The Gap Between Inclusive Research and Real Change

The Insight250 spotlights and celebrates, annually, 250 of the world’s premier leaders and innovators in market research, consumer insights, and data-driven marketing. The awards have created renewed excitement across the industry whilst strengthening the connectivity of the market research community. Winners of the 2025 Insight250 were announced last September - you can see the full list of Winners, and those from previous years, at Insight250.com. The 2026 Insight250 nominations are currently in review.

With so many exceptional professionals named to the Insight250, we regularly tap into their expertise and unique perspectives on a range of topics. This regular series does just that: inquiring about the expert perspectives of many of these individuals in a series of short topical features. 

With insights advancing at an incredible pace and the value of insights ever increasing, I sat down with Insight250 Winner Bolu Adisa. As the Lead of Corporate Research at The City of Calgary, Bolu spearheads strategic research initiatives that influence policy-making, corporate decision-making, and public engagement. His leadership ensures that insights translate into meaningful, actionable outcomes that benefit citizens and organizations alike. Bolu has played a pivotal role in anti-racism research and social well-being initiatives, leading discussions among Calgarians to drive meaningful dialogue and change.

Crispin: At what point did you conclude that the industry had an inclusion problem, and what does that problem actually look like from the inside?

BA: I don’t think there was a single moment. It was something I observed repeatedly across different sectors, countries, and research disciplines. Early in my career, I noticed that research often claimed to represent “the customer,” “the citizen,” or “the user,” while systematically missing people who faced the greatest barriers to participation. The problem wasn’t usually intentional exclusion. It was that our methods, recruitment approaches, survey designs, and even our definitions of representative samples often reflected the perspectives of those already easiest to reach.

From the inside, the inclusion problem often looks less dramatic than people imagine. It shows up in who gets invited, who responds, whose experiences are treated as the norm, and whose perspectives are aggregated away. The result is that decisions are made with confidence, but sometimes without a full understanding of the populations they affect.

Crispin: Where does most of the industry currently sit on the spectrum between inclusion and research genuinely designed around underrepresented groups?

BA: Most organizations have made progress in recognizing the importance of representation, but many are still operating at the participation stage rather than the design stage. In other words, they are including more diverse respondents but not necessarily redesigning research around diverse lived experiences.

True inclusion starts much earlier. It influences how problems are framed, how questions are written, how participants are recruited, how findings are interpreted, and who is involved throughout the process. Many organizations still treat inclusion as a sampling challenge when it is actually a design challenge.

Crispin: What does disaggregated data reveal that aggregate data hides, and why has the industry been slow to make that shift?

BA: Aggregate data tells us what is happening on average. Disaggregated data tells us who is experiencing what. That distinction matters enormously. For example, a city-wide satisfaction score may appear healthy overall, while masking significant differences across racialized communities, newcomers, people with disabilities, or lower-income households. Without disaggregation, inequities can remain invisible because positive experiences among larger groups dominate the overall results.

The industry has been slow to adopt this approach partly because it requires larger samples, more careful analysis, greater cultural competence, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable findings. It is easier to report a single number than to explain why experiences differ across communities and what organizations should do about it. On practice, method and the role of the researcher

Crispin: How does public-sector research raise the stakes for inclusion, and what should the private sector learn from it?

BA: In commercial settings, poor research may result in a missed opportunity, a failed product launch, or a weaker customer experience. In the public sector, the consequences can affect access to services, public trust, quality of life, and community well-being.

What I have learned is that inclusion is not simply a moral imperative; it is a practical necessity. If certain communities are not adequately represented, public policies and services may unintentionally create barriers or deepen existing inequities.

The private sector can benefit from adopting a broader stakeholder lens. Organizations often focus on their most profitable customers, but long-term success increasingly depends on understanding the full diversity of people they serve.

Crispin: Does inclusive research require different methods or a different mindset?

BA: The mindset comes first. Most traditional methods remain valuable. Surveys, interviews, ethnography, usability testing, and focus groups can all support inclusive research when applied thoughtfully.

The real difference is approaching research with humility and curiosity rather than assumptions. That mindset influences everything from recruitment and questionnaire design to interpretation and reporting. Once that foundation exists, researchers can make methodological choices that better reflect the realities of different communities.

Crispin: What does community-building within the profession have to do with inclusion?

BA: The two are deeply connected. When professional networks are diverse, researchers gain exposure to different perspectives, experiences, and ways of thinking. That diversity improves research quality because it challenges assumptions and broadens understanding.

