See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228907805

The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing

journals, 1993-2002

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · January 2007

DOI: 10.1108/03090560710718111

CITATIONS READS
135 5,238

2 authors:

Dallas Hanson Martin Grimmer

University of Tasmania University of Tasmania
24 PUBLICATIONS   317 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   898 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Tasmanian Retailing Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dallas Hanson on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


EJM
41,1/2
58
Received February 2005
Revised December 2005
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 41 No. 1/2, 2007
pp. 58-70
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560710718111
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
The mix of qualitative and
quantitative research in major
marketing journals, 1993-2002
Dallas Hanson and Martin Grimmer
School of Management, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to determine the mix of qualitative and quantitative research
published in major marketing journals.
Design/methodology/approach – This study involved a content analysis of 1,195 articles
published between 1993 and 2002 in three prominent marketing journals.
Findings – It was found that 24.80 per cent of articles employed qualitative methods in some form,
and 46.28 per cent quantitative research. The main justification provided for use of qualitative
methods was the ability to provide more insight or a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under
investigation. No increase was seen, however, in the amount (year by year) of qualitative research
published over this period. This paper accounts for the continued dominance of quantitative research
using linked historical, social and practical arguments.
Practical implications – The issue of method is central to marketing research. Understanding of
the actual (as distinct from espoused) orientation of marketing researchers and journals is an aid to
researchers intent on publishing their work.
Originality/value – This is the largest content analysis conducted of research in marketing and, in
addition to the findings of the analysis, the explanation offered for the dominance of quantitative
methods is of value to researchers.
Keywords Qualitative research, Quantitative methods, Market research, Research methods
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
It is easy to state that both qualitative and quantitative approaches to marketing
research have a place, but to what extent is each used in academic research? Further,
given that different qualitative approaches have their own advantages, what specific
qualitative methods are used, and what justifications are given for this use? And, if there
are major differences in the use of quantitative and qualitative research, what
explanations may be provided? These are the goals of the current research. We do not
seek to argue the merits of either qualitative or quantitative approaches. In what follows,
we propose a position regarding the distinction between qualitative and quantitative
research (Carson et al., 2001), fully aware that it may be contestable. We argue, however,
that a stated position is essential as a building block in a paper of this type. The reader is
at liberty to adopt a different position, and consider the findings with that in mind, but
while doing so, will at least be able to understand our standpoint.
Approaches to research
At the outset it is important to note that any distinction between qualitative and
quantitative approaches is at best approximate, for both types of research are umbrella
categories that cover many different actual methods (Gummesson, 2005; Long et al., Qualitative and
2000; Wilson and Natale, 2001). Additionally, much research, whilst clearly focussed on quantitative
one main approach, nevertheless uses several techniques, often mixing the quantitative
and the qualitative. This may occur, for example, when a modest number of interviews research
is used to orient questions used in a survey. We use the organising idea of a continuum,
with hard positivism at one end and constructionism at the other, to resolve the
argument. Each position can be described with reference to ontology, epistemology and 59
research purpose (see Carson et al., 2001; Jean Lee, 1992; Healy and Perry, 2000; Kidd,
2002; Guba and Lincoln, 2000).
A hard positivist ontology asserts that an objective reality is out there to be found and
epistemologically this can be done with knowable degrees of certainty using
objectively-correct scientific methods (Carson et al., 2001; Jean Lee, 1992; Long et al.,
2000; Neuman, 2003). The result is certain knowledge, even when bounded by
probabilities of correctness. This is the traditional approach of the physical sciences and
it is also dominant in established social sciences disciplines such as psychology and
economics (Kidd, 2002). Concepts such as reliability, validity and statistical significance
are used carefully in good hard-positivist research with the purpose of describing some
part of reality with certainty. There may be caveats placed on this certainty but the
background assumption is always that it is possible to determine the extent to which
reality has been described (Cohen, 1992, 1994; McClelland, 1997; Nancarrow et al., 2001).
A “softer” version of positivism also infers that objective reality exists, but
epistemologically, suggests that techniques to uncover the world produce probabilistic
and ultimately uncertain understandings (see Guba and Lincoln, 2000, who use the
term post-positivism to denote a similar notion). Further, it is asserted that the
viewpoint of the observer must be borne in mind at all times in describing any part of
the world. The purpose of research is to gain insight and describe complexity. Most
qualitative research as it is carried out, we believe, falls into this category. For example,
a single case study of an organisation produces probabilistic insights into the way that
organisation functions, and possibly into the way similar organisations function.
Constructionism forms the other end of the continuum. It has relativist ontology,
that is, each person has his or her own reality (Carson et al., 2001; Jean Lee, 1992; Long
et al., 2000; Neuman, 2003; Roy, 2001). Epistemologically, the achievement of
objectivity is rejected, and emphasis is placed on individual understanding of
particular viewpoints (Morgan and Smircich, 1980). This suggests that knowledge in
any field is provisional and contested, as much a result of power relationships in the
research community as anything else. The purpose of good constructionist research is
a decent understanding of an individual viewpoint that may yield lessons for others. At
the far end of the spectrum, post-modernism asserts all these points strongly whilst
labouring under that weight of an inherent logical implausibility: what to believe when
all is continually and politically constructed and re-constructed (Neuman, 2003;
Rosenou, 1992). A qualitative style of research, in which there is a concentration on
understanding and interpretation, is virtually, but not exclusively, required for a pure
constructionist standpoint (Carson et al., 2001).

