Purposes of Exploratory Market Research - Essay Example

Exploratory Market Research Introduction Exploratory research allows for brainstorms into and inclusion of an issue or circumstances. It should have the capacity to bring out the definitive conclusions but with great care. When a problem is not clearly defined then exploratory research is used. This kind of research aids in determining the best research design, selection of subjects and data collection method. Given its basic nature, exploratory research habitually reasons out that a comprehended problem does not in reality exist. This type of research actually depends on secondary research like reviewing available literature or data. It might also depend on qualitative approaches like informal discussions with clients, management, employees or even competitors. Sometimes formal approaches may also be considered like focus groups, through in-depth interviews, case studies or pilot studies and projective methods. “In many social science circles, exploratory research seeks to find out how people get along in the setting under question, what meanings they give to their actions, and what issues concern them. The goal is to learn what is going on here? and to investigate social phenomena without explicit expectations" (Schutt, 2006). According to Kotler et al. (2006, p.122) “The objective of exploratory research is to gather preliminary information that will help define problems and suggest hypotheses.” Exploratory research has the objective of inventing setbacks more accurately, clearing up conceptions, collecting explanations, deriving insight, annihilating unrealistic ideas, and constructing hypotheses. Exploratory research can be executed with the help of a literature search, following certain people about their know-how, and case studies. When seeking the help of people, exploratory research surveys does not seek for a representative sample, but to a certain extent, seeks to interrogate those who are well-informed and who might be able to offer perceptivity pertaining to the relationship among variables (Apple Computer inc., 1987). Case studies may include counter pointing circumstances or benchmarking against an establishment known for its distinction. Exploratory research may formulate hypotheses, but will not seek to prove them. Exploratory research is qualified by its tractability (McQuarrie, 1996). Source: http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi, accessed on 14th April, 2010 Critical Analysis of the purposes of the Exploratory Research According to Babbie (1989) exploratory research is applied when setbacks are in an introductory stage. In reality Exploratory research is utilised when the subject of the research work to be conducted is new and also collection of data becomes very difficult. This kind of research is stretchy and can tackle research queries of all types like what, why and how. Shields and Tajalli (2006) connect exploratory research with the theoretical structure of working hypotheses. “Pi Alpha the national Public Administration Honorary has discerned four papers that are exploratory and use working hypotheses as their Conceptual framework” (Baum, 1997; Perez, 2000; and Wilson, 2001). When a researcher of exploratory research selects to make use of a hypothesis for his research work then according to Bunge (1967, p.9) there should be a logical plan to be followed. The logic is as follows: “Ask well formulated and fruitful questions. Devise both grounded and testable hypotheses to answer the questions. Derive logical consequences of the assumptions. Design techniques to test the assumptions; test the techniques for relevance and reliability. Execute the tests. Interpret the results. Evaluate the truth claims of the assumptions and the fidelity of the techniques; determine the domains in which the assumptions and the techniques hold. “ Source: Bunge (1967, p.9) The gradual process of collecting intelligence under exploratory research about the aim of study intends also that it will be not possible to begin by setting the conceptions of study. In the non-existence of tried models and specific conceptions a researcher must start the exploratory study from what he/she has: one or more objects of study. It is frequent that in the starting of exploratory study a holistic look at the objects will have to be taken. It only means that the starting will be by collecting as much info about the objects as possible, and by rescheduling the task of cutting away needless data till a better picture about what is required is got (John, 1984). Source: http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi The way of irregular point of view (as in the diagram above) can be applied as a research method. It is particularly fitted to an explorative researcher working solely. It will intensify his/her apprehension and can sometimes disclose precious new views to the topic (Thomas, 1996). Investigation in exploratory research is fundamentally concept and generalisation. Abstraction is the translation of the experimental observations, measuring etc. into constructs; generalisation