Tutorial Questions Week 8

Differences between qualitative and quantitative

Quantitative	Qualitative
Seeks out the ‘why’ researcher can be away from instrument	Usually concerned with ‘how often’ researcher need to be as instrument
Method is standardised (structured questioning)	Uses a varied questioning- open-ended, unstructured, flexible questioning
Large sample size	Small sample size
Generalised results (numerical statistical data) artificial experimental setting	In depth results natural setting
Reliable data	Data may not be reliable

Types of research method

Quantitative

1)      Questionnaire surveys

2)      Telephone surveys

3)      Mail surveys

4)      Structured personal interviews/ Mall interviews

5)      Internet/ Email/ Web surveys

6)      Content analysis

Qualitative

1)      Focus group

2)      Field observation

3)      In depth/intensive interviews

4)      Case studies

5)      Ethnography

6)      Textual analysis

Advantages of Quantitative

-          Testing and validating already constructed theories about how and why phenomena occurs

-          Testing hypothesis that are constructed before the data is collected

-          Can generalize research findings when that data are based on random samples of sufficient size

-          Useful for obtaining data that allows quantitative predictions to be made

-          Data collection using some quantitative methods is relatively quick
       accurate and precise results.
       can be generalised (sample size)
       convenience, under control (setting)

Disadvantages of Quantitative

-          Researchers categories that are used might not reflect local constituencies understandings

-          Researchers’ theories that are used might not reflect local constituencies’ understandings

-          The researcher might miss out on phenomena occurring because of the focus on theory or hypothesis is testing rather than on theory or hypothesis generation

-          Knowledge produced might be too abstract and general for direct application to specific local situation, contexts and individuals
      time consuming (sample size)
     

Advantages of Qualitative

·       Data based on the participants’ own categories of meaning

·       Useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth s

·       Useful for describing complex phenomena s Provides individual case information

·       Can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis

Disadvantages of Qualitative

·       Knowledge produced might not generalize to other people or other settings (i.e., findings might be unique to the relatively few people included in the research study).

·       It is difficult to make quantitative predictions.

·       It is more difficult to test hypotheses and theories with large participant pools.

·       It might have lower credibility with some administrators and commissioners of programs.

·       It generally takes more time to collect the data when compared to quantitative research.

2)

(i)                          Nominal- Malay, Chinese, Indian, Scottish

(ii)                Ratio- 0,2,4,6

(iii)               Interval- Not happy, Still okay, Neutral, Happy, Very happy

(iv)              Ratio- 0,2,4,6

(v)                Ordinal- SPM, Diploma, Bachelor degree, Master degree

How to read a journal article.

In your small group, find a relevant Journal Article from the Library portal. Use the following questions and the reading given to guide you in understanding the Journal Article. Present a summary of your chosen Journal Article on your respective blogs.

1.     What is the Research Topic?

Who “Likes” You.. and Why?

A Typology of Facebook Fans

2.     What Background Information did the authors give you in order for you to understand their research?

The authors talked about different type of fan behavior affect the pages that they like.

3.     Why do you think each of those topics/sections of Background Information is necessary?

Give a brief knowledge for reader to make sure they know what the research is about

4.     What are the Research Questions of this study, if any?

“Do you have a Facebook account that you have accessed since March 1st?”

“Have you selected a brand you ’Like’ on Facebook in the past year?”

5.    What is the Hypothesis of this study, if any?

Different kinds of people have different insights on why they become fans of brands.

 6. What is covered in the Literature Review?

How Facebook likes enhance marketing communications, characteristics of Facebook fans, Characteristics of an Exploratory Facebook Fan Typology, research design, survery design, data collection, sample, measures, cluster analysis, and scale validation.

7. Why do you think the above topics are covered in the Literature Review?

• Targeting strategies and brand communications can be enhanced by pragmatically studying four key segments of Facebook Fans.
• “Fan”-atics have strong loyalty and brand love. Fan-atics help spread WOM due to their numerous Facebook friends. Facebook “shares” may encourage Likes from Fan-atics.
• Self-expressives like to impress others. They may be influenced by messages about brands’social desirability.
• Incentives for Liking may not be effective for all Fans types: Utilitarians who Like for incentives have lower loyalty and brand love and also offer less WOM than other Fans.
• Authentics, with strong brand loyalty and brand love, are less active on Facebook, although they have strong social ties. This group is best reached on Facebook through their friendship networks.

8.     What Method(s) did the authors use to conduct their research? Briefly outline what they did and how they did it.

Survey design, data collection, sample, measures, cluster analysis and scale validation.