Research in marketing
Within marketing, the positivist end of the continuum is represented by the dominant
form of quantitative research, which puts forward a numerical representation of issues
EJM and seeks to pin the world down with definite statements (Hunt, 1994). Concepts such as
41,1/2 reliability and validity are used to defend generalizations and specify the extent to which
certainty has been achieved. This inductive-statistical orientation is particularly well
established in the US where it is rooted in the German-oriented positivism that was
influential in the establishment of marketing in Ivy League universities, in particular
Harvard (Chung and Alagaratnam, 2001). The influence of positivism is clear within
60 marketing research in Cox’s lament in 1948 (see Hunt, 1983) that marketing then (and
now?) lacked law-like principles (as in the physical sciences). This climate of opinion
remains two generations later; for example, a similar position is taken by Hunt (1983,
p. 11) who argues for “law like generalizations that are empirically testable”. The
dominance of this view in the US was revealed by Hirschman (1986) who found only one
study in the Journal of Marketing that was non-positivist.
Qualitative research in academic marketing includes techniques that fit around the
middle of the continuum, extending to the constructionist end. But the guiding
ontology may often be positivist (Brown, 1993), in that the research implies that there is
a world out there to be researched, but the epistemology is broadly probabilistic
(Nancarrow et al., 2001). The aim of such research is to produce insight rather than
measure, to explore rather than pin-down. Case studies (see Eisenhardt, 1989), focus
groups and interviews allow in-depth investigation of human behaviours that can be
targeted to practical, commercially-relevant problems (De Ruyter and Scholl, 1998;
Gummesson, 2005). For example, well-conducted focus groups can yield insight into
complex matters such as consumer preferences (Cohen, 1999). The issue of how much
qualitative research is conducted in academic marketing has risen in interest in recent
years because of the apparent increase in practitioner-conducted qualitative research in
major marketplaces such as the UK (Hunt, 1994; Malhotra and Peterson, 2001; Milliken,
2001; Nancarrow et al., 2001), and because of the common observation that much
market research is conducted using focus groups (De Ruyter and Scholl, 1998).

