Analysis of the Research about Development within the UK Retail Fashion Sector - Term Paper Example

INTRODUCTION The paper presented by Christopher M. Moore demonstrates how the UK retail fashion sector has emerged in the wake of new players. This paper has aimed to examine the process of own-brand creation and development within the UK retail fashion sector. The thesis statement is quite clear in the introduction. Contemporary literature review has been undertaken along with qualitative research. To make the study comprehensive, a semi-structured face-to-face interviews with marketing and buying directors from 11 major UK fashion retail chains was undertaken. Only those firms that predominantly sold own-brand merchandise and had a turnover in excess of 75 million pounds were interviewed. The study arrived at the conclusion that the trend of fashion own-brand is the most vital element in determining the trading strategies of the major fashion retail players. Through research and analysis, he also deduced that the success of the strategy depends upon management expertise, retailer communications research, planning and resource investment and most importantly, on the receptivity amongst shoppers. This paper will examine how effectively the research was carried out and whether it is comprehensive and can be relied upon. Comment on Literature Review In examining the issue, the author undertook literature review but the introduction of the paper does not give any indication on the sources of information that will be used – whether through books or through websites. Literature search is a significant step in the research process (Reed, n.d.). The purpose of the literature review is to examine fashion own-brands from a retailer perspective. The literature review section should contain an introduction, main body and a conclusion. It contains a proper introduction for literature review but subsequently the conclusion has not been segregated from the discussion. The author in this case has researched through recent literature not more than five years old. The research done conveys what others have done in the field and what more is left to be done but it is insufficient. While qualitative research has been undertaken and primary sources used, it is not clear from the sentence structure, whether they are the opinions of the authors concerned or whether those authors have cited other experts in the field. This is because no quotes have been included in the literature search, which normally adds substance to the paper. Names of authors have not been mentioned except in two cases, which does not help to clarify whose opinion it is. The bibliography at the end does not quote page numbers in many instances. Chronological method of literature review has been applied (CC, 1998). The author starts with an introduction and then discusses about the 1970s and proceeds on how development has taken place. Mentioning of dates after 1970s would have made the reader understand at what pace developments took place. While information has been well synthesized, discussion about the four tests by Davies to distinguish between a retailer own-label and own-brand is not relevant as literature review. This is more of a discussion on the tests and takes the reader away from the subject of research. It should have been sufficient to mention that tests have been conducted to distinguish between the two types. The literature review expresses limitations, which is essential for any literature review section. This literature review sounds more like a discussion on the subject and the situation than a review of the literature undertaken for study. No evidence has been used while stating facts, for instance, when the author discusses Davies’ view that the emergence of market power is inextricably linked to the development of strong retailer brands, examples with some names of UK retailers is considered necessary. Any opinion should be backed with evidence to make the literature review of acceptable quality (Caprette, 1995). In the second paragraph of the literature review, instead of synthesizing and summarizing the contents at the end of the paragraph, it has been stated at the beginning. The author has not weaved others’ views in the text in the right fashion, which makes it difficult to understand which are his opinion and which belong to the author under review. In other words, the writer’s views have not been segregated from the literature under review. However, the literature review demonstrates familiarity with the subject. He has been successful in summarizing information for the reader, but it has not been very well laid out. Not enough literature has been considered and it has not even been clearly laid out. Each paragraph should have contained the summary of each source with remarks and observations. The facts have been presented as stated in the source. The result section is very large, which suggests that the literature review should have been more in terms of both quantity and quality. Besides, no comparison of research findings has been undertaken. No critical approach has been applied to the literature review section. Comment on Methodology The methodology section is very small and just describes the purpose of the study and the method used for it. This research was undertaken to examine the process of own-brand creation and development within the UK fashion retail industry and the advantages that the retailers derive from own-brand, A study of just 11 major UK fashion retail chain was taken into consideration and that too in the form of face-to-face interviews. The number of participants perhaps is enough considering the criteria of turnover but the process could have been made comprehensive. At the same time, only the marketing and buying directors were interviewed whereas floor managers who have been with the fashion retailer for a considerable period can offer the right opinion. The floor managers or the shop managers interact on a regular basis with the end customers and they are the ones to give a clearer idea. Responses from the buying and marketing directors would be based on the sales and purchase figures, which can easily be obtained from the balance sheet and annual report. Formalized research methodology helps to keep the researchers honest, unbiased and helps reduce errors. Secondly it helps to convince the readers that the results are authentic and reliable (Sumser cited by Radford & Goldestien, 2002). Since