Strategic Communication and Research Framework for Business
An executive’s explanation is an assumption until the evidence supports it.
The universal paragraph formula A — ANSWER (directly answer the question: “The main issue is [specific answer]”) → C — CONCEPT (name and briefly define the relevant course concept: “This represents [concept], meaning [definition]”) → E — EVIDENCE (use a specific case fact: “The case shows [number, quote, behavior or action]”) → I — INTERPRET (explain what it means, why it matters and its limitations: “This suggests [insight]. However, [assumption or limitation] remains unproven”) → T — TAKEAWAY (recommend a justified next step: “Therefore, the company should [action/research] to determine [what it needs to learn]”)PART 2 — EXACT STRUCTURE1. “Conduct a situation analysis / SWOT.” Structure: Diagnosis → SWOT → Strategic implications → Research gap.Paragraph 1 — Situation
[Company] faces [main challenge], demonstrated by [fact 1] and [fact 2]. A situation analysis examines the company, its audience, competitors and environment to identify the underlying communications challenge.
Paragraph 2 — SWOT
Internally, the company’s strengths include [S1, S2], while weaknesses include [W1, W2]. Externally, opportunities include [O1, O2], while threats include [T1, T2].
Paragraph 3 — What it means
The most important implication is [insight] because [explanation]. The company should leverage [strength] while addressing [weakness]. However, the SWOT cannot establish [unknown cause], which requires further research. Must include: Internal vs. external correctly classified, facts supporting each SWOT item, implications for awareness/perception/behavior, and what research is missing. Remember: S/W = inside company. O/T = outside company. An opportunity must be an external opening, not merely something the company should do.
2. “Identify the business problem and communications problem.” Structure: Business → Communications → Type of gap → Evidence → Why distinction matters.“The business problem is [performance/operational issue], shown by [evidence, if provided]. The communications problem is [specific audience gap] among [audience]. This is primarily an [awareness/perception/behavior] gap because [case evidence]. A business problem concerns company performance, whereas a communications problem concerns what the audience knows, thinks, feels or does. Research must establish whether [communications issue] contributes to [business outcome] before recommending a solution.” Must include: Both problems separately, exact audience, gap type, evidence, distinction, and uncertainty about causation. If sales aren’t mentioned, say potential sales risk, not proven declining sales.
3. “Write a communications problem statement.” Structure: Company + Audience + Gap + Consequence.“[Company] struggles to [increase awareness/build trust/change behavior] among [specific audience], putting [purchase consideration/customer loyalty/brand reputation] at risk.” Then explain: “This is a [type] gap because [case evidence].” Must include: Ongoing audience condition, specific audience, clear gap and consequence. Do not simply restate an event or financial loss.
4. “Write a testable hypothesis.” Structure: IF → THEN → Audience → IV → DV → Evidence → Test.“If [company uses specific message approach], then [specific audience] will report [higher/lower measurable outcome]. The independent variable is [message approach], while the dependent variable is [measured outcome]. This hypothesis is grounded in [case evidence] and addresses [communications problem]. It could be tested by exposing comparable, randomly assigned groups to different messages and comparing [measurement].” Must include: Specific controllable IV, measurable DV, audience, predicted direction, evidence, testing method. IV = What I change. DV = What I measure. Avoid vague wording like “better marketing” and don’t insert an entire campaign into the hypothesis.
5. “What secondary research should the company conduct?” Structure: Define → Sources → What each reveals → Source credibility → Research gap.“The company should begin with secondary research, which examines existing information before collecting new data. I would review [industry report] to understand [market/audience trend], [reviews/social conversations] to identify [consumer concerns], and [competitor coverage] to examine [competitive differences]. I would evaluate these sources for credibility, methodology, relevance, verifiability, timeliness and consistency. These findings would help identify [unknown] and guide the design of primary research.” Must include: At least 2–3 relevant source types, what each teaches you, six credibility criteria when evaluating sources, and why secondary comes first.
