Talk:Qualitative marketing research

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WRONG!

"Qualitative research methods are used primarily as a prelude to quantitative research." To whoever wrote this: it is wrong. Qualitative research methods exist in their own right as the most appropriate methodologies for addressing certain research questions. They complement quantitative research, as also quantitative research can be used to complement qualitative research tools.

(this comment is unsigned)

Whoever wanted to merge Qualitative Market Research with the main qualitative research page doesn't know much about this topic. Even a cursory look at the two topics shows huge differences. The main Qualitative Research page mostly talks about academic qualitative research, with an emphasis on theory. There, it is claimed that qualitative research helps gain a "deeper" understanding, but for market research, this isn't necessarily the case. Often it's to find out something very simple, (such as brand image) which is hard to do with a quant approach. They should be kept separate. If they are merged (which I oppose), a big distinction should be drawn between academic and market research, because they are very different animals. Callivert (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two should be separated. Market research, whether qualitative or quantitative, has a very specific, even narrow mission compared to academic research. The reader should not be confused thinking they are one and the same. Although I disagree with the statement that determining "brand image" is simple, but that's a different topic.

I do agree that qualitative research methodology is very often employed on its own, and not as a precursor to quantitative research, and I think that to say this is its main use within the business community is a bit of a stretch. Might want to rethink that statement.

Jjessen01 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - Qualitative Research is often used in isolation of Quantitative research and often is better suited to deliver the results. Also please do not merge Academic research with Marketing research - they are very different

Dipen Mehta (www.un-boxed.me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipenmehta (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within old-line marketing research, there was a traditional belief that qualitative research should be primarily, if not exclusively, used in combination with follow-up quantitative research that would "validate" the qualitative results ands demonstrate their "generalizability." That thinking is undoubted where this part of the article originates, but I have no idea what more recent versions of qualitative marketing research have to say on this issue.

With regard to the question of integrating this article into the general entry on Qualitative Research, I think that should only be done with great care -- if at all. The reason is that qualitative methods typically serve a very different purpose in marketing research, as opposed to academic research, and this difference in purposes often leads to different ways of using the same methods. For example, marketers tend to conduct focus groups in ways that are very different from the ways that social researchers use this method. So, if there is going to be any integration of this topic into the broader entry, it would have to be done as a clearly marked and carefully described subsection.

Finally, I agree with the "flagging" that this is a low quality entry, and someone who is knows more about this topic should definitely work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMorgan1950 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]