Qualitative Research

Qualitative methodologies are often associated with exploratory research and are best suited to studies where little is known about the topic under investigation (Churchill, 1999) or where the research inquiry cannot be measured in a quantitative manner (Malhotra and Birks, 2006). This

~ 95 ~

research study adopts a qualitative research methodology to facilitate the emergence of meaning (Silverman, 2000; Marshal and Rossman, 1999) attributed to events by research participants.

The objective of qualitative research is to describe and possibly explain events and experiences but never to predict. It is common that qualitative researchers study people in their own territory, within naturally occurring settings – these are known as open systems, where conditions continuously develop and interact with one another to give rise to the process of on-going change (Silverman, 2001). However, due to the nature of the construct under investigation, Negative Brand Personality, and the fact that brand personality is under investigated, the concept needs to be explained in a way that allows consumers to take their time to ask questions if anything is not understood; therefore, the environment in which the study will take place will have to be considered carefully.

Understanding brand personality requires reflexivity and critical language awareness.

Therefore, the in-depth interview approach is an effective way for surfacing those interpretations of brand personality identified by consumers as being important; this contrasts with quantitative studies of brand personality which typically pre-specify the traits based on current theory and scales (Aaker, 1997; Aaker, 2000; Aaker, Benet-Martinez and Garolera, 2001). The current research addresses a further weakness of quantitative studies by supporting the examination of brand personality from a consumer’s perspective (Azoulay and Kapferer, 2003; Geuens Weijters and Wulf, 2009); this is achieved by gaining an in-depth understanding of the key determinants of the evaluative approach to brand personality (Maehle and Shneor, 2010), as well as establishing what consumers’ perceive as important Negative Brand Personality traits. Therefore, the qualitative, in-depth approach affords the opportunity for causal explanations that consumers provide from their experience with the brand, by actively probing the connections and relationships between particular themes and beliefs as well as addressing sensitive topics that consumers may have been reluctant to discuss in group settings (Silverman, 2000).

It is worth noting, though, that the probing technique can either be structured or unstructured.

However, although a structured technique would ensure consistency as each respondent would be asked the exact same question, it would provide an inconclusive finding (Bryman, 2008).

Respondents would be likely to answer the questions related to their perceptions of the social desirability of those answers, and therefore would not provide opportunities for the much needed in-depth exploration of Negative Brand Personality traits. As a result, this research adopted a semi- structured probing technique which is primarily used in connection with qualitative research; here, elements of the interview have a consistent, systematic structure (Bryman, 2008). That is, the

~ 96 ~

probing questions are set in an unstructured format with set responses combined with open-ended questions that suit the nature of the respondent.

It was decided by the researcher to adopt semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method for this study for three reasons. Firstly, this method allowed the researcher to gain in-depth insights into the attitudes and behaviors of respondents in a limited time frame (Patton, 1990) by giving the respondent the opportunity to express their own feelings, interpretations and experiences in their own words. Secondly, semi-structured interviews allow flexibility for the respondent to communicate freely and pursue what the consumer feels comfortable about, thus providing the opportunity for topics to be raised that, though relevant to the objective of this study, the researcher may not have anticipated. Thirdly, the interviewer is able to focus on the respondent’s responses by generating lengthy discussions that add richness to the data.

Although there is a rough guide in terms of the questioning, the order and specific framing of the questions will vary from interview to interview as will the content of the interview for each participant. This method has the advantage of gaining more thorough, richer descriptive information.

By carefully probing responses, by not structuring questions to elicit a specific response, and by not constraining respondents in a way which forces a fixed answer, a more accurate depiction of respondents’ true positions on some issues can be gained (for example, the reasoning given for why certain brand traits were allocated to the brands). However, a lack of structure may, on the other hand, influence a certain response when probing or wording certain questions. Therefore, a good balance is needed so that rich data and the full co-operation of the respondents can be gained.

The approach adopted is a means to create a more authentic account of consumers’ perceptions regarding brand personality. Although Silverman argues that this approach is “seductive”, it provides a more in-depth understanding of how the consumer interprets their social world with regards to brand personality. The interaction between the interviewer and the interview subject provides the opportunity to create and construct a narrative version of what traits exist to reflect brands based on the consumers’ interaction with the brand. It provides the opportunity to probe further into ambiguous responses to ensure the interviewer fully understands what the interview subject meant and why such responses are important to the subject. This contributes to knowledge by expanding the understanding of a phenomenon as well as fostering social change, with the primary focus of generating data “which gives an authentic insight into people’s experiences” (Silverman, 2001: 87).

Further, Silverman (2004) notes that the interview in itself is a symbolic interaction by building on the

~ 97 ~

interactive components, rather than restricting consumers’ interpretations, with the establishment of a mutual and deep understanding between both the interviewer and the interview subject.

Following on from the qualitative research approach, a quantitative approach was adopted for two reasons: firstly, to triangulate the findings from the interview study (Study A) through subsequent studies in order to validate the initial measure of Negative Brand Personality (Study B - D) which together formulated the Initial Scale Development study; secondly, to press the findings of the Initial Scale Development study into the services of the Confirmatory Scale Development study to test and validate the nomological network paths of the measurement scale.