Qualitative research in marketing: what can academics do better?
Abstract
Qualitative research is designed to generate in-depth and subjective findings to build theory. Combined with the quantitative bias of top-tier journals, many qualitative researchers do not utilise the full-benefits of their adopted methodologies. This makes it challenging for qualitative researchers to publish their work at this level. Therefore, this current paper is intended to help academics and postgraduate researchers to be aware of the mistakes that can be made when undertaking qualitative research. These include very small (and weak) sample sizes, single-source studies, and poorly-written data analysis processes. This investigation contributes to the extant literature by suggesting some ways to improve the credibility of these methodologies, like accessing the correct informants, reporting on larger (or richer) samples, conducting pilot studies, clearly presenting qualitative data, and triangulation. By drawing upon a range of best practices from the broader commercial literature, some illustrations are offered on how to effectively undertake qualitative research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Conceptual transferability to a delimited set of contexts is demonstrated, strengthening the credibility of the study.
“Finally, while qualitative research is not intended to be generalised, as its value is in generating in-depth, subjective insights that build theory (Crick, 2021), we propose that conceptual transferability to a delimited set of contexts is demonstrated, thereby strengthening the credibility of our study.”
From Retail futures: Customer experience, phygital retailing, and the Experiential Retail Territories perspective (2025) · cites this paper as Crick, 2021
Cites
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Pope, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 · Cited by 8,131 · see citing works
Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide
Robinson, O. C. (2014) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543 · Cited by 3,232 · see citing works
Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Morrow, S. L. (2005) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 · Cited by 3,199 · see citing works
Wolf, M. M. (1978) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 · Cited by 3,176 · see citing works
Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 · Cited by 3,051 · see citing works
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 26× · see citing works
“In qualitative research, the goal is not to yield generalisable results, but rather, should generate in-depth and subjective findings that build theory (Andriopoulos & Slater, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Pratt, 2009; Pratt et al., 2020; Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012; Suddaby, 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.2.24.60761 · Cited by 2,182 · see citing works
Presenting and evaluating qualitative research
Anderson, C. (2010) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/aj7408141 · Cited by 1,188 · see citing works
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839219887663 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies
Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C., & Feldhaus, F. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0388-3 · Cited by 434 · cited 1× · see citing works
“If scholars choose to manually-code their data, they are recommended to use a robust system, in which they code their key and sub-themes, such as using numbers, letters, or colours – whatever is clearest for them (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2015; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Walker et al., 2017).”
MethodConsumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities
Goulding, C. (1999) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569910285805 · Cited by 271 · cited 8× · see citing works
“The constant comparison technique involves researchers comparing their qualitative data on a continual basis to understand how different participants’ insights (e.g., interviewees) are comparable with one another (Goulding, 1999; Lenka et al., 2017; R.W. Thomas et al., 2011; Suddaby, 2006).”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alexander, B., & Varley, R. (2025) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104108 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
- Authors
- Crick, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University
- Venue
- Journal of Strategic Marketing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-03-23
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 390-429
- ISSN
- 0965-254X
- 1466-4488
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 11
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review