Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

Emerald Article: Ritzer's McDonaldization and applied qualitative marketing research Clive Nancarrow, Jason Vir, Andy Barker

Article information:
To cite this document: Clive Nancarrow, Jason Vir, Andy Barker, (2005),"Ritzer's McDonaldization and applied qualitative marketing research", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Iss: 3 pp. 296 - 311 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510603352 Downloaded on: 15-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 38 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 4153 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

QMRIJ 8,3

Ritzers McDonaldization and applied qualitative marketing research

Clive Nancarrow
Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

296

Jason Vir
TNS Global, London, UK, and

Andy Barker
RI Qualitif Research International, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose is to examine the insights gained from applying Ritzers thesis of McDonaldization to international qualitative marketing research, in particular the four pillars of McDonaldization: efciency, calculability, predictability, and control. Design/methodology/approach The factors inuencing choice of qualitative method in practice are examined drawing on the literature, the authors observations based on experience (a team of practitioners) and a qualitative research study, using a mix of interviews and a workshop with those who co-ordinate international research or who are subject to the co-ordination. Findings The research suggests McDonaldization or factory farming may be a reality in some quarters in the qualitative marketing research industry and examples of how the four pillars of McDonaldization bear on the industry are examined. Research limitations/implications There is a need to determine and monitor the extent of the McDonaldization phenomenon and at the same time explore across different cultures two key interfaces that can be adversely affected by McDonaldization, namely the respondent-researcher interface and the researcher-researcher interface when the researchers come from different cultures. Practical implications Management may now reect on whether their practices increase or decrease the likelihood of gleaning qualitative insights and the case for considering developing a more eclectic research philosophy. Originality/value This paper provides a new framework for evaluating applied qualitative marketing research. Keywords Focus groups, Multinational companies, Qualitative market research, Standardization Paper type Research paper

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal Vol. 8 No. 3, 2005 pp. 296-311 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-2752 DOI 10.1108/13522750510603352

Introduction: factory farming? Sections of the UK qualitative research industry have been accused of tending towards factory farming (Gordon, 2001). This viewpoint is in part shared by Jones (2003) who regrets that too many young researchers do not experience anything beyond groups and depths. Interestingly the directory for the Association of Qualitative Researchers (AQR) (2002) has a section on international qualitative marketing research country by country where group discussions alone are singled out as a method. The problem may
This paper is a development of a working paper presented by the authors at the 2003 MRS Conference (Brighton).

be more acute in international qualitative research where, perhaps, perceived risk inhibits innovation and deviation from the standard qualitative offering of a group discussion. Of course there are examples of good practice in the industry where the full toolbox of qualitative methods and techniques are deployed as appropriate. These might include duos, triads, mini-groups, extended groups, sensitivity panels, internet interviews (synchronous and asynchronous groups), participant observation, accompanied shopping/consumption, interviewing opinion leaders, experts, mixed consumer-management creativity sessions, consumer juries, hybrid qualitative-quantitative, document analysis and mixed methods (Pawle, 1999; Imms and Ereaut, 2003; Desai, 2003). Some of these are offered by practitioners but ESOMAR Annual Industry data, our observations and those of other practitioners (Cooper, 1997; Pawle, 1999) suggest the industry mindset is very much group discussions. The question, however, is in which direction is the industry moving towards imaginative practices that use the full qualitative toolbox and so will yield greater insight, or towards factory farming and possibly less insight and the reasons for this? There are grounds for thinking the qualitative marketing research industry is becoming more knowledgeable and professional. For instance, the Association of Qualitative Researchers (AQR) membership has nearly trebled in 15 years (1990-2004). In addition, universities, professional bodies and specialist training companies are endeavouring to equip increasing numbers of students and practitioners with qualitative research skills and knowledge. However, the coverage of qualitative research on many business courses is often limited to just one or two sessions and a single chapter in a market research text (Nancarrow, 1997; Catterall, 1998). This limited coverage coupled with the increasingly competitive nature of the industry and pressures to deliver research feedback ever more rapidly perhaps leads some researchers still to opt for greater standardisation and uniformity in order to cope and minimise risk. Just as McWorld creates a common world taste around common logos, advertising slogans, stars, songs, brand names, jingles and trademarks (Barber, 2001), the qualitative research world also seems to be moving towards a common world taste for an instantly recognisable and acceptable research method that can be deployed fast. Because the group discussion is seemingly presented as the industry offering for qualitative research (for instance the AQR Directory & ESOMAR Industry Statistics) it enjoys the apparent mantle of industry and organisational validity. However, there are other criteria for evaluating applied qualitative marketing research exercises, for instance, perceived value (insight and utility) in relation to marketing decisions. Other judgements focus on the appropriateness of methods, triangulation, validity, process and transparency and even the stimulation to management thinking (Gabriel, 1990; Sykes, 1991; Seale, 1999; Barker et al., 2000). Standardisation, equivalence and comparability Before discussing McDonaldization we need to consider standardisation and related concepts given standardisation is key to the McDonaldization concept. When planning international quantitative marketing research, discussion often starts with whether or not comparability is sought, and if so, how to achieve this through equivalences in sampling, data collection procedures and so on (Craig and Douglas, 2000). Equivalence may on some occasions be achieved by using the same method (standardisation) or on some occasions by using different approaches, for instance, different methods of data

