Often you just need to report the facts, neutrally. It may take time for the client to get up to speed with what you’ve found, so make it simple for them to access. Other times, once you have established the facts, the recommends start to create themselves.

None of this is to say that I don’t like to slip in a big word*– to have “axiomatic” edited out of my last report was a blow.

The commerciality is about making it a profitable piece of work, naturally; no-one buys a freelancer to lose them money. But it’s about making it actionable, for the client. Even if it can’t tell them “what next?” it must tell them “so what?” And – if having proven yourself, if having given them some strong affirmation, if having given them an unexpected insight– there’s an opportunity to suggest the next project, you should. If they take you up, that’s the best feedback you can get.

But commerciality is about being pragmatic; there are very few clients with infinite budgets and patience. Cost and time shape most projects. I believe you have to challenge that, but be more than prepared to just crack on if you can’t shift them. Otherwise you’re making it more about you than the client – and that’s the antithesis (* see?) of commercial.

What do you think? What qualities make good research?