The current study

Our research focus derives from this mix of issues. Both qualitative research and
quantitative research have a role to play in academic marketing. Practitioners conduct
much qualitative research. However, previous work on the topic suggests that an
overwhelming amount of academic marketing is quantitative. To determine whether this
is indeed the case, it is necessary for a large sample of academic articles to be analysed in
terms of the mix of qualitative and quantitative research being published, as well how
far qualitative research has come in academic marketing over the preceding decade.

Method
Sample of journal articles
To provide statistical power we chose analyse at least 1,000 articles. This is a greater
number than that examined in similar exercises in the past (e.g. Hirschman, 1986), and
provides considerable power for statistical analysis. In order to track changes over time
we needed to evaluate over a number of years, and a decade was chosen as a convenient
time period. This allowed for changes in authors and reviewers. These statistical power
and time goals meant that we restricted our investigation to three journals.
The goal was to consider good quality marketing research and the obvious corollary
is that only the best quality journals could be considered. We also wanted to incorporate
into the research process possible differences between North American and European Qualitative and
journals. So, top-level journals from the two broad regions were to be selected. Journal quantitative
choice remained difficult, however, because of problems with journal rankings: should
they be based on citations (but in which journals, and do self- and peer-citations count?), research
or expert opinion (which experts?), and should rankings be uni-dimensional or
multi-dimensional? (see MacRoberts and MacRoberts, 1989; Vastag and Montabon,
2002). For the study, the Journal of Marketing (JM) and European Journal of Marketing 61
(EJM) were chosen for analysis so as to provide data on research published in eminent
journals in North America and in Europe respectively; both are regularly rated in the top
journals in their region and it is assumed that they reflect the trends in best practice
research (e.g. Harzing, 2004; Hult et al., 1997; Theoharakis and Hirst, 2002). The Journal
of Services Marketing (JSM) was selected as the third journal, because it is not only a top
ranking journal but is also representative of a sub-field of marketing oriented towards
what are usually thought of as intangible activities, and is also practitioner-oriented so
might be supposed to specifically benefit from qualitative research.
Articles from the three target journals were accessed using the ProQuest database. All
articles published over the ten calendar years 1993-2002 were examined. When the data
were being compiled in December 2003 to February 2004, the collections for 2003 were
not yet fully loaded on to ProQuest, so it was decided not to include this year in the
analysis. In addition, the following issues were not available: EJM vol. 27 no. 6, vol. 28
no. 6, vol. 36 no. 11 and 12, and JSM vol. 16 no. 7. The resulting sample comprised 1,195
articles, with 365 coming from JM, 544 from EJM and 286 from JSM (see Table I).
All three journals have explicit aims that are mixed in focus, emphasising
generalisability (hence quantitative research might be implied) but also encouraging
all types of research as long as it is empirically sound and defensible and offers a
substantive contribution to the field. Key passages from the instructions for
contributors to each of the journals make this clear (sourced from their respective
websites or notes to contributors). The JM is “. . . committed to publishing a broad
spectrum of conceptual and empirical articles that make a new theoretical and/or
substantive contribution to the field [to] contribute generalisable, validated findings
[and] present new ideas, theories, and illustrations of marketing thought and practice”.
The EJM calls for “. . . either conceptual or empirical work to outline practical
implications of marketing”. The JSM calls for articles that “. . . must be conceptually or
theoretically sound and offer unique research findings or insights”, and also gives
preference to “. . . manuscripts that are generalisable across service businesses, service
industries, nations and economies . . . [and] the methodology and findings . . . should be
scientifically defensible”. The scope is there for any article to be published that offers
new knowledge, but at the stage of orienting potential contributors, a lean towards
generalisable/empirical work is clear for each journal.