Ritzers McDonaldization

297

QMRIJ 8,3

298

collection that achieve similar levels of coverage and co-operation across countries. Clearly choice of method and techniques requires careful consideration of the trade-offs of different approaches in terms of equivalence, the different types of potential bias, depth of information, cost and timings. Standardisation may be misleading when it comes to judgements about comparability. In qualitative research the concern is often how to provide a common basis of management discussion of similarities and differences to maximise insight (Pawle, 1999). One might therefore assume this would, of course, mean sensitivity to issues relating to comparability as well as the use of more imaginative choice of approaches and techniques to achieve greatest depth of understanding. However, this might not be the case in practice with group discussions over-used (Pawle, 1999). We will explore why this might be the case. Ritzers thesis Uniformity and lack of imagination are the key characteristics of the phenomenon known as McDonaldization (Ritzer, 1983, 2000). For this reason, Ritzers thesis may provide useful clues to the apparent over-dependence on group discussions. Accordingly, we dene the main pillars of McDonaldization and evaluate their relevance to international qualitative marketing research. McDonaldization refers to the process of rationalisation associated with the McDonalds fast food business in more than 100 countries. The phrase was coined by George Ritzer, who gave it a wider application and argued that society itself was being McDonaldized. The main components of this process of rationalisation, Ritzer argued were efciency, calculability, predictability and control. Efciency Efciency in a fast food context relates typically to standardised methods of preparing the food and the use of the customer as labour. Customers stand in line and effectively serve themselves and often clear away debris. As regards employees, the work environment is highly regulated. Are there parallels in the international qualitative research industry? It seems the focus group has been the standardised offering for many years (ESOMAR industry data). Group discussion guides, we believe, are also often highly standardised. Efciency is not conned to the singular method of data collection but is also a feature in the presentation of ndings with the simultaneously empowering and potentially constraining format of Powerpoint shaping output (Parsons, 2004). The richness of qualitative exercises is often reduced to bullet points and visual charts as the legacy for future marketers and researchers. Of course, a full qualitative report takes time and money but we should perhaps set against this long term loss of insight and the possibility of future managers having to reinvent the wheel (Nancarrow and Barker, 1998; Barker et al., 2000). Perhaps, the spartan bullet point, sound bite debrief is more in tune with todays modern, in-a-hurry marketer than the old style full presentation with report to digest later. Undoubtedly some reports can be dull and indigestible and so counterproductive, while bullet point presentations can be comprehensive and pithy. The purpose of the study should, of course, bear on the depth and detail demanded, with strategic market and consumer studies in new markets requiring the

