Three research design approaches for studying consumer brand loyalty in Kenya and the USA

¶ … Brand Loyalty: Kenya vs. USA

The author of this brief report is to describe three different theoretical and procedural approaches that can be undertaken as it relates to a study that focuses on the differences and manifestations of consumer loyalty in a country like the United States, a developed country, and a country like Kenya, a developing country. The three main high-level choices, and thus the three different research methods to be looked at in this report, are quantitative-only designs, qualitative designs and mix-method designs. The latter is a mix between the first two with a blend of both quantitative and qualitative methodology.

Analysis of the Options

As far as the three options go, there are upsides and downsides to each. As it relates to quantitative design, a study on the Kenyans vs. The Americans and their brand loyalty would be a basic analysis of a pool of consumers and whether they stick with the same brands and, if so, to what extent. One could also look at loyalty patterns over time from a historical standpoint and at certain points in the year as well as at certain points in the economic cycle of the country. For example, treating the period of 2007 to 2009 in the United States the same as it is now or before 2007 would be foolish because there was a massive global recession during the 2007-2009 time period and the United States was in the thick of it. Similarly, applying the same general projections to both countries would be equally insipid given that Kenya and the United States are different on a multitude of cultural and financial/economic levels. Numbers can tell the story but there has to be justification to what conclusions are reached. The problem is that numbers alone often do not allow for this (Hector, 2013).

This is where a qualitative study comes in. Qualitative studies dig deeper and rely on facts and details that cannot be garnered at all times from quantitative-only research. A simple score on a range of numbers from 1 to 5 is often not enough to fully allow for the depth and breadth of analysis that is needed to obtain answers that pass the commonly held research facets of reliability and validity. Another concern is how consumers, or study participants in general for that matter, will react when they know they are being assessed. There can be a great amount of detail that is not usually garnered but the answers given may not be entirely accurate or complete (Eysenck, 2004). There are ways to mitigate this such as not asking for or retaining personally identifiable information and just limiting it rough demographic/location information and/or taking the data anonymously at the sole discretion of the person who is taking the survey. The problem with qualitative research studies is that if the data collection is not precise and done carefully, the data sample can become a muddled mess and/or the conclusions drawn will not withstand reliability or validity concerns from peers and people in general who critique and review the work at its completion or somewhere down the road.

The third, and probably best approach in most situations, is to a blended study whereby both quantitative and qualitative research methodology is used. Such studies are much more complicated to plan and execute. However, if the precision and attention to detail is up to snuff, the results garnered and outcomes figured out will be much more reliable and much more valid because, assuming all goes well, the qualitative and quantitative research data will support each other. It is best to study things that can be looked from the outside and in a way that is not interrupting or imposing but sometimes direct questions and answers is the only way to get complete and accurate responses. Also, it is often extremely hard, if not impossible, to replicate things in a vacuum and/or when people know they are being watched. Doing studies on controversial issues that involve (in any direct or indirect way) racism, nationalism, politics, religion or economics are all very dicey things to research because people will tend to filter or withhold their true feelings if they know they are being observed, watched or studied, also known as the Hawthorne Effect (Eysenck, 2004). Even results of elections and exit polls can be disunified due to things like this, otherwise known as the Wilder or Bradley effect (Karlgaard, 2012)