The Role, Meaning And Importance Of Context In The Study Of Marketing Behaviour
Lay Peng Tan, Ian F. Wilkinson,
University of New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
We argue that the role of context needs to be given more careful attention in developing and
testing marketing theories. First, we analyse the role, meaning and importance of context in
the study of marketing behaviour using the process model of scientific method proposed by
Wilkinson and Young (2002a and b). Then we consider the implications for marketing
research of a greater focus on context.
Key words: context, marketing research, marketing theory, research methodology.
Introduction
Marketing theory cannot be applied universally without considering context. Likewise, the
range and limits of a study need to be explicitly identified so that we do not over generalise
(over claim) the findings (Wells, 2001). This paper uses the process model of scientific
method (henceforth referred to as PMSM) proposed by Wilkinson and Young (2002a and b)
as the discussion framework. It aims to systematically demonstrate the role, meaning and
importance of context in the study of marketing behaviour. The paper is organised as follows.
First, we provide a brief overview of the PMSM (due to space limitation, interested readers
should refer to the original papers for more details of the model). We then identify and
discuss various meanings of context in terms of the model. Finally we consider the
implications of a greater focus on context in marketing research.
The Process Model of Scientific Method by Wilkinson and Young (2002a and b)
The PMSM is depicted in Figure 1. The knowledge building process comprises five basic
elements and their inter-relations: Reality 1, refers to the phenomena to be understood,
explained or predicted by our theories; Reality 2, is the larger reality that includes the
scientific process itself as well as the social and scientific institutions of science; Theories, are
our ideas or schemas about the nature of reality and how it works, which may be both formal
scientific theories or informal theories in use or mental models. Observations result from
various kinds of interaction with the focal phenomena (Reality 1), by which we attempt to
discern its characteristics and behaviour, including measuring aspects of it; Actions, are what
we do, think and believe as managers, consumers, policy makers etc. based on our theories.
Figure 1: Process Model of Scientific Method (Wilkinson and Young 2002a and b)
Reality 2
Action
Reality 1
Observation
Theory
(Everyday, Scientific)
Types of Context and their Relevance
Various types of context can be identified in terms of the five basic elements of PMSM.
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
41
Context in Reality 1
Any study takes place at a specific time and place using particular methods. The focal
phenomenon is abstracted from its context in terms of other actors, activities, including social,
economic, biological, and material dimensions. Firm’s act based on their theories in use in a
particular market at a particular time and place and these factors affect what happens and how
firms interpret what happens. Consumers buy and use products and services in the context of
other people and products, at particular times and places and these actions taken place in the
context of a particular history and expectation regarding the future. The context of a focal
phenomenon is sometimes referred to as situation and included in the research study, but not
all aspects of context are so included, as we will show.
Context in Reality 2
Reality 2 is the larger reality that includes the scientific process itself as well as the social and
scientific institutions of science. The conception of this larger reality however varies
according to different philosophical orientations, which may be termed philosophical
contexts. For example, realists believe that there is a “real world out there” but positivists may
not accept that view unless “the world out there” is perceivable or quantifiable (Kaboub,
2001). In other words, Reality 2 is a context-dependent conceptualisation of the world
depending on one’s philosophical orientation.
We implicitly adopt an epistemological position when we do research (Easton 2003) and this
affects the way we frame the focal phenomena we seek to understand. It influences what we
regard as phenomena in the first place and hence what to investigate, our choice of research
methodology and the theories we develop. In this way our epistemological position is a key
part of the context of our research. This position is in part culture bound, as Nisbett (2003)
shows, with western cultures tending to interpret the world in terms of component objects
with attributes whereas Eastern cultures tending to see the world as continually interacting
substances and have trouble separating objects from context. Our epistemology, or theory of
knowledge and knowing, affects how we construct Reality 1 and 2 and the way we develop
our knowledge of any focal phenomenon. For example, to quantify observations and
replications, positivists study a focal phenomenon through a highly structured methodology
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). Hermeneutic inquiries focus on the interpretation of
words, language and non-lingual expressions (Gummesson, 2003) to understand the meaning
of something to people, and meaning is part of reality (Kaboub, 2001).
Context in Theory
Academics and practitioners work to develop or extend theories to help us understand (and
predict) the world better. Given that all research is conducted in a specific context, limited to
a particular time, place this affects what can and will happen and hence the theories we are
able to develop. For example, we need variance in relevant variables in a positivist
quantitative study in order to detect covariation.
