Summary Consumer Research in Marketing ‘Article 1; Alternative Ways of Seeking Knowledge
in Consumer Research (Hudson & Ozanne)’
Introduction
There are many ways of seeking knowledge about consumers (reading, experiment) and each form is
valuable -> researchers must choose processes through which they gain knowledge. Dominant
approaches to gaining knowledge in social sciences are positivist and interpretive approaches. The
positivist and interpretive approaches are incommensurable (onvergelijkbaar met dezelfde
standaarden), because they are based on different goals and philosophical assumptions.
Positivist and interpretive approaches
Each paradigm can be characterized through their basic assumptions, beliefs, norms, and values:
Ontological assumptions: beliefs about nature of reality and social beings influences our perception
of truth -> nature of reality and nature of social beings. Nature of reality:
Positivists take realist position: single, objective reality exists independently of what individuals
perceive -> reality exists as structure composed of relationships among its parts. Reality is
divisible and fragmentable -> precise, accurate measurements and observations are possible.
All inquiries will converge on same objective reality -> reality as truth. Example is laboratory
experiment -> parts of reality are separated from their usual context and placed in controlled
settings for observation. Relationships can be taken out of their natural context and behaviour
that is displayed in laboratory may correspond to behaviour in natural context. So, responses
to information in laboratory will reflect how subjects behave in natural setting.
Interpretivists take relativist position: reality is mental, social constructed and perceived ->
multiple realities because of different individual and group perspectives inquiries won’t
converge on single reality because of multiple and changing realities -> multiple truths. Reality
is made up of systems that are dependent on other systems for their meaning -> reality evolve
and change with context (consumers view information differently in retail store than in
laboratory setting) -> holistically view on interdependent systems, because meanings change
if systems are separated and fragmented. Example is participant-observer technique ->
researcher study people in natural context and view people holistically.
Nature of social beings:
Positivists hold deterministic view: human behaviour is determined (shaped by environment)
-> individuals behave reactively and conditioned (operant conditioning -> rewarding leads to
change in probability of purchase behaviour).
Interpretivists hold voluntaristic view: human behaviour is created through interaction with
environment -> individuals actively create and interact to shape their environment (collect
cents-off coupons to communicate that you are good, cost-efficient shopper).
Axiological assumptions: relative weighting of fundamental goal and what counts as fulfilling the
goal underly world views -> study of value (what you value or aim for in research) -> overriding goal:
Positivists overriding goal is explanation and prediction by demonstrating systematic
association of variables underlying a phenomenon (explain involvement advertisements ->
identify and show relationships variables).
Interpretivists overriding goal is understanding. Understanding is never-ending process rather
than end product -> current interpretations will influence future interpretations ->
interpretations are always incomplete. Prerequisite for doing research and seeking
understanding is Verstehen: grasping the shared meaning within a culture of langue, contexts,
roles, rituals, gestures, arts, and so on. Verstehen is prerequisite for further understanding and
is active process, but isn’t sufficient for understanding -> more comprehensive understanding
is necessary (motives, dynamic uses, individual meanings).
,Epistemological assumptions: researcher’s approach to knowledge generation which is dictated by
ontological beliefs -> study of knowledge (determine how we can know reality) -> knowledge
generated, view of causality, and research relationship. Knowledge generated:
Positivists take generalizing approach to research: general, abstracts laws that can be
generalized and is free of time and context (nomothetic).
Interpretivists take historical, particularistic approach to research: concrete knowledge that is
dependent on time and context (idiographic) -> study specific phenomenon in particular place
and time by determining motives, meaning, reasons, and other subjective experiences that are
time- and context-bound.
View of causality:
Positivists place high priority on identifying causal linkages: human action can be explained as
result of real cause that temporally precedes the behaviour.
Interpretivists assume that it’s impossible to distinguish cause from effect: world is complex
and changing -> mutual, simultaneous shaping occurs between entities (cause and effect)
(dining-out decision -> consider many factors).
Research relationship (relationship researcher to subject):
Positivists assume objective research relationship: separation in which researcher doesn’t
influence and is independent from subject (necessary to maintain objectivity) -> researchers
rely on their expertise to develop research questions, designs, and settings.
Interpretivists assume subjective, interactive research relationship: researcher and people
under investigation interact with each other -> creating cooperative inquiry (individuals are
involved in creating research process -> ongoing adaptability from researcher).
