Introduction
Academics,
practitioners and
qualitative market
research
Miriam Catterall
The author
Miriam Catterall is a Lecturer in Marketing at the
University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Northern Ireland, UK.
Abstract
During the 1980s, market research practitioners and
academic marketing researchers witnessed a growing
interest in qualitative research. A review of the practition-
er and academic literature on qualitative market(ing)
research reveals the commonalities and the differences in
the ways each group represents, thinks about and prac-
tices qualitative research. Areas where both groups might
benefit from sharing ideas and information and from
closer links generally are discussed.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · pp. 69–76
© MCB University Press · ISSN 1352-2752
69
The differences between academic and practi-
tioner research in marketing are a subject for
debate within industry and the academy.
Practitioners consider that much academic
research is irrelevant to the problems they
face, difficult to understand and often
unreadable. By contrast, academics complain
that practitioners ignore their work. Relations
between market research practitioners and
academic researchers have never been entirely
easy and it is not unusual to find the academic
and practitioner dichotomy used to justify one
type of research by pointing out the limita-
tions of the other (Brinberg and Hirschman,
1986).
Emphasising the differences between the
two groups can be counter-productive since
both can benefit and even thrive on the cross-
fertilisation of ideas (Wright-Isak and Pren-
sky, 1995). Academics can provide a flow of
new ideas without which professional practice
might become stale. Practitioners have the
opportunity to undertake repeated tests of
academic ideas in the marketplace and often
develop new approaches and methods of data
collection in the course of addressing clients’
problems. The benefits of co-operation and
collaboration can be seen when we examine
the history of market research. The most
significant methodological developments in
survey and opinion research occurred during
the 1930s and 1940s, when the links between
academic researchers (such as Paul Lazarsfeld)
and market research practitioners (such as
George Gallup) were particularly strong in
spite of some acrimonious debates between
the two groups (Converse, 1987).
It was during this period too that there
were significant developments in qualitative
market research both in Europe and North
America (Fullerton, 1990; Smith, 1954). In
1955, Paul Lazarsfeld reviewed the previous
two decades of qualitative market research in
the USA and drew attention to two trends
which he considered detrimental to its future.
First, the lack of detailed scrutiny of research
methods was blocking progress. He made
specific reference to the lack of attention given
to qualitative data analysis. Second, he argued
that expediency was leading to deterioration
in the field. The use of “quickies” undertaken
for advertising clients would, he warned, lead
ultimately to a disappointment with qualita-
tive research. Even though it is now over four
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
decades since he made these observations,
Lazarsfeld’s words have a certain resonance
for many of today’s practitioners.
Qualitative market research is a story of
success and triumph over adversity, or, per-
haps, this should read adversaries
(Achenbaum, 1995). In spite of this success,
many of its leading practitioners are distinctly
uneasy about the practice of qualitative mar-
ket research in general (Reuter, 1995; Cooper
and Patterson, 1995) as well as specific prac-
tices (Robson and Hedges, 1993). Cooper
and Patterson argue that the future of qualita-
tive market research will depend on a greater
understanding of what qualitative research is
about and how it can inform marketing deci-
sions. They identify a number of issues that
need to be addressed and these include speci-
fying the domain of qualitative research,
raising its theoretical standing and practical
application and improving professional stan-
dards and practice. Interestingly they pro-
posed that the qualitative market research
industry should fund and sponsor an academ-
ic source working independently to dissemi-
nate the theory and practice of qualitative
research.
During the 1980s, market research practi-
tioners and academic marketing researchers
witnessed a growing interest in the use of
qualitative research. Both groups were
forced to defend qualitative research from
industry and academic colleagues who are
sceptical of its decision making value and
knowledge making potential (Achenbaum,
1995; Hunt, 1994). This is one issue where
practitioners and academics share a common
goal and interest. However, different issues
and concerns have also preoccupied each
group and it is useful to examine both the
commonalities and the differences a little
more fully since they provide some insight
into the ways research practitioners and
academic researchers represent, think about
and practice qualitative research. A review of
the practitioner and academic literature
illustrates these commonalities and differ-
ences and also helps highlight areas where
both groups might benefit from the cross-
fertilisation of ideas and, perhaps, some
collaboration. Thus the review of the litera-
ture provides a context for the discussion
that follows it on potential areas for co-
operation.
