دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 22895
عنوان فارسی مقاله

سوء استفاده و بدون استفاده -گراندد تئوری و هرمنوتیک هدف به عنوان روش برای تحقیق در بازاریابی صنعتی

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
22895 2010 11 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید 8890 کلمه
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Misused and missed use — Grounded Theory and Objective Hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 5–15

کلمات کلیدی
روش های تحقیق کیفی - جامعه شناسی زبان - تئوری گراندد - هرمنوتیک هدف
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله سوء استفاده و بدون استفاده -گراندد تئوری و هرمنوتیک هدف به عنوان روش برای تحقیق در بازاریابی صنعتی

چکیده انگلیسی

Since qualitative research methods have always found strong representation within sociology it is warranted to look at the sociological discussion in order to challenge and enrich qualitative research in industrial marketing. With this mission in mind, we discuss two sociological concepts that constitute influential schools within the German-speaking sociology of language community: Grounded Theory and Objective Hermeneutics. The analysis of their suitability for research in industrial marketing along several dimensions shows that while both methods target the reconstruction of meaning, they pursue different paths. Grounded Theory strives to discover higher-ranked social patterns, while Objective Hermeneutics is concerned with universal motives underlying a specific interaction.

مقدمه انگلیسی

In industrial marketing, both the decisions made by individuals and their process-immanent behaviors, for example in intra- or intercompany business networks (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005), are of paramount interest (Woodside & Wilson, 2000). However, large-scale surveys cannot capture the subconscious motives and perceptions of the respondents (De Beuckelaer and Wagner, 2007 and Wegner, 2003). Without a proper explication of these, in many cases, it is hardly possible to build a strong theoretical foundation for the explanation of inter-personal interaction (Woodside & Wilson, 2003). Here, qualitative methods which focus on individual cases and situations promise to uncover more of the underlying motivation than will quantitative methods aiming for general results. As a consequence, qualitative research and the case study methodology play an important role in theory development within industrial marketing and the industrial networks paradigm (Easton, 1995). The use of Grounded Theory (GT) and Objective Hermeneutics (OH) has been recommended for qualitative B2B and industrial marketing research (Gummesson, 2003). However, GT is often misused, that is, used inadequately in the research process, while OH is virtually unknown. While there seems to be a gap between the methodological intention of GT and the focus of recent empirical studies employing GT (Hallier and Forbes, 2004 and Suddaby, 2006), the problem with OH is its conspicuous absence. In other words, due to insufficient methodological knowledge on the part of the researchers, GT is often times misused while OH is not used at all. Therefore, in order to assist researchers in the field of theory building in industrial marketing, this article will present and investigate the well-known GT-approach, and familiarize researchers with the little-known OH-approach. By introducing OH we borrow from other schools of thought in order to generate new insights and augment research results in the field of industrial marketing (Dubois & Araujo, 2004). GT and OH both build on the early works on symbolic interactionism (e.g., Blumer, 1931, Cook, 1993, Hughes, 1971, Mead, 1967 and Park and Burgess, 1921). The two approaches aim at the reconstruction of social patterns and their underlying constitutive structures (Hildebrand, 2004). This makes them valuable for industrial marketing where relationships in social networks are an important phenomenon (Dubois & Araujo, 2004). GT is the most influential paradigm for the discovery of theory from empirical data (Denzin, 1997 and Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. XX) and a popular approach in industrial marketing research (e.g., Drumwright, 1994, Gilliland, 2003 and Wagner and Johnson, 2004). The seminal book The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is extensively cited (e.g., Gebhardt et al., 2006, Narayandas and Rangan, 2004 and Ulaga, 2003). However, methodological articles regularly criticize the way GT is used in current research. For example, many papers lack reference to subsequent works to The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. This is a serious shortcoming, because it means that most authors miss the methodical controversy between Glaser and Strauss (which we will discuss in Section 3.1) that led to two quite different approaches of GT. Moreover, many authors use the term GT in a much wider sense than did Glaser and Strauss (1967) who focused on the interpretation of meaning by social actors ( Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007 and Langley, 1999). Furthermore, detailed application of GT techniques is either rarely discussed ( Martin & Turner, 1986) or completely missing ( Gephart, 2004). Additionally, as Hallier and Forbes (2004) point out, very few recent articles in business research use GT methods for actually developing theory ( Sutton and Staw, 1995 and Weick, 1995). Suddaby (2006) accuses many authors of having serious misconceptions about GT and Gephart (2004) observes a confusion regarding alternative epistemological approaches to qualitative research. All these problems show that GT is often cited only to invoke its authority ( Locke, 1996), but not adequately used. An adequate use of GT would imply a statement of which of the two GT-approaches the research followed, to mention the specifically used techniques and to generate new, Grounded Theory and not simply case descriptions with references to existing theories. Furthermore, users of GT should be able to distinguish GT from other similar qualitative approaches such as systematic combining ( Dubois & Gadde, 2002) or dialectic interaction between qualitative field observations and existing theory in order to reconstruct theory ( Burawoy, 1991 and Workman et al., 1998). OH provides researchers with a methodology to analyze real social phenomena, to discover structures of meaning, and to reconstruct decisions and decision patterns by individuals, groups or organizations (e.g., buying centers, cross-functional teams). The procedure for analyzing and interpreting data is very rigorous. The results of a thorough analysis of traces of decisions in social reality documents, such as letters, memos, transcribed interviews or videotapes, are used to develop theories about the structures of human reciprocity (Oevermann et al., 1979 and Oevermann, 2002). Hitherto, OH has been discussed almost exclusively within the German-speaking sociological community (Eberle and Elliker, 2005, Flick, 2002 and Hitzler, 2005). Research which uses the OH-approach outside its sociological origin is limited, especially within business and marketing. To our knowledge the article by Lueger, Sandner, Meyer, and Hammerschmid (2005) is the only application of OH in business research to date. Given the goals of presenting these two qualitative research methods and of giving advice on when to use them, the remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, the criteria for the evaluation of GT and OH are explained. Second, each research method is discussed and evaluated individually. Special attention is paid to the specific challenges of industrial marketing research, such as the problems of network boundaries, complexity, time dependence etc. (e.g., Halinen and Törnroos, 2005 and Gummesson, 2003). Advice for the use of each research method in the industrial marketing context is given. Third, the two approaches are compared and contrasted on the basis of the prior analysis with respect to their suitability for industrial marketing research.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

