The Concept of Marketing Research - Coursework Example

Running Head: Market Research Market Research Name Institute Market Research A client at a large manufacturing firm asked his research department to tell him the differences between qualitative and quantitative research. The first explanation he got was that you first conduct qualitative research to draw hypotheses and then you conduct a quantitative study to support or not to support these hypotheses. Another answer was that it all down to the sample sizes involved. One is used for small sample sizes while the other for large sample size research. A third distinction one researcher made was about project-ability, he said only quantitative studies are projectable (Tauber, 1987). Some researchers said the two are often interchangeable only that choice was guided by economics. They said that you conduct qualitative research if you have a restrictive budget. However, the truth is that these assertions are not wholly correct. In the simplest of definitions, Carlson (2008) describes qualitative research as that which is primarily interpretive in nature and that can include introspection. This is a perspective that has been made use of by many scholars such as Ron Hill, Beth Hirschman, Russ Belk and others (Carlson, 2008). On the other hand quantitative research means the positivistic research traditions that are characteristic of the experimental design work, structural equation modelling, etc., that are empirical in nature (Carlson, 2008). However, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) differ with this interpretation arguing that at best we rely on approximations to distinguish quantitative from qualitative research. They further hold the opinion that much research whilst clearly focused on a single major approach, bears within it use of several techniques that often blend the two approaches. To dispel the myths, there is nothing inherent in qualitative research interviews that make it restricted to small sample or to lack project-ability. Conducting 200 or more one – on – ones is rarely done because it is costly and not that it is not ‘do-able’. The two methods are also not interchangeable because they give different types of information to the researcher, e.g. if you compare an interactive depth interview to a structured (quantitative type) questionnaire. Sample size isn't the issue. Projectability isn't the issue. One method does not produce answers that can be duplicated (and thus tested) by the other. They each should stand on their own (Tauber, 1987). The concept of marketing research is all about answering the 'what' and 'why' for best research results. The core reason for research is to add insight and explain complexity (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Increased understanding of the market is the ultimate goal of market research endeavours irrespective of the research approach chosen (Carlson, 2008). That said Carlson (2008) states that a good portion of the advertising/marketing research perspectives and findings that have typified the latter half of the 20th century as well as into this current one follow the quantitative approach. This is due to quantitative research’s numerical representation of issues which makes it easier to arrive at and defend definite statements (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Additionally, quantitative research supports defence of proposed generalizations and specification of the extent to which certainty has been achieved through concepts such as validity and reliability. Qualitative research in marketing, on the other hand, aims to produce insight rather than to measure, to explore rather than to pin-down. In recent years there has been an apparent increase in practitioner-conducted qualitative research in major marketplaces such as the UK (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005), and also an increase in use of focus groups within market research. Qualitative research has some clear advantages over quantitative research. It can answer questions of why and how, not just how much. Qualitative research is also better to use when you seek to ascertain causality between variables and not just correlation. The objectivist framework approach to making generalisable statements continues to dominate marketing research. This is another reason why quantitative market research remains dominant. There are other historical and social arguments that favour the quantitative approach. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) say that the positivist tradition that favours quantitative research was established in important centres in the United States, such as the Harvard University Graduate School of Business and other university marketing schools. This has meant that graduating students all through have come out biased towards quantitative approaches over qualitative approaches. Furthermore, emphasis on generalisability and numbers in marketing research has been promoted through the history of research as good research. This legitimisation of quantitative research as being the better research has influenced academic and professional marketers in major institutions in a typically Kuhnian fashion. Kuhn inferred that having undergone similar education and professional trainings; academics and businessmen have come out of the education process having absorbed the same technical literature and developing practices and biases based on that (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Another probable reason why quantitative research dominates in marketing could be that of disciplinary status. The more established social sciences e.g. economics and psychology are quantitative and this puts pressure on marketing scholars to follow that trend. Marketing is a discipline of study therefore as it seeks to raise its profile among the other social disciplines, it must ape their practices as it grows. Moreover, the methodologies that have been developed and tested in marketing research are increasingly those suited to confirming propositions or hypotheses rather than to discovering new propositions or hypotheses, which again favour the quantitative approach. Valid results in market research are achieved not so much by the choice of method employed, but by how well they are used. With the ultimate goal of what we accomplish with market research being to increase understanding (Carlson, 2008), then the important thing is not the technique used rather it is the appropriateness of the research approach chosen. Roller (1988) accuses both quantitative and qualitative researchers as being guilty for hoping that their own methodology would be used to explain all truths. The truth is that both groups of researchers need to recognize the other. Researchers must not lose sight of their ultimate objective which