International Marketing in Sports Apparel.

THEORY

One of the most difficult paradigms in research is defining what exactly constitutes the idea of "theory." There are many different authors with many different views on this.

Harlow (2009) articulates the problem associated with defining "theory" is that there is no fixed, universal meaning for this concept. One of the guides towards identifying the components that constitute a theory could be the specific research direction at issue. In the natural science, for example, "theory" could refer to the law or system of laws. In a social sciences discipline, "theory" might suggest a construct or set to order and understand the phenomena under study.

While it is difficult to explain or define the concept of theory, Harlow also points towards the importance of understanding the concept of "theory" in terms of research, since it forms the central concept around which the research is conducted. Hence, understanding what is meant by theory within a specific research paradigm is highly important in order to conduct the research successfully. In social science, and specifically in a comparative study between two countries, theory might, therefore, constitute a construct for predicting the purchasing behavior of individual of groups.

Stam (2010) identifies three views in terms of formulating a concept around the idea of a theory in psychology. These include the fact that theories can be reducible to observables, used as instruments to do things in the world, or they can be statements about things that exist. As such, reductionism, instrumentalism, and realism form some of the most prominent theory premise to explain the idea of "theory" in research, particularly in psychological research.

Stam (2010) takes this a little further by adding that psychological explanations of phenomena could also include the concept of cause. When considering purchasing behavior, for example, culture is likely to play a relatively important role. American culture may, therefore, play a role in differentiating the purchasing behavior of the youth from this country from that among the youth in Kenya.

According to Stam (2010), theoretical approaches in the study of social psychology focus on individuals and cognition. Therefore, a person's thoughts, feelings and behavior are influenced by the "real and imagined" presence of others around them. Again this could be applied to brand loyalty among groups of people in the two countries being compared, Kenya and the United States.

Perhaps the clearest view of theory is offered by Stam (2010) who mentions that the phenomenon is a systematic representation of a genuine problem. This representation is usually offered in mathematical terms when it comes to the natural science or in logical or linguistic terms when it comes to the life and social sciences. While it is easy to identify the exact nature of theory in terms of natural science, it is not a simple for the social sciences, where the relationship between theory and observation is often a fluid one.

According to Stam (2010) functionalism came into the use in the early 20th century in the social science to account for those processes that could not precisely be explained in terms of their ontological status. Therefore, for social science, the problem remains one of how to explain and investigate phenomena in such a way that theory relates to fact rather than to undergrounded "hunches" or "feelings."

Stam (2010) notes that the social sciences and their study include a reflexive element, which means that the investigator must be part of the community being investigated in order to understand truly the human activities being accounted for in the study. The investigator for the comparative study, for example, is part of both the American community, having in this country for a number of years, as well as the Kenyan community by birth and having grown up in that country. Hence, the investigator is uniquely positioned effectively to investigate the youth of both countries for their purchasing behavior and brand loyalty.

Another challenge presented to the idea of the theory within a research paradigm is that many new theories and study paradigm have seen the light of late, including post-colonialism, culture studies, feminism, and the like. Therefore, there has been a new focus on creating paradigms of theory, with entire departments devoted to this endeavor.

Swedberg (2010) points out that the years after World War II have especially seen great advances in terms of social sciences investigations. When it comes to the specific development of concepts regarding the idea of "theory," however, such development has been uneven, especially in the social science. Indeed, while the methods associated with social science have advanced greatly, the idea of the theory has not, both because of the reasons mentioned above, and because, as Swedberg states it, the distribution needs to be made between "theorizing" and "theory." While "theory" has received considerable attention in the social science, "theorizing" has not. Theory, in turn, is the end product of this process and by considering the process of arriving at a theory, the phenomenon of theory itself can be more clearly identified. According to Swedberg, then theorizing can be used in terms of methods such as induction, deduction, generalizing, model-building, etc. These are all methods that can be used to arrive at a particular theory.

Swedberg (2012) goes on to distinguish between the context of discovery and that of justification, using this as a point of departure for the discussion. These two phenomena then provide the context within which thinking is subjectively performed, while justification refers to how these processes are communicated to others. In other words, the discovery process is followed by a justification process by means of which information is communicated in such a way that it adheres to scientific rigor requirements.