70
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
Issues in the practitioner literature
Practitioners define qualitative research by
what it is not; quantitative or measurement
research (Robson and Foster, 1989). While
qualitative and quantitative researchers have a
vested interest in differentiating their respec-
tive research services to clients, the qualita-
tive/quantitative dichotomy has not served
qualitative market researchers well. Direct
comparisons of qualitative and quantitative
research, sometimes involving lists of the
features of each side by side (Malhotra,
1996), not only oversimplify the differences
between them but also come nowhere near to
capturing the diversity in qualitative research
approaches (Atkinson, 1995). Furthermore,
the criteria employed to judge the adequacy of
qualitative market research are the same as
those employed to judge quantitative
research, namely, sample size and design,
validity, reliability and generalisibility (Sykes,
1990). Where the quality or “goodness” of
qualitative research is judged against criteria
developed for quantitative research, qualita-
tive research will always be found wanting
(Atkinson, 1995).
For the most part, the market research
industry conceptualises qualitative research as
supplementary to quantitative research: a
form of exploratory research that precedes or
follows a quantitative project. Morgan and
Krueger (1993, p. 9) commented that there is
among market researchers “a general myth
that assumes that all qualitative methods are
preliminary, exploratory and prepare the way
for ‘real research’”. It is not only the quantita-
tive practitioners who portray qualitative
research in this way. In the USA, qualitative
market researchers include in their reports to
clients a standard warning about using the
research findings (Advertising Research
Foundation, 1985). This practice hardly
reflects well on practitioners’ confidence in
their work nor is it likely to inspire confidence
amongst clients. Some practitioners offer
more fulsome support by pointing out that
qualitative research is complementary to
quantitative research (Gordon and Langmaid,
1988; Robson and Foster, 1989). This only
serves to invite comparison with quantitative
research and, whatever the intended meaning
of complementary, the received meaning is
that qualitative research is supplementary.
One of the most striking features of the
qualitative market research literature is the
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
preoccupation with data collection techniques
and issues arising before and during data
collection, such as recruitment of participants
and running focus groups (Feldwick and
Winstanley, 1986; Robson and Wardle, 1988;
Tuckel et al., 1992). The emphasis on focus
groups means that this data collection tech-
nique has become the synonym for qualitative
market research (Robson and Foster, 1989)
and a methodological “straightjacket” for
practitioners (Branthwaite and Swindells,
1995, p. 59). Since the focus group is praised
for its cheapness and speed compared with
other data collection techniques, this has
resulted in qualitative market research gener-
ally being conceptualised as cheap and quick.
Paradoxically, while many of its leading
practitioners are well aware of the problems
posed by this representation of qualitative
market research, they can be implicated in
sustaining it. It is difficult to refuse to respond
to a client’s request for a couple of focus
groups even though this is may be an impover-
ished methodological response to the client’s
problem. If one researcher does not respond
to this request another will; sometimes scru-
ples need to take a back seat to the bottom
line (Reuter, 1995; Templeton, 1994). Practi-
tioners have accumulated a small body of
research work that demonstrates similar
dilemmas. For example, the presence of client
observers in groups may be deleterious to the
research effort and yet clients insist on being
present (Robson and Wardle, 1988). Since
they fund the research, it can be difficult to
refuse them. Perhaps the supremacy of the
client in market research is too readily taken
for granted and as inevitable.
When reading the practitioner literature,
one is never quite sure to what extent this
largely unfavourable self-portrayal of qualita-
tive research represents actual practice in the
field. A number of case studies demonstrate
creativity and flair in qualitative data collec-
tion and analysis in addition to the practical
benefits of the research for marketing deci-
sions (Alexander et al., 1995). The optimism
in these cases contrasts sharply with the pes-
simism in the practitioner literature generally.