Content analysis and data coding

Articles were coded, first of all, according to year of publication and article type, that is,
whether the article was concerned with theory/opinion/comment, quantitative
research, qualitative research, or mixed quantitative/qualitative research. For the
purposes of coding, research articles were required to be empirical, with qualitative
research centred on primary data collection in non-numerical form (words/text, images,
symbols, etc.), and quantitative research centred on data collection in numerical form.
 62
EJM
41,1/2

Table I.
Number of articles

year of publication
examined by journal and
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Totals

Journal of Marketing 36 42 40 39 36 39 38 32 29 34 365

European Journal of Marketing 46 46 43 59 46 58 57 65 66 58 544
Journal of Services Marketing 26 23 22 22 26 27 31 32 38 39 286
Totals 108 111 105 120 108 124 126 129 133 131 1,195
For research articles, the key objective in the coding process was to ascertain the Qualitative and
intention of the researcher – was the article/study aimed at quantitative or qualitative quantitative
data or a mixture? For those articles classified as qualitative or mixed
quantitative/qualitative research, further coding was undertaken to determine the research
nature of the qualitative research conducted. These articles were consequently coded
according to the main qualitative method used (i.e. interview, focus group, observation,
questionnaire, secondary data, internet/email, case study, content analysis, event 63
study), as well as according to whether each of these methods was employed at all in
the research. In addition, it was determined whether an explicit methodological
approach had been adopted (e.g. ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology,
interpretivism). Articles were also coded as to whether a justification had been
provided for the use of qualitative methods, and the amount of line-space spent on this,
and whether the issue of the generalisability of the research had been raised.
Because the qualitative and mixed research articles were the most problematic for
coding purposes, these were all double-coded, that is, those initially selected for these
categories were double-checked before a final determination was made. Those articles
that were initially in the mixed category were subsequently recoded according to the
final primary orientation of the research: quantitative, qualitative or triangulated. The
main issue here was to determine if the research was genuinely mixed-method, that is
triangulated, in its orientation; whether the qualitative component was there only to
orient and pilot a later survey or experiment, or whether the quantitative component was
simply an add-on to a qualitative study, for example, the provision of frequency data on
certain types of phrases uttered in an interview. The distinction between these latter two
types of study and a triangulated study is clear: triangulation is conventionally defined
as the purposive gathering of multiple sources of data and the use of these data sources
in the reporting of results (see, for example, Babbie, 1989; Neuman, 2003). The most
common application of triangulation in social research would be the deliberate use of
multiple measures – for example, surveys, interviews and observation – to gain a more
complete picture of a phenomenon, all fully reported on and compared.
The coding process was initially undertaken by a trained research assistant, whose
progress was reviewed on an ongoing basis. A sample of 10 per cent of all articles not
double-coded was checked for coding accuracy, with no significant problems identified.
Despite this, we are aware of the creation of a “reality of numbers” about the research
process in a meta-research method such as ours, that is, the idea that in our case there is
objectively a specific number of qualitative or quantitative articles (Long et al., 2000).
This is an issue with all database research, both in the creation and the use of such
databases. Accordingly, we simultaneously claim good standards of accuracy but also
exercise caution at the level of precise figures. We therefore rely, in the main, on
percentages rather than raw numbers in the reporting of results such that our language
can be appropriately rather than spuriously precise, given the large size of our sample.

Results
The frequencies of each type of article across the three journals are displayed in
Figure 1. Of the 1,195 articles, 38.4 per cent were theory/opinion/comment, 46.3 per cent
involved quantitative research, 6.5 per cent qualitative research, and 8.8 per cent mixed
qualitative/quantitative. In all, a total 183 articles from 1993 to 2002 contained some
form of qualitative research (including mixed research articles): 15.31 per cent of all
EJM
41,1/2

64

Figure 1.
Type of article by journal

articles and 24.80 per cent of research articles. Of the three journals, JSM published the
highest proportion of articles containing qualitative or mixed research (19.6 per cent of
articles for that journal), followed by EJM (15.9 per cent) and JM (11.5 per cent). The
main type of research conducted, however, still appears to be quantitative, at 46.28 per
cent of all articles, and 75.20 per cent of research articles.
The extent to which the use of qualitative methods may have changed over the ten
years from 1993 to 2002 was examined, as well as the nature of the qualitative research
conducted, using the qualitative and mixed quantitative/qualitative research categories.
As can be seen in Figure 2, it is possible to discern that the proportions of qualitative and