9.     What were the Results obtained from the Method(s)?

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested for differences across the four clusters. Post hoc multiple comparison tests using Tukey’s HSD for equal variances and Games-Howell for unequal variances investigated significant group differences among cluster means. The 

variables used to inform the exploratory typology of Facebook Fans provide a more detailed profile of each cluster.

4 different clusters:

- Fan-Atics

- Self-expressives

- Utilitarians

- Authentics

10. What Discussion points / Conclusions did the authors bring up as a result of their study?

The current study provides a foundation exploration into whether it was possible to categorize Facebook Fans who Like brands based on their attitudes in relation to brands and their own personal and social characteristics.

The findings suggest four Fan types:

• Fan-atics,

• Self-Expressives, • Utilitarians, and • Authentics.

The authors are unaware of another Fan typology based on an empirical analysis of Fans’ personal and social characteristics and brand relationships. The findings of the current study add weight to the idea that there is a disconnection between Likes and brand consumption (Nelson-Field et al., 2012) and also offer a perspective in relation to why Fans may Like, yet not buy.

The authors view this study as a start- ing point for further research, including possible validation of clusters through replication studies with other samples (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984).

11.     What were the Implications / Significance / Importance of this research study, according to the authors?

This exploratory study provides insights into Liking on Facebook by examining Fans’ attitudes about their Liked brands. As this study prepares a foundation for future studies, it does not investigate a range of brand-related activity; rather, it provides perspective in relation to a brand related behavior, Facebook Liking, which has received much attention in the recent literature. Next, this study offers insights into consumers’ relationships with Facebook and brands. This research distinguishes between Fans based on their reasons for Liking. The challenge marketing managers face is that consumers infrequently regard the brands they buy as being different from other brands in the categories (Romaniuk, 2013). And although there may only be a marginal gain from using Likes to lever- age change, it could make a small contribution. From the perspective of the marketing literature, the finding of this exploratory study in relation to incentives is consistent with Ehrenberg’s research on sales promotions.

12.     What recommendations for Future Research did the authors propose?

The authors propose that hat follow-up larger-scale studies test the robustness of the clusters and pro- files identified among a broader profile of consumers, spanning all ages. Besides, it recommended that further research with cross-cultural samples be under- taken to provide a basis for comparisons and to contribute additional insights into Fan types. Further research could explore the nature of Face- book Fan typologies that include those who have un-Liked a brand and compare the results with the current study to deter- mine whether insights can be gained in relation to customer defection. Fur- ther research could also investigate whether there are gender differences between Fans, their reasons for becoming Fans, and the relationships between their Likes and their offline brand relationships. Next, they should investigate whether those

who are intrinsically motivated to Like a brand (with or without incentives) have a greater propensity to offer positive WOM, have greater brand loyalty and brand love, than those who receive extrinsic rewards (such as incentives) but who are not intrinsically motivated. Future research also is needed to examine factors that sustain intrinsic motivation in this context. Lastly, future research could examine the relationships between the characteristics of different Fan types and their offline brand relationships.

 13.  Were their Limitations in the study, according to the authors?

Lack of prior research studies on the topic

Cultural and other type of bias

14.  What Kind of Sources did the authors use for their entire research paper?

Journals, University papers, Internet, Reviews

E-Tutorial Week 5

Question 1

Scientific research must be internally and externally valid. What do Internal Validity and External Validity mean?

Internal validity refers to how well an experiment is done, without having the existence an artifact/confounding variable in the study.

External Validity is the process of generalization and it means that how well is the data can widespread to the people. For example, teenagers in Malaysia are addicted to Instagram. Instead of just conducting the research on a large group in two states, the research should be based on more than just two states of Malaysia. This way, a general study is more valid and effective.The interaction in an analysis of variable can affects it. For example: subject selection, instrumentation and experimental conditions.

Question 2

What do researchers need to take into account when ensuring that their research results are externally and internally valid?

Internal validity is important for researchers because a certain problem would have different possible reasons. And if we were to conduct a research on the only possible explanation, we must first extinguish all the other incorrect yet possible reasons. If it does not extinguish all other variables, then the hypothesis cannot be investigated. For example, if we were to study about teenagers who go to the gym are healthier than those who not. There are still other possible explanations that can prove this theory. It may be that the proteins they take are causing them to be healthier, rather than the exercise is making their body healthier.

For externally valid, Researchers need to make sure the analyses of variables are correct for example, subject selection, instrumentation and experimental condition. This is because if it is not considered properly, it does not exactly prove that the research is done generally. The more heterogeneous samples used, the better. Let's say the research is on Malaysian drivers. We should use samples not only on the drivers in Selangor, but also in other states as well, because "Malaysian Drivers" mean a general statement of the country.