Issues in the academic marketing
literature
It is useful to distinguish here between quali-
tative market research as it is represented and
taught by marketing academics and qualitative
71
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
research on marketing phenomena undertak-
en by marketing academics. Qualitative mar-
ket research, and market research generally, is
taught on most marketing programmes in the
university sector. The teaching is well sup-
ported by a range of market research texts and
it is in these that we can identify how qualita-
tive market research is represented in the
classroom.
Market research textbooks
It is only comparatively recently that some-
thing more than a cursory treatment of quali-
tative market research has been added to
contents of textbooks. Saegert and Fennell
(1991, p. 266) examined the way in which
qualitative market research was presented to
students in 14 widely used textbooks. They
concluded that the attitude toward qualitative
research is “overwhelmingly one of reserva-
tion”. It is portrayed as fulfilling a secondary
and less important role than quantitative
research. It is also presented as being full of
methodological imperfections and that these
were compensated for, to a limited extent, by
its cheapness and speed.
These textbooks consider areas where
qualitative research can contribute to market-
ing decisions: however, the content tends to
focus on techniques of qualitative data collec-
tion and their relative strengths and weakness-
es. The focus group is presented as the main
data collection technique and the others are
there in a supporting role. A small number of
books on qualitative research are available to
supplement market research textbooks. These
are largely or only about focus groups
(Gordon and Langmaid, 1988; Greenbaum,
1998; Robson and Foster, 1989; Templeton,
1994).
Students learn market research as a “how
to” subject where the textbooks are primarily
manuals of what market researchers consider
good practice, say, in questionnaire design.
The focus is almost exclusively on techniques
of data collection and analysis, comparisons
between them and procedures for implement-
ing them. This seems a rather narrow and
technicist representation of market research.
Qualitative academic research in
marketing
While practitioners seem preoccupied with
data collection, marketing academics have
been preoccupied with the philosophical and
theoretical underpinnings of research,
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
including the qualitative variety. Some
observers suggest that the so-called paradigm
wars in marketing raised awareness among
academic researchers of a whole new range of
approaches to the study of marketing phe-
nomena (Kavanagh, 1994). Many of these
approaches are more consistent with qualita-
tive rather than quantitative research meth-
ods.
Just as the focus on the quantitative/quali-
tative dichotomy has not served qualitative
market research practitioners well, so too the
focus on paradigms has not always served well
the needs of academic marketing researchers.
Academic researchers employing qualitative
research, like their practitioner counterparts,
began by defining qualitative research by what
it was not; non-positivist. Not only is this now
considered to be a weak justification for quali-
tative research (Hunt, 1994; Silverman,
1993) but it tends to result erroneously in the
conflation of non-positivist paradigms and
qualitative research (Atkinson, 1995; Marsh,
1982).
Dichotomies such as qualitative/quantita-
tive and positivist/non-positivist tend to limit
rather than open up possibilities for
researchers. For example, by defining qualita-
tive research in opposition to quantitative
research, practitioners and their clients con-
sider that numbers and computers have no
place in analysing qualitative data (Robson
and Hedges, 1993). By contrast, many acade-
mic qualitative researchers find that computer
programs and the numerical manipulation of
qualitative data can provide valuable insights
(Silverman, 1993). Similarly academic
researchers who portray the survey as a tool of
the positivist can exclude research of the type
undertaken by Liz Kelly and her colleagues
(Kelly et al., 1992). They employed a ques-
tionnaire based survey to collect “qualitative”
data on individual cases that would have been
difficult to obtain any other way.
While the wider academic marketing com-
munity retains some serious reservations
about qualitative research (Hunt, 1994),
studies that employ qualitative research have
increased substantially over the past decade,
particularly in areas such as consumer
research. Published accounts of these studies
reveal that they are stand-alone, either build-
ing theory or challenging theory. Often these
studies involve long periods in the field, espe-
cially where case study and ethnographic
work is undertaken. Data analysis and
72
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
interpretation is represented as difficult, fre-
quently protracted and very human resource
expensive. This contrasts sharply with the
“quick and cheap” portrayal of qualitative
market research.
