I am working on a comprehensive study on this topic and I would appreciate marketing researchers' opinions. The main objective is to see the circumstances in which qualitative studies are used and published, and how is data analyzed in those cases. I am working on a review of the main marketing journals, but I am also interested in hearing researchers' opinions. Do we still use interviews, for example, and get a study published in a good journal based on this?
Are qualitative studies less generalizable? Should they also be accompanied by a quantitative study (survey...)?
If anything it's overused. Qual is frequently undertaken when quant is more appropriate, though the reverse can be true as well. There is still in some quarters a mystical belief that following a forum or a thread or watching a group is more meaningful [and/or more entertaining] than analyzing a dataset.
Of course, qual is an essential part of the toolkit. If quant will achieve the objectives, it should be used on the assumption that it will generate more robust and generalizable data. Freetext and other specify comments are often of great value in quant, however. Similarly, groups should be used only when group effects are sought. Otherwise, 1x1s should be used live, by phone, online, whatever will yield the most robust perspectives.
It is not qual vs. quant, but using the best method(s) for the job at hand, and optimally. I think you'll get better f/b yourself if you can specify more precisely the issues that you are studying.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology