Technique for this Study

According to Saunders et al. (2011), qualitative and quantitative designs can be interpreted through their philosophical assumptions and research approach and can be further associated with the choice of strategy employed (Davies and Ward, 2005). Several authors (Husse and Hussey, 1997;Kent, 1999; Burns and Bush, 2013; and Creswell, 2013), are of the opinion that the two approaches are complementary to each other. Saunders et al. (2011), defines qualitative research as a technique that generates or uses non numeric data, whereas quantitative study is a technique that entails the use of numerical data. However, these narrow definitions have been subjects of criticism (Neuman, 2006;Bryman and Bell, 2011;Creswell, 2013; and Yin, 2013).

Problems will arise in decisions to combine elements of both methods so as to arrive at a finding. A further elaboration of the definition was offered; hence, Creswell (2013) defined qualitative research as activities aimed at addressing meanings of human or social phenomena in a natural setting through an inductive or deductive analysis to establish themes and patterns. Impliedly, it involves data collection, analysis and interpretation to enable understanding of the social world through people’s sayings and actions. Denzin and Lincoln (1998), noted that qualitative research is typically multi-methods in focus, involving an

interpretive approach to its subject matter. Qualitative researchers study phenomena in their natural settings, making sense of or interpret phenomena related to meanings people bring to them. They further highlighted the fact that qualitative research is not employed in a single discipline, but can be used in several research areas.

Accordingly, Bryman and Bell (2011) highlighted the importance of qualitative research in generating theory, especially with grounded theory practitioners. They further deduced that qualitative data may result in generation of theory where it warrants going back to the field to collect further data to test the theory that emerged. Hence, research authors Denzin and Lincoln (1998); Neuman (2006); and Creswell (2013), argued qualitative research could also be used in testing theories indicating the importance and maturing of the strategy in testing theories. In contrast, Denzin and Lincoln (1998) defined quantitative research as, analysis and measurement of causal relationships between variables, rather than processes with a value-free framework of inquiry. Hence, the research approach aimed to quantify data and seek the application of statistical analysis.

Critics of qualitative research claim the strategy is unscientific, exploratory, based on bias and the difficulty of the rich data to offer analytic paths (Miles, 1979). However, Denzin and Lincoln (1998) argued that qualitative study is also an area of research in its own right. They pointed out that, qualitative research seeks to understand socially constructed nature of reality, relationships between what is studied and the researcher, and constraints that shape inquiry. They further added that research of this nature seeks answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning. Furthermore, Lincoln and Guba (1985), asserted that concepts and theories developed in qualitative research merely form representations where the same phenomena may offer different presentation. On the other hand, quantitative research is often criticised as unsophisticated and sloppy, its emphasis is usually on analysis and measurement of causal relationships between variables, while a value free framework is expected to form the basis of inquiry (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). It is usually deductive in approach by using data to test theories. In some instances, quantitative research may integrate inductive approach by using data to develop theory (Saunders et al.

2011).

Each of the approaches uses different forms of representation, textual evaluation and interpretation. Qualitative research is associated with ethnographic prose, first person

materials, still photographs and fictionalised facts (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Denzin and Lincoln, 1998), whereas quantitative research employs mathematical models, graphs, statistical tables with their research presented in a third-person style (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998).

In the same vein, Lincoln et al. (2011) cautiously suggested the possibility of blending elements of different paradigms to represent the best view of both. To offer deeper understanding of a phenomena, studies adopt triangulation, meaning, the use of multiple methods within qualitative, quantitative or both approaches. According to Denzin and Lincoln (1998), qualitative research fits this scenario due to its ability to adopt multiple methods approach to enable deep probing of issues and offer triangulation. They then questioned the ability of quantitative research to offer a deep understanding of phenomena as with qualitative research. Moreover, Rice and Ezzy (1999), challenged the rationale for adopting statistical techniques in quantitative research against the interpretive process as it will not allow examining meanings in a study.

Table 4.2: Qualitative and quantitative research methods

Qualitative method Quantitative method

Construct social reality, cultural meaning

Measure objective facts

Focus on interactive processes, events

Focus on variables

Authenticity is the key Reliability is key Values are present and explicit Value free

Situational constrained Independence of context Few cases, subjects Many cases, subjects Thematic analysis Statistical analysis Researcher is involved Researcher is detached

Source: Developed from Guba and Lincoln (1994); Creswell (2013)

The importance of qualitative research to marketing is highlighted by Gordon (1999), where he opined that qualitative methods offer the best means of understanding the symbolic values of brands. Additionally, Hanby (1999) suggested that the notion of brands occupying physical space is shifting to seeing them as living objects; hence, a research shift with more focus on

qualitative approach is needed. Therefore, in light of the above discussions and based on the exploratory nature of this research and to meet the set objectives, the most suitable approach to answer the research questions for this study was the qualitative approach using the multi-methods process. Silent and abstract meanings ascribed to the branding phenomena were explored through this process from the view point of the participants, across the automotive supply chain in Nigeria and the UK. Accordingly, the next section discusses the research design by highlighting the rational for selecting grounded theory as the most suitable strategy and the data sources to address the research objectives.