From this departure point, Swedberg (2012) then develops several rules according to which the theorizing process can take place. The first of these is observation. For the social sciences, this means that the investigator is observing certain phenomena in society that can be investigated. Swedberg's (2012) second rule is "Name and formulate the central concept." Therefore, the observation process is followed by a process of making claims about what has been seen.

The third rule (Swedberg, 2012) is to "Build out the theory." In this way, a central concept is built further identifying structure, pattern or organization within the phenomenon being studied. In a comparative study of purchasing behavior among American and Kenyan youth, for example, this outline would likely include initially separate accounts of the youth in both countries before comparing and contrasting them.

The fourth rule requires that the investigator complete the tentative theory and include an explanation. In this stage, a model of formulation of full tentative theory is given, with particular emphasis on the explanation, which would mean the end of the theorizing process, providing a platform for actual theory.

As such, theory can be distinguished from various concepts, including hypothesis, paradigm, model, and concept. One might therefore do well to start by searching for a definition of "theory." According to Harlow (2009) however, this is a difficult thing to do, because there is no universal or fixed meaning that is associated with this concept. The author mentions several possibilities when it comes to theory; it could concern a determining law or set of laws, or a construct or set of constructs in order to enhance the ability of the researcher to understand phenomena. In either of these cases, an existing theory can be tested or a new theory can be developed. In the proposed research, theory will be tested in terms of brand loyalty among young people in developed and developing countries, with the possibility of enhancing and reinforcing existing theories while developing additions to these.

A concept is somewhat simpler than a theory (Zikmund, p. 295), in that it concerns a singular idea, such as age, sex, and education. In addition, it could also entail abstract ideas such as corporate culture, loyalty, personality, and trust. A theory, in contrast, uses these concepts to form a more complex idea about a phenomenon that has been investigated in order to formulate a theory.

A hypothesis, in turn, is not yet a theory, since it is simply a projection of what might be true in order to formulate a theory. In other words, should a hypothesis be proven, a theory can be built on its proof.

A model, in turn, can be built upon the strength of a theory. Once a theory has been built, a model can be constructed to explain or present information in a more effective way.

Relationship between Theory and Research

Ellis and Levy (2008) define research as a systematic process. During this process, data is collected and analyzed with the specific purpose of understanding the phenomenon being investigated. This relates to theory, since theory is often used to describe or explain a phenomenon. Hence, research reinforces theory by collecting and analyzing new information in order to inform existing theory. As such, research is used to enhance existing theories and/or create new ones. There are various steps that can be used to accomplish this. For the proposed study, the following are particularly relevant:

Establishing causal relationships by conducting a causal comparative study to address a documented problem (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 23)

For the proposed study, a causal relationship can be established between certain advertising techniques, the quality of a product, the specific elements connected to a brand, and brand loyalty among customers from a certain demographic. The findings can then be used to establish new theories, modify existing ones, or reinforce existing theory in the marketing industry. Particularly, useful information is anticipated for different demographics, especially where it comes to the comparison of the developed and developing worlds. The same is anticipated for the action of Evaluating the efficacy of an approach to addressing a documented problem by conducting an experimental or quasi-experimental study. (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 28).

By approaching the mentioned demographics in a comparative manner, it is anticipated that new information will be revealed to enhance existing theory. As such, a "predictive model" can be developed to "address a documented problem" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 28) in order to address the differences in the brand loyalty manifestations among the different kinds of countries. The various components of research can therefore contribute significantly to the formulation of the theory.

The authors define research tools as a specific mechanism or strategy the researcher uses to collect, manipulate, or interpret data. The research method, therefore, needs to be carefully selected in order to promote the effective answering of research questions and addressing the research problem in order to contribute to the theory being created in this way.

It is also important to treat data correctly in order to ensure sound contribution to the theory (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2009). Here also, ethics come into play, where an individual researcher needs to be aware of the potential pitfalls of fraudulent or unethical data manipulation. Data must not be manipulated in a way that compromises the result of the study. When such manipulation takes place, there is no way for the research to contribute effectively to the theory being investigated.

It is also possible to access incorrect or inaccurate data as a result of the internet and its widespread nature. Many internet sites offer information that has not been peer reviewed or that could be false. A researcher needs to distinguish carefully between such information and legitimate academic sources of information both online and in hard copy. Knowingly or unknowingly using inaccurate data could result in compromised outcomes for the study, which would negate the entire purpose and information associated with the investigation.