greater depth and detail than tactical studies on, say, pack designs for a market one occupies already. Calculability Calculability in fast food refers to extreme portion control, to speed of customer turnover (seats that are not too comfortable, food that requires rapid eating) and to the emphasis on size: Big, Whopper, Triple-decker (quantity perhaps above quality). In international qualitative market research the number of groups (the magic four and six per country), the number of research participants (8-10) and the duration of two hours (the AQR Directory) seem to be examples of calculability. A tendency to cost by group or depth with often no savings for larger projects and sometimes not differentiating strategic market studies (more depth) from tactical projects makes qualitative life very calculable but not always sensible. There is also the tendency to select group discussions because the eldwork is quicker than other options (for instance, the perceived necessity of more interviews for depths, duos, triads). Predictability Predictability worldwide is at the hub of the whole fast food experience, namely no surprises and no risk in either the environment or food and little decision-making required. In the qualitative marketing research world both researchers and clients may be smitten by the standard comfortably respectable qualitative formula. Of course there are differences, say between the USA and Europe in terms of the parameters of a group (numbers in a group, type of questioning, level of detail in a moderator guide, etc. Cooper, 1997) and differences within Europe and other continents. However, signicant adaptation to different cultures may not always be carried out because the temptation to standardise not just type of qualitative interview (groups) but also what happens in them may prove irresistible if sometimes inappropriate. However, there is a counter argument that standardisation in qualitative research is critical, in some instances, in view of variable moderator quality for regional and cross-regional studies. A middle position is that it is sensible to harmonise, say, projective techniques and analysis without losing the local essence of qualitative research (Cooper and Pinijarom, 1996). Control Control refers to the non-human technology that speeds the operation drinks machines, minimal preparation or cooking, computerised tills. This is a process of standardisation that has its roots in the scientic management of Frederick Taylor, Henry Fords assembly lines and Japanese just-in-time techniques. Other examples of McDonaldized businesses include the other fast food operations (Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell, etc.), MTV, Disney, Blockbuster, AOL, Starbucks and Toys R Us. For qualitative research, the most notable recent technological introductions include electronic databases for respondent recruitment, software to help moderate larger groups (Group Support software Deal and Hodson (1997) and Sweeney et al. (1997), live viewing technology (video-conferencing) and software to analyse the data and build text and audio-visual presentations).The recruitment databases in addition to speeding up recruitment are sometimes the response to a reported problem of

Ritzers McDonaldization

299

QMRIJ 8,3

300

recruitment cheating illustrated at the Market Research Society Conference Tonight Matthew I am going to be . . . (Francis and Parker, 2003). In some countries such database schemes have been used for many years and the AQR 2002 analysis shows 20 out of 21 countries use databases. Informal databases (the little black book) also exist in many countries though often at a neighbourhood or regional level. Whether such databases are a good or bad thing is a topic in its own right. Internet panels of potential respondents might speed the process but questions will need to be addressed about the merits and drawbacks of potentially conditioned respondents versus virgin respondents (Nancarrow et al., 2001). The use of Group Support software systems to control both the presentation of stimuli and the capture of individual responses that are then shared (anonymously) in group discussions offers greater productivity but possibly deates rapport and so disclosure. Observation of group discussions is not new. Special venues with one-way mirrors are often used. However, in international research it is possible to observe via a video-conference with simultaneous translation if needs be. Certainly, this opens up the possibility of central research co-ordinators and clients becoming more involved (greater control) in the research process and adds speed and so efciency, but time for reection may be a casualty. Technology can also help in the analysis of qualitative data with numerous software packages but there are concerns that interpretation may lose out to literal codied analysis (Catterall and Maclaran, 1998; Nancarrow and Barker, 1998). However, our experience is that while such software offers transparency in analysis it does so at the cost of speed and therefore does not meet the McDonaldization criterion.Finally, software innovations have spiced up presentations now often laced with video insets of vox pops to help convey the avour of the ndings and so speed up managements grasp of issues. McDonaldization expanded Ritzer argues that another feature of this rationalisation is perversely irrationality. For instance, the pursuit of efciency, for example, sties creativity and increases staff turnover. Despite this outbreak of irrationality, Ritzer appears to believe the onward march of McDonaldization is unstoppable unless resistance becomes much stronger. In many ways he seems guilty of nostalgia for a mythical golden age, ignoring the fact that the industrial working classes (whether in the USA or elsewhere) never did have creative jobs, stimulating environments or healthy food (Finkelstein, 1999). Cultural pessimism is not unusual amongst middle-class academics. Nonetheless, it raises the important question as to the impact of McDonaldization of the qualitative process on researcher morale in international marketing research agencies. Critique Other writers (Smart, 1999; Bender and Poggi, 1999; ONeill, 1999) argue that McDonaldization is merely a fashionable name for the rationalisation process that occurs in many businesses and that the real driver is capitalism and the prot motive. Indeed many of the ourishing business sectors today are notable for their ability to adapt quickly and avoid standardisation. It has also been convincingly argued that resistance to the opening of new McDonalds outlets invariable centres not on opposition to the rationalised nature of

