Editorial

Citation

Tiu Wright, L. (2009), "Editorial", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 12 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2009.21612aaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1

QMR is a journal of international standing with conceptual and methodological double blind reviewed full papers and other contributions underpinning its issues from many parts of the globe in its twelve years of existence. It has shown the scope and depth of inquiry and the quality of applications to research studies. This issue has a strong contribution of four papers from the USA with one paper from Canada. The issue starts with a commentary paper from the UK from a consultant’s viewpoint. Each paper focuses on a different perspective and methodology with all the contributions reflecting the diversity and richness of qualitative thought and techniques. The issue ends with a book review and a practitioner section from the UK.

The commentary paper seeks to find an answer to reduce uncertainties within qualitative market research concerning the age-old problem of gauging the integrity of replies from respondents. When respondents agree to be interviewed they are viewed by researchers as cooperative and therefore, by implication, all such respondents should be thought of as sincere and open in giving answers to questions. However, while researchers can often pay much attention to detail, such as putting respondents at ease, to make them feel natural and comfortable, whether conducting studies in-house or in the field. There is often little obligation on the part of respondents to tell the truth. In looking at response filters to reach deeper understanding respondents Norbert Scholl’s paper seeks to provide one answer. His paper is a commentary about emotional and cognitive dimensions with internal and external aspects considered in order to delve deeper into the mindsets of respondents and why they say what they say and do what they do. He discusses such attitudes and response processes that could provide a framework and progressively reminds us of the procedures applicable for sympathetic and in-depth interviewing. Interviewers might take note of his caveats in the pursuit of data accuracy and transparency of mindsets, all essential ingredients of valid qualitative market research.

The existence of conflict in the debate between those who follow in either the positivist or qualitative research traditions is revisited briefly in the first paper by Eric de Rosa and Christensen. The authors proceed to draw attention from the divisiveness of arguments about positivist and interpretive approaches by advancing the case for critical pluralism. Their paper supports methodological improvement of benefit to both types of researchers and refers to blind qualitative hypothesis testing. The method is proposed to give qualitative researchers the benefit of testing hypotheses using qualitative methods. The authors argue that by reducing prior expectations both practitioners of market research and academic market researchers could delve deeper within their contexts of interest and critically identify the subtleties of important phenomena within the complexities of interpersonal and social interactions.

Commitment to relationships between consumers and their service providers in qualitative research provides a different type of challenge for the authors of the second paper. Tim Jones, Shirley Taylor and Harvir Bansal reflect on the depth of this relationship and discuss three levels of commitment, accounting for the type of consumer relationship with the service company and individual service provider as well as with the individual provider serving as a friend or acquaintance. Theories about these targets of commitment in service relationships are discussed with reference to a variety of literature about psychology, organizational behaviour and marketing. There is exploratory research into the commitment construct in service relationships using a prototyping approach. The prototyping approach examines natural language and relationships to other concepts. Notably there are differences between various targets of commitment though the study demonstrates that relationship commitment is a multi-level variable. The benefit of the research lies in the effectiveness of the prototyping methodology and its exploration of the relationships of abstract concepts.

Thought processes, attitudinal orientations and lifestyles of people provide important subjects of examination and a complex mix of challenges to researchers. The third paper by Peter Bloch, Suraj Commuri and Todd Arnold identifies the significance of products to people in the context of product involvement. To some people an object or its aesthetic quality might be ephemeral or a fleeting experience, while for others it could be all embracing, determining personal prejudices and lifestyles. The concept of enduring product involvement is embedded in the product life cycle and in the continuity of marketing programmes. Potentially the research could be expanded to cover future areas as the authors delve into the examination of the possible origins of enduring product involvement, variability in individuals and between classes of individuals.

In rethinking marketing research skills and knowledge a systematic analysis of people is developed in the study of a job market. The fourth paper by Madhav Segal, Edmund Hershberger and Talaibek Osmonbekov argues the case for content analysis as an objective technique in the analysis of classified advertisements by employers. The authors follow through the line of reasoning that content analysis provides a different method to enhance other qualitative approaches in assessing applicants and employers’ skills and knowledge needs. Their proposal hinges on the ability of content analysis for marketing research to study classified advertisements placed by employers as an important complement to communication-based surveys. Content analysis is a relatively inexpensive process which could be undertaken alongside other more costly forms of consumer studies.

A different qualitative approach is taken in paper 5 which examines the hierarchical structure of means-end theory in laddering. This fifth paper by Joan Phillips and Thomas Reynolds explores fundamental assumptions about the laddering methodology from literature sources. They discuss “hard” laddering approaches and how they could either support pre-conceived assumptions or not. A comparison of a series of studies using “soft” and “hard” laddering approaches is adopted to look at the hierarchical structure of means-end theory. The contribution of this paper is in its validation of the case for laddering and the exposition of the care needed to gauge how conclusions can be affected when violations of fundamental assumptions of the laddering methodology occur.

This issue finishes with the book review by Charles Dennis and the Practitioner perspectives section by Sheila Keegan. A philosophical approach is taken in the review of a book by Grayling who argued that what people want and need from their possessions and their pleasures of the material world are the jobs of marketers. Sheila Keegan highlights the views and contents from the Qualitative Methods in Psychology Conference of the British Psychological Society. Finally, my thanks go to all including the reviewers who have contributed to making this issue a success.

Len Tiu Wright