this paper was subjective, it cannot be free from bias or errors. A comparative study could have been undertaken from a different group, which comprised of those retailers who do not stick to own-brand but market other brands as well. At the same time, responses and data collected from the shoppers would in fact give the exact position of how own-brand is effective. The data collection in the form of questionnaire from the customers would have justified the interviews of the directors. This data collection would further help if was taken at different times of the year to make the responses and the study reliable. The questions that were posed to the directors cannot be quantified and is subjective in nature. The results can tend to be more theoretical and biased since all the participants either exclusively or predominantly sold own-brand merchandise. The researcher has only conducted qualitative research, as he did not know what to expect since there was no information of prior research on the subject. The design emerged as the study unfolded and he could get data from the preliminary interview of the participants. It was a subjective research but a quantitative research may be more helpful. Carefully designed statistical models would better help to collect data scientifically (Neill, 2006). Even a questionnaire would have been more authentic than face-to-face interviews. Higher authorities can often doctor these responses. Comments on Presentation of Results & Discussions The results section and the discussion section has not been segregated. The result section should only present and illustrate the findings. Interpretation should left to the discussion section but in this report, opinions and interpretations are merged with the findings. No tables and figures have been given to illustrate the findings. This section is comprehensive and suggests that perhaps the literature review section should have been more elaborate and extensive. It is also surprising that a study of just eleven participants could make the author derive at such comprehensive conclusions. All through the results section, the author states that a ‘consistent pattern’ or a ‘common pattern’ emerged. The writer has described the questions, made an observation but at the same time has also arrived at a conclusion pertaining to that particular section. A lot of research data was collected from the 11 participants and analyzed. The author has analyzed the data and presented the findings in a systematic manner. After consideration of one point, the writer concludes and links it to the central research question. The researcher has analyzed the data in different ways, from different angles, emphasizing on the finding and confirming the theme of the research. While no tabulations have been presented for the reader, clarity in explanation makes it easy to understand the findings and research conclusions. The number and types of data analyses carried out are appropriate and sufficient. The researcher has constantly discussed the central question, the sub-questions and arrived at a conclusion through different means. He has identified and summarized the key issues, but no constraints have been highlighted through out the report. He has however, highlighted previous research carried out and specified what had not been highlighted in those researches. Along with the importance of own-brand, various other factors came to light in the fashion retain chain in UK, which may serve as useful data for the management in planning. The own-brand concept has been considered even in case of internationalization. Each paragraph or a sub-heading points out to a particular observation and conclusion relevant to the topic of research. The results demonstrate interpretation of results, with the support of data collected from the participants but prior knowledge on the subject is not evident. Discussions form a part of the result and it has been dealt with in depth. The results agree with the theory of the paper and enough evidence from the data analysis has been provided. The discussion deals with several hypotheses and each have been dealt with conclusively. The report however, does not refer to any constraints in research findings or even suggest what further research might reveal. It implies that it is conclusive in its findings. The only drawback is that these are secondary data that has been used and not directly obtained from the customers or shoppers. Another drawback in the presentation of reports is that at no point has the author linked the findings to the literature that has been reviewed earlier. This would imply that the author considers the report sufficient in itself and that literature is insignificant. Besides, results have not been critically analyzed but the findings accepted exactly as has been analyzed from the secondary data and as supplied by the participants. The conclusion is not very comprehensive in comparison to the results although it restates the research paper and the relevancy of the subject (Caeti & Sloat, 2001). It presents the conclusions of all the analyses but no recommendations have been included for further research or analyses of the same data for more findings. In fact, overall, the result portion of the report is the most comprehensive and conclusive . The literature review and the methodology have several shortcomings as discussed above. The references have not been alphabetically laid out as is generally practiced in any research paper. For a paper of this magnitude, subject, and thesis, more references should have been included. In conclusion, despite shortcomings, the paper has laid out the thesis statement clearly in the introduction, followed the pattern of literature review, methodology, results and conclusion. While much could be done on the literature review and methodology, the results and the discussions amply confirm the thesis statement with the help of data collected. The paper also lacks in future suggestions and recommendations. References: Caeti T J & Sloat C (2001), Guidelines for Writing a Administrative Research Paper, 26 July 2006 Caprette D R (1995), Writing Research Papers, 26 July 2006 CC (1998), Literature Reviews, 26 July 2006 Neill J (2006), Qualitative versus Quantitative Research, 26 July 2006 Radford G P & Goldstein S Z (2002), Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Volume 7 Number 4 2002 pp. 252-256 Reed (n.d.), Performing a Litertaure Review, 26 July 2006 Read More