"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"

So comes the end of my university course –BUSN8018- and with that I will be wrapping up my blog. It has been an undeniably steep learning experience and I have come away with the confidence that I did not think was possible after the first few (somewhat overwhelming) weeks.

I have enjoyed writing the blog and endorse it as a learning instrument. Blogs are an engaging, interactive medium and the process of reflection has been quite relevant given the amount we have learnt. And at the very least, it has been interesting reading my initial entries to see just how far I have come in what seems like a short space of time.

The blogs are one of the many instruments of the course that reflect subtle undertones of Bourdieu’s sociological theories, which is quite fitting given the amount it has been referenced throughout the course! In particular, the course has focussed on the area of habitus by adopting an applied learning perspective, as well as constantly questioning what we learn and the assumptions we bring to it.

I thought it would be rather apt to finish with my Rules of the Game mind map. This has been continually updated throughout the semester (using the same headings), and is noticeably different from its origins. In particular, it has evolved so that it is suited to me rather than just mapping generic (blanket) rules.

I would like to thank Kerry for his innovative teaching and his practical learning style, which has (in my opinion) seen rather large improvements in my work and set me up in good stead for my honours thesis.

"I am learning all the time. The tombstone will be my diploma"

A long time has passed from when I entered my first qualitative research class twelve weeks ago, fresh and naïve with aspirations to make the most insightful research contribution of the century. Needless to say I have been grounded, though am still motivated to make my contribution to the literature. 

My research project for the course has come quite a way as well. Whilst the same concept is there, the quality has improved dramatically. Attached below is a summary of where I am currently at. I have conducted my focus groups between both groups of university students, and have both transcribed and coded my data- I am in a position to personally vouch for NVivo, which has allowed me to organise my data in a way that would even make my mum proud (apparently the state of my room is less than desirable).

Whilst I have not yet analysed the data to draw conclusions, I have put in some basic and preliminary findings just to provide a bit of a taste, but the best is yet to come. From here, I will proceed to refine and explain my data to make it meaningful, being conscious of presenting my argument. I have given myself some guidelines to ensure I do this successfully. From looking at the different codes I have come up with, I have made a clear picture of the argument to be made and have written a structure based on this. I feel this will provide me with more direction, as ordinarily I just try to write with assertion and imbed the argument rather than be driven by the argument itself. I am also being conscious of using short, clear sentences rather than the waffle that I am susceptible too. In doing so, I am also hoping that this will display a more confident writing style. And to aid in this, I have already roped in a friend into proofing my first draft (providing dinner is always a good vibe)- This way I can get feedback from a third-party perspective, which will not only help with basic edits like spelling and grammar, but identify areas that could do with some more simple language and clarity of expression.

I am looking forward to the final product, but it can’t be all talk and no action. So on that note, I best get to it!

Title	Making a Splash: The influence of contextual cues on consumption practices for low involvement products
Theory	The study uses Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice and the notion of ‘habitus’ to ascertain the nature and motivations of habitual behaviour when applied to common consumption. Further, it applies the cue theory of consumption (Laibson, 2001) to ascertain the implications on habitual consumption practices when a stable consumption cue is removed.
Relevant Literature	An analysis of the literature has been undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the application of the theory of practice consumption to the habitual low involvement paradigm of consumer behaviour.  Habitual buying behaviour occurs under conditions of low consumer involvement and minimal functional difference between product offerings. This framework of practice occurs with automacity and is directly cued by the given context. However, the cue theory of consumption argues that removing consumption cues negatively affects the consumers involvement with the product and/or brand.
Research Gap	Whilst there is sufficient research in the field of habitual consumption, there is no prior study that ascertains the affect on consumption habits when a contextual cue is removed. This presents an opportunity for the current research project to address the habit disconuity hypothesis. This study aims to conduct research into the consumption habits of particular groups, exploring the implications for when contextual cues and product availability are removed and the manner in which this affects consumption habits. In doing so, the study proposed that consumption habits for a low involvement common repeat purchase product will decline when a key consumption contextual cue is removed (Wood & Neal, 2009). To test this, the research used a bottled water case study with Australian university students.
Methodology	In January 2011, the University of Canberra banned the sale of bottled water on campus in an attempt to influence students to becoming environmentally aware and to promote a sustainable campus (ABC News, 2011). As a result, a comparative case study was conducted to determine whether there are any attitudinal differences between students from the Australian National University and the University of Canberra, and whether this has been affected by removing the contextual consumption cue. This was done by conducting separate focus groups with students from each university, with results coded and synthesised to generate findings and answer the research question.
Preliminary Findings and Initial Observations	Early stages of analysis have identified different attitudes on the topic. University of Canberra students were observed to be more environmentally aware about bottled water and in support of the ban. On the other hand, ANU students strongly opposed the ban on bottled water and did not believe it would solve the issue- instead, it would cause more of an inconvenience. However, both groups agreed that they only buy the product for the bottle rather than the water itself, which they retain and fill up when empty. Consumption patterns for UC students have altered as a result of the ban. As they can no longer buy bottled water on campus, they will simply source the product from elsewhere and make more of a conscious effort to take care of the bottle. This reduces the amount of bottled water they purchase and in turn saves money. Furthermore, the university has begun pushing the sale of metal reusable water bottles, which have become a fashion accessory and point of conversation amongst students.
Conclusions	I am still in the process of coding data and am soon to commence the interpretation of findings. Therefore, there are no absolute conclusions. These will be presented in the final report after a thorough analysis.