It would be interesting to identify how
marketing students, exposed to one represen-
tation of qualitative research in the consumer
research literature and another entirely differ-
ent one in the market research literature,
reconcile these differences. Perhaps they
simply file them into separate compartments;
one labelled market research containing
pragmatic, cheap and quick research and the
other containing a variety of painstaking
research work labelled academic. Of course
this point is important and not just interest-
ing. Cooper and Patterson (1995) suggest
correctly that university students in business
and management are being exposed increas-
ingly to qualitative research and, as a result,
are likely to need less convincing of its benefits
when they graduate into marketing jobs.
However, given the way that qualitative mar-
ket research is presented to students, they
may graduate with a perception of it that is far
from favourable.
Thus it is that the practitioner research/
academic research dichotomy is reinforced
(Brinberg and Hirschman, 1986) with both
groups implicated in reinforcing it. It is not
very productive to begin to attribute responsi-
bility or blame for this situation. As Wright-
Isak and Prensky (1995) argue, we need to
consider how both groups can learn from each
other. In the discussion that follows some of
the ways in which academics and practitioners
might mutually benefit from closer links are
identified.
Areas for collaboration
The review of the literature on qualitative
market and marketing research highlights a
number of areas where academics and practi-
tioners might benefit from sharing ideas and
information and from closer links generally.
Domain of qualitative research
Cooper and Patterson (1995) propose that
the domain of what constitutes qualitative
research needs to be specified. The review of
the practitioner and academic literature may
lead some readers to conclude that collabora-
tion between the two groups on this matter
might be a match made in heaven, with each
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
group bringing different but complementary
perspectives to the task.
There have been attempts by researchers in
other disciplines to classify the variety in
qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln,
1994; Jacob, 1987; Tesch, 1990) but these
have met with limited success (Atkinson et al.,
1988; Silverman, 1993). Given the plurality
of philosophies and theories that can under-
pin qualitative work as well as the variety
possible in general research approaches,
strategies and designs, we can hardly be sur-
prised that representations of what constitutes
qualitative research lack agreement. Atkinson
(1995, p. 120) suggests that there is “at best a
collection of assumptions, methods and kinds
of data that share some broad family resem-
blances”.
More fundamentally, we need to question
what is likely to be gained from specifying the
qualitative domain; trying to bound what it is
and what it is not. This is not to imply that
anything goes in qualitative research. Rather,
the task of establishing boundaries might be
one that can never be successfully completed
since these boundaries are constantly being
(re)negotiated and shifting; for example,
recent debates in qualitative sociology on new
realism. Furthermore, regardless of authors’
intentions, the specification of qualitative
market research templates or paradigms tends
to attract “our paradigm is better than yours”
comparisons (Chandler and Owen, 1989;
Cooper, 1989; Goodyear, 1996).
The role of qualitative market research
A more useful exercise might be to focus on
the role or purpose of qualitative market
research and subject this to critical scrutiny by
questioning some of its underlying assump-
tions. One of the most cherished assumptions
in market research is that it is the link between
the consumer and the supplier of goods or
services. This assumption of linking the con-
sumer and supplier through information is
often embodied in definitions of market
research. However, the flow of information is
very much in one direction only. Other alter-
natives remain unexplored, such as the possi-
bilities for a two way flow of information or,
more provocatively, questioning who actually
benefits from market research and who (else)
should benefit. There is some literature that
begins to challenge these assumptions but, as
it is located outside the marketing discipline
(Johnson, 1996; Maxwell, 1996), it does not
73
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
always reach a marketing audience. Marketing
academics might be encouraged to examine
qualitative market research as a profession
and as a practice, identifying and challenging
professional assumptions and offering some
innovative alternatives.
