Introduction to the special section on interpretive consumer research

Citation

Susan, N. and Dobscha, L. (2014), "Introduction to the special section on interpretive consumer research", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 5/6. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2014-0174

Introduction to the special section on interpretive consumer research

Article Type: Editorial From: European Journal of Marketing, Volume 48, Issue 5/6

Abstract

Interpretive research offers marketing scholars insights into the richness and complexity that govern consumer experiences and behavior. Interpretive research on consumers and markets allows us to gain in-depth understanding of key marketing and consumer behavior phenomenon via cultural and sociological approaches. These insights allow us to configure and/or reconfigure our established orienting conceptual frameworks. The various methodologies that serve this paradigm, which are primarily although not always qualitative, accomplish this in varied and nuanced ways. While theoretical approaches such as consumer culture theory (CCT) and transformational consumer research (TCR) in particular have embraced the interpretive paradigm, its potential extends well beyond these approaches.

This special section provides readers with a healthy introduction to the interpretive paradigm by providing four strong exemplars, covering a wide variety of topics and contexts. We, as Editor and Associate Editor for Interpretive Consumer Research and Critical Theory, wish to signal to the readership and the rest of the academic community that interpretive work is welcomed at European Journal of Marketing (EJM) and its contribution is equally valued to more positivistic modes of knowledge creation.

Keywords Interpretive consumer research, Paradigms, Qualitative methods, Consumer culture theory, Transformative consumer research

When I took over at European Journal of Marketing (EJM) in 2008, a key issue for me to encourage was diversity; not just in topic area, geographic scope of submissions or methodology, but also in a paradigmatic sense. My belief was (and remains) that a journal should not be a conduit for the personal views of the Editor-in-chief, but instead a somewhat agnostic outlet for the best quality research (relevant to the topic area) that is submitted. Certainly, I have not been reticent in presenting my own views on these issues, and interested readers would have no trouble finding various expressions of them in the literature. However, I am aware that my own views are not the universe of justifiable paradigmatic standpoints. In 2008 though, there was certainly a popular view that the leading marketing scholarly journals almost all clustered around one particular view of knowledge development. While it was (and remains) an objective of mine for EJM to begin to be considered as a member of the wider club of top marketing journals, I felt it would be wrong to go about achieving that by trying simply to mimic others. Most importantly, I wanted EJM to develop a reputation for being a high-quality outlet for scholarly marketing research that was seen to be receptive and fair to research from all possible paradigmatic standpoints. Further, I was particularly keen for EJM to expand from the single-study, survey-based strategy and consumer behavior studies that seemed to be common, toward newer and more rigorous research designs that were then emerging as typical in the top-tier journals.

Most especially, I was keen for more econometric or analytical models, multi-study experimental methods and multi-informant surveys that were supplemented with objective data (for example). Interpretive research traditions were also beginning to raise their profiles in marketing and other business disciplines, and at the same time, EJM was getting more and more modeling and complex experimental studies. We were also receiving a growing number of very interpretive studies. It became increasingly clear by 2010 that it was impossible for one individual to deal with the sheer volume of manuscripts being submitted (which was approaching 700 per year at that point). More importantly, it also became clear that one individual could not fairly evaluate studies from such a diverse range of paradigms. In my 2008 book Doing Business Research I wrote about the problem of evaluating research quality in the presence of paradigmatic incommensurability, and proposed a possible solution to it as being the evaluation of research quality from an internal consistency perspective, rather than trying to evaluate a study’s quality from outside its paradigmatic boundaries. As a journal editor, here was that very problem writ large: how to fairly evaluate the quality of manuscripts written from an interpretive perspective when I did not personally share these particular views on knowledge creation?

The obvious solution was the creation of a panel of Associate Editors (AE), which has been extremely successful in the past four years. Together, the AEs have the capacity, and the expertise, to evaluate manuscripts from a position more in tune with the paradigmatic assumptions of the study itself, as well as the technical ability to confidently assess research quality. Within this general context, over the past four years the area that has grown perhaps the most in terms of EJM submissions has been interpretive research. Most commonly this research is within the consumer topic area, but not always. Indeed, toward the end of 2013, Professor Susan Dobscha (the AE for Interpretive Consumer Research and Critical Theory) pointed out that somewhat organically, it seemed that EJM had become quite a popular outlet for such research. With this in mind, we took the decision to try to capitalize on this and collect together a number of interesting articles that had been accepted, which shared similar paradigmatic assumptions. The result is this small special section. The intention is to showcase this research, and encourage those who may be working within similar areas to consider EJM as a good home for their work. Another important aim is to take the opportunity to set out some key issues and pieces of advice for researchers interested in conducting such work, and getting it successfully published, specifically regarding some key areas of confusion around qualitative methods and interpretive research. I have asked Professor Dobscha to write her own introduction to better explain this to our large community of readers.