"The finish line is sometimes merely the symbol of victory. All sorts of personal triumphs take place before that point, and the outcome of the race may actually be decided long before the end"

After having conducted both my focus groups things are now getting down to the business end, and who would have thought that I would be excited by the mass of content that is waiting in the dark and ready to be coded.  I guess research can have that effect on you though, when you know you have some quality data to work with and are enthusiastic about what will come out of it. So the finish line is in sight, but it is still quite far in the distance and there are more races to be run!

The focus groups were positive and went really well. The participants from my University of Canberra (UC) study were all friendly, talkative and willing to get involved in discussion. And to be honest, this bought about a big sigh of relief. I was conscious of the fact that I did not know them so there would be quite a lot of effort trying to establish the rapport. But there were no issues here, which goes to show that the willingness of the participants can do a long way in the provision of rich data. And they were a diverse group, each from a different discipline- including an environmental scientist who is a self defined greenie, which always makes for interesting conversation when the issue of sustainability and environmental practices gets thrown on the table.

Though the process also highlighted some areas for improvement, showing that it really is a continual process of improving and refining technique. For instance, I was wary of the fact that they were doing me a favour by getting involved and that I didn’t want to keep them nor waste their time. Therefore, I stuck more to the questions I took in with me and was less inclined to throw in ad-hoc questions for fear of dragging it on with potentially irrelevant discussion. But upon reflection, I realised this was the wrong approach, as some of the best information comes when it is least expected and participants are bouncing off one another- encouraging conversation is always best. Also, the lack of familiarity meant that things began rather formally. However, as we got into the swing of things, the participants became more comfortable and the responses began to have more depth to them.

Overall, they went successfully and I am really pleased with the way they went. I got some insightful, quality information out of them which I am looking forward to writing up, though I may just give a bit of a speak peak as to some of the interesting findings in my next post. Until then-

“Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes”

On a side note (a bit of a tangent from the blog I posted only minutes ago), I conducted my first focus group yesterday and by all accounts it was rather successful. I chose to have the ANU student focus group first as I already had some level of familiarity with the people and focus group environment, so it was a case of ensuring that I was comfortable just as much as they were! But obviously I kept a cool head and gave nothing of my nerves away- or at least I would like to think so.

One of the benefits of holding two focus groups is that it becomes a more extensive learning experience, as I can identify areas for improvement and then institute them with the second group. One thing that I found difficult was finding the balance between trying to include people and respecting their potential desire to remain quiet. For instance, one of the participants remained unspoken for a majority of the focus group, whether it was because he did not want to contribute or because he was intimidated by some of the dominating personalities in the group. So at one point I directed a question specifically at him, and while he was happy to answer, it made me think; what if he did not want to participate with this line of questioning for a particular reason, and by singling him out I have made it awkward and uncomfortable for him. I don’t think that was necessarily the case here, but it is definitely something that could occur with more sensitive topics. Therefore, I would recommend spending some time at the start being particularly perceptive of how people are interacting and communicating to get a sense of their personality, which would allow you to gain a better distinction between reading whether a participant is uncomfortable or just shy.