General research process
Research approaches also differ in research process. Research approach:
Positivist: protocol for research process is well establish -> research design (step-by-step
organization) has fixed structure, which makes it possible to make accurate answers to
research questions. Controlled experiment allows researcher most confidence in discovering
causal relationships among variables, which provides ability to isolate and examine only those
behaviours that are specified by hypotheses.
Interpretivist: continually evolving research design -> research is emergent process and
researcher seeks to describe many perceived realities that cannot be know a priori because
they are time- and context-specific. Research is conducted in natural, changing environment
and research design adapts as perceived realities change. Each researcher has some
knowledge -> ideas, meanings, questions, and data-collection techniques are cooperatively
developed. This is research approach is consistent with interpretivists’ beliefs.
Many data-gathering techniques (quantitative, qualitative) can be used by both approaches, but
researchers change technique and data produced by technique when the use same technique within
different research processes (participant-observer technique -> structures procedures and hypotheses
in positivist research, but ongoing study and no hypotheses in interpretive study). You cannot merely
look at data-gathering techniques to know what methodological orientation is held -> examine
assumptions, aims, and research process. Also, phenomenon change as same phenomenon is
approached from different perspectives.
Criteria
Approaches have evaluative criteria -> positivist have more definitive list because of desire for
standardized research process. Positivistic criteria for evaluation (Whiting et al.):
1. Establishment of theoretical basis: discussion of previous research, definition of independent
and dependent variables a priori, and specification of hypotheses a priori.
2. Adherence to proper protocol: rules for sample selection to avoid biases, standard
questionnaire format across research setting, and antecedent and dependent variables.
3. Demonstration of reliability and generalizability: a priori definitions and procedures, and
sampling within and across cultures.
4. Establishment of statistical significance of the data.
Criteria are consistent with positivists’ goal of identifying general laws.
, Most consistently applied criteria in interpretive research:
1. Phenomenon is examined in natural setting, because meaning is derived from context.
2. Researchers must feel comfortable within setting, because this allows them to see things
similarly to way the people being studies see them.
3. Thick description: description of phenomenon is detailed and inclusive of contextual and
historical aspects.
Additional evaluative criteria that aren’t so consistently applied (Denzin):
1. Does interpretation illuminate, disclose, and reveal lived experience?
2. Does interpretation rest on thickly contextualized, thickly described materials and on concepts
near to experience?
3. Is interpretation historically embedded and temporally grounded?
4. Does interpretation reflect phenomenon as process that is relational and interactive?
5. Does interpretation overwhelm what is known about the phenomenon?
6. Does interpretation incorporate prior understandings and interpretations as part of final
interpreted, understood structural totality?
7. Does interpretation cohere?
8. Does interpretation produce understanding? -> do elements that are interpreted merge into a
meaningful whole?
9. Is interpretation unfinished? All interpretation is necessarily provisional and incomplete.
Criteria are consistent with flexible, adaptive nature of interpretivists’ research process.
General criticisms
Criticism on or problems faced by positivist paradigm:
Problem of induction: universal statement cannot be verified by finite number of observations,
thus universal laws are unachievable.
Illusion of objectivity: observations are value-laden, theory-laden, and interpreted by
individuals with different experiences and training, thus no objective observations.
Treating subjective states as objects: objective features of society are conceived apart from
their social context and perceptions of people.
Problem with truth content: no defensible method for establishing the truth exists.
Ignorance of social processes: scientists are social human being too, science can thus not be
fully understood without considering cultural, social, political, and economic factors.
criticism on or problems faced by interpretivist paradigm:
Rely on empathetic identification as basis for understanding: observer’s reliving of another
person’s mental experiences -> researcher imagines how receiver of communication
understands that communication. Problems empathetic identification:
o Empathetic identification is nonsensical, because one cannot experience thoughts of
others, but can only experience own thoughts.
o Empathetic identification cannot be validated.
o Having mental experience doesn’t mean that one understands it (understand manic
depression, but not patient experiencing it).
Focus on individual’s intentions, actions, and consciousness, which makes it difficult to gain
understanding of macroscopic features of society (not possible to understand family by
focusing on knowledge of individual members).
Reactivity: methods (participant-observation) are intrusive and may disrupt normal activities of
people being studied.
Researcher and participant biases: biases due to social and cultural backgrounds, participant
expectations, or intentional deception (misleading researcher).
