Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
Lots of people believe that primary research is always better than secondary research, but what about the cost factor? Can't secondary research be obtained for less money?
It all depends on what you want to achieve from your research and the client needs. Primary research is in general more expensive than secondary research mainly because you have to build the survey from from scratch meet up with clients discuss their point of view, prepare questionnaires, data entry, field work, coding, and other logistics are involved.
secondary research the data is already available most times and you can easily excess it because the research has being already carried out. So we are most likely dealing with historical data and making suggestions. Sometimes secondary research is called desk research as well.
Both methods are fine but with primary research you are dealing with problem which is come recently and research is carried out for that specific issue. While secondary research we are digging into research that has being carried out previously. It all depends on the client requirements and the budgets and end out come.
Well, I dont see it as a cost but an investment which would always plough returns, goodwill to the organisation.
However, according to me it all depends on the type of research, time alloted to it and the schedule of research.
If investment is a concern then I would go for a mixture of both Primary and secondary aswell, because History is the root and future is the fruit.
It would subsidise both Time and budget constraint
But mostly if asked me I would would examine the root cause of the research and then would decide the ways and means of research, whether Primary or Secondary or mixture of it. I would do it by considering the other factors that may effect the research in the future.
Lastly, I would say that if a research is conducted, Proper scheduling, Time management, future and forces that would effect the research should be analysed and then proper steps and foundations should be made inorder to see that there would be no possibility of any factor that is likely to effect it.
It is subjective in nature and sometime it depends on the avilability of the primary resource material. Well, personally I would say primary research is better because it is although based on the work of your precursor, it tends to be more authentic. In my case at the initial phase of my PhD thesis i was more depending on the secendory sources but towards the later stage my research was chiefly primary research and it kind of boost my confidence and made my research more analytic, argumentative and more valid. The best part is you can supplement your research with the primary data and since it is primary, you can defend it with a more confidence.
Of course, primary research cost you more, but we should focus on the end result.
Again, I would say it is subjective and depends on the kind of project you are working in.
Primary Research has its advantages like innovation and break through ideas. But secondary research takes it further into commercial space. So both go hand in hand.
It is important to note neither the secondary nor the primary research can derive full-proof insights. Thus it is important to take the cost of research into consideration. A generic method to select between the two is to determine whether the cost of conducting the primary research is substantially lower than the bottom-line/output of the insight derived from it.
However, a more holistic approach is to depend on the type of decision you are conducting the research for i.e. whether the decision is strategic or tactical.
Strategic decision is the one which
> has a long-term effect on your business
> reversal is difficult
> monetary/branding effect is substantial
> it is core to your business model
If a company is doing the research for deriving an insight for a strategic decision then a primary research is preferable.
Otherwise, in the case of tactical decision making, conducting secondary research should suffice.
Primary research is better to observe real data and the reliability of the output is better. The cost could be higher compared to secondary research but it is worth.
Research mode depends upon the nature of research being conducted i.e. hypotheses. Otherwise both the research modes are equally good
Primary Research is company specific on the prime products to be developed to score on growth and secondary research is market specific targeting on the immediate and future demands.
The former is important for established firms while the latter is for exploring firms. Hence, both research are important for any company.
Primary research leads towards ride direction & secondary research help to achieve targeted assignments
Primary research is better than secondry research because primary research is done by the individual itself.
primary research is not only better but it is necessary