the business but on the way American cultural imperialism threatens local customs, values and businesses (Smart, 1999). We note the possibility of American culture increasingly dominating in international exchanges though believe there is not as yet a strong perception of American imperialism in the world of qualitative research. The opening years of the 21st Century seem to reinforce the assumption of many Americans that Americanisation is an end in itself and that the rest of the world can only benet from such a process. Is this the case for qualitative research too? Ritzer notes that McDonalds is in danger of becoming a paradigm for all that is bad in the world, whilst Barber (2001) argues in Jihad vs McWorld, It is not that the world must join America; McWorld already operates on this premise, and the premise is precisely the problem. Rather, America must join the world on whatever terms it can negotiate on an equal footing with the world. McDonalds has, of course, made some attempts at glocalisation lamb burgers in India, McHuevos in Latin America, McChicken Korma in the UK. Usunier (1993) refers to marketing (and presumably market research) cultural seasonings. And in a sometimes unfriendly and strange world McDonalds can seem both welcoming and reassuring. Maybe this is also true of McDonaldized research in an industry where researchers are often under considerable pressure. The group discussion is a known quantity and so can be implemented with ease and speed and, of course, skilfully through much practice. It has a successful track record. However, we cannot afford to ignore the potential downside of Ritzers four pillars when applied to the marketing research industry relating to quality, low wages, McJobs and possibly the failure to value other cultures. Although many critiques of Ritzer challenge him on his likening of McDonaldization to an iron cage (imprisonment), in fact Ritzer also talks of a velvet cage (in which one is happy is to be) and a rubber cage (from which one can escape as one wishes). The same options presumably present themselves to qualitative researchers. This may mean choosing between industry institutionalisation, operating in a comfort zone or opting to break free, take risks and potentially reap greater rewards for oneself and the client. American inuence culture and control. We have already noted that McDonaldization could reect American business imperialism. In marketing too Usunier (1993) notes that marketing concepts and practices were initially and largely developed in the USA. They have spread on the basis of the apparent success of US multinational companies on the world platform. Van Raaij (1978) comments:
Consumer research is largely made in the USA with all the risks that Western American or middle class biases pervade this type of research in the research questions.

Ritzers McDonaldization

301

There are, of course, other cultural dimensions internal marketing researchers should be sensitive too. Interestingly, whilst Hofstedes analysis of cultural differences are used as bases for consumer segmentation (Cooper, 1997; Mooij, 1998; Caller, 1998), one might argue that the same cultural differences may explain how the members of an international qualitative research team, drawn from various cultures, may interact, exert power and so inuence the outcome of the discursive process of qualitative analysis. The McDonaldized process may not be sensitive to such differences and so insight is potentially lost.

QMRIJ 8,3

302

The practitioner perspective Research objectives So, the analysis of the McDonaldization thesis applied to global qualitative marketing research raises critical questions about the potential loss of insight from international qualitative work as a result of adoption of an industrialised process. This is a serious charge and as such requires investigation. Accordingly, we conducted a piece of research to assess the evidence for and against the McDonaldization of global consumer insight, in particular the relevance and impact of the four pillars of McDonaldization: (1) efciency; (2) calculability; (3) predictability; and (4) control. . . . on research practices and philosophies amongst both the co-ordinators of global qualitative projects and the co-ordinated. Research method The research approach involved: . A workshop with global research practitioners regularly co-ordinating multi-country projects as well as those being co-ordinated/carrying the domestic leg of others international research (six respondents). . Depth interviews with senior practitioners as above (two respondents). . Content analysis of briefs/case histories (the most recent ve years of global projects the researchers could access). . e-interviews with senior researchers in global markets, notably Europe and Asia (six respondents). . Discussion with two international research clients. Finally we also drew on our own international research experiences from various organisations we had worked with in the past. Research ndings and discussion In broad terms the research tended to support the notion that international qualitative research is often McDonaldized, i.e. that it is often standardised, efciency rather than efcacy focused, exhibits signs of calculability, is based on predictability and control (manifested as comparability) and that it also shows signs of Ritzers irrationality of rationality and loss of magic. In short, qualitative insight may on occasions be a casualty. Of course, it is impossible to state the exact extent of any problem on the basis of this limited qualitative exercise, but the research will hopefully sensitise researchers to the issues and encourage discussion. We now examine each of the pillars of McDonaldization and discuss in what ways they are manifested in international qualitative research practice, before drawing some conclusions.

