Dear Imran Bashir Dar,

you are doing great qualitative research! In my opinion you should follow the thematic analysis principles and theory approach. First is important to identify as many as possible codes/nodes, but in the continue is as much important to develop a model, a theory of your studied practice. A tree diagram, word frequency diagrams and cluster analysis in NVivo programme based on word frequency and are more quantitative analysis approaches to qualitative data. I suggest you to go beyond word frequency to study more deeply how your codes are linked to categories and how categories are connected between each other in the theoretical model about brand equity loss in terms of marketer and consumer.

Good luck and have a fun with theoretical principles discovery of studied practice.

Kind regards,

Joca 

By model do you mean theoretical model? or research model? if you are referring to Theoretical models, models may apply depending on the qualitative study's reasoning - deductive (data is driven by theory) or inductive(theory is driven by data)... what your research is doing...

Research would be either descriptive, explanatory, or exploratory.. what you might have considered as descriptive might not be descriptive at all.... one way of explaining your observation that some qualitative analysis missing models might be that models are not always needed to present the result of qualitative studies... The problem with presenting models in qualitative study is that sometime before arriving at a model you have already spent your research resources.. that, one needs to have a follow up study to test these model... because with the model you assume (grounded  or not) certain relationships.

Good to hear from you dear Harry Fulgencio, I have made the conceptual model and theoretical framework but now i am after the 'model' that can be made in Nvivo by codification of interview responses into different categories (nodes). You are right that it occasionally happens that we are empty  of resources and the model could be the work of another researcher. We can announce it to be our limitation and suggest for further research. The thing which bothers me is that i do not have adequate evidence in the form of literary references that could advocate that my work, without the model is sufficient?

I am doing research on a problem (brand equity loss in terms of marketer and consumer an d its effect on firm level) that has not been explained, identified by previous scholars, even its boundaries are not clear. So my objective is to study its scope and boundaries in Asian terms, specifically Pakistan as qualitative descriptive is somewhat territory restricted.

There has been many works that explain that why the mature studies of west on my topic are not implementable in east due to difference in culture and other market dimensions. 

Dear Imran Bashir Dar,

you are doing great qualitative research! In my opinion you should follow the thematic analysis principles and theory approach. First is important to identify as many as possible codes/nodes, but in the continue is as much important to develop a model, a theory of your studied practice. A tree diagram, word frequency diagrams and cluster analysis in NVivo programme based on word frequency and are more quantitative analysis approaches to qualitative data. I suggest you to go beyond word frequency to study more deeply how your codes are linked to categories and how categories are connected between each other in the theoretical model about brand equity loss in terms of marketer and consumer.

Good luck and have a fun with theoretical principles discovery of studied practice.

Kind regards,

Joca 

Following up on what Joca said, I usually think in terms of first developing themes, and then uniting those themes into a model. In this approach, the themes are the concepts that help explain the data, and are thus both descriptive and interpretive. The next step is to create a model that shows the relationships between the themes.

In terms of writing this up, the themes would traditionally be the core content in the Results section, and the model would be part of the Discussion section.

Expecting more answers from our ResearchGate community ! Please keep them coming !

"brand equity loss in terms of marketer and consumer and its effect on firm level" 

Now I understand your concern, the "its effects" is indeed trouble some, I can see two options (of course there can exist multiple possible ones)... If I initially assume certain things about your study: It might be that qualitative study might not be the best choice of research since EFFECTS are easily measured in quantitative terms (to be more exact statistics). However as I see that you are already in the analysis phase of your research. Here are some options:

• Clarify and align the meaning of Effects via: a) the literatures you used, b) your survey questionnaires, and c) the initial results of the respondents. Make sure that they all align and mean the same Effects.  If they all mean the same things, are they easily quantifiable? if not then, are they what you call qualitative effects?  If the effects that you want to study are indeed qualitative and that there are no existing then it creates more freedom for your research.
• No Existing Model, this is not something to be worried about, however you need to make sure that there is indeed no "adjacent" or similar studies that  might have partially answered your questions. Similar studies might provide some models.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California management review, 38(3), 103.

I am not familiar with the exact literatures or models about your topic but found some promising literatures http://tinyurl.com/kabqvrh using the keywords "Brand equity loss effects" let me know if you have problems accessing the articles and i can send some to you.

I hope this helps. :)

http://tinyurl.com/kabqvrh