6. Evaluate the credibility of the company’s research
Structure: Verdict → Sample → Question/method → Data interpretation → Limitations → Fix. “The findings are [credible/limited/unreliable for the stated conclusion] because [main problem]. Although [number] respondents reported [result], the sample consists of [participants], potentially excluding [missing group]. Furthermore, [question wording/method] may have introduced [bias]. Therefore, the results can suggest [limited conclusion] but cannot establish [unsupported claim]. The company should [improve sampling, revise questions, verify evidence] before making decisions.” Must include: Who was studied, who was excluded, sample representativeness, wording/methodological issues, what findings can and cannot prove, specific fix. Essential sentence: “A large sample does not automatically make findings representative.”
7. Segment the audience
Structure: Demographic → Psychographic → Behavioral → Priority → Evidence. “I would segment the audience demographically by [age/location/education], psychographically by [values, beliefs, motivations], and behaviorally by [purchase frequency, loyalty, current/former/non-users]. These distinctions matter because different groups may experience different barriers. I would prioritize [segment] because [case evidence], while using further research to verify [unknown motivation].” Must include: WHO, WHY, WHAT THEY DO, relevance to research or communications, evidence rather than stereotypes.
8. Create a customer persona
Structure: Name → Demographics → Values → Behavior → Media → Pain point → Evidence. “One proposed persona is [name], a [age]-year-old [description] who values [motivation], typically [behavior], and consumes information through [media channels]. Their main pain point is [specific barrier], which affects [attitude or behavior]. This persona is anchored in [audience-facing SWOT finding] and [secondary source], with [additional data] supporting its main motivation. It would guide [message development/recruitment].” Must include: Demographics, psychographics, behavior, media habits, barrier, one SWOT finding + secondary source + supporting data. If the case lacks persona evidence, label the details provisional and say what research is needed.
9. Qualitative or quantitative research first?
Structure: What’s unknown → Method → Why → What it produces → Next stage. “I recommend [qualitative/quantitative] research first because the company needs to understand [WHY/HOW MANY]. Qualitative research uses interviews and focus groups to explore motivations and meanings, while quantitative research uses structured measurements to assess prevalence. Since [case evidence], [chosen method] would reveal [specific insight]. Those findings could then inform [next method] to [next research objective].” Must include: WHY vs. HOW MANY, method choice linked to the case, what it can reveal, and limitations. Usual order: Secondary → Qualitative → Quantitative. If qualitative research already exists and the question is about prevalence, quantitative may be next.
10. Design qualitative research
Structure: Objective → Method → Participants → Recruitment → Logistics → Questions → Analysis.
Paragraph 1: “I would conduct [focus groups/in-depth interviews] to understand [specific objective]. This method is appropriate because [reason]. I would recruit [target segment] through [channel], using screeners for [relevant criteria].”
Paragraph 2: “For focus groups, I would conduct [number] groups of 4–8 participants lasting 60–90 minutes. Participants would be similar in relevant characteristics but strangers to each other. A neutral moderator would guide discussion, a coordinator would handle logistics, and an observer would record group dynamics. For sensitive topics, I would instead use one-on-one interviews of up to 60 minutes.”
Paragraph 3: “The discussion guide would move from general to specific questions, such as [opening question], [transition question] and [key question]. I would use neutral, open-ended probes. I would then analyze themes and emotional meanings to guide further quantitative research.” Must include: Objective, method and justification, who/how many, screening, neutral moderator, funnel, sample questions, analysis.
11. Create a focus-group discussion guide
Structure: Hypothesis → Objective → Goals → Funnel questions → Probes → Ending. Write in this order: HYPOTHESIS (“If [IV], then [DV] among [audience]”) → OBJECTIVE (“Understand why [audience] [thinks/behaves X]”) → RESEARCH GOALS (explore [motivation], [barrier], [message reaction]) → OPENING (“Tell me about your recent experience with [general category]”) → INTRODUCTORY (“What comes to mind when you think about [category]?”) → TRANSITION (“Tell me about the last time you [relevant action]”) → KEY 1 (“What influences your decision to [action]?”) → KEY 2 (“How do you feel about [specific brand issue]?”) → KEY 3 (“What would make [claim/message] more credible to you?”) → ENDING (“Is there anything important we haven’t discussed?”).
12. Evaluate a company’s focus groups
Structure: What worked → What failed → Why it matters → Redesign.