Efciency Perhaps unsurprisingly there is plenty of evidence that standardisation of method is virtually axiomatic when it comes to global qualitative research practice. Standardisation makes sense when comparability can be achieved and unnecessary inconsistency and extra work be avoided. However, both co-ordinators and co-ordinated reported the often rigid and inappropriate imposition of standardised method across markets. To a certain extent this imposition is not the result of an imperious disregard for local sensitivities, rather it is a reection of the more limited menu routinely offered at a global level by some international researchers. Thus when speaking as coordinators, such researchers tend not to report any great feelings of anxiety about the dominance of focus groups. The exceptions to this were where researchers recognise that groups would be less culturally appropriate in perhaps one out of ve markets covered, usually because the subject matter was more culturally charged for a group in one market compared with another:
We nd that topics that should be discussed individually here are sometimes subjected to the group process (Researcher, India).

Ritzers McDonaldization

303

Researchers and clients acting as co-ordinators and co-ordinated jointly reported an urge to standardise because of a need to feel in control. This urge to control can be seen to be motivated at a number of levels and is more usefully dened as manageability. Researchers and, they report, clients alike are concerned with manageability of international research at each stage in order to achieve business process efciency (practical manageability) and analytic efciency (intellectual manageability). The benet of this is probably emotional manageability the chaotic ambiguity of ten markets each approaching complex problems in their own way is, it seems, impractical, unmanageable, unthinkable even:
We choose the same set up across all countries because it makes it much easier to co-ordinate a multi-country study that way (Researcher, Europe).

It is often with the imposition of a standardised discussion guide (and to some extent reporting template) that problems are more likely to occur. In this area it seems that both cultural and professional sensitivities are more likely to be offended i.e. a standardised, lowest common denominator topic guide will be imposed on a market where the questions might be difcult to ask or simply irrelevant to the particular market:
I recently conducted a project where the client insisted on having an identical discussion guide for Europe and for (the country of origin of the product), so that they could measure differences. But this project was about (a spirit from country of origin). Half the guide was ridiculously patronising to the (country of origin) respondents (Researcher, UK).

Sometimes the inappropriate imposition is recognised but the researcher feels powerless to do anything about it perhaps because of issues of timing, access and control. Some researchers felt that the need to standardise the process was client driven often ascribed to a need for (possibly spurious) comparability of results across markets (which we will talk about later with regard to predictability and control).

QMRIJ 8,3

304

These ideas of consistency, comparability, manageability seem to be, on the face of it, unproblematic. Who would realistically opt for inconsistency, incomparability, unmanageability in global qualitative research? However, there might be confusion here between means and ends. Certainly it is well documented (for instance Barker et al., 2000) that clients demand inspiring and punchy debriefs which provide actionable direction rather than intellectual musings. However, this does not mean that the process that goes into producing this simplicity should also be simplied. The job of the global qualitative researcher is not, therefore, to eradicate local ambiguity from the research process aiming to provide a coherent and useful analysis as a result. Our research suggests that there is at the very least an unease amongst some practitioners that the standardisation of the qualitative process, whilst it might be producing easily manageable and analysable international qualitative research, might also be compromising the resulting insight. Moreover, the loss of the local perspective might also effectively invalidate some results from some countries some of the time. Thus local colour is important and should be maintained if accurate and useful insights are to be produced. So if the notion of local colour is often conned to a well managed, packaged and controlled (i.e. reassuringly familiar) treatment of the Other, we must ask does this matter do not we live in a global village? Our research underlined the conict between the predominantly Western, rationalist-imperialist notion that the world is indeed a small place and the perspective of people who live and work in non-Western markets that this is not strictly true and is a Western simplication, indeed a McDonaldization of Otherness. It is often difcult for a Western researcher (brought up on the meta-narrative of progress, rationalism, technological and economic superiority) to accept that other cultures really do not see and think things as we do:
Europeans expect Asians to be like them and to respond to questioning and stimulus in the same way. But this is not really the case and there can be problems in applying international/European moderating principles to South East Asian groups. For example, the use of imagination in order to extrapolate upon certain issues causes immense problems sometimes and can reect badly, yet inappropriately, on the moderator who might be seen as not probing enough (Researcher, Asia).

