Artificial intelligence is making market research faster and more convenient, but its growing use is raising concerns about whether researchers are losing the human contact needed to understand consumers and produce reliable findings.
Joseph Rydholm, editor of Quirk’s, said the increasing reliance on AI-powered research methods, synthetic respondents and automated interviews could create a barrier between researchers and the people whose experiences and opinions inform business decisions.
In an article published by Quirk’s on October 27, 2026, Brandspur Brand News noted Rydholm’s concerns about the changing relationship between technology and consumer research, particularly as fraudsters and increasingly sophisticated digital tools make it harder to establish the authenticity of responses.
The debate comes after decades of technological changes in the research industry. Researchers once relied heavily on telephone interviews, physical focus groups, postal surveys and face-to-face engagements to gather consumer opinions.
The arrival of internet-based surveys, online research panels and mobile ethnography introduced new ways to reach participants, allowing researchers to collect information from people across different locations without always meeting them physically.
However, Rydholm argued that the same technology that once brought researchers closer to consumers is increasingly creating challenges. Fraudsters can now manipulate screening processes, misrepresent their identities and provide misleading information to qualify for research incentives.
Artificial intelligence has added another layer of uncertainty, with researchers having to consider whether responses submitted through digital platforms actually come from human participants.
The growing interest in synthetic respondents, which are designed to simulate the views and behaviour of real consumers, has also raised questions about how closely generated responses reflect actual human experiences.
AI-moderated qualitative research is another development changing how researchers interact with participants. While automated systems can help reduce workloads and speed up research processes, concerns remain about what might be missed when direct human engagement is reduced.
For businesses, the quality of market research can influence decisions on product development, advertising, customer experience and investment. Findings based on unreliable or artificial responses could therefore provide a misleading picture of what consumers want.
See Also: Nigerian Co-Founded AI Startup Minicor Raises $3.8m To Connect AI With Legacy Business Software
Rydholm acknowledged that researchers often work with limited staff, budgets and tight deadlines, making technology attractive because of the efficiencies it offers. However, he argued that the value of research goes beyond collecting answers and processing data.
Direct engagement can reveal unexpected reactions, personal experiences and subtle details that may not emerge from a completed questionnaire or an automated interview. A consumer’s explanation of why they avoid a particular product, for instance, could offer insights that a dataset alone may not capture.
He also questioned whether the future of human-led research should depend on the assumption that artificial intelligence will never understand facial expressions, body language or emotional cues. Instead, he maintained that the strongest argument for keeping researchers involved is the value of witnessing and interacting with consumers directly.
His position adds to the wider discussion about how the research industry can benefit from artificial intelligence without allowing automated systems and simulated participants to replace genuine consumer experiences.
As businesses increasingly turn to technology to understand their markets, the challenge will be ensuring that faster research does not come at the expense of credible findings and meaningful human insight.
