According to VentureBeat, 98% of market researchers now use AI tools with 72% deploying them daily or more frequently, based on a QuestDIY survey of 219 U.S. professionals conducted in August 2025. The research shows 56% save at least five hours weekly using AI, but nearly 40% report increased reliance on error-prone technology while 37% cite new data quality risks. The survey reveals researchers are caught between productivity gains and trust issues, with 31% saying they spend more time validating AI outputs and accuracy being the biggest frustration mentioned in open-ended responses.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The productivity paradox
Here’s the thing about AI in market research: everyone’s using it, but nobody fully trusts it. The numbers are staggering – 80% of researchers say they’re using AI more than six months ago, and 71% expect to increase usage. But they’re essentially treating AI like a junior analyst who needs constant supervision. Gary Topiol from QuestDIY nailed it when he said researchers view AI as capable of speed and breadth but needing oversight and judgment.
Basically, we’re looking at a grand bargain where researchers accept time savings in exchange for becoming full-time AI validators. The survey found the top uses are analyzing multiple data sources (58%), structured data analysis (54%), and automating insight reports (50%). These are exactly the kinds of tasks that used to eat up researchers’ weeks. Now they happen in minutes. But the time saved might just get spent double-checking AI’s work.
<h2 id="why-trust-is-the-real-problem”>Why trust is the real problem
So why don’t researchers trust the very tools they use constantly? Look, when 39% report increased reliance on error-prone technology and 37% cite new data quality risks, you’ve got a fundamental credibility issue. Market research depends on methodological rigor – clients make million-dollar decisions based on these insights. One researcher perfectly captured the tension: “The faster we move with AI, the more we need to check if we’re moving in the right direction.”
And then there’s the transparency problem. When an AI system spits out an analysis, researchers often can’t trace how it reached its conclusion. That’s a nightmare for a field built on scientific method and replicability. Some clients are so worried they’re including no-AI clauses in contracts. Imagine having to secretly use AI while technically complying with contracts that forbid it. Talk about ethical gray areas.
Data privacy fears are real
Data privacy and security concerns are the biggest barrier to AI adoption, cited by 33% of researchers. And they’re absolutely right to be worried. Researchers handle sensitive customer data, proprietary business information, and personally identifiable information subject to regulations like GDPR and CCPA. Sharing that data with cloud-based AI models raises legitimate questions about who controls the information and whether competitors might access it.
Other significant barriers include time to learn new tools (32%), training (32%), and integration challenges (28%). Erica Parker from The Harris Poll made a great point: “Onboarding beats feature bloat.” Researchers don’t need more capabilities – they need packaged workflows and templates that help them use existing tools effectively. The security certifications and compliance frameworks matter almost as much as the AI features themselves.
What this means for other industries
Market research is basically the canary in the coal mine for AI adoption in knowledge work. The patterns we’re seeing here will likely repeat in consulting, legal, finance – any field where analysis meets client trust. The skills required are shifting from technical execution to what the report calls “inquisitive insight advocacy.” Researchers are becoming validators, storytellers, and strategic interpreters rather than data crunchers.
And here’s the kicker: despite all the trust issues, 89% of researchers say AI has made their work lives better, with 25% calling the improvement “significant.” They’re not abandoning AI – they’re developing frameworks to use it responsibly. By 2030, 61% envision AI as a “decision-support partner” with expanded capabilities. The future isn’t AI replacing researchers. It’s researchers who use AI effectively replacing those who don’t.