The practical ramications of this are that, in some cases, the wrong questions might be asked of the wrong people or in the wrong way, and misleading or supercial insights might be gleaned because of the dominance of the standardisation of the discussion guide, projective techniques, sample frame, analysis and reporting templates. Other reasons cited were to do with the practicalities (or rather impracticalities) inherent in the international research process. Timing and budgetary restraints mean, many researchers feel, that they simply do not have the luxury of a perfect process where much pre-discussion of methodology and approach is possible at the proposal stage, at the project set up stage, or indeed at the analysis and interpretation stage. One researcher pointed out that in her experience international projects have timing plans which are often no different from domestic projects. In many ways this goes to the heart of the issue the potential conict between the ethos of qualitative research and commercial progress and economic necessity of industrialisation. In short, McDonaldization of global qualitative research can be seen

as an inevitable consequence of the profession of qualitative research becoming an industry, or at least being necessarily industrialised in certain quarters:
I just see this standardisation of process as an inevitable result of industrialisation were an industry and so must apply commercial principles to what we do (Researcher, UK).

Ritzers McDonaldization

Linked with this is the simple commercial reality that it might seem commercially easier not to question a clients wants with a view to assessing and meeting their real needs. Researchers cited examples (which many practitioners may recognise) of simply rolling over and taking the money rather than ghting a doomed cause from the methodological high ground. Interestingly, this view was not conned to those co-ordinating research but was also present amongst the co-ordinated with researchers wearily indicating that they often lack the time or the inclination to question the co-ordinating agency too deeply on the basis that they will be lose out in both the short and long term in terms of business and career prospects. An interesting feature of Ritzers analysis of efciency in McDonaldized businesses is his discussion of the tendency for these businesses to make customers take on part of the burden of the business by doing some of the work for themselves. Whilst we see evidence of this domestically, for instance, the current theme in the UK of bringing clients and consumers closer together in encounter workshops and asking respondents to carry out photographic ethnography of their lives (Drinks Industry Research Manager) or act as brand managers, there is little evidence of this in global work i.e. it tends not to be on the standard global menu, perhaps for practical reasons. On the nal point of efciency, however, there is evidence that researchers and clients implicitly collude to provide a debrief that has the bite sized efciency of pre-digested nuggets of apparent insight, but arguably has little long term power of satiation. Indeed one researcher who took part in our survey had experience of a client specically asking for local ambiguity to be removed from a debrief that was not what was required; what was needed was a conclusive, global picture with one answer and one way forward. Now, one might argue that this should stimulate the creative and intelligent researcher into providing a debrief and answer that represents the highest common multiple of all the local insights gleaned from the project (after all this is what the client brand manager in this example would have to do). However, the feeling of this particular researcher (and our work suggests that they would not be alone) was that they were being asked to produce the lowest common denominator. Calculability Once again there was evidence to suggest that the ethos of calculability operates in global qualitative research and this did not pertain simply to budget. There was a feeling amongst researchers that pressure on budget and time can lead rather than follow the research need. For example, given budget limitations, token, inadequate coverage in each of a large number of countries might be seen as more desirable than more robust coverage in a smaller number of representative of type markets. Likewise the choice of groups rather than depths or a mixed of groups and depths was thought the more likely to lead to meet a pressure deadline. There were also reports that quantication can perversely be a driving force in the design and execution of international qualitative research. This temptation to expect