Figure 2.
Qualitative and mixed
qualitative/quantitative
research by year
mixed quantitative/qualitative research articles may have altered over the ten years, Qualitative and
with there being an apparent increase in the number of qualitative in relation to mixed quantitative
research articles. However, any observed changes in these proportions was not found to
be significant (x2 ð9Þ ¼ 16:048, p . 0.05). Indeed, when these two types of articles were research
combined, there was found to be no change in frequency over the ten years
(x2 ð9Þ ¼ 14:703, p . 0.05), indicating neither an increase, nor a decrease, in the amount
of qualitative research published in the three journals. This was also found to be the case 65
when each journal was analysed separately. Figure 2 shows that after peaks in 1999 and
2000, the amount of qualitative research published again declined.
For the 183 qualitative and mixed quantitative/qualitative research articles, the most
commonly found qualitative research method was the interview, reported as the main
method in 56.3 per cent of articles. This was followed by qualitative questionnaires (of
any type) at 21.9 per cent, case studies at 9.8 per cent, focus groups at 5.5 per cent, and
observation at 4.9 per cent, with content analysis and secondary data making up the
remaining 1.6 per cent. Table II expands on this data by showing whether a particular
research method was employed at all in the research. As can be seen, the most common
type of interview method employed was in-depth interviewing, reported in 33.3 per cent
of articles, followed by structured interviewing at 20.8 per cent and semi-structured at 18
per cent (though not necessarily as the main methods in any of these instances).
Unstructured interviewing was reported in only two research studies (1.1 per cent). None
reported using the internet or email to collect qualitative data. Only 10.4 per cent of
articles made use of an explicit methodological approach, the most commonly reported
being ethnography and grounded theory, each employed in six articles respectively.
A justification for the use of qualitative methods was provided in 61.2 per cent of
these articles. The number of lines given to the justification ranged from 1 to 25, with a
median of 5, a mode of 2 and a standard deviation of 4.04. The predominant justification
centred on the ability of qualitative data to provide more insight or a deeper
understanding of the phenomenon under investigation than purely quantitative data.
Qualitative data was said to get closer to the behaviour being studied, to provide an
exploration of experiences, and to allow for the development of meaning. Many articles
pointed to the use of qualitative data for the development of questionnaires and to
increase validity. The issue of generalisability of the research was raised in 56.8 per cent
of articles. By far the most common comment related to the need to be cautious in
making claims to generalisability. This was mostly linked to the nature of the research

Research method Number of articles reporting usage %

Interview – depth 61 33.3

Interview – structured 38 20.8
Interview – semi-structured 33 18.0
Interview – unstructured 2 1.1
Questionnaire 38 20.8
Case study 35 19.1
Focus group 24 13.1 Table II.
Observation 13 7.1 Usage of research
Secondary data 8 4.4 methods in qualitative
Internet 0 0.0 and mixed research
EJM setting, for example, not being able to generalize beyond the case in question or the small
41,1/2 sample studied, or only being able to generalise within similar industries. The need for
further research being necessary before generalisation was also commonly raised.
The 105 mixed quantitative/qualitative research articles were further coded so as to
determine the primary orientation of the research: quantitative, qualitative or
triangulated. It was found that 74.3 per cent of these were primarily quantitative, in
66 that qualitative data was not reported as such, but rather was used in the design of
quantitative research. There were 12.4 per cent of articles judged to be primarily
qualitative, with quantitative data only provided in a secondary manner, for example, in
the quantification of certain types phrases or statements in qualitative interviews. Only
13.3 per cent of these mixed articles were assessed as triangulated, with the research
design being genuinely multi-method. This group represented only 1.1 per cent of the
overall sample of articles. Given the emphasis placed on triangulation in research
methods theory this is, at first glance, an unexpected result. The criterion used in coding
was strict, but reflects best research practice, and the finding is therefore surprising.

