A Grounded Theory Approach in a Branding Context Challenges and lessons learnt during the research

Main Article Content

Anne Rindell

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss challenges and lessons learnt when conducting a classic grounded theory study in a marketing context. The paper focuses on two specific challenges that were met during a specific research process. The first challenge related to positioning the study, namely, specifying “what the study is a study of”. The second challenge concerned the choice between formal or substantive theory. Both challenges were accentuated as the emerged core category concerned a phenomenon that has caught less attention in marketing, that is, the temporal dimension in corporate images. By the temporal dimension in corporate images we mean that corporate images often have roots in earlier times through consumer memories. In other words, consumers are not tabula rasa, that is, blank sheets of paper on which communication messages can be printed. Rather, consumers have a pre-understanding of the company that works as an interpretation framework for company actions in the present. The lessons learnt from this research process can be summarized as “stay faithful to the data”, “write memos on issues you reflect upon although they might be in another substantial field” as they might become useful later, and, “look into thinking in other disciplines” as disciplines do not develop equally.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rindell, A. (2009). A Grounded Theory Approach in a Branding Context: Challenges and lessons learnt during the research. Grounded Theory Review, 8(02), 77–87. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/379
Section
Research Articles

References

Alasuutari, P. (1995). Laadullinen tutkimus (Vol. 3. uudistettupainos): Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.

Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2008). The proactive brain: using rudimentary information to make predictive judgments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4/5).

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Vol. 3rd).

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationships Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343-373.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity (Vol. 4th): The Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emerging vs Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B.G. (2007). Doing Formal Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory – Strategies for Qualitative Research. London.

Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded Theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50-57.

Hollensen, S. (2003). Marketing Management. A Relationship Approach: Prentice Hall.

Meyer, & Schwager. (2008). Harvard Business Review, February.

Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., & Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and defigning the realtionship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62, 379-389.

Rindell, A. (2007). Image Heritage. The Temporal Dimension in Consumers’ Corporate Image Constructions. Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki.

Schultz, D. E. (2006). Trash Trove. Where is the real brand knowledge? MM, September/October.

Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images. Construct definition, measurement issues, and theory development. Marketing Theory, 1(2), 201-224.