Through my work with the Insights Association Canada Chapter, I have seen how informal conversations and professional relationships create opportunities for learning that formal training often cannot provide. Building inclusive communities within the profession ultimately helps us build more inclusive research outside of it.

Crispin: How do you build teams and processes that challenge assumptions before fieldwork begins?

BA: One of the most effective practices is creating structured opportunities for questioning assumptions during research design. Before launching a project, I encourage teams to ask simple but powerful questions: Who might be missing from this design? Whose experience are we assuming is typical? What barriers might prevent participation? How might different communities interpret this question differently?

Diverse teams help, but diversity alone is not enough. Organizations also need processes that actively encourage constructive challenge and create psychological safety for people to raise concerns. On driving change rather than just collecting data

Crispin: What stops inclusive research from driving change?

BA: The biggest barrier is not data collection. It is organizational action. Many organizations commission inclusive research after key decisions have already been made. Others treat research as validation rather than discovery. Even when findings are compelling, competing priorities, budget constraints, political considerations, or organizational inertia can limit action.

Inclusive research drives change when it is embedded within decision-making processes rather than positioned as a standalone exercise.

Crispin: Which environment gives inclusive research the best chance of landing?

BA: Each environment has strengths and weaknesses. Agency researchers often bring methodological expertise and external perspective. Consultancies can challenge conventional thinking. In-house teams have greater proximity to decision-makers and organizational context.

In my experience, inclusive research has the greatest impact when researchers have sustained relationships with decision-makers and are involved throughout the decision cycle rather than only at the point of data delivery. Influence comes from partnership, not simply presentation.

Crispin: How do you distinguish between genuine inclusion and box-ticking?

BA: The simplest test is whether inclusion influences decisions. If diversity appears only in recruitment quotas, it is often a box-ticking exercise. If inclusion shapes problem definition, methodology, interpretation, recommendations, and organizational action, it is likely genuine.

When stakeholders approach inclusion as a compliance requirement, I try to reframe the conversation around research quality. Inclusive research is not about checking a box; it is about producing a more accurate understanding of reality.

Crispin: How has working across different research cultures shaped your understanding of inclusion?

BA: Working across Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and Canada taught me that inclusion is highly contextual. The groups that may be underrepresented in one society are not necessarily the same in another. Cultural norms, social structures, histories, and power dynamics differ significantly across contexts.

What has remained constant is the need for researchers to understand the communities they serve rather than assuming that one approach fits all situations. Inclusion is less about applying a universal formula and more about adapting thoughtfully to local realities.

Crispin: If the industry took one concrete step in the next twelve months, what should it be?

BA: I would encourage organizations to make inclusion a design requirement rather than a reporting requirement.

Too often, we evaluate inclusion at the end of a project by examining sample composition. Instead, we should assess inclusion at the beginning by asking whether the research design itself reflects the diversity of experiences we hope to understand. That shift would improve not only inclusion but also overall research quality.

Hot Topic

Is the industry’s inclusion problem a data quality problem, a talent pipeline problem, or a structural problem?

BA: It is all three, but the structural dimension is the most important because it influences the other two. Data quality suffers when research designs systematically exclude certain populations. Talent pipeline challenges matter because homogeneous teams are more likely to share similar blind spots. However, both issues are shaped by how research is commissioned, funded, prioritized, and used.

If organizations continue to prioritize speed, convenience, and cost above representativeness and inclusion, even diverse research teams will struggle to produce inclusive outcomes.

The balance differs between commercial and public-sector contexts. Public institutions often face stronger accountability requirements and have an obligation to serve everyone, not just their most valuable customers. Commercial organizations have greater flexibility but may face stronger market pressures. Regardless of sector, the core challenge is ensuring that the people most affected by decisions are adequately represented in the evidence used to make those decisions.

Top Tip

Don’t start by asking, “How can I make this study more inclusive?” Start by asking, “Who might be missing from this conversation?” That single question changes how you recruit participants, design questions, interpret findings, and communicate recommendations. Inclusive research is not a separate methodology. It is a discipline of continuously questioning whose voices are present, whose voices are absent, and what that means for the decisions that

Crispin:

Thank you, Bolu, for such a genuinely important conversation. The clarity you bring to this topic is striking: inclusion is not a parallel track running alongside good research practice, it is central to it. Your distinction between participation and design is one I suspect many in our industry need to hear, and your point about disaggregated data revealing what aggregate data hides feels like something that should be on the wall of every research team. What stays with me most is your insistence that inclusive research is ultimately a question of accuracy. When we miss voices, we miss reality. That is a standard the whole industry should be held to.