Scholar in Marke$ng Manchester Metropolitan Business School Manchester; Associate Professor of Marke$ng School of Business and Management The American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE www.aus.edu Email: [email protected]
research? • in revealing differences between qualita$ve and quan$ta$ve approaches we need to look at the paradigms • Which approach should I use? • Choice of approach is dependent on research objec;ves 3 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
The Nature of Scienti7ic Theory • ‘theories are systema$cally related sets of statements, including some law-‐like generaliza$ons, that are empirically testable. The purpose of theory is to increase scien$fic understanding through a systema$zed structure capable of both explaining and predic$ng phenomena’ (Hunt 1993:10) 4 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
explaining and predic$ng phenomena • Subjec1ve: describing and understanding phenomena • In early years of marke$ng – objec$ve • Last two decades -‐ both approaches 5 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
framework within which a researcher may work…a basic belief system or worldview that guides the researcher’ (Guba and Lincoln 1994) • Decided through • The ontological ques$on: nature of reality? • The epistemological ques$on: rela$onship between knower and known? • The methodological ques$on: how to find out knowledge? 6 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
& social sciences measure independent facts • Pu_ng theory into prac$se • Deduc$ve approach Theory; Hypothesis Tested through data collec$on Verified / Falsified • Example -‐ quan$ta$ve study An examina$on of the impact of music within television adver$sements on consumer behaviour Theory: classical condi$oning framework • H1: that the more salient the role music has in the ad, the more affect-‐ based the ad is likely to be • Research Design: Experiment with ques$onnaire • Analysis: Basic sta$s$cs aimed to verify the hypothesis • Goal: how it truly works (Guba)? 7 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
(post-‐positivism) • Real world to discover, but cannot be fully apprehended • Imperfect sensory and intellec$ve mechanisms • Percep$on for realists is a “window on to” reality – several percep$ons though of that reality may be triangulated to obtain a beeer picture 8 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
• Aim at cri$que and transform social, poli$cal, cultural, and economic, ethnic and gender values • Inquiries: long-‐term ethnographic and historical studies of organisa$onal processes • Assump$ons: subjec$ve, values mediate inquiry • Knowledge: value-‐dependent and not value-‐free (Guba and Lincoln 1994) • Methodology: dialogic, transforma$ve 9 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
• Truth is a construc$on which refers to a par$cular belief held in a par$cular context, my own construc;on (Guba) • Reali$es appear as mul$ple reali$es -‐ rela;vist • Socially and experien$ally based • Findings are the crea$on of the process of interac$on between the inquirer and inquired • Suitable for some social science research (religion, beauty or prejudice) rarely appropriate for business research (Hunt 1991) • Dialec$c, hermeneu$c 10 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
• objec$ve reality, but ul$mate objec$vity is not possible (post-‐ pos$visim) • issues of context • adequacy of scien$fic method • Interpreta1ve & qualita1ve methods • too subjec$ve • inability to generalise 11 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
is confirmatory, outcome-‐oriented, deduc$ve in nature Qualita$ve research is exploratory and induc$ve in nature • Are these two statements correct? • Quan$ta$ve-‐Qualita$ve debate is philosophical, not methodological • The context 12 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
immersing in the se_ng • Contexts natural – nothing is predefined • Interac$ve process • Experien$al – understand experience as unified • No one general method • Quan1ta1ve • Control • Opera$onal defini$on • Replica$on • Hypothesis tes$ng 13 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
• Quant facilitates Qual • Triangula$on (Miles and Hubermans 1994) • Problem of generality • Researcher-‐subject perspec$ve • Stages in the research process • Structure (quan$ta$ve) and process (qualita$ve) • Each approach has drawbacks 14 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
on employees are also likely to have far-‐reaching effects on customers ◦ Especially on front-‐line and boundary spanning roles of service delivery } Emo$onal contagion from transfer of a_tudes, and service climate } Bassi and Van Buren 1997, Lam and Reshef 1999, Dietz et al 2001, Johnson, Herman and Huber 2006) } Reduced levels of:-‐ ◦ Customer service ◦ Trust and commitment ◦ Rela$onship quality ◦ Broken bonds ◦ Sa$sfac$on ◦ Repeat purchase ◦ Posi$ve word of mouth Impact of Downsizing on Customers MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate 15
on customer percep$ons of the factors influencing customer sa$sfac$on and repurchase inten$ons in a B2B service environment. Research Objective MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate 16
(one of the Big 5) } B2B services market (Big 5 = 60% mkt share) } Driven by annual contracts for building maintenance services – usually large accounts } Large ini$al capital investment } Over 80000 contracts, over $5 billion } 35000 service technicians in the US } 2001-‐2 recession, revenue flat, goal cost reduc$on } During 2002, firm layed off 15% of service technicians (approx 5000 staff) Context of the Study MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate 17
to collect customer feedback on its services for 5 years prior to the study. } Longitudinal study – 5 quarters ◦ before downsizing (Q4-‐01; Q1-‐02) ◦ auer downsizing (Q2-‐02, Q2-‐03, Q2-‐04) } A random sample of customers were surveyed each month – data was aggregated quarterly } Sample size varied between 534 to 994 respondents quarterly – samples independent } Telephone interview with key-‐contact personnel who were “primary decision makers” at each firm } 65 ques1ons ini$ally from qualita$ve research, refined and modified over a 5 year period to 31 ques$ons used for the study } 5 point categorical scales Research Methods MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate 18
than the qualita$ve, or vice versa? • Are underlying assump$ons different? • Does research tradi$on maeer? • Does researcher’s own experience and preference maeer? • Can both qualita$ve and quan$ta$ve approaches be used in conjunc$on with each other? 21 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
Research ques$on and overall research objec$ves • Standardized vs. situa$on in detail? What is your interest? • The literature • Implica$ons • Style 22 MMU Business School Jan 2014 Qualitative vs. Quanitative Debate
reswedsmmu
signer
takehikohashimoto
yasulab
irocho
matleenalaakso
utokyoissr2360
crebowinfo
yuko_yokouchi
asial_corp
sapi_kawahara
notwaldorf
orderedlist
thekraken
chriscoyier
tenderlove
kneath
jonrohan
paulrobertlloyd
maggiecrowley
jeffersonlam
akmur
robhawkes