To EJM community

From Susan Dobscha, PhD, Associate Editor for Interpretive Consumer Research and Critical Theory

Re Special section on interpretive consumer research

Date 14 March 2014

Nick Lee and I agreed to combine some recent articles over which I resided as AE into what he labeled a “special section” of EJM designed to highlight recent articles that bear a similarity of being of a certain conceptual slant. I began my tenure as AE for those articles that employed qualitative methodology or critical theory. Nick gave me this title as a result of perusing my vita and viewing the changing nature of the field of marketing. He rightly saw in the landscape that more and varied methodologies provide valuable insights into marketing as the previously held beliefs of experimental psychology and economics. He saw that the world was changing and knew the journal had to change along with it. The new AE structure he implemented was the first step in realizing this vision.

In my new role, I began to receive manuscripts. I was so excited because the papers were compelling and unusual. I also discerned a pattern – qualitative methods were not really an accurate label for the type of research I wanted to advocate for in the journal. For every paper on Picasso as brand manager (Muniz, Norris, and Fine 2013), I received ten papers where a quantitative approach was being applied to textual data. While quantifying textual data is an established methodological tradition, I began to question its power to push the boundaries of thought. The work I reviewed was sound, yet, it sometimes lacked ideological clarity.

I began to realize that what I thought should find its way into the journal was more complex, context-dependent approaches of a phenomenon rather than a particular methodology. Fortunately, my title reflected this interest in critical theory. But I realized that a traditional application of qualitative methods did not fit with what reviewers were gravitating toward.

I saw reviewers favoring work that reflected the particular, social, cultural and historical inlays within consumer behavior, work that has applied novel approaches and found new ways of looking at consumption and market practices. (Miles 2013; O’Reilly and Kerrigan 2013). These papers reflect a shift in perspective that is rippling throughout the field of marketing. Notably, two subdisciplines, Consumer Culture Theory and Transformative Consumer Research, are garnering considerable momentum and proving themselves to be strong contributors to current marketing thought. Publications that previously ignored alternative modes of inquiry, such as Journal of Retailing and Journal of Marketing, are now opening their doors to the works of leading interpretive scholars in the field. I see my role as AE as a way to position EJM as one of those journals that gives a voice to this exciting work.

Interpretive consumer research is a philosophy; it is not a method. It is not owned by one topic or content area. It is not exclusively consumer- or market focused. Its origins reside in the works of Heidigger and Habermas, who first claimed that human behavior is better understood when it is studied within the cultural, political and social milieus in which it is being produced. Research about the nature of consumers should not be devoid of context, historical situatedness or knowledge of where power resides. This philosophy differs markedly from the traditional qualitative method where texts are translated into numbers and patterns are discerned based on word counts. Its goal is “verstehen”, that deep understanding that only comes from immersion in the situation of interest. This philosophy is not limited theoretically or methodologically, as long as the embeddedness of the phenomenon of interest is considered and documented.

The work serves to interpret the complex, sometimes contradictory, always fascinating world of consumption practices. In addition, Interpretive Consumer Research can also lend focus and power to underserved consumer populations. Transformational consumer research (TCR) has this goal as one of its cornerstone, and its work has already served to affect changes in policy and public perception of consumption and markets.

The four papers in this special section exemplify the interpretive approach in equally strong, yet topically different, ways. Hamilton and Wagner’s piece on the ritual of afternoon tea found that small businesses should perhaps avoid full nostalgic recreation of a time-honored tradition and instead utilize the tradition as a cultural backdrop to create something novel.

Ulver and Ostberg's work sheds light on the use of consumption to shift one’s status. They found that consumption practices differ when the status shifts are vertical vs horizontal. Vertical shifts in status require methodical and overt consumption choices.

Ho and O’Donohoe studied the role of stigma in motivating young people to volunteer for charitable organizations. They discovered that negative stereotypes led to stigma and recommended that nonprofit organizers should focus their messages on reducing these negative perceptions.

The fourth paper, by Otnes, Ruth and Crosby, delves into how products, services or experiences enable consumer agency. Their research highlights the roles products play in how consumers empower themselves or otherwise achieve their goals.

Nick and I put together this special section at EJM to introduce readers who are unfamiliar to the benefits of the interpretive paradigm and to signal that EJM welcomes all types of submissions. We are interested in the best work that reflects the global nature of marketing and consumption, and serves to increase our understanding of the phenomena that interest us. We look forward to receiving more of your very best work.

Acknowledgement

The second author would like to acknowledge the generous support she received during her sabbatical at NEOMA, Reims Campus, Reims, 51100, France.

Nick Lee
Editor in Chief and
Susan Dobscha
Associate Editor for Interpretive Consumer Research and Critical Theory

Note

1. At the same time, the complexity of many of the quantitative and analytic models being submitted was at the time far outside my own level of technical expertise.