Research design: qualitative research method

From the literature review, it soon became apparent that there was a paucity of information regarding consumers’ perceptions and experiences in purchasing fresh food from retail outlets in Malaysia. In the absence of any empirical literature, given that the research problems identified were new to Malaysia and to the researcher, an initial qualitative research approach was considered to be the most appropriate means of addressing the research problems. Qualitative research is an unstructured exploratory research methodology which seeks to gain a qualitative understanding of the underlying reasons and motivations that most influence consumer decision making (Szwarc 2005; Malhotra et al. 2008). Daymon and Holloway (2002) consider a holistic focus to be one of the characteristics of a good qualitative research design. By having a holistic focus, qualitative researchers have the opportunity to gather a wide range of interconnected experiences, beliefs and values from respondents.

Small-scale studies are the norm in most qualitative studies as the main objective of the approach is for the participants to provide rich, detailed and holistic descriptions of the subject material being discussed (Daymon and Holloway 2002). Additionally, the need for the researcher to be actively involved in the data collection process was highlighted. The researcher is seen as the main ‘research instrument’ as he or she is engaged closely with the people being studied.

87

The two main benefits of conducting qualitative research is for; (1) the researcher to be able to hear the language consumers use to describe their experiences in dealing with the product; and (2) the researcher is able to identify a range of issues highlighted by consumers which may be considered important for the research (Szwarc 2005).

Malhotra et al. (2008) further classified qualitative research procedures on the basis of whether the objectives of the research were disclosed to the participants (direct approach) or disguised (indirect approach). In this study, participants were informed about the main purpose of the research study. A direct approach which involved focus groups and in-depth interviews was used to obtain the desired information.

In this preliminary study, focus group interviews provided the principal means of data collection. According to Sim (1998, p.346), a focus group is defined as a group interview – centred on a specific topic (focus) and facilitated and co-ordinated by a moderator or facilitator – which seeks to generate primarily qualitative data, by capitalising on the interaction that occurs within a group setting. Krueger and Casey (2000) claimed that a focus group is a special type of group in terms of purpose (listen and gather information), size, composition and procedures. Both researchers added that focus groups are seen as a method to better understand how people feel or think about an issue, product or services. Malhotra et al. (2008, p.119) defined focus groups as a group interview within a small group of participants, conducted by a trained moderator, in a non-structured and natural manner. Through a guided discussion, participants within a focus group discussion are allowed to interact with each other in a way that uncovers a range of insights on the topic of conversation (Szwarc 2005).

In comparison to in-depth interviews, focus groups allow participants to discuss, react to and to build upon the responses given by other group members. This method enables the researcher to identify subtle differences in responses and to ask follow-up questions immediately based on the responses given (Stewart et al. 2007). In addition, the type and range of data generated through the social interaction of the group are often deeper and richer compared to one-to-one interviews (Thomas et al. 1995).

88

According to McNeil (2005), in-depth interviews are a popular qualitative method in business-to-business research. In-depth interviews are normally used to get information from managers or from experts in a particular industry, whereas focus group interviews are an effective strategy in consumer research (Threlfall 1999). Given that in-depth interviews require more time, Kaar (2007) did not recommend this approach to researchers who face time constraints. Furthermore, given that in- depth interviews involve higher costs, this technique was considered inappropriate for this study.

To enhance the argument why focus groups were more appropriate for this study, Malhotra et al. (2008) suggested a few advantages of conducting focus group interviews as a data collection method. These included: (1) discussion in a group enables the researcher to gather more information compared to an individual interview; (2) bandwagon or synergistic effects often emerge where a participant’s comment will trigger responses from other participants; (3) participants’ responses are often spontaneous, which enhances the accuracy of their views; (4) more ideas emerge in a discussion rather than in an individual interview, and (5) focus group interviews are often flexible and more accommodating of the topics covered.

Stewart et al. (2007) mentioned that among the benefits of focus group interviews were: (1) the direct interaction between the researcher and participants, which provide opportunities for further clarification of responses, follow-up questions and for probing of responses; (2) the researcher is able to observe nonverbal responses and facial expressions which may support participants’ responses; and (3) with the open response format, the researcher expects to obtain large and rich amounts of information in the participants’ own words.

In the absence of any substantial body of literature on the factors influencing the consumers’ choice of retail store in Malaysia, focus group interviews were considered to be the most useful and cost effective means of obtaining the data. Focus group interviews have been widely used in exploratory research and are a popular technique to gain a preliminary understanding of consumer preferences (Zeithaml 1988; Verbeke and Viaene 2000; Harper and Makatouni 2002).

89

Nevertheless, as highlighted by Thomas et al. (1995) and Rabiee (2004), the participants of a focus group cannot be considered as representative of a specific population. Thus, the findings arising from the discussions cannot be utilised in any statistical way nor can any inferences be made about the population from which they have been drawn (Szwarc 2005). As a result, the findings from this first phase of the study were considered to be preliminary and to precede a subsequent quantitative procedure.