is to provide their clients with a research package that gives answers to their marketing questions. Regardless of research method, there is one fundamental basis from which all research flows: ask a question and you will always get an answer. This places a heavy burden on the researcher and requires a conscious effort to ask the right questions, accurately interpret the results, and read behind the numbers or the comments to really understand what has been said (Roller 1988). To obtain valid results in market research, researchers need to incorporate safeguards into their research in order to minimize confirmation bias and other sources of invalidity that have the potential to prevail in every research study. They must then select and use analytical techniques that are designed to obtain the maximal meaning from their data, and manipulate their data so that findings have utility with respect to their respective views of reality (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Both quantitative and qualitative investigators must utilize techniques to verify their data. Quantitative researchers would need to incorporate a myriad of control procedures and random sampling techniques to maximize internal and external validity, while qualitative researchers use an array of methods for assessing the audit-ability or credibility of their work. In qualitative research the most common purposes are those of theory initiation and theory building, whereas in quantitative research the most typical objectives are those of theory testing and theory modification (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). To obtain good results in market research it would be beneficial to follow the following tactics. To start with, the marketing questions being investigated need to be interesting so that the researchers feel the desire to come up with solutions. This is followed by appropriate sample(s) selection for the given research questions. Researchers involved in the project would need to have a broad set of methodological skills so that they are not limited within their research area of interest. It is vital to have structure for a conceptual framework and to construct boundaries for research. Develop rigorous pre-tests that will provide valuable information on how the actual research may be improved so that researchers do not bear with them a false sense of security when they embark on the actual research. Importantly, market researchers should not favour a certain choice of method to employ in their research; they should instead focus on how best to achieve the goals of their study. Being fixated on either qualitative or quantitative research techniques is not recommended. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) have even gone further to suggest that we de-emphasize the terms quantitative and qualitative research and, instead, subdivide research into exploratory and confirmatory methods. According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005), such a re-conceptualization unites quantitative and qualitative data collection and data analytical procedures under the same framework. They advocate for the development of what they refer to as a ‘pragmatic researcher’. According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005), the pragmatic researcher shall be flexible in their investigative techniques. Such researchers shall have a positive attitude towards both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Pragmatic researchers shall also be more able to combine empirical precision with descriptive precision. This approach for using mixed methodologies within the same inquiry enables researchers to delve deeper into a dataset to comprehend its meaning and to use the methods to crosscheck findings from each other. “The five broad purposes of mixed methodological studies are: (a) triangulation (i.e. the seeking of corroboration and convergence of results from diverse methods studying the same phenomenon); (b) complementarity (i.e. the seeking of elaboration, enhancement, illustration and clarification of the results from one method with results from the other method); (c) development (i.e. using the results from one technique to facilitate updating the other method); (d) initiation (i.e. discovering contradictions and inconsistencies that lead to a re-drafting of the research question); and (e) expansion (i.e. seeking to enlarge the range and breadth of inquiry by using singular methods for dissimilar inquiry components)” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, , 2005, p.385). Conclusion Roller (1988) says that the labeling of research as either quantitative or qualitative is a very profound mistake by users of research. According to her research is neither quantitative nor qualitative, but a process. It is not an either or proposition. It is a process that commences with a marketing problem and terminates with a design that satisfies that particular research needs. It is this design that could either be quantitative or qualitative (Roller, 1988). The dominance of one research approach in marketing (namely the quantitative method) is unfortunate. In order to remedy this situation it has been suggested that researchers use mixed methods. Carlson (2008) proposes that we bring an end to infighting, defensiveness and territory protection when we engage in market research. The ultimate goal of what we accomplish should be to return honest value to those who have sponsored the research. Finally, as both qualitative and quantitative researchers the fact is that people will respond to any question they are asked and the obligation is on the market researchers to paint a picture based on a thorough assessment of the human psyche. This thorough assessment is independent of the technique selected rather it should depend on depth and breadth of the solution required and the phenomena under investigation. Moreover, as Onwuegbuzie & Leech (2005) say, research may be clearly focused on applying a single major methodology to seek an understanding of a phenomenon yet within that main approach we are bound to see the use of several techniques, a mix of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. References Carlson, L. (2008). Qualitative vs. quantitative research traditions: a needless and useless debate that hampers advertising and marketing knowledge development. International Journal of Advertising, 27,4, 660 – 663. Onwuegbuzie, A. J, & Leech, N. L. (2005). On Becoming a pragmatic researcher: the Importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Social Research Methodology, 8, 5, 375–387. Roller, M. R. (1988, August 29). The Qualitative vs. the quantitative conflict is a futile one. Marketing News, 22. Tauber, E. M. (1987). Qualitative vs. Quantitative. Journal of Advertising Research [editorial], 7. . Read More