Unlike the natural sciences, marketing is a social science which tries to understand people and
organisations. But we are also people and part of the marketing system we seek to study. Ants
and molecules don’t study them selves – or so we think! This unique situation gives us
privileged sources of insights but it is not without its problem. We are bound to be biased in
the way we perceive the information around us due to our own frame of reference, our preconceived ideas or our own interests (Wilkinson and Young, 2002 a and b). Indeed we tend
to place humans in a special place at the top of the evolutionary tree. More specifically,
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
42
Kritzer (1996) comments that “data seldom speak unless asked” and the questions we ask of
our data, though theoretically grounded, still stems from our own literature review, our own
research interests and the paradigms we subscribe too. Hence, even if we have been able to
produce theories that are useful, we still have the issue of how much of this is a product of our
own orientations because we the researchers are part of the context of our research and
theories.
The Chinese say: “A hero creates a new era; an era creates new heroes”. Major breakthroughs
create paradigm shifts. Nevertheless, there’s also an issue of timeliness – being in the right
paradigm, doing the right thing at the right time. Timeliness is another important context
which determines the development, adoption and survival of a theory, an idea or a meme,
irrespective of its innate truth or substance. This is because an idea or theory that is timely and
perhaps fits a paradigm (for example, a hot idea), will probably get noticed and replicated
more frequently, contributing to its survival.
Context in Observations
Observations result from various kinds of interaction with the focal phenomena (Reality 1)
where we attempt to sense and measure it using various direct and indirect methods. We
interact with reality directly through our sense modalities of sight, sound, touch, smell and
taste and indirectly through the measurement procedures and equipment we develop. Our
observations are potentially affected by the nature of the researchers themselves, the types of
measures we use, our measurement theories and our research designs. As a human, a market
researcher or practitioner, our introspection, self-reflection and direct experience with the
marketing phenomena can both inform and confuse our observations of a focal phenomenon.
We are trained to observe a marketing phenomenon as a researcher, we equip ourselves with
the observation methods and we are involved in co-creating the marketing phenomenon that
we set out to study. We want to find something, we expect to find something and mostly we
find something. Could it be otherwise?
Our sensing capabilities are limited hence we augment our observation methods by indirect
means. We use measurement scales to understand the bits of reality that in principle cannot be
directly observed e.g. attitudes, trust, market trends etc. However, given that this is indirect
sensing of reality, how could we be sure that the responses given in a specific context of
person, time and place correspond to the bits of reality (perhaps within our own context) that
we want to understand? Perhaps, we need more explicit theories of context in the
measurement theories? Rasch models of measurement go someway to doing this because they
attempt to calibrate the strength of the stimulus as well as the response to a test item.
Context in Action
Action is the manifestation of what we have learned through both scientific and everyday
theories. Action is included in the PMSM because it is part of and interacts with Reality 1. In
this way our theories change behaviour and maybe make our theories become true, unlike
what can happen in the natural sciences (Wilkinson and Young, 2002 a and b).
Research Approaches to Deal with Context
How can we address this seemingly endless list of contexts in our (limited) studies? What
should we try to include and what shouldn’t we? The answer is: go back to theory. As we
discussed earlier, theory represents and guides our generalisation from one context to another
(Wilkinson, 2003). However, to complicate matters, our theories of context are also context
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
43
dependent! Theory guides us to identify contexts that are likely to have substantial influence
on our findings such as our sample, research setting, research method and so on. We need a
theory of contexts to take into account context systematically and to use our limited time and
resources in the best way. There are several ways in which context may be dealt with by
researchers.
Contingency Approaches to theory building represent an alternative to the search for universal
principles (Donaldson 2001, Zeithaml, Varadarajan and Zeithaml, 1988). These set out to
examine how an existing theory may differ under the situational influences thus bringing
Reality 1 type contexts of a focal phenomena into focus. The kinds of situational influences to
be included become part of the theory, as when moderator variables are introduced to reflect
contextual conditions thought to moderate the way a general theory works. A challenging
example of this underlies complaints of practitioners about theory vs practice. General
marketing management theories are applied by practitioners in specific contexts that include
other marketing and management problems and issues, yet the impact of interconnected
problems if usually not included as part of the marketing theory but they cannot be ignored by
the practitioner (Gray and Wilkinson 2004). In principle contingency theory can be extended
to include any of the types of contexts we have identified.
