Finding the balance between presence and practicality

In Part 1, I argued that some insights simply can’t be gathered from a distance. Culture lives in context. And while remote tools have made global research faster and more accessible than ever, they haven’t eliminated the value of being there. The challenge, of course, is that being there isn’t always practical.

Budgets are tighter. Teams are distributed. Travel takes time. And not every research question justifies putting a dozen stakeholders on a plane. That’s our design challenge.

Over the years, we’ve run global research programs ranging from a handful of markets to truly worldwide efforts. What we’ve learned is how to be intentional about where presence matters and how local context gets incorporated when being there isn’t possible.

Here are five approaches we’ve found effective.

01 Boots on the ground

When the complexity of the research objective warrants it and stakeholders are invested in being there

Some questions can’t be answered from a distance.

On a recent study exploring the emotional realities of homeownership and the trust involved in inviting strangers into personal spaces, we conducted in-home ethnographic research across multiple U.S. cities. Client stakeholders joined us in participants’ homes, while broader team members observed through a live stream.

After each visit, we debriefed on the spot—piling into a rental car, recording and transcribing observations while it was still fresh. Those conversations became just as valuable as the sessions themselves, giving emerging patterns space to take shape before they were distilled into findings.

By the time synthesis began, stakeholders didn’t need to be convinced since they had already experienced the insights firsthand.

02 Hybrid bridge

Local researchers conduct fieldwork while remote observers participate in real time

Not every project can support a global travel budget.

For a multi-market study exploring coffee culture and packaging across New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Tokyo, Seoul, and Paris, we partnered with a network of trusted researchers and designers around the world. Rather than functioning as external vendors, they work as a core project team member.

We deployed a shared research framework across markets, allowing our local researchers to lead fieldwork while client stakeholders participated remotely through live streams, shared working spaces, group chats, and visual daily post-cards from the field. The approach preserved local nuance while making it possible for distributed teams to engage with the work in real time.

03 Locally led insights

Combining participant documentation with local expertise to accelerate global learning

Sometimes speed and budget are the primary constraints. In those cases, the goal isn’t to remove local expertise—it’s to amplify participant voices while relying on trusted local partners to provide context and interpretation.

For a global research program spanning the U.S., China, Brazil, and Germany, we designed a research protocol that combined a one-week diary study followed by a series of remote workshops. Working alongside trusted local researchers in each market, we launched all four markets simultaneously.

Within days, participants had submitted hundreds of diary entries documenting their experiences in real time. Following the diary studies, workshops were conducted across all four markets in 24-hours. Local researchers synthesized findings through a shared English-language framework, giving us both speed and rich local context, without anyone buying a single plane ticket.

04 Executive field sprints

Bringing senior decision-makers into the field for focused, high-impact sessions in strategically important locations

Sometimes the goal isn’t to bring stakeholders to every market, it’s to bring them to the right market.

On a project exploring perceptions of emerging wearable technology in the U.S. and South Korea, we conducted the U.S. research in person while client stakeholders observed remotely. For the South Korea portion of the study, however, we brought a small group of stakeholders into the field.

Alongside participating in live research sessions, they experienced the market itself—navigating public transit, observing interactions with technology in crowded public spaces, and discussing local norms with our research partners.

Some of the most valuable learning came from those moments between sessions. The research helped answer questions. Being there helped explain why.

05 Precision scalability

Allocating resources where it matters most

The most effective global research programs intentionally vary depth across markets. On a recent international co-design program spanning five markets, we conducted portions of the work remotely while prioritizing in-person engagement in markets where regulatory, cultural, and behavioral differences were most pronounced.

Rather than applying the same methodology everywhere, we adjusted our level of presence based on what each market could teach us. The result was a more efficient program that invested time and budget where it would create the greatest impact.

The experience matters

The strongest alignment rarely comes from the final report. It comes from the moments before it exists—the conversation after a session, the observation that never makes it into the discussion guide, the product manager watching someone struggle with a feature they helped build, or the realization that a behavior that feels universal at home isn’t universal at all. Those moments can be difficult to replicate remotely and even harder to summarize after the fact.

That doesn’t mean every stakeholder needs to travel to every market. It doesn’t mean every study requires ethnography or weeks in the field. But it does mean thinking carefully about where firsthand experience will create shared understanding and thought-starters for innovation.

The strongest global research programs combine the efficiency of remote methods with the depth that comes from local presence. The challenge isn’t choosing one or the other. It’s knowing when each is most valuable.