means arrangement of the material so that it withdraws from single persons, happenings etc. and centres on those structures that are general to all or most of the cases (Tyldesley, 1988). Sometimes knowledgeable discussions with managers and suppliers and on-site visits may not be enough for the research work undertaken. Under such circumstances exploratory research may be carried on to obtain larger understanding of a concept or to help clear up the explanation of a problem. It is also used to make out vital variables to be studied. Thus exploratory research is opening research, not the ultimate research used to establish a course of action. It will hardly ever be feasible to segregate exploratory study into such apparent phases as is common in case when the object has been studied earlier. According to Alasuutari (1993 p.22), in qualitative analysis of experimental determinations, two phases can be distinguished but they overlap: simplification of observations and interpretation of results (or "solving the enigma"). Sometimes it becomes very difficult to classify what is applicable in advance; it only becomes obvious through investigation. This is the frequent case in exploratory research and this is one of the gravest problems of such research. A suggestion of such a "saturated" condition of research is that the study of new items or cases where no new and interesting information is revealed (Chin et. all., 1988). Most of the problems of exploratory research can be averted if the researcher can begin with a model, formulated in previous studies, which he/she uses as a "working hypothesis". The form can either comprise of cases or concepts. During the study, the researcher attempts to see whether the gathered material adjusts to the model or must the model be corrected or even look for a better and suitable mode (Kurosu, M. and Kashimura, 1995). Frequently the study merely continues by elaborating an earlier model. A good principle to be adopted in such a position is: “Start from what is known. Proceed by enlarging the mapped area, and connect the new intelligence to the known facts. Sometimes all that you need is only an adjustment of a few details in the existing model. This is often the case when the study shall give grounds for a forecast or new product development and the environment of intended application is slightly different from the one of the earlier study” (Barnes, 1980). The continuation of a cautious model assists in choosing the logical structure of the total research project and designing it. The model assists in deciding “which material has to be gathered, from which cases or specimens and about which attributes or variables of these cases. Even the recording of observations is facilitated because often you will be able to utilize earlier definitions of variables” (Scrivener and Stephen, 2002). Exploration strategic official components centre on alteration and amend within the systems state to improve the latent for additional opportunities (Benner and Tushman 2003; Bertalanffy and Rapoport 1962; Gupta et al. 2006; Ireland and Justin 2007; March 1991; Scott 2003; Turner 2006). The exploration strategic official elements also render added choices for important organisational learning which permits environmental density to be represented into the firm’s structure (Augier et al. 2002; Barnett and Burgelman 1996; March 1996; McDonald 2002; Scott 2003). As the organisation’s structure acquires, adjusts, and develops to the external environment, the organisation’s project environment and methodological core are capable to reach maximum inputs, bring maximum output, and thus produce a maximum yield which in effect creates a system where the total is greater than the sum of its parts (Bailey 1994; Bartee 1971; Rivkin 2000; Thompson 1960). The marketing strategic official components include determinations relating to viable mapping, industry and market movements analysis, specialisation tactics, and most significantly customer feedback loops. This will be capable to address product or service pleasure levels, quality effects, product usefulness, continuous betterment, apparent value, and warranty satisfaction. Marketing Research Process Source: (Alvin, 1980). Intranets for Exploratory Research The computer is a very powerful tool for conducting exploratory research. In big organisations with intranets, the researcher has the potential of finding out whether required or significant information is accessible somewhere inside the organisation. The corporate marketing research department at Texas Instruments (TI), for instance, has acquired an authoritative intranet appliance that allows TI managers wide-reaching to search for past research reports and those presently in progress on the basis of key words. Conclusion Completing Exploratory Research The conclusion of exploratory study comes up when the marketing investigators are confident that they have discovered the major proportions of the problem. They may have determined a set of enquiries that can be applied as specific guides to an elaborated research design. Or they may have formulated a number of possible ideas about potential reasons of a specific problem of importance to management. They may also have ascertained that certain other components are such distant theories that they can be safely overlooked in any further study. Lastly, the researchers may end exploration as they feel that additional research is not required or is not currently achievable due to time, money, or other restraints. Reference 1. Alasuutari, Pertti. 