When we released ‘The future we want’, most people focused on the scenarios and the scale. But a significant part of what made the work resonate came from the (human-centric) qualitative structure sitting underneath it. For any organisation working with TRA or looking for a market research agency in New Zealand and Australia – this is the part that explains why the insights carried such depth.

The method was designed to help people think clearly rather than only answer quickly. Fast response first, reflection second, and conversation third – real sense making instead of rushed reactions. Once people had space to process, their contributions became deeper, more honest and far more useful for leaders, brands and decision makers.

We spoke with high school students, young males, parents, professionals and experts. Each group had four participants to keep conversations intimate and grounded. High school students and professionals were based in New Zealand and young males, parents, and experts were based in Australia. This gave us a useful mix of culture, maturity, responsibility and lived experience across two markets.
‍

Why we avoided traditional questioning

‘The future we want’ got attention for its ambition and scope, but the qual approach underneath it shaped a huge amount of the depth. The method wasn’t about lining people up and firing questions, rather it was about creating the conditions for people to think properly.

Conversation instead of interrogation, reflection instead of first-blurt answers, and people making sense of ideas together rather than feeling obliged to deliver tidy individual statements. ‍

Why conversation worked for this topic

Traditional qual often treats people like isolated data points, but humans do not think this way – we talk things through, test ideas out loud, contradict ourselves, and sharpen our views when someone else gives language to something we have been circling. This approach tapped into that natural behaviour instead of working against it.

And when the topic is the future, people do not sit alone and map out their view of 2035 – they talk it over, debate, react to someone else’s take and find their own stance in the process.

By the time people reached the group stage, they had already lived with the scenarios. They arrived with reactions shaped through reflection, emotion mapping, unconscious cues, imagined futures and real conversations with someone they trust.

Sequencing for clearer thinking

People often struggle to imagine their own future – it’s too close, too entangled with who they think they are today. But they can imagine someone else’s future. That’s why the work used day-in-the-life scenarios built around fictional characters – it freed people up. They could project, explore, and challenge ideas without the self-protection that kicks in when you ask directly, “What will your world look like in ten years?”

The sequence was designed to take that freedom and slowly deepen it. We started with an online board rather than bringing people straight into a group. Thinking privately first meant they weren’t performing socially or trying to sound clever – they could react honestly.

Each person received a written scenario and responded by video or audio. Speaking aloud opened a different channel – people get more real when they’re not typing. Typing tends to tidy your thoughts, but voice reveals the raw edges and the emotional logic underneath.

Then we helped them name what they felt. They selected three emotions using the Feeling Wheel, and then chose a figure on the Blob Tree that best matched their gut response. Because the blobs are ambiguous, people project their own meaning onto them – it’s a way of surfacing unconscious reactions that standard questioning never touches.

From there, they wrote a letter to their future self, and then a note to a future brand operating in that world. Both steps nudged them into reflection and imagination – what the scenario stirred, what they’d need, what support would matter.

The final step in the online board asked participants to pick the two scenarios that lingered for them and talk them through with someone they trusted – a friend, a parent, classmates. One high-school student ended up with her whole class debating it. Others brought it to a family dinner table or a group of friends. Those conversations sharpened their thinking and hearing another person’s view helped them refine their own.

By the time they reached the groups, they weren’t arriving cold – they had reacted, reflected, named feelings, surfaced unconscious responses, tested ideas in the real world, and talked things through. That’s the point where uncommon truths start appearing – the beliefs behind the beliefs – the sequence did the heavy lifting long before the discussion room.

Why imagination tasks unlocked deeper insight

The nine scenarios gave people something concrete to respond to – thinking about the future is hard because it is vague and emotionally loaded. We needed to recognise the psychology of future thinking. Once people stepped into a possible world, their reactions became clearer – they could feel what sat right, what made them uneasy, and what they hoped for or resisted.  

The scenario structure also allowed people to interpret, debate and explore. We understood that futures are not factual but are social and emotional – we needed to give people a world to respond to that enabled deeper insight.

‍
Participation shaped the quality of insight

Depth did not come from the tasks alone but from how involved people felt. When participants see themselves as part of the work rather than subjects of it, they bring more honesty, more nuance and more of their own experience.  

The scenario tasks strengthened this sense of involvement because they asked people to step inside the work rather than comment from a distance. When participants feel invested, insight becomes richer and more revealing.

Why this approach matters beyond one report

This style of qual reveals how people form their thinking, it demonstrates emotional logic, hesitation, flexibility – and highlights the gap between first reactions and considered responses. It stays human without becoming loose and structured without becoming clinical and respects the way people process ideas.  

The principles that we used work far beyond future studies like this – they apply anywhere meaning is not formed instantly.

For organisations trying to navigate change or design meaningful experiences, it shows the mechanics of how people reach a view, which is what makes the insight genuinely useful.

‍