Sound and Sense
I have long thought that qualitative researchers should pay more attention to the voice—their own, that is. Everything from vocal cord health to breath control to modulating regional accents would seem to be important for those of us who rely so heavily on our voices.
This article in Science also highlights another issue important to anyone who speaks to a wide variety of populations: generational speech patterns. The ubiquity of "like" as a space filler in sentences or even as a verb replacing "said" ("She was like, 'Why do you, like, talk that way?'") can be laid at the feet of Gen Xers like me. So too can the "uptalk" or High Rise Terminals that make every sentence sound like a question. Now, according to the Science article, "vocal fry" is becoming ubiquitous among young women. Think of the way Britney Spears reaches low notes or the voices of almost every woman who appears on This American Life.
Sounding like one's generation isn't inherently a problem. It helps us fit in with our peers, distinguish ourselves from our parents (and our children, for that matter), and grow the range of communication options open to us. If you watch movies from the 1930s even up through the 1970s, the difference in enunciation and vocal patterns compared with today is startling. As with everything, however, the way we sound should be deliberate, and risks and benefits should be calculated. If I'm doing a study in which my participants were born before 1950, I need to decide whether I want to sound like their peer or their grandkids' peer. It affects my credibility, my control in the conversation, and my ability to appear empathic and engaged.
Advertisers know this (there is a lot of vocal fry in commercials directed at millennials), so why not you? As you talk with consumers, make the quality of your voice, your inflection, and your vocal rhythm a part of the toy box you get to play in.