305

QMRIJ 8,3

306

counts in qualitative exercises exists in some research buyer cultures. This might manifest itself in the sampling. It might also affect the analysis with quantications of ndings across the global sample as a whole appealing given the larger number of respondents involved than in a domestic study. Evidence of this was offered in the research we conducted with reports of clients wanting simple hand counts of individual responses across a global sample of possibly 100-200 respondents or even quantitative analysis of responses to standardised projective or enabling exercises, again across a relatively large data set. There are, of course, arguments for and against such exercises but these are not of great relevance here. The issue here is that the nature of global qualitative research, often with unusually large samples, lends itself uniquely to a process of calculability which resonates with McDonaldized businesses and which is, surely, at odds with the core (phenomenological) perspective of qualitative research and the authentic, human insights it produces. Predictability As we have seen already, there is a great deal of evidence that the phenomenon of predictability operates in global qualitative research. Standard methods tend to be used and tend to be standardised across markets. Indeed, this risk aversion might be a function of the reex and need to standardise it might be harder to standardise a more innovative method than a tried and tested one. Our research also suggested that this lack of innovation might be a function of clients and researchers being less willing to take a chance on a sizeable, globally signicant piece of research. It is also difcult to get approval from a range of global stakeholders for a more innovative approach in the tight time required. Finally, it is reported that in some markets there is a more limited range of methods and expertise available. The notion of client reassurance was also cited when discussing consistency and comparability of method (i.e. sample, topic guide, analysis and reporting framework). On this analysis, without imposing a near identical process, the research will somehow become an unmanageable mess of conicting and poorly corresponding bites of information; in short, a recipe for disaster. However this begs the question of whether an apparently disparate mix of ingredients would provide chaos or whether the problem is in the skill and motivation of the chef (and indeed the willingness of the diner to engage a little more actively and imaginatively with the menu). Thus the key driver towards a tendency of predictability in global qualitative work concerns the next pillar of McDonaldization that of technological control. Control The use of technology to speed up the process was quite limited. Telecommunications via the internet meant data transfer including video edits could be faster than before. A number of research agencies offered or were reported to be setting up internet panels (databases) for speedy qualitative research recruitment and as long as clients were made aware of the sampling frame and the issues, then this was seen to be adding to the qualitative researchers toolkit where alternative forms of recruitment exist. On the internet, interesting new approaches could be explored asynchronous versus synchronous groups, live face-to-face groups with follow-up internet exchanges. It will

be interesting to see whether the internet speeds up international qualitative research and the trade-offs that might be involved. Group Support software was seen by those aware of it to have limited application (brainstorming sessions). The use of software for analysis was at best still experimental or rejected as being unnecessary and perceived to add no value to the majority of commercial projects. The most likely adoption of these might come from client insistence again a rarity. Video-conferencing of eldwork and debriefs was also quite limited though the potential benets of greater involvement of the team of researchers and clients were appreciated. However, such involvement could have a dark side with control freakery and inappropriate client analysis coming into play. Finally, innovations in software meant presentations could be more effective and enjoyable.

Ritzers McDonaldization

307

Irrationality There are various ways in which irrationality might manifest itself and again our research tended to provide support for the argument that there is plenty that is contradictory and ultimately irrational (in the sense of useless, ineffective, even inefcient) in the blind standardisation of international qualitative research process. This could be in the way that standardisation might lead to apparent efciency (i.e. practical, intellectual and emotional manageability) but could also result in a lack of efcacy of the research i.e. it is not t for its purpose (if purpose is dened by results/insights based on sound research rather than manageability of process). It might also manifest in the form of the alienation of research staff which would in turn lead to poor performance (loss of insight). It might also be manifested in the loss of magic or disenchantment which Ritzer, after Weber, talks about. This is in some ways most worrying because it deals with the idea that there might be a veneer of insight, an apparent but unreal engagement with consumer reality, an imposed, theatrical but fruitless creativity which does not serve the objectives of the research or the client well in the long term. This rather resonates with Ritzers notions of the iron cage, velvet cage and rubber cage. For the compromised local researcher the McDonaldized process (s)he must work with is an iron cage that imprisons them creatively and professionally. For the client in need of a speedily and efciently conducted piece of global qualitative research, the cage is velvet (a comfort zone). For the global research co-ordinator the cage may be rubber they may escape and have other outlets (clients) for their creative spirit. The evidence for these phenomena can be seen in the experiences of researchers which we have already talked about where culturally inappropriate processes have been dogmatically imposed on a given market in the name of control, comparability and manageability rather than insight. There is worrying evidence, also, that co-ordinated staff can feel alienated, in the Blaunerian sense (1967) from the process imposed upon them. They feel isolated from other stakeholders in the research process such as the client and researchers in other markets working on the same project, not involved in the analysis of their own eldwork, and lacking the bigger picture only (often informally and implicitly) revealed to the co-ordinating agency might be demotivated and feel less ownership