Discussion
This survey of ten years of academic research in marketing reveals the continuing
dominance of quantitative research. In each of the three journals analysed, the proportion
of research articles that were quantitative was more than 70 per cent. Further, even an
apparent rise in qualitative research over the earlier part of the sample period (to 1999)
was found to have reversed in the most recent years. Academic marketing thus remains
dominated by the goal of making generalisable statements from an objectivist framework.
Three lines of argument provide explanation of this pattern in research. The first two
are related historical and social arguments; the third is practical and involves the
limitations of space in a journal article. To start with the historical argument, as Jones and
Monieson (1990) have pointed out, the German Historical School of economics was a
major philosophical foundation for academic marketing. In the US, this positivist tradition
was established in important centres such as the Harvard University Graduate School of
Business and the University of Wisconsin, and these influenced other university
marketing schools. Academic marketing in both the US and Europe has remained related
to this orientation. Marketing is not alone here; the more venerable disciplines of
psychology and economics, as well as the root disciplines of the physical sciences, are also
quantitative and sternly positivist in orientation (Kidd, 2002; Smith, 2003).
Kuhn’s concept of paradigm can usefully be applied to this situation in order to
assist in the second, social, line of argument. To escape the conceptual confusion
created by Kuhn’s famously variable use of the term paradigm (see Masterman, 1970),
his postscript definition is used (this was his response to the charge of conceptual
vagueness). A paradigm is “. . . the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques
and so on shared by the members of a given community” (Kuhn, 1973, p. 175). In
marketing, the history of research means that beliefs have spread about good research,
which should emphasize numbers and generalisability. This does not totally rule out
qualitative research since it is often also positivist (as we have argued it differs at the
level of epistemology rather than ontology), and it can be presented with a mainstream
role of adding insight and direction to the initial stages of much quantitative research.
However, solely qualitative research falls outside this sideshow role. Indeed, because
the techniques of qualitative research are not amongst the dominant constellation of
techniques, it is usually seen as less “solid” than quantitative. Even within the camp of Qualitative and
qualitative researchers, the lure of quantitative concepts such as generalisability is quantitative
strong (as indicated, this issue was raised in over half of the qualitative research
articles). This also partially explains the emphasis on large scale interview research in research
the qualitative category discovered in our survey of journals.
Academic marketers in major institutions are therefore influenced into quantitative
research because it is legitimated as the best research. The second, social argument, 67
which focuses on the scientific community that is academic marketing, is typically
Kuhnian:
They have undergone similar education and professional initiations; in the process they have
absorbed the same technical literature and drawn many of the same lessons from it (Kuhn,
1973, p. 177).
In such a community, status and promotion are based on practicing, or at least
understanding, the dominant techniques. There is also the issue of disciplinary status
within the academic community and this too means that quantitative research is
dominant: well-established social sciences such as psychology and economics (the only
social science to have a Nobel Prize) are quantitative and so too must be marketing. In
addition, status issues between academic departments/schools which involve significant
funding implications are globally common in the university sector; and marketing
departments/schools often battle for status given an obviously “real-world” orientation in
a pool of “scholarly” positivist disciplines. The more quantitative a marketing department
seems, the more automatically respectable it becomes: the paradigm is strong.
Qualitative research labours under other handicaps. Already a risky track to follow
for the young researcher (in most departments/schools at least), because of the
historical and social patterns that have been described, there are problems pinning
down what is appropriate and good research amongst a very broad constellation of
qualitative techniques. Beyond and within popular and well-established methods such
as focus groups and interviews are ethnographies and other techniques (Guba and
Lincoln, 2000). This means that it may be relatively difficult to identify the appropriate