The food is also quite important. I provided some chips, popcorn, chocolate, lollies and biscuits. It all went, which was an achievement in itself, but I found that towards the start the participants were more interested in eating the food than actually engaging with the discussion. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to let people talk amongst themselves for the first ten minutes, introducing each other etc. and then as the moderator I would then begin talking them through the information sheet and nature of the project. That would give at least fifteen minutes for participants to eat and therefore they will not be as interested in the food when it comes time for discussion.

Another point is to keep the recorder on until people begin to walk out of the room. This is something I would not have thought of previously, but I found that once the focus group had officially finished, participants were debriefing with each other across the table. In doing so, some really insightful comments were said which were not captured on record (and so there was me scribbling franticly trying to write down what was said).  

I am holding the UC focus group tomorrow, so you will hear from me soon with a more detailed blog summarising my focus group experience, where I’ll be making sure I work on my weaknesses as a focus group moderator to enrich the experience and subsequently provide a higher quality of data. And then it is full steam ahead with coding my findings into a presentable analysis.

"You may have heard the world is made up of atoms and molecules, but it's really made up of stories. When you sit with an individual that's been here, you can give quantitative data a qualitative overlay"

As the end of semester draws alarming close, we are looking at establishing a solid methodological foundation for our honours research. So I thought it would be appropriate to give you an insight into my cognitive melting pot.

At the moment, I feel like I am deep in the rainforest and facing a fork in the road, with two paths to choose from. However, unlike the movies, the choice is not obvious; there is not one bright, bushy butterfly-filled path and another that is dark, dingy and with dingoes howling (credit goes to ‘Beauty and the Beast’ for striking this image- And why the inventor went down the dark path I have no idea. It baffled me as a child and still does). Rather, both paths present promise, making the choice all the more harder.

One thing that I knew from the beginning is that you need to be interested in your research project, because if you lack passion then boredom creeps up quite quickly and steals your motivation. But I have learnt that you also need to feel connected to the methodology, as this will ensure that you are invested in the data collection and analysis of findings. Because at the end of the day, it is these two stages where you form your contribution to the literature. This is where I am stuck. On one hand, I feel like my personality and learning style is better suited to the nature of qualitative research; the interaction with people, the interpretation of meaning, and the richness of the data. But on the other hand, I am rather cynical and strive for certainty, which is given to me by cold hard statistics.

So rather than turn to Dr Phil to solve my dilemma, I found a book that has proven particularly useful - Mixed Methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Tashakkori, 2006). Tashakkori writes about the manner of integrating both methods, whilst criticising the academic arena for being quick to label researchers as one or the other. Some of the best research comes from combining both qualitative and quantitative methodology, which is where I feel I am more so aligned.  

Which brings me back to my honours thesis. And at the end of the day, it comes down to choosing the methodology that is best suited to your research question. My thesis topic is looking at the influence of brand dimensions on consumer brand preference for commodity products through a case study of bottled water. I have found from developing my study that it is best suited to a quantitative approach, using predefined scales to test predicted relationships. However, the existing scales are rather general. Therefore, to make them relevant to my case study, I will be conducting a content analysis of brand communications for bottled water to determine items for my scale. For instance, I will look at recent advertisements for bottled water brands and draw out the most common adjectives that they use to describe their water and put them into my survey (eg. Rate this brand of water based on: freshness, quality, purity etc.).

           

So after all that, I am sorry if I disappointed you by not choosing one side over another. Some may view it as indecisive, but I agree with Tashakkori. I find it somewhat ridiculous that some researchers feel the need to classify themselves as one type of researcher and disregard the other side altogether. In my (potentially naïve) opinion, it is about picking the methodology that is best suited to the research. And although I may be wrong, I’m sticking to my guns on this one!

"I worry that the drive for 'clean' identification as a methodological obsession is driving some junior researchers . . . to a pursuit of the cute instrument. This is leading them down the intellectual cul de sac of precise answers to trivial questions"

My research project and I are spending some quality time together this weekend, which has started with a coffee date at Café Essen in Civic (Canberra). I think we are progressing nicely in our relationship, with conversation flowing a lot more freely now that we have become well acquainted with one another.

