Research reports are typically dense, detailed and complex documents containing loads of research findings. For every question being asked of consumers whether it be via a survey, face to face, or via observation there are individual responses that need aggregating. Then these aggregated responses can be 'cut' or regrouped to enable comparisons e.g. overall responses versus males versus females. All this analysis means there's a lot for readers to get their head around.
What can help even the most dense of reports read better is a great structure, and I know of no better structure than using insights. Your insight should be stated first, then the research findings in support of it should follow. This holds true whether it is quant or qual research. An 'insight structure' greatly reduces the cognitive load on readers because they are provided with a context and simple understanding about consumers which effectively frame the results that follow.
I have read insight structured reports and they truly are a pleasure to read. Everything seems to flow. It makes me feel guilty for all the times I've delivered reports that weren't structured this way, where I chose instead to mirror the survey or discussion guide structure, or some other structure that was easier for me at the time. Structuring a report around insights is hard, because you have to find the insights in the first place. Sometimes insights are the last thing you want to think about when you are mentally wrecked from doing analysis. Sometimes you are so time poor that you barely have time to write up your results, let alone put up insight-related guideposts to help readers digest your work.
But it is worthwhile remembering the value of insights, so we don't let them slip. They speak volumes in only a few words. They do a lot of the heavy lifting in your report. They can be worth their weight in gold.