Empirical Generalisation (EG) is defined as a pattern or regularity that repeats over different
circumstances (but need not be universal) that can be described by mathematical, graphic or
symbolic methods (Bass and Wind, 1995). This is the approach championed for example by
Ehrenberg and his co-researchers in searching for regularities in buying behaviour. EG
emphasises repeated and consistent empirical evidence over time and place (Reality 1
contexts) that enable us to predict the occurrence and non-occurrence of phenomena being
investigated (ibid). EG is a systematic way of knowledge building and examining previous
findings in different contexts. The impact of researchers, the theory and observation context
can be examined by examining these regularities using different measures, research
approaches and researchers.
Re-inquiry and the Middle Ground. Richard Wilks (2001) proposes that a pragmatic, middle
ground position between the extremes of positivistic objectivism and humanistic subjectivism
is to conduct re-inquiries. This approach enables the researcher to gain a fuller understanding
of, say, a consumption context, theoretical domain and underlying assumptions through
integrating the perspectives of different philosophical stances thus including different
epistemologies directly into research (Thompson, 2001). This approach aims to address the
blinds spots we may have in our original inquiry due to our underlying philosophical
orientation about the nature of reality Craig Thompson (2001) develops this approach and
proposes a postmodernist critical-reflexive approach as another way of studying context. This
aims to “identify how [various contexts] influence what a researcher can (or cannot) do and
the kind of knowledge that is possible (not possible) to derive given these background
conditions” (p.142). With an understanding of 1) the background assumptions, 2) disciplinary
values, and 3) normative interests held by the original researcher, re-inquiries can then be
made with different interpretive framework(s). Explanations for the patterns of differences
will then help to tease out the effects of those contexts.
Case Study Research (CSR) is “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real life context; when the boundaries between the phenomenon and
context are not clearly evidence” (Yin, 1989). CSR is useful because concentration on a case
allows researchers to revisit the site time after time, to gain in-depth understanding (Woodside
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
44
and Wilson, 2003; Easton, 2003), a fuller contextual sense of the phenomena under study
(Bonoma, 1985), to reflect, and to test their understanding (Easton, 2003). Further, CSR is
valuable in teasing out the interplay among the elements that are constituents of a causal
explanation (Easton, 2003) and multiple replications within a case are possible. However,
every case selection needs to have a theoretical basis (Johnston, Leach, and Liu, 1999;
Pauwels & Matthyssens, 2004).
Network Analysis and System Thinking. Much research focuses on the relation between
explanatory and dependent variables and, models tend to depict the relationships between
them to be one directional, linear and static (High Performance Systems, 1997). The
reciprocal and reinforcing effects among the variables tend to be ignored, not to mention, the
interacting effects among variables which could be an important context in itself. In network
analysis, groups and categories are not treated as discrete fundamental building blocks of
large-scale social system; instead, social systems are seen as a network of networks,
overlapping and interacting in various ways (Wellman, 1982, p168). This is especially
relevant in the study of marketing behaviour as so much of marketing is relational (Iacobucci,
Henderson, Marcati and Chang, 1996). Further, network methods are important and
appropriate tools to study such structures of interconnections as they allow us to maintain a
bi-focal perspective (High Performance Systems, 1997), i.e. keeping one eye on the details of
a network actor while never losing sight of the bigger picture of the network structure and the
interacting effects among them.
Interpretive and Interactive Research. Gummesson (2003) suggests that all research is
interpretive as there is interpretation all along, from the very beginning until the very end. The
implication is then to study context more effectively, to interpret “context” in the context of
the focal business or respondent i.e. taking an emic perspective in the interpretations.
Ethnographers immerse themselves in the phenomena under investigation to gain some
insider’s insights. In action research, the researcher acts as the change agent of the processes
and events they are simultaneously studying (Gummesson, 2003). In both examples, the
researcher adopts an emic perspective in understanding and interpreting the various contexts.
Concluding Remarks
Context is important and needs to be given more careful attention in developing our theories
and carrying out our research. Western scientific thinking tends to divide the world into
isolated objects with attributes that are the subject of study but this tends to blind us to the
way the parts are interconnected in an ongoing flux (Nisbett 2003). We have provided a
framework for identifying and evaluating the role, meaning and importance of context in the
study of marketing behaviour, using a process model of scientific method. We distinguish
between the effect of one stage of the research process on another and the effect of contextual
factors on each part of the research process. We have also shown how different research
approaches attempt or not to deal with the issue of context. Our discussion shows that context
is extremely important in our theory development and there are methods to study context that
involve developing more explicit theories of context and the way it influences the research
process. We leave consideration of the interactions between different types of contextual
impacts and their influence on the interactions among the basic elements of the scientific
process for another time.