Market research education
In the first issue of this journal Clive Nancarrow
reported some findings from a study of practi-
tioners which highlighted client education as
one of the priorities facing the industry. It is
assumed that clients do not really understand
the qualitative research enterprise. Since large
numbers of full time students (future clients)
and part time students (existing clients)
graduate from marketing programmes each
year, academics could be encouraged to
question the ways qualitative market research
is presented to students on these programmes.
Qualitative market research, and market
research in general, is presented in narrow,
functionalist ways and technical terms in
market research textbooks. For example,
there is no discussion of the historical origins
and intellectual underpinnings of market
research practice. The role and purpose of
research to contribute to (better) marketing
decision making and, ultimately, to benefit
the consumer are stated as if these were facts
and not values that can be called into ques-
tion.
Perhaps if students were encouraged to
critically engage with the assumptions
embodied in textbook presentations, they
might be more able to challenge what is
acceptable as qualitative market research
within their companies and less willing to
accept what is offered to them as qualitative
research by research practitioners.
Origins of qualitative market research
Most professions consider that an under-
standing of their historical roots has an impor-
tant part to play in creating and sustaining
professional identity. Market researchers in
general tend to ignore their roots, as if market
research is independent or exists apart from
the historical, cultural, political and intellec-
tual circumstances in which it was created and
in which it (re)creates itself. Academic mar-
keting historians (Hollander et al., 1990) and
social science historians (Converse, 1987), by
recovering the historical and intellectual
origins of market research, provide a body of
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
work which could contribute to the develop-
ment of professional identity.
Of course, many qualitative market
researchers would prefer to forget their histo-
ry and particularly motivation research; mar-
keting’s Caliban (Jameson, 1971; 1972). Too
often practitioners, and academics, conflate
the early development of qualitative market
research with motivation research and, more
precisely, with the work of one of its practi-
tioners, Ernest Dichter. Dichter’s work, for so
long a source of embarrassment to market
research and marketing academia, has been
reappraised by marketing academics includ-
ing Durgee (1986) and Stern (1990). His
work is now reviewed in a much more positive
light and Sidney Levy has referred to Dichter
as, “brilliant, provocative, and practical” (in
Sherry, 1995, p. xii).
Furthermore, the assumption that our
qualitative market research past revolves
around Dichter has overshadowed the richness
and variety in the work of his contemporaries
and predecessors in the USA and in Europe.
In the USA, this would include the work of
Rensis Likert and Paul Lazarsfeld on qualita-
tive interviewing and analysis (Converse,
1987) and the work of anthropologists
Burleigh Gardner and his teacher W. Lloyd
Warner on culture and marketing (Sherry,
1995). Lazarsfeld, who must take most of the
credit for promoting qualitative market
research in the USA marketing literature from
the mid-1930s, is one of many pioneers in the
field whose work is now being recovered by
marketing historians (Fullerton, 1990).
Experience of using techniques
Mutual benefit and collaboration means that
the intellectual traffic will not be in one direc-
tion only; from academics to practitioners.
Practitioners’ contributions to academic
research are sometimes overlooked. As the
previous discussion on marketing history
illustrates, many of today’s consumer
researchers consider that the work of Dichter,
and other pioneer qualitative market
researchers, prefigures their current work
(Fullerton, 1990).
After more than a decade of debate on
research paradigms (Kavanagh, 1994), acade-
mic researchers are well versed in the intellec-
tual justification for their different research
approaches. This emphasis on paradigms,
however, has not been matched by a similar
emphasis on research techniques. This is one
74
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
area where qualitative research practitioners
have considerable experience to offer the
academic researcher. Two examples will
illustrate this point.
The much maligned focus group is por-
trayed largely as a single uniform technique.
