Justification for the Paradigm and Methods

In support o f this research, it was decided to focus on the SM E luxury services m arket, as it is o f topical debate w hether or not this m arket can survive econom ic turm oil (Danet et al, 2008;

Hader, 2008; Pierce & A lm quist, 2001; Shilling, 2008; The Irish Tim es, 2008; Tyrell, 2008;

Varley, 2008). Furtherm ore, both the services sector and the SM E sector have a significant contribution to the em ploym ent, G D P and econom ic wealth o f a country (ABS 1997-98; Berthon et al; Culkin & Sm ith, 2000; DETE, 2008; G raham , 1999). Due to this being a broad and often undefined m arket, the research focuses solely on the SM E health spa industry, as this is an affordable luxury that has a broad range o f consum ers. The research was conducted in the North W est o f Ireland (Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal). This decision was based on the observation o f this region as the m ost underdeveloped, with significant increases in unem ploym ent and com pany closures (D ETE. 2008; CSO, 2006; IDA, 2009). The population o f this region is over 236,656

4 6

people (CSO, 2006) and the m ain tow ns include Sligo Tow n, C arrick-on-Shannon and Letterkenny (IDA, 2009)

3 2 1 M ixed M ethodology

The research problem is both specific and exploratory, therefore, the author has chosen to use a m ixed m ethodology approach to gather the relevant results U sing a m ixed m ethodology, the researcher aim s to blend both positivism m ethodology, w hich tests existing theory, and m terpretism m ethodology, which focuses on theory building to solve the proposed research problem (Carson et al, 2002)

Q uantitative reseaich is based on statistical results o f a large sam ple o f appropriate respondents (Brym an, 2004, Carson et al, 2001, Carson et al, 2002, Chisnall, 2005, D om egan & Fleming, 2003, Me B urney, 2001, M cD aniel & G ates, 2007, Shiu et al, 2009) Q ualitative research is based on in-depth discussions that uncover attitudes, perceptions and m otivations (Carson et al, 2002, D om egan & Flem ing, 2003, G h au n , 2005, M cD aniel & Gates, 2007, Me Guinn, 2008, Shiu et al, 2009) Both m ethods have their own benefits and lim itations The quantitative research (questionnaires) will enable the researcher to reach a large sam ple representative o f the population at a relatively low cost (Brym an, 2004, Carson et al, 2001, C arson et al, 2002, Chisnall, 2005, D om egan & Flem ing, 2003, Me B urney, 2001, Shiu et al, 2009) On the other hand, the qualitative research (interview s) has the ability to probe deeper and gathers m ore m- depth and conclusive findings (Carson et al, 2002, G haun, 2005, M cDaniel & Gates, 2007, Me Guinn, 2008, Shiu et al, 2009)

A m ixed approach is thought to be m ore appropriate when doing exploratoi^ research and when the research problem is com plex and requires deep understanding (B loom berg & Volpe, 2008,

Brym an, 2004; C arson et al 2001; Carson et al 2002; C hisnall, 2005; D om egan & Flem ing 2003; requires both the consum er and the service com pany’s perspectives on brand equity.

M cDaniel & G ates (2007) state that the m ixed approach is becom ing a favourable choice am ong to acquire m eaningful results. Chisnall (2005) supports this and suggests that qualitative research is the ’partner’ o f quantitative research. Carson et al (2002) note that qualitative research has gained increased regard am ong practitioners as providing practical solutions to real- life business issues. The flexibility o f qualitative research also allow s for the researcher to be creative and innovative in their research (B loom berg & Volpe, 2008).

3.2.2 In-depth Interviews

The qualitative m ethod o f research used w as the in-depth interview . Tw o inform al interview s were conducted with m arketing m anagers of small health spas in the North W est to uncover the trends, m otivations and consum er behaviours ill this sector. The feelings and opinions o f the

4 8

m arketing m anagers on service brand equity and its im portance w ere also questioned The results from both interview s were then com pared and contrasted to identify the factors that contributed to the level o f brand equity in these com panies By using qualitative research at the beginning, the researcher gained a clearer understanding o f the problem and it acted as a basis for further, quantitative research (Carson et al 2001, G h aun , 2005)

In-depth interview s are useful as they allow the researcher to probe deeper and gain better quality answ ers (D om egan & Flem ing, 2003, C arson et al, 2002, Chisnall, 2005, Ghauri, 2005, Me B urney, 2001, M cD aniel & Gates, 2007, Shiu et al, 2009) C arson et al (2002) state that m- depth interview s allow for the researcher to ‘get inside the h ead ’ o f the interview ee and uncover their true feelings and m otivations There is also the ability to ask m ore com plex questions and provide visual clues and explanations to questions (Brace, 2004)

Ghauri (2005) believes that interview research is necessary under 3 circum stances, w here theie is a lack of existing research available, when the research is a c u n e n t phenom enon and when there are m any variables under research that require how and w hy questions that m ake it difficult to use quantitative research (Bonom a, 1985, Eisenhardt, 1989, G hauri, 2005, Yin, 1994) T herefoie, it is useful to the current lesearch problem as luxury service brand equity is both under researched and com plex in nature, w hereas, strategies for surviving an econom ic dow nturn are a current phenom enon under topical debate

C onducting a personal intei view helps reduce the risk o f response and non-iesponse sam pling error, as the respondent feels obliged to provide com plete answ ers M cD aniel & G ates (2007) suggest that there are m any reasons w hy interview research can benefit the researcher furthei than a focus group In an interview setting there is no group pressure and the interview ee has constant, individual attention, allow ing for piob ing questions and uninfluenced answ ers U nfortunately, the absence o f a gioup also m eans theie is no group dynam ic, w heie ideas are

\

bounced o ff other m em bers of the group and reactions can be m easured H ow ever, the flexibility and closeness o f the personal interview m akes it a m ore rationale choice o f m ethodology for this study (Carson et al, 2002, C hisnall, 2005, M cDaniel & Gates, 2007, Shiu et al, 2009)

3 2 3 Q uestionnaire Research

D om egan & Flem ing (2003) describe questionnaire research as

“The systematic collection o f data from a sample of respondents”

Q uestionnaires are the m ost com m only used m ethod o f quantitative research (Baker, 1994, D om egan & Flem ing, 2003, M e B urney, 2001) This is due to then inexpensive nature, broad reach and the ease and speed o f collecting and analyzing findings (Brace, 2004, D om egan &

Flem ing, 2003, M e B urney, 2001) T heir ability to reach a large sam ple leads to m ore accurate results that are representative o f the population (Brace, 2004, B rym an, 2004, G haun, 2005) Questionnaires, if designed properly, can uncover consum er behaviours, attitudes, aw areness, tiends and characteristics (Baker, 1994) A nother advantage is the ability to have a standardized approach, asking the sam e questions to a large group o f people (Brace, 2004) This allow s for effortless trend analysis and assum ptions from results that are descriptive and analytical in nature (G haun, 2005) Finally, Easterby-Sm ith et al (2007) state that questionnaires are im portant for gathering the raw prim ary data essential to solving the research problem

Theie are 3 types o f questionnaires that can be used, face-to-face, telephone and m ail/e-m ail For this research, the face-to-face questionnaire will be used as it reduces non-response error and it is also m ore flexible, allow ing m ore com plex questions and the use o f visual clues (Brace, 2004,

Q uestionnaires are also a m ore objective type o f research and, therefore, do not allow for the same am ount o f researcher bias in research com pared to w hat can occur in the personal interview (Baker, 1994, D om egan & Flem ing, 2003, G hauri, 2005, M e B urney, 2001, M e Daniel & Gates, 2007)

1