1993. “Qualitative Research”. Vastapaino. Tampere. 2. Apple Computer inc., 1987. Human interface guidelines: the Apple desktop interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 3. Augier, Mie, James G. March, and Richard Michael Cyert. 2002. “The economics of choice, change, and organization: Essays in memory of Richard M. Cyert. Cheltenham, UK;” Northampton, MA: E. Elgar. 4. Babbie, Earl.1989. “The Practice of Social Research.” 5th edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth. 5. Bailey, Kenneth D. 1994, "Talcott Parsons, social entropy theory, and living systems theory," Behavioral Science, 39 (1), 25. 6. Barnett, William P. and Robert A. Burgelman. 1996, "Evolutionary perspectives on strategy," Strategic Management Journal, 17 (7), 5-19. 7. Bartee, Edwin M. 1971, "On the methodology of solutions synthesis," Management Science, 17 (6), B-312-B-23. 8. Barnes, Ralph M. 1980 “Motion and time study. Design and measurement of work.” Seventh edition. John Wiley, New York. 9. Baum, Kevin L., 1997. "Group Dynamics & Power Structures: Toward a Greater Understanding of the Line-Staff Relationship within the Austin Fire Department". Applied Research Projects. Texas State University – San Marcos. Paper 96. 10. Benner, Mary J. and Michael L. Tushman. 2003, "Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited," Academy of Management Review, 28 (2), 238-56. 11. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von and Anatol Rapoport. 1962, "General systems theory: A critical review," General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, 7, 20. 12. Bunge, Mario. 1967. “Scientific research.” Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 13. Chin, J. P.; Diehl, V. A. and Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of ACM CHI´88, Washington, DC, 213-218. 14. Edward F. McQuarrie 1996. The Market Research Toolbox: A Concise Guide for Beginners Sage Publications. 15. Gupta, Anil K., Ken G. Smith, and Christina E. Shalley. 2006. "The interplay between exploration and exploitation," Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 693-706. 16. http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi, accessed on 14th April, 2010 17. Ireland, R. Duane and W. Webb Justin (2007), "Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation," Business Horizons, 50 (1), 49. 18. Kotler, P, Adam, S, Brown, L & Armstrong, G 2006, Principles of Marketing , 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest, NSW. 19. Kurosu, M. and Kashimura. 1995. “Apparent usability vs. inherent usability – Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability.” CHI95 conference proceedings, 292-293. 20. McDonald, Robert Edward (2002), "Knowledge entrepreneurship: Linking organizational learning and innovation," Ph.D., The University of Connecticut. 21. Perez, Shivaun, 2000. "Assessing Service Learning Using Pragmatic Principles of Education: A Texas Charter School Case Study". Applied Research Projects. Texas State University. Paper 76. 22. Russell, Schutt, K., 2006. “Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research” Pine Forge Press. 23. Rivkin, Jan W. 2000, "Imitation of complex strategies," Management Science, 46 (6), 824. 24. Scott, W. Richard. 2003, Organizations, rational, natural, and open systems (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 25. Scrivener, Stephen 2002. “Characterising Creative-production Doctoral Projects in Art and Design. In: International Journal of Design Sciences & Technology.” 10 (2): Paris. 26. Shields, Patricia and Hassan, Tajalli. 2006. “Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in Successful Student Scholarship.” Journal of Public Affairs Education. 12 (3): Pp. 313-334. 27. Thomas, B. 1996. ‘Quick and dirty´ usability tests. In Jordan, P. W.; McClelland, I. L. and Thomas, B. (Eds.). Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis, London, 107-114. 28. Thompson, James D. 1960, "Organizational management of conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (4), 389. 29. Toffler, (Alvin, 1980). The third wave. Collins. London 30. Turner, Ian. 2006, "Rationality, foolishness and adaptive intelligence," Henley Manager Update, 17 (4), 33-46. 31. Tyldesley, D. A. 1988. Employing usability engineering in development of office products. Computer Journal, vol. 31 no. 5, 431-436. 32. Wilson, Timothy, L.2001 "Pragmatism and Performance Measurement: An Exploration of Practices in Texas State Government" 2001. Applied Research Projects. Texas State University. Paper 71. 33. Zeisel, John. 1984. Inquiry by design: tools for environment-behaviour research. Cambridge University Press. Read More