However, there is some evidence to suggest
that the focus group may be a generic category
with considerable variation amongst its sub-
categories (Cooper, 1987). It is not at all clear
from the literature in what ways a particular
“sub-category”, such as a conflict group,
differs from other “sub-categories” or why it
might be suitable for one project but not
another. Nor is it clear how issues, such as
recruitment, length of session, the role of the
moderator and the moderator guide, vary with
each of these different types of focus group. A
similar situation applies with projective tech-
niques (Sherry et al., 1993). While the litera-
ture spells out the rationale for using them and
the broad types of techniques available, there
is little information on which types work best
for particular problems nor is there advice for
researchers on designing, pre-testing and
selecting particular designs of projectives.
Practitioner knowledge, built up from years of
repeated trials and field testing of these, and
other, data collection techniques could benefit
academic researchers considerably.
Conclusion
Many market research practitioners and mar-
keting academics share a common interest in
qualitative research. A review of the practition-
er and academic literature on qualitative
market(ing) research highlighted a number of
areas where each group could benefit from
sharing the academic or experiential knowl-
edge of the other. Academics could benefit
from more detailed practitioner accounts on
the choice and implementation of data collec-
tion techniques. Practitioners could benefit
from the dissemination of scholarship from the
domain of marketing history. Finally, both
groups could benefit from more critical scruti-
ny of the underlying assumptions embodied in
qualitative market research practice.
References
Achenbaum, A.A. (1995), “The future challenge to market
research”, Marketing Research: A Magazine of
Management and Applications, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 12-15.
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
Advertising Research Foundation (1985), Focus Groups:
Issues and Approaches, Advertising Research
Foundation, New York, NY.
Alexander, M., Burt, M. and Collinson, A. (1995), “Big talk,
small talk, BT’s strategic use of semiotics in planning
its current advertising”, Journal of the Market
Research Society, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 91-102.
Atkinson, P. (1995), “Some perils of paradigms”, Qualita-
tive Health Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 117-24.
Atkinson, P., Delamont, S. and Hammersley, M. (1988),
“Qualitative research traditions: a British response
to Jacob”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 231-50.
Branthwaite, A. and Swindells, A. (1995), “Capturing the
complexity of advertising perceptions”, Proceedings
of ESOMAR Seminar, Looking through the Kaleido-
scope: What is the Qualitative Mission?, December,
Paris, pp. 49-64.
Brinberg, D. and Hirschman, E.C. (1986), “Multiple
orientations for the conduct of marketing research:
an analysis of the academic/practitioner distinc-
tion”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 50, October,
pp. 161-73.
Chandler, J. and Owen, M. (1989), “Genesis to Revela-
tions: the evolution of qualitative philosophy”,
Proceedings of the Market Research Society Confer-
ence, Market Research Society, London, pp. 295-305.
Converse, J.M. (1987), Survey Research in the United
States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960, University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cooper, P. (1987), “The new qualitative technology”, in
Sampson, P. (Ed.), ESOMAR Monograph, Vol. 2,
pp. 7-25.
Cooper, P. (1989), “Comparison between the UK and the
US: the qualitative dimension”, Journal of the
Market Research Society, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 509-20.
Cooper, P. and Patterson, S. (1995), “The future of qualita-
tive research”, Proceedings of ESOMAR Seminar,
Looking through the Kaleidoscope: What is the
Qualitative Mission?, December, Paris, pp. 205-21.
Durgee, J.F. (1986), “Richer findings from qualitative
research”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Feldwick, P. and Winstanley, L. (1986), “Qualitative
recruitment: policy and practice”, Proceedings of the
Market Research Society Conference, Market
Research Society, London, pp. 57-72.
Fullerton, R.A. (1990), “The art of marketing research:
selections from Paul F. Lazarsfeld’s ‘Shoe buying in
Zurich’ (1993)”, Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 319-27.
Goodyear, M. (1996), “Divided by a common language:
diversity and deception in the world of global
marketing”, Journal of the Market Research Society,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 105-22.
Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market
Research: A Practitioner’s and Buyer’s Guide,
Gower, London.
Greenbaum, T. (1998), The Handbook for Focus Group
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
75
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), “Competing para-
digms in qualitative research” in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 105-17.
