Editorial

Citation

Tiu Wright, L. (2009), "Editorial", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 12 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2009.21612baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Volume 12, Issue 2

As a journal of international standing Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal (QMRIJ) brings together conceptual, empirical and methodological contributions from many parts of the world, thus contributing to the scholastic community and offering opportunities for practitioners to integrate with it. In the practitioner world, the terms “qualitative market research and qualitative research” hold little difference as their data analyses and findings are essentially qualitative. For academic scholars well versed to the broad scope of qualitative researches’ relevance to cultural studies and many other disciplines, the inputs from qualitative market researches have aided and supported the qualitative domain. In this issue, there are international academic contributions from Canada, Korea, New Zealand, the UK and the USA as well as a practitioner perspective commentary where the authors have shared their knowledge and perceptions, reflecting the diversity of topics and benefits of qualitative thinking and the empirical methods used.

The commentary paper on “Marketing: philosophy of science and ‘epistobabble warfare’” is both evocative and provocative. Michel Rod evokes memories of developing as a qualitative researcher from a medical sciences’ background and his sudden immersion in the world of qualitative researchers where he became exposed to the philosophical foundations concerning epistemology and ontology. Here, he adopts a provocative stance when he expresses concerns over the quality of some qualitative work and the schisms arising within the academic disciplines of the social sciences. Divisions exist, essentially leading to arguments over validity and reliability, when academics may not necessarily agree on the appropriateness and best methods to adopt with regard to qualitative studies. Yet, others might take the view that the latter could crystallise opportunities for ongoing healthy debates over how to research phenomena and the fit with our perceptions of reality.

The first paper by Melvin Prince, Chris Manolis and Susan Tratner on “Qualitative analysis and the construction of causal models” is a case in point. The authors employ qualitative data analysis for causal modeling taking into account both franchisor and franchisee contexts, such as the benefits in their relationships for this mode of business. Rigorous attention to detail about the treatment of variables and the technique of data analysis allow the authors to make the case that their qualitative methodology is sound. They argue that, implicitly, the quantitative testing of a causal model at a later stage could also complement the qualitative study. This would set the scene for the qualitative analysis to be extended and to take on new meanings.

The second paper on the “Decision system analysis of advertising agency decisions” by Woonbong Na, Roger Marshall and Arch G. Woodside advocates the use of decision system analysis (DSA) for mapping interactions or streams of communications with advertising agencies. This requires protocol analysis, interviews and observation before transcription of organizational decision processes into flowcharts. They discuss their study with people involved in advertising agencies, first describing four specific decision types with a view to extracting a general model. Furthermore, the authors take into account the findings with executives from four agencies who were not in the original sample to validate their findings. The value of their method lies in the way the authors recognise the requirement of not losing objectivity through their immersion in the case-companies. Their research also took account of basic quantitative techniques to verify their observational judgments.

The differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches have long fuelled the division in market research and the existence of professional bodies devoted to one discipline or the other. This journal supports the view that the preferred approach is for each to be supportive of the other, to allow publication of papers that show how qualitative research could be enhanced through the quantitative lens.

In “Are voters, consumers?” Norman Peng and Chris Hackley in the third paper look at voters as consumers and what makes them into certain kinds of voters. Their voter-consumer analogy is largely conceptual, designed to facilitate insights into implementing the marketing concept more broadly. They support these insights from their study with a non-representative sample of voter-responses to political advertising. The authors discuss various important contextual differences where voters evaluate the media text given to them and are asked to critically examine and analyse the meanings behind the message through their own background knowledge of politics and political communication. The authors’ findings show that their voters’ engagements with political marketing and brand marketing were different along with identified differences in political and commercial arenas. In ascertaining what judgments might influence the voter sample, there appear to be more emotion and critical analysis of the advertising texts than the authors had expected. They admit to limitations in the voter-consumer analogy, particularly at the micro-level for showing differing audience responses. Overall, the value of the paper lies in explaining the important contextual differences within the commercial and political arenas perceived by laypeople or non-experts.

The fourth paper, by John Nicholson, Adam Lindgreen and Philip Kitchen, is an exposition of temporal and spatial specificity and examines how researchers could have a model by which to handle the transferability of interactions and relationships to different space and time contexts. Their paper also deals with the theory of relationship marketing seeing research products as affected by spatial and temporal limitations. In their perceptions about largely paradigmatic wars, the authors advocate their theoretical basis for adopting structuration for pragmatic and academic benefits. Their views of academic paradigm wars give food for thought. The researchers argue the case for their model to give researchers the potential to examine historical (longitudinal) interactions and relationships which could turn out to be both a constraint on and an enabler of the forces of social structures.

The fifth paper, by Martine Spence and Dave Crick, is “An exploratory study of Canadian international new venture firms’ development in overseas markets”. The authors discuss the literature and the limitations of overseas trade policies where many countries had developed these along the lines of incremental expansion suggested by the behavioural models of internationalization highlighted in their review. The authors propose that their findings could offer explanations in patterns of internationalization and more specifically in ways where foreign market knowledge could be acquired. This would encourage firms to become more highly committed to potential opportunities in remote markets much earlier, though the authors have not concentrated on the “persuasion aspects” for such firms. The paper offers clarification in international new venture firms’ development that would enhance understanding for policy-makers so that they in turn could focus on a better level of targeted support to such firms. The paper is of value in highlighting the practical benefits of facilitating opportunity recognition through network development, supporting the firms’ expertise and visibility in their contacts with foreign government trade bodies and targeting individualized assistance for firms based upon their entrepreneurial experiences and requirements.

The presence of Practitioner Perspectives in the journal is intended to bridge the divide between academics and practitioners, forging partnerships with people from both sides and presenting information of relevance to those working in the field of qualitative market research and the related social sciences. Dr Sheila Keegan, as Special Editor of the Practitioner Perspectives’ section, aptly fills the role from consultancy and management as a qualitative market research practitioner and as a visiting university academic. She has contributed a commentary paper linking both theory and practice from the academic and practitioner worlds with a vibrancy from her personal insights.

The Book Reviews section contains a review of the Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. This is an edited handbook with an impressive collection of 44 articles from 55 contributors coming from various social sciences’ backgrounds. Thus, the handbook reflects a broad range of subjects and academic perspectives which come within the scope of qualitative research. The concepts discussed are as relevant today as when the book was published, which allows the book to retain its topical nature.

In concluding this issue, I wish to thank the Editorial Board’s reviewers for contributing their time and expertise to the papers submitted for this issue. QMRIJ receives many submissions and more papers than it can publish in any year. Papers accepted and revised satisfactorily within its double-blind reviewing process are chosen for publication. Clearly, the nature of qualitative research gives rise to a wide range of titles and studies, but papers focusing on innovative and creative ways of thinking for research studies, supported by sound theoretical and methodological underpinnings, are those that are likely to pass the review process. The authors are thanked for their contributions.

Len Tiu Wright