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
45
References
Bass, F.M. and Wind, J. (1995). Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations
in Marketing. Marketing Science, 14(3), part 2 of 2, pp. G1-G5.
Bonoma, T. (1985). Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems, and a Process.
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. XXII, pp. 199-208.
Donaldson, Lex (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Easton, G. (2003). One case study is enough. Working Paper, The Management School,
Lancaster University.
Gray, David and Wilkinson Ian F. (2004) It’s all very well in theory but will marketing
practitioners actually use it? ANZMAC Annual Conference, Wellington (CDROM)
Gummesson, E. (2003). All research is interpretive! Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol.18, No.6/7, pp.482-492.
High Performance Systems. (1997). “Systems Thinking: Vantage Point and Thinking Skills”,
Chapter 1 in Stella: An Introduction to Systems Thinking. High Performance Systems
Inc. NH.
Iacobucci, D., Henderson, G., Marcati, A. and Chang, J. (1996). Network Analyses of Brand
Switching Behaviour. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, pp. 415-429.
Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., and Liu, A.H. (1999). Theory Testing Using Case Studies in
Business-to-Business Research. Industrial Marketing Management,28, pp. 201-213.
Kaboub, F.(2001). Positivist and Hermeneutic Paradigms: A Critical Evaluation under the
Structure of Scientific Practice. Working Paper, The University of Missouri, Kansas
City. http://f.students.umkc.edu/fkfc8/PosHermSSP.htm [accessed: 11 Nov 2004]
Kritzer, H.M. (Feb 1996). The Data Puzzle: The Nature of Interpretation in Qualitative
Research, Americam Hournal of Political Science, vol.40, pp. 1-32.
[polisci.wisc.edu/~kritzer/research/ interp%5Cdatapuzzle.htm] [30 March 2004]
Nisbett, Richard E. (2003). The Geography of Thought, London:UK, Nicholas Brealey
Publishing
Pauwels, P. & Matthyssens, P. (2004). “The Architecture of Multiple Case Study Research in
International Business”. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International
Business, R. Marschan-Piekkari and C. Welch, eds., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Northhampton, MA.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). “Negotiating Access and Research Ethics”,
in Research Methods for Business Students, Sydney: Prentice Hall, pp.114 and pp. 123.
Thompson, C. (2002). A Re-Inquiry on Re-Inquires: A Postmodern Proposal for a CriticalReflexive Approach. Journal of Consumer Research, vol.29, pp. 142-145.
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
46
Wellman, B. (1982). “Network Analysis: Some Basic Principles” in Social Structure Network
Analysis. P.V. Marsden and N. Lin, eds. Sage, Beverly.
Wells, W. (2001). The Perils of N=1. Re-inquiries. Journal of Consumer Research, vol.28,
pp. 494-498.
Wilkinson, I. (2003). On Generalising: Seeing the General in the Particular and the Particular
in the General in Marketing Research. ANZMAC Conference, Adelaide, December 2003
(CD ROM)
Wilkinson, I. and Young, L. (2002a). Scientific Method and Marketing: An Analytical
Framework. Working Paper, School of Marketing, The University of New South Wales.
Wilkinson, I. and Young, L. (2002b). “Scientific Method and Marketing: An Analytical
Framework” in J. Cadeaux and A. Pecotich eds. Macromarketing in the Asia Pacific
Century, Proceedings of 27th Macromarketing Conference, UNSW 11-14 June pp. 161169
Wilks, R. (2001). The Impossibility and Necessity of Re-Inquiry: Finding Middle Ground in
Social Science. Journal of Consumer Research, vol.28, pp. 308-312.
Woodside, A.G. and Wilson, E.J. (2003). Case Study Research Methods for Theory Building.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(6/7), pp. 493-508.
Yin, R. (1989) Case Study Research: design and methods. Revised Edition. California: Sage
Publication.
Zeithaml, V.A., Varadarajan, P.R. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1988). The Contingency Approach: Its
Foundation and Relevance to Theory Building and Research in Marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 22(7), pp. 37-64.
ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Research and Research Methodologies (qualitative)
47