Paragraph 1: “The company appropriately used qualitative research to explore [issue], which can reveal motivations, opinions and unexpected themes.”
Paragraph 2: “However, the study contains [recruitment bias], [moderator problem] and [question/group dynamics problem]. Specifically, [case evidence] may have influenced responses because [reason]. This limits the credibility of the findings.”
Paragraph 3: “I would redesign the study by recruiting [relevant participants] through [neutral channel], using groups of 4–8, a neutral moderator and an open-ended discussion guide. I would replace [flawed question] with [neutral version], analyze themes and use a survey to test prevalence.” Must include: What worked, exact flaws, why each matters, practical corrections, limitations. Watch for employee moderators, only fans, dominant participants, show of hands, large groups and leading questions.
13. Identify biased questions and rewrite them
For EACH question: Name → Explain → Consequence → Rewrite. “The question ‘[original]’ demonstrates [bias type] because [specific words or structure]. This may [push respondents toward positive answers/confuse responses/exclude disagreement], reducing [accuracy/objectivity]. A more neutral version would be ‘[rewritten question]’ with [balanced answer options if relevant].” LEADING (remove wording that suggests an answer) → LOADED (remove emotional or judgmental terms) → DOUBLE-BARRELED (separate into two questions) → PRESUPPOSITION (allow the assumption to be false) → PRESTIGE (remove expert or celebrity influence) → SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (don’t assign values or identities) → RESPONSE-OPTION (include balanced, neutral and no-change options).
14. Is this research ethical?
Structure: Verdict → Principle → Evidence → Consequences → Fix → Nuance. “This research raises ethical concerns because [case action] conflicts with [honesty/accuracy/transparency/privacy/objectivity/accountability]. Specifically, [evidence] creates [bias or harm], which may result in [misleading conclusions, privacy risks, reputational damage]. The company should [ethical correction]. Although [relevant nuance], research must prioritize truthful evidence rather than a desired outcome.” Six principles: Honesty, Accuracy, Transparency, Privacy, Objectivity, Accountability. Must include: Clear judgment, named principle, specific evidence, consequence, solution, and nuance when warranted. Don’t accuse researchers of deliberately lying unless the case supports that.
15. How could the company have produced such positive results?
Structure: Recruitment → Question wording → Missing options → Selective reporting → Consequences. “The favorable results may have been influenced by [sampling only supporters], [leading or loaded questions], [unbalanced response options] and [selective reporting]. These practices can artificially increase positive responses and exclude criticism. Consequently, the reported [percentage] may not reflect the broader audience. Researchers should disclose the methods, redesign the questions and sample, and correct unsupported conclusions.” Must include: Who was asked, how they were asked, what was omitted, how findings were reported. Explain these as possible mechanisms unless the case proves intentional manipulation.
16. Interpret qualitative findings using coding and contextual analysis
Structure: Coding → Counts → Context → Relationships → Limitations → Next step. “Coding categorizes and counts recurring themes, words and emotions. The most frequent theme was [X], mentioned [number] times. However, frequency does not equal importance. Contextual analysis examines the meaning and emotional tone of participants’ statements. The quote ‘
17. Does the CEO’s interpretation of the research make sense?
Structure: Verdict → CEO assumption → Evidence → Alternative explanation → Limitations → Test. “The CEO’s conclusion that [claim] is [supported/not established] because [case evidence]. Although [finding] suggests [possible interpretation], an alternative explanation is [other possible cause]. Furthermore, [sample/method limitation] prevents a definitive conclusion. The company should test [competing explanations] before making [business or communications decision].” Must include: Assess the conclusion, acknowledge supporting evidence, challenge assumptions, alternative interpretation, methodological limitation, research next step. Power phrase: “Research should test executives’ assumptions, not simply confirm them.”
18. Recommend message testing or a communications approach
Structure: Goal → Message options → Appeal → Testing → Measurement → Decision. “The goal is to improve [trust/awareness/consideration] among [audience]. I would test [message A] against [message B]. The first uses [factual/value/emotional] appeal, while the second emphasizes [different approach]. Both must be clear, accurate and relevant. I would rotate message order.