Editorial

Citation

Tiu Wright, L. (2000), "Editorial", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 3 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2000.21603daa.001

Editorial

I have always considered the diversity of qualitative market research to be a strength. This issue, which includes four papers on different topics, helps to illustrate the complexity and richness in the variety of approaches by different authors.

The first paper by Alvin Burns, Laura Williams and James Maxham III focuses on a specific qualitative technique and it is good to see the clarity with which a particular application can be put to use in marketing research. Their paper shows practical application with the rigour of testing hypotheses using the critical incident technique (CIT). The application of CIT enabled insights to be gained into their informants' narrative texts derived from the nature and target of their disclosure and with relevance to gender. The sample of college students as informants is a handy way to replicate target similarity e.g. same sex pairs, age, similarities in likes and dislikes of fast food and problems of student finances over credit card usage and debt. Though this paper warns of subtle biases existing in narrative text, it is a skilful explanation of the methodology employing CIT in market research.

Isabelle Szmigin and Gordon Foxall qualitatively tackle a range of contrasts while venturing into an analysis of the literature concerning the development of interpretive consumer research and its usefulness for marketing. In this second paper contrasts emerge between those who see merits in this type of research and others who criticise its shortcomings, those who fall for the influences of post-modern research compared to positivist agendas and those who seek to represent the views of writers attempting to offer alternative explanations about the perceived reality of people in a social world, while others argue for the application of a proper scientific protocol. It is not surprising then to find that the authors advocate an inclusive rather than an exclusive approach to accommodate a range of views about these differences or contrasts. In a way this is wise, but not brave, as the title tantalisingly poses, "how far have we come?".

There is a powerful argument for the application of a tighter disciplined approach when an industry faces the threat of increasing government regulation due to criticisms of its wastefulness in using resources, being offensive, misleading or untruthful in statements and images. The criticisms are familiar missiles hurled at some advertisers and particular advertisements, but the problems have also been due in part to the success of advertising as a huge global industry and the variations in practices across countries. This third paper by Debra Harker has put a case for a structure to be in place for the regulation of the advertising industry to provide some protection for consumers. Researching specifically in the Australian context and through obtaining both qualitative and quantitative data, she considered the implications of the breakdown of a long established self-regulatory programme in Australia. She has suggested recommendations towards the provision of a robust framework for regulators and practitioners to adopt.

Kathy Hastings and Chad Perry in the last paper also deal with research in Australia, though in a different industry and with a view to evaluating the theoretical underpinnings in the literature and their practical relevance. This is no easy task, as it would require a greater range of research and sample for the validation of the evidence about specific firm activities as emanating from particular theories. So their paper focuses on a sample of firms in a specific sector, the agri-foods business. The findings from their qualitative in-depth interviews are presented. Their research examined the success factors for Australian services firms and the importance of relationship marketing with particular reference to the building of relationships with Asian distributors and customers. The merits for the use of qualitative research are well supported.

The special sections under the lively editorships of Miriam Catterall, Rehan-ul Haq and Clive Nancarrow continue aspects about the theme of the importance of the interrelationships between theoretical and practitioner developments. Both contribute to the subject matter of qualitative market research and so there are obvious synergies from drawing the two cultures closer together.

Readers might also note that I have a new work address. Please see the inside front cover of this journal.

Len Tiu WrightNew e-mail: lwright@dmu.ac.uk