This article examined the conditions under which marketing researchers can benefit from the employment of two sociological methods: GT and OH. With respect to GT it is necessary to distinguish the original formulation by Glaser/Strauss from the later developments by Strauss/Corbin. By applying both methods (GT and OH), we want to point out that they are better suited for the development of new theories than for testing existing ones. This is especially true if the field of research is new or lacks established theories, if the existing theories are too remote or abstract to offer much detailed guidance and assistance (Martin & Turner, 1986), or if the established theories cease to apply to a changing environment (Kaghan et al., 1999). In addition, they go beyond the production of a thick description or an impressionistic account (Martin & Turner, 1986) and thus, by verifying hypotheses, may serve as a thorough basis for successive quantitative research, such as large-scale surveys and/or modeling (Martin and Turner, 1986 and Skinner, 1985). However, sometimes it might be useful to adopt them the other way round, as for example in the study of Sutton and Rafaeli (1988) on the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales. In this case, survey results were opposed to hypotheses and GT was used to arrive at a better theory that might explain the data. Approaching a research question in the industrial marketing field with GT (Straussian and Glaserian approach) is particularly suitable if • it is intended to generate theoretical statements which are relevant and understandable to the people in the area studied and which are useful in giving these people a superior understanding of their own situation (Turner, 1983), e.g. socially responsible organizational buying (Drumwright, 1994). • the data to be analyzed consists of participant observation, direct observation, semi-structured or unstructured interviews or case studies collected within organizations (Turner, 1983). The study on cultural transformations of market orientations by Gebhardt et al. (2006), for example, uses all of these sources. In contrast to OH, the GT-approach can handle structured interviews, all sorts of archival material and even quantitative survey data. • large amounts of data have to be sifted and analyzed, and the data will be accumulated in nonstandard and unpredictable formats (Martin & Turner, 1986), e.g. the study of Morgan, Anderson, and Mittal (2005) with 142 interviews in 38 firms and additional focus groups. If a vast amount of information has to be analyzed and the researchers' time constraints have to be taken into consideration, GT is clearly more appropriate than OH. • credibility is of high importance, e.g. the managerial implications of market orientation (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). • the descriptive relevance for managers is more important than dependability aspects, e.g. in Gilly and Wolfinbarger's (1998) study that makes the point that advertisements can have negative consequences on the internal audience (i.e. the employees). However, the correct use of GT requires profound studies of the sociological terminology in order to avoid misinterpretations. Furthermore, the effort necessary for understanding the multifaceted (and partly controversial) concepts of GT should not be underestimated. In contrast, taking an OH-approach promises to deliver intriguing results, if • the analysis focuses on sociological issues (Lueger et al., 2005, Reichertz, 2004 and Titscher et al., 2000, p. 198), e.g., why does the reaction of sales representatives to failure differ with seniority (Dixon et al., 2003 and Dixon et al., 2001), or how do the patterns of social ties relate to cross-unit competition for a market charter (Houston, Walker, Hutt, & Reingen, 2001). • the relevant information cannot readily be uncovered by standardized or structured questioning, for example because of internal cultural issues. This is the case with turf wars between marketing and other departments (Koku, 2007). • the focus of the research is on a specific case and not on a general assessment across an industry, e.g., how are growth strategies decided upon and revised afterwards (Turner & Gardiner, 2007). • the interest of the researcher is in the effect of specific procedures on the awareness of individuals, e.g. design of an advertisement with respect to subconscious effects (Coulter, 2002). • it is intended to analyze the empirical data in more depth than it would be possible with GT. As a result of the analysis of all possible meanings, OH is able to provide more detailed interpretation on empirical data than any other research method can. • confirmability is of overriding importance. Researchers following an OH-approach benefit from its structural stringency and rigor, which may help to avoid the presentation of mere situational descriptions by explicitly requesting in-depth analysis of unsaid phenomena. Our analysis and discussion shows that GT and OH present valuable research possibilities for industrial marketing research. For example, OH lends itself to research focusing on the uncovering of implicit networks between individuals in a given setting (Lee, 1989). GT is better suited for research that investigates multiple cases, such as the comparison of purchasing networks. However, no single research concept can satisfactorily address all aspects of validity. Every scientific method sets its own standards, evaluative criteria and procedures on how to achieve knowledge. What is important is that these be made explicit in order to allow other researchers to evaluate the rigor of a research project. Moreover, validity is not determined by methodology alone. In fact the researchers' diligence (Kvale, 1995) might be even more important in a flawless outcome, especially when dealing with qualitative data using GT or OH.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.