Hollander, S.C., Nevett, T.R. and Fullerton, R.A. (1990),
“The history of marketing thought: Editors’ introduc-
tion”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 267-8.
Hunt, S.D. (1994), “On rethinking marketing: our disci-
pline, our practice, our methods”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 13-25.
Jacob, E. (1987), “Qualitative research traditions: a
review”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 57
No. 1, pp. 1-50.
Jameson, C. (1971; 1972), “Theory and nonsense of
motivation research”, European Journal of Market-
ing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 189-97.
Johnson, A. (1996), “‘Its good to talk’: the focus group and
the sociological imagination”, The Sociological
Review, pp. 517-38.
Kavanagh, D. (1994), “Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16”,
European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 26-41.
Kelly, L., Burton, S. and Regan, L. (1992), “Defending the
indefensible? Quantitative methods and feminist
research”, in Hinds, H., Pheonix, A. and Stacey, J.
(Eds), Working Out: New Directions in Women’s
Studies , Falmer Press, London, pp. 149-59.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1972), “Progress and fad in motivation
research”, in Lazarsfeld, P.F. (Ed.) Qualitative
Analysis. Historical and Critical Essays, Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 203-24.
Malhotra, N.K. (1996), Marketing Research: An Applied
Orientation, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall International,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Marsh, C. (1982), The Survey Method. The Contribution of
Surveys to Sociological Explanation , George Allen
and Unwin, London.
Maxwell, R. (1996), “Out of kindness and into difference:
the value of global market research”, Media Culture
and Society, Vol. 18, pp. 105-26.
Morgan, D.L. and Krueger, R.A. (1993), “When to use focus
groups and why”, in Morgan, D. L. (Ed.), Successful
Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 3-19.
Reuter, U. (1995), “The 7 mortal sins in qualitative research
– theory and practice”, Proceedings of ESOMAR
Seminar, Looking through the Kaleidoscope:
What is the Qualitative Mission?, December, Paris,
pp. 1-23.
Robson, S. and Hedges, A. (1993), “Analysis and interpre-
tation of qualitative findings. Report of the MRS
Qualitative Interest Group”, Journal of the Market
Research Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 23-35.
Robson, S. and Wardle, J. (1988), “Who’s watching whom?
A study of the effects of observers on group discus-
sions”, Journal of the Market Research Society,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 333-59.
Robson, S. and Foster, A. (Eds) (1989), Qualitative
Research in Action, Edward Arnold, London.
 Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research
Miriam Catterall
Saegert, J. and Fennell, G. (1991), “Qualitative research in
the textbooks: a review”, in Holman, R.H. and
Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 18, Association of Consumer
Research, Provo, pp. 262-70.
Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data:
Analysing Text, Talk and Interaction, Sage,
London.
Sherry, J.F. Jr (Ed.) (1995), Contemporary Marketing and
Consumer Behaviour : An Anthropological Source-
book, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sherry, J.F., McGrath, M.A. and Levy, S.(1993), “The dark
side of the gift”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 225-44.
Smith, G.H. (1954), Motivation Research in Advertising
and Marketing, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Sykes, W. (1990), “Validity and reliability in qualitative
market research: a review of the literature”, Journal
76
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
Volume 1 · Number 2 · 1998 · 69–76
of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 289- 328.
Templeton, J.F. (1994), Focus Groups: A Guide for Marketing
and Advertising Professionals, Probus, Chicago, IL.
Stern, B.B. (1990), “Literary criticism and the history of
marketing thought: a new perspective on ‘reading’
marketing theory”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 329- 36.
Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and
Software Tools, Falmer Press, London.
Tuckel, P., Leppo, E. and Kaplan, B. (1992), “Focus groups
under scrutiny”, Marketing Research: A Magazine of
Management and Applications, Vol. 4, June,
pp. 12-18.
Wright-Isak, C. and Prensky, D. (1995), “Early marketing
research: science and application”, Marketing
Research: a Magazine of Management and Applica-
tions,Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 16-23.