We spent the first half of our coffee looking around and observing the passerby, eavesdropping on conversations about poetry and listening to the playful banter between the wait staff. However, as I opened my laptop lid my research project turned to me and posed the question that any male dreads- “where is this going?”

Well, needless to say I was shocked. But I had done all the ground work leading up to this point so wasn’t worried, and was able to answer with confidence. We spoke about everything we had done together in the past – the literature review and research design -, but now it was time to take things to the next level and conduct the data analysis. Whilst I had a fair idea about what was going to happen and my vision for conducting the focus groups, I thought it was best to talk things through. And we did.

The focus groups are being held early next week, and I have made all necessary arrangements such as purchasing snacks and booking rooms. Whilst I know it sounds rather anal, I have gone and had a look at the rooms already to ensure that I was familiar with them and so that I can lay out the rooms to make sure they are conducive to the study- A recommendation I picked up from Kitzinger (1994) in “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The importance of interaction between research participants”.

Also, in preparation for the focus groups I have prepared an information sheet and consent form, which participants will be asked to sign before being able to take part in the focus groups. Additionally, I have prepared a discussion framework to guide the conversation towards research objectives without any bias. This is entirely flexible and will be adapted to the respective focus group depending on the direction things seem to take.

But I wanted to make sure that I was well equipped before going into battle- not only to ensure that the integrity of the study is maintained, but so that I am confident in my ability to extract the information necessary to address the research question. A book that I found useful in doing so was ‘Focus Groups as Qualitative Research’ (Morgan, 1996). This helped me in earlier stages of my project in designing my focus groups around any limitations, and I drew on it once again so that I would be ready for battle. One thing in particular that stood out was ensuring that I make the environment rather informal and more sociable, given that the social context is relevant to the content of discussion. Further, students are more receptive to a casual environment and are likely to be comfortable and subsequently give better responses.

One of my classmates (Caitlin Taylor) had also found a credible source (Hague & Morgan, 2004) that provides tips to researchers on how one should go about conducting research interviews, which can be found on her blog- http://researchrulesandreflections.blogspot.com/. She identifies eight key points, which I think are important and warrant re-publication:

1. Questions should not be worded in such a way as to lead the respondent into the answer.
2. Questions should not only be short, they should be simple - questions that include multiple ideas or two questions in one are likely to confuse the interviewee.
3. Make the questions specific and avoid using words such as 'usually' 'frequently' or 'typically' as these have no specific meaning.
4. Avoid Jargon
5. Steer clear of sophisticated and uncommon words
6. Avoid questions with a negative in them
7. do not use words that could be misheard
8. Do not ask questions that are outside the frame of reference of the respondent

So after discussing all of the above, my research project was content with the relationships and was more at ease from thereon in. Which subsequently concludes the synopsis from today’s date. Who knows what the rest of the weekend will hold; things appear to be intensifying between us, and I definitely get the feeling that it is mutual, so prospects are quite exciting.

"Hitler said that categories were the greatest tool a leader can use to control people and set them against each other"

I have recently added a new and promising tool to my research apprenticeship- NVivo! And for anyone that has trouble pronouncing it like me, I have been assured it is said ‘en-vivo’. But to go into a bit more detail about the tool, it is qualitative data analysis computer software that is used to organize and examine unstructured data where deep level analysis is required.

Whilst it has extensive functionality -the ability to import a range of multi-media and rich text-based information-, I will be using it in quite a basic form for my qualitative project by importing my text based transcript into the program for coding. The process uses nodes to code and categorize the data, aiding in the overall analysis of themes when reporting on the findings. I will also be producing tag clouds and word trees in the software to help me identify key words and frequently discussed concepts, which will assist me in preparing my nodes.

Once the data has been categorized, I will explore the codes and test my research question. In doing so, I will have all the relevant content grouped together by themes, which will be synthesized and analyzed for reporting in the discussion of findings. However, it is important to remember that the discussion of findings should also use quotations and evidence from the data to justify results and add credibility to the study. This in turn will provide a more holistic picture when either proving or rejecting the predicted proposition.

On a whim of curiosity, I investigated other qualitative software packages on the market. And one that i quite like is Atlas.ti- It is highly usable, with most of the action occurring on the primary screen. Also, I like that it has a range of tools for searches and queries to identify text patterns. Plus, it has the capacity to work with a multitude of languages, including Chinese and Hebrew characters (it’s always good to know that should I choose to learn one of those languages that there will be research software to support me).