opportunity and training to conduct qualitative research. Additionally, as Hunt (1994)
points out, qualitative research continues to suffer because of false arguments about
inextricable links to constructionism (the basis of the “paradigm wars” of the early- to
mid-1990s). As we have argued, qualitative research can also be positivist.
It is, however, possible that the numbers of qualitative research projects in academic
marketing will rise in the future because of the increasing sophistication of
computer-assisted analysis techniques for dealing with interviews (for example,
NUD *IST). These assist the researcher at two levels: in analysis (particularly in large
scale interview based research and major content analyses), and in lending an air of
quantitative rigour to qualitative studies (Nancarrow et al., 1996). The already evident
emphasis within qualitative research on interview-based studies may therefore be
strengthened. If, as is likely, when this becomes the case, the move towards the
quantitative within qualitative research will necessitate the creation of a new category
of quantified-qualitative research positioned more towards the hard positivist end of
the research continuum (Carson et al., 2001).
The third argument that helps explain the dominance of quantitative research can
now be dealt with. In a journal article of 3,000-8,000 words, it is a challenge to fully
EJM report on and defend any research project in marketing. However, it is easiest to
41,1/2 satisfactorily cover all the relevant angles in a quantitative project: theory, method,
results, and discussion can fit into a tight word limit. In a qualitative project, the
boundaries of research are wider and the reporting of results takes longer (see
Martinsuo, 2001). This again partially explains the dominance of interviews in
qualitative research – the more quantitative in orientation they are, the more readily
68 they can be reported on satisfactorily within the constraints set by a tight word limit.
Case studies, ethnographies and properly conducted focus groups tend towards longer
explication and thus make uncertain candidates for journal submission in tightly
refereed, rigour-oriented journals such as the premier marketing journals. The problem
of the case study writer is that well-conducted case research is necessarily wordy in the
reporting phase, and when compressed often lacks plausibility (see Weick, 1989).
Under this line of argument, marketing is likely to continue to be quantitative unless
word constraints are relaxed for good qualitative research. This is, then, not so much a
policy against qualitative research or even a cultural bias, but an artefact of the journal
genre, itself influenced by the ardent need for academic publication in elite journals and
the ever-increasing number of ambitious academics in marketing.
This is perhaps the best line of argument to explain the paucity of triangulated
studies located in the journals under investigation in this study. It is safe to assume
that marketing researchers are aware of triangulation theory and therefore of the
values of triangulation in the pursuit of truth in the positivist tradition within the social
sciences. Inhibitions may come because of the historical and social basis of support for
quantitative research; because of the lack of support for triangulation amongst some
more constructionist researchers (e.g. Brown, 1993), but also because triangulated
research takes many words to outline, report and discuss. Each element must be
convincing on its own terms. To take a generic triangulated project: the theory must be
well explained, the interviews must be well explained and reported, the observations
well explained and reported, the survey well explained and reported, and so forth. This
is a substantial process of reporting, one usually well beyond the scope of a competitive
refereed journal that is under pressure to include as many good articles as possible in
each calendar year.
Our research was large-scale and carefully conducted. It determined the
quantitative orientation of academic marketing while revealing that the role of
qualitative research as a major research focus in three major journals is limited.
Qualitative research does, however, play a major role in orienting quantitative studies.
Published triangulated research is extremely limited in marketing, despite its
theoretical appeal. This pattern is well-established and unlikely to change. As we have
argued, it more likely that qualitative research will become more quantitative in
appearance rather than it will increase in importance (measured by number of articles).
If marketing academics are to be reflective practitioners in a research sense, and are
truly to strive for best practice, then the type of content analysis that we have
conducted is a useful starting point to promote such reflection.

