Research Methodology - Mixed Methods Research

Interest in mixed methods is not new but has arisen due to the need for generalization and the need to study both pattern and behavior along with their variation (Greene, 2008). Therefore, one method alone does not provide an in-depth understanding; neither will mixed methods provide the complete truth, for that matter (Freshwater, 2007). Although both qualitative and quantitative methods hold their own epistemological and ontological assumptions, they are not viewed as fixed, ineluctable propositions. Due to the multi-stage scale development research design, this research inherently adopts a mixed methods approach.

Mixed methods research often includes hypothesis testing based on prior literature, and explorations focused on propositions as outputs. This may include a preliminary stage where qualitative analysis will be used to reinforce the logic that underpins the quantitatively induced hypothesis. The findings will then fuse into a more meaningful and significant contribution to the interpretation of the social world (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). Mixed methods research therefore provides provisional models that tackle both the variance and process orientation questions that identify salient variables, introduce new constructs and propositions, “reconceptualise explanatory frameworks and identify new relationships among variables” (Edmondson and McManus, 2007: 1167).

~ 88 ~

Further, Edmondson and McManus (2007) developed the importance of methodological fit, particularly in terms of how the theory of interest dictates what type of data collection method is required. For the purpose of theorizing, a more qualitative approach is considered appropriate, whereas, for a mature theory, a more quantitative approach is deemed more appropriate and a better fit. The unique distinction about intermediate theory is that there is enough prior work to set the hypothesis but not enough is known to base the conclusion on artifacts or numerical data to validate the phenomenon. It is often difficult to interpret the true meaning of an observed statistical relationship. Therefore, before being enthused by associations, a qualitative observation through interviews is needed to help advance the understanding of the process in building new ideas iteratively with good exposure to the phenomenon.

Lee and Lings (2010) further reinforced the fit to the research focus by its stipulation in asking the right question, and then selecting the most suitable methodology to answer the question, rather than adopting a methodologically driven approach. With scale development, the theory in research fits the intermediate approach, whereby the adoption of mixed methods is more suitable. The researcher would engage in activities such as theoretical definition obtained from the literature review, qualitative data collection conducted through in-depth interviews and analyzed through content analysis, quantitative data collection for investigation of the scale’s psychometric properties in relation to other constructs, exploratory factor analysis for data reduction, quantitative reliability assessment, and validation of the scale (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2003).

Therefore, the methodology is determined by the maturity of the topic of interest. Theories tend to fall along a continuum, from infancy to maturity. Mature theories are well developed, having been studied over time with increased precision that results in an accumulation of knowledge. This is in contrast to infant theories, which are generally novel. Intermediate theory falls between these two ends of the continuum, offering a new construct, relationship or perspective to an existing and well established idea (Edmondon and McManus, 2007). Intermediate research therefore draws upon existing work to build new constructs, benefitting from the use of quantitative methods to increase confidence in the alternative explanation. Edmondson and McManus (2007: 1165) describe intermediate theory as research drawing on “prior work - often from separate bodies of literature to propose new constructs and/or provisional theoretical relationships”. The positivist research is the most common in the brand personality literature, since there are no complete, established measures of Negative Brand Personality, or since there is a lack of theory with regard to Negative Brand Personality. Accordingly, the state of the field for the present research area, Negative Brand Personality, can be considered to be between the nascent and intermediate range of the continuum,

~ 89 ~

since much of the topic is grounded in conceptual thinking that now requires empirical testing. Thus, a hybrid (both qualitative and quantitative) method is deemed the most appropriate for this kind of research in order to help develop and establish the construct validity of new measures and consequently increase the confidence that researchers’ explanations of the phenomena are more plausible than alternative interpretations.

Morgan (1998) suggested classifying quantitative and qualitative research in terms of two criteria:

the priority decision and the sequence decision. The priority decision, with respect to the current research question at hand, suggests giving qualitative research priority over quantitative research in this thesis, because the focus is on the exploration of Negative Brand Personality through the development of the brand personality construct. However, the disciplines dominant in brand personality are consumer behavior and applied social psychology; within both disciplines theoretical frameworks do exist that allow development of testable hypotheses in order to predict antecedents and outcomes of Positive Brand Personality. Nonetheless, the research lacks conceptualization of Negative Brand Personality alongside a psychometrically sound measure of Negative Brand Personality. The sequence decision refers to the timing of the employment of qualitative and quantitative methods. In this research, in-depth interviews precede the quantitative questionnaire due to the nature of the research question - i.e., development of a psychometrically sound measure of Negative Brand Personality. However, without the quantitative studies to supplement the evidence generated from the in-depth interviews and psychometrically establish the minimum standards for a valid and usable scale of Negative Brand Personality, qualitative data will not be of much use. It is worth noting that the interview-based research adopted in this thesis by no means attempts to provide a mirror image of the reality that exists in the social world. However, the qualitative approach will help ground the Negative Brand Personality construct in reality whereas the quantitative approach will help to establish a psychometrically sound measure of Negative Brand Personality in order to allow for the development of testable hypotheses. Based on Morgan’s (1998) classification of priority and sequence decision, the platform for a multi-strategy approach is provided which broadly includes two main studies: the first is categorized as ‘Initial Scale Development Study’ and includes four sub studies, and the second is categorized as ‘Confirmatory Scale Development Study’, and includes three sub studies. Each will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters, but first the inductive and deductive approach to scale development is discussed.

~ 90 ~