Another program that aids in the storage, organization and coding of content is XSite. It appears to be suitable for visual learners, such as myself, as it encourages the use of mind maps and tags to make order out of the chaos. It has the functionality to support this, as well as a range of other features that are intended to provide structure and support in the analysis to help the researcher build a meaningful story.

Nonetheless, all three products are all quite similar. They enable the researcher to associate codes or labels with chunks of text, sounds, pictures, and video; to search these codes for patters; and to construct classifications of codes that reflect testable models of the conceptual structure of the underlying data. Also, they have been developed based on Windows XP specifications, which aids in the users familiarity with the software Overall, I would say that they are highly flexible programs that can be readily applied to a range of qualitative research needs.

Though I must say that after all of this I am still attracted to NVivo. And having already had an introduction to the NVivo software i have decided that that’s where my loyalty will lie. So- It’s now time to get cracking and NVi-GO with NVivo! (For someone in marketing I seem to lack the creativity bone, as made evident with the poor attempt at a slogan).

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something"

Research interviews are an integral method in qualitative research, though should not be entered into blindly. They take a lot of preparation, and during the interview itself requires they require the researcher to take an active role in not only noting the content, but the manner in which it is presented- inclusive of non verbal communication. I have to say that as far as lectures go, today’s class on interviews was of my most insightful, and so I would like to share what I have learnt with you, particularly pertaining to ‘the rules of the game’.

Before one can conduct interviews, they must have established their research objective from undertaking an analysis of the literature (authors comment: be sure to know what the big picture is), which is in turn supported by theory. This is something I did not do in my interview project (see blog 09.04.2011); I was unsure of the process of doing an interview analysis, and as such did not provide an argument for my research, which is what drives the interviews and provides direction. I now know why I felt like I was swimming in a vast ocean with no land in sight! Not my smartest moment, but it’s all part of the learning process. It once again comes back to the argument, which the interviews are trying to prove in turn.

One thing that was mentioned was that a literature review should cover all elements of the topic, even those that you’re not going to use, as this shows a clear understanding of the topic. In my thesis’ literature review I have not included several elements simply because they are not relevant to the study. I now know that I still need to write about them, though provide an argument as to why they are not included in my study.

The interviews should be structured in a way so that they elicit the information relevant to the propositions. It is important for researchers to take an active role in the process; it is not just a matter of asking questions and recording responses, but rather being attentive and using peripheral communication to pick up on the interviewees non verbal communication (body language, facial expressions etc.) and verbal cues (pauses, sighs, intonation etc.).

  

Then, when reporting on the findings, it is important not to simply recount the interview. Rather, the researcher needs to form a narrative that develops/supports the argument, ensuring that the content is relevant and justifies propositions. This is then structured by categories of content, with the data presentation and analysis discussed together.

           

If I am being completely honest, I am quite sceptical when it comes to interviews. I am a character that seeks certainty and exhibits many traits (mainly the bad ones) of a perfectionist. Therefore, it is not surprising that such a subjective method leaves me feeling less than comfortable. Though to be fair, it is not the method itself but rather my confidence in executing it. I really do feel that interviews have their place, though if done by someone inexperienced they can produce completely different findings, limiting the scope of the study and raising questions of credibility. For instance, an inexperienced interviewer may not only read too far into particular cues (i.e. a sigh), or even be so intent and focussed on picking up certain cues that they lose their peripheral perspective. I have been told that such cynicism is good as it means that I am more weary of these things happen. But even moreso it is just something I am going to have to get used to (especially as I am doing focus groups for my project)- it all comes back to the learning experience. In relation to ‘the rules of the game’, I now know that I should go into my focus groups with confidence in my ability, and if I really feel like cross-checking my interpretations with someone else then it is best to take as many notes as possible in the interview. Further, I need to adopt a unbiased approach and not influence the participants, whilst at the same time making sure they feel comfortable enough with me so that they are honest and withhold from answering questions based on what they think I want to hear.

They say nothing good in life ever came easy. I know that this research is not my strongest playing card, so it will take a lot of effort and fingers crossed I come out the end with a strong project with solid findings.