References
Babbie, E. (1989), The Practice of Social Research, 5th ed., Wadsworth/Thompson, Belmont, CA.
Brown, S. (1993), “Postmodern marketing?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 19-34.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative Marketing Research, Sage, Qualitative and
London.
quantitative
Chung, E. and Alagaratnam, S. (2001), “‘Teach ten thousand stars how not to dance’: a survey of
alternative ontologies in marketing research”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, research
pp. 224-34.
Cohen, J. (1992), “A power primer”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-9.
Cohen, J. (1994), “The earth is round ( p , 0.05)”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49, pp. 997-1003. 69
Cohen, R.J. (1999), “What qualitative research can be”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 351-68.
De Ruyter, K. and Scholl, S. (1998), “Positioning qualitative market research: reflections from
theory and practice”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-14.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gummesson, E. (2005), “Qualitative research in marketing”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 39 Nos 3/4, pp. 309-29.
Harzing, A. (2004), “Journal quality list”, Australia, available at: http://harzing.com/resources.
htm (accessed 16 August, 2004).
Healy, M. and Perry, C. (2000), “Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 118-26.
Hirschman, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and
criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 237-49.
Hult, G.T., Neese, W. and Bashaw, R.E. (1997), “Faculty perceptions of marketing journals”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Hunt, S.D. (1983), “General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 9-17.
Hunt, S.D. (1994), “On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our method, our practice”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 13-25.
Jean Lee, S.K. (1992), “Quantitative versus qualitative research methods: two approaches to
organisation studies”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 87-94.
Jones, D.G.B. and Monieson, D.D. (1990), “Early development of the philosophy of marketing
thought”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 102-14.
Kidd, S.A. (2002), “The role of qualitative research in psychological journals”, Psychological
Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 126-38.
Kuhn, T. (1973), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Long, R.G., White, M.C., Friedman, W.H. and Brazeal, D.V. (2000), “The ‘qualitative’ versus
‘quantitative’ research debate: a question of metaphorical assumptions”, International
Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 189-97.
McClelland, G.H. (1997), “Optimal design in psychological research”, Psychological Methods,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
MacRoberts, M.H. and MacRoberts, B.R. (1989), “Problems of citation analysis: a critical review”,
Journal of American Social Information Science, Vol. 40, pp. 342-9.
EJM Malhotra, N. and Peterson, M. (2001), “Marketing research in the new millennium: emerging
issues and trends”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 216-35.
41,1/2 Martinsuo, M. (2001), “Balancing large scope and project manageability in a qualitative research
design”, Management Decision, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 539-50.
Masterman, M. (1970), “The nature of a paradigm”, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds),
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
70 Milliken, J. (2001), “Qualitative research and marketing management”, Management Decision,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 71-7.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Nancarrow, C., Barker, A. and Tiu Wright, L. (2001), “Engaging the right mindset in qualitative
marketing research”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-44.
Nancarrow, C., Moskvin, A. and Shankar, A. (1996), “Bridging the great divide: the transfer of
techniques”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 27-37.
Neuman, W.L. (2003), Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Rosenou, P.M. (1992), Post-modernism and the Social Sciences, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Roy, W. (2001), Making Societies, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Smith, J.A. (2003), “Introduction”, in Smith, J.A. (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to
Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Theoharakis, V. and Hirst, A. (2002), “Perceptual differences of marketing journals: a worldwide
perspective”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 13, pp. 389-402.
Vastag, G. and Montabon, F. (2002), “Journal characteristics, rankings and social acculturation in
operations management”, Omega, Vol. 30, p. 109.
Weick, K. (1989), “Theory construction as disciplined imagination”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 516-31.
Wilson, J.B. and Natale, S.M. (2001), “‘Quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ research: an analysis”,
International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

About the authors

Dallas Hanson is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management, University of Tasmania,
Tasmania, Australia, He lectures in marketing and strategy. Dallas Hanson is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: Dallas.Hanson@utas.edu.au
Martin Grimmer is Head of the School of Management, University of Tasmania, Tasmania,
Australia. He lectures in marketing, research methods and human resources.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats