Editorial

Citation

Ellis, N. and Wiesehofer-Climpson, H. (2001), "Editorial", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 4 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2001.21604aaa.001

Editorial

Welcome to this special issue of Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. This issue comprises the best of the qualitatively based papers presented at the Academy of Marketing (AM) Conference held at the University of Derby in July 2000. The theme of this year's conference was "Bridging the divide: when theory meets practice".

The selection of papers has not been an easy task since there were over 20 submitted for the conference that were explicitly aimed at the Qualitative Market Research track and a further two dozen displaying a distinctly qualitative bias. As for all AM conferences, papers were subjected to a double blind reviewing process. In order to arrive at a potential "top 12", those which reviewers felt worthy of a potential best paper nomination were combined with other submissions gaining especially favourable reviews. Driven by the AM Conference, six articles were then chosen for this special issue.

In their paper on "interpretive consumer research" Avi Shankar and Christina Goulding discuss the contribution which "narrative theory" and "dimensional analysis" (a little-known alternative version of grounded theory) can make to our understanding of consumption behaviour. They relate these research techniques to the need for practitioners to become less "data driven" and to recognise the importance of the theoretical underpinnings that ultimately guide the interpretive process. As well as offering a comprehensive review of the methodological literature, their paper aims to assist the practitioner to achieve the goal of "pragmatic validity".

Martin Evans, Maurice Patterson and Lisa O'Malley investigate how consumers interact with direct marketing initiatives via a series of depth interviews and group discussions. This largely "open-ended" approach facilitates the generation of some rich qualitative data concerning customer-perceived issues. The paper's findings reveal consumers to be pragmatic and somewhat cynical with regard to direct marketing approaches. Participants' main concerns are shown to be with "privacy, control and relevance". The authors believe that these issues present a clear agenda of interaction "gaps" which the direct marketing practitioner should address.

The high profile context of political campaigning is addressed by Paul Baines and John Egan. Based on a grounded theoretical approach, the authors question the nature of the marketing methods used in US political campaigns. They point to an apparent failure of marketing efforts to produce a high level of voter turnout. Following their "investigative" study conducted chiefly via the analysis of depth interviews with political consultants, however, they conclude that, although the political "market" is different and restrictive compared to typical commercial markets, these factors do not negate the role of marketing.

Taking a critical gaze at both academic texts and popular periodicals, Paul Whysall explores the commonplace use of the "war" metaphor in marketing discourses. His particular area of concern is the set of values implicit in the war metaphor as it has come to be applied to the fields of retailing and logistics. A detailed analysis of the literature shows how for many authors the warfare metaphor has been theoretically employed. Yet this has not necessarily resulted in an improvement in our understanding of retail systems. Whysall also notes that the war metaphor operates as a literary device that can lead to the metaphor losing its ability to stimulate creative thought. He concludes that we should seek other, perhaps more appropriate, metaphors to develop knowledge, but always with an awareness of the motives behind their advocation.

Also concerned with creative development, though this time within the context of advertising, is Chris Hackley. As his paper's title indicates, he presents a discussion of "a qualitative study on the use of qualitative research". Hackley generates data from depth interviews with advertising executives which he analyses using a discourse analytic approach. Findings show how the centrality of the role of the account planner within an advertising agency is founded on the legitimacy of qualitative research over quantitative methods, particularly regarding the capacity of the former to generate "special insights".

Marketing practitioners are the focus of Nicholas Ashill and David Jobber's paper. Specifically, they address the design of marketing information systems (MkIS) in relation to the information needs of decision-makers. They combine a considerable body of evidence from disciplines to arrive at a conceptual framework for MkIS design. This is followed by a qualitative study examining the information needs of senior marketing executives. These needs are derived from a series of semi-structured interviews, from which data reduction is achieved mainly through "in vivo codes". The paper's findings suggest that the characteristics of information advocated in the literature need to be revised to accommodate the views of marketing managers.

In conclusion, it should be clear that what has driven the selection of the majority of these papers is that not only do they privilege a qualitative research orientation, they also address the theme of the AM conference. That is "bridging the divide" which, in the case of most of the work offered here, represents bridging the gap which many observers feel exists between research and managerial relevance. Although it can be argued that the issue of "relevance" should not necessarily drive academic research, we believe that we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, increasingly having to justify our existence! Thus this special issue, as well as maintaining the standards that you have come to expect from the QMRIJ, the Editor and the Editorial Board, also serves as an illustration that qualitative market research has much to offer both to our discipline and to the consumers and marketing practitioners with whom we interact.

Nick Ellis and Hildegard Wiesehofer-ClimpsonUniversity of Derby, UKn.ellis@derby.ac.ukh.wiesehofer@derby.ac.uk