In his study on the theory, Wacker (1998) considers how theory can be defined and how this can be used in theory-building research. The author notes that the concept of "theory" needs four basic criteria: conceptual definitions, domains limitations, relationship-building, and predictions. Theory building can be compared with Swedberg's (2012) idea of "theorizing," which refers to the process of arriving at a theory rather than the theory itself. As such according to the author, theory-building provides a framework according to which analysis can be conducted, the field can be developed, and the development of the field investigation can be facilitated. It is also useful for the solution of practical problems as they occur in the real world.

When a "good" theory is built, it includes uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, generalizability, fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction. In order to arrive at this kind of theory, the theory-building process needs to identify similarities across domains to ensure the importance of theory being constructed.

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty, as a theory, was identified and defined in 1970, according to Lin (2010). Brand loyalty has been investigated since then in order to determine effective marketing strategies to ensure brand loyalty. According to the author, early research tended to focus on the act of repurchase to measure brand loyalty. More recently, more sophisticated work has included theories such as polygamous loyalty theory, according to which customers would buy more than one brand. Effective loyalty and action loyalty also play a part in this. Effective loyalty, then, means that a consumer would prefer a specific brand without having developed an actual purchase behavior. Action loyalty, on the other hand, means that consumers, in fact, purchase a certain brand on a regular basis.

Hence, research has opened many channels for investigating and creating theories around brand loyalty. The effect of this for practice is then that various avenues are open for investigating brand loyalty and applying the theories that describe it. In marketing, the correlation of the trait factors and the various types of brand loyalty can be investigated in order to create effective marketing strategies.

In this light, Mazodier and Marunka (2012) focus on sponsorship in terms of investigating the application of theory to brand loyalty and marketing. Sponsorship is found to have a positive effect on the consumer-brand relationship. To prove this, the authors made before and after measurements of sponsorship activities and brand loyalty actions. In the application, it is shown that consumers who are exposed to sponsorship experience a positive brand affect, brand trust, and brand loyalty.

This effect is found to relate strongly with self-congruity in terms of events and brand affect. The perceived fit between the sponsored event and the brand is also important in this regard. The attitude towards the sponsorship and brand trust are affected positively when it comes to sponsorships. Hence, brand affect is a mediator of brand affect at sponsorship events.

As such, the study by Mazodier and Marunka (2012) applied the sponsorship theory to practice in order to investigate the effect of sponsorship on brand loyalty, establishing a clear link between the two. What it comes down to is that sponsorships are highly related to a consumer's self-perception and the congruity of this with the brands and sponsorships in question. This knowledge can then be used in further application to practice when it comes to creating a platform for brand loyalty in the future.

In addition, other factors also influence brand loyalty. Naseer and Ehsan (n.d.), for example, note that innovation, service, and marketing can all be important components of developing brand loyalty among customers. The specific focus of this study is he youth in Pakistan and the reasons behind their loyalty to certain brands. Interestingly, it is found that, while manufacturing quality does not impact brand loyalty among youthful consumers, innovation, service, and marketing do have a particularly strong impact. The market used to explore these matters in Pakistan is the clothing industry.

There are several important points in this study that can be beneficial for the sportswear study. First, Pakistan can be described as a developing market, which can be compared to Kenya. Second, the population studied in this market is the youth, which also compares to the study proposed here. The way in which Pakistani youth develops brand loyalty can then apply to the Kenyan market. Interesting comparison points can be hypothesized in this way, although admittedly, unforeseen differentiation factors may come into effect when the markets are studied more closely. Nonetheless, these differentiations can offer valuable fields of future study.

Nam, Ekinci, and Whyatt (2011), consider brand equity and customer satisfaction for their relationship to brand loyalty. The document focuses its investigation on the hotel and restaurant industry, with specific focus on the effects of consumer satisfaction on brand equity and brand loyalty. To investigate this, the five dimensions of brand equity were used as a basis, i.e. physical quality, staff behavior, ideal self-congruence, brand identification, and lifestyle-congruence. The findings of the study suggest that consumer satisfaction is highly correlated with brand loyalty in this industry as well.