QMRIJ 8,3

308

of the project compared with one of their own projects and clients. This can not be good for business and surely insight will suffer. With regard to the ersatz, theatrical or hyper-real element of global research, our research also suggested that there is evidence for this too. Clients and co-ordinators will observe, often with translations or by video link, and will engage in the theatre of viewed research in the name of getting closer to the consumer, getting a more authentic research experience or gleaning those McNuggets of insight. One might argue, to the contrary, that watching consumers sit in a room, listening to a sometimes stumbling simultaneous translation, being interviewed with a topic guide produced 10,000 miles away by people with a radically different cultural and communication context, incorporating literally meaningless questioning techniques, conducted by a bewildered, inevitably partially briefed, de-motivated and disenfranchised moderator hardly legislates for insight. A note on culture There was very limited evidence of segmentation by market cultures (for instance use of Hofstede or Halls cultural dimensions) either to help decide most appropriate research tools or draw the maximum analytical insight. The tuning of method and analysis seems on occasions to be taking place on an informal and ad hoc basis at local level. Moreover, whilst there will often (although by no means always) be some discussion with local agency personnel on research tools, this sometimes takes place after the decision has been made centrally and signed off by the end client (and once the budget has been approved). So it is a case of how to make what is proposed work rather than a discussion about the optimum approach. The literature, for instance the work of Hall, provides some interesting insights about the degree to which confusion might arise when researchers from different cultures are communicating with each other, for example debrieng notes, attending and watching/listening to groups, etc. This process seems likely to generate areas of ambiguity given the different communication styles of different cultures. Our research amongst global practitioners did not highlight this as being a particular issue, perhaps because respondents were senior and experienced enough (manager/director level) to work their way around this. Nonetheless, our experience is there may be an issue where junior executives are sent out to view eldwork in an alien culture or read debrief notes written from a different communication perspective, with relatively little experience and knowledge of that culture. Conclusions McDonaldization of qualitative research in the sense of over-reliance on the group discussion and inappropriate standardisation is clearly a reality in the global industry of marketing research. McQualitative research provides important commercial values of manageability, reassurance, predictability, trust and to a more limited extent, control. But these are the values of business efciency and not necessarily of efcacy when it comes to generating insights that will provide enduring competitive advantage for client companies. For these reasons, it is important to set the pillars of McDonaldization against perhaps more important criteria for assessing the design and output of applied qualitative marketing research namely value (insight, actionability

and stimulation to thought) and research design characteristics (for instance, validity, triangulation and transparency). Of course, the group discussion and a standardised approach have their place and in certain situations are quite appropriate. Group discussions are tried and trusted and can be extremely productive (trigger thoughts amongst other participants, permit piggy backing of ideas, etc.) and, importantly, produce useful insights quite quickly. However, the limitations need to be fully understood by both clients and researchers alike in order that the most effective approach may be adopted. There is clearly a need for a body of knowledge that relates Hofstede type analyses of cultural differences to research method, techniques and organisation. We need to theorise and research respondent-researcher interfaces in different cultures and consider a more eclectic use of research tools (bricolage). Just as important is the need to examine the researcher-researcher interfaces within a multi-cultural project team for sources of power and inuence as well as intellectual stimulation directed at the business at hand. Not unrelated is the need to study in a more systematic way the ingredients of job satisfaction in the organisational hierarchy. In particular, the implications of lack of engagement in research design by the co-ordinated needs to be examined. While the industry may not have reached a crisis point, it does seem as if, in some quarters, it should review its modus operandi. There is certainly a case for reviewing current practice and thinking more boldly about methodology, eclecticism and the value of bricolage, though recognising the many virtues of the focus group. However, while further research is needed to determine the extent of any problems, our investigation suggests that the qualitative research industry needs to be sensitive to the issues that McQualitative Research raises.
References Barber, B. (2001), Jihad vs. McWorld, Ballantine Books, New York, NY. Barker, A., Nancarrow, C. and Spackman, N. (2000), Informed eclecticism: a research paradigm for the twenty-rst century, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 3-28. Bender, C. and Poggi, G. (1999), Golden arches and iron cages: McDonaldization and the poverty of cultural pessimism at the end of the 20th century, in Smart, B. (Ed.), Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Blauner, R. (1967), Alienation and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Caller, L. (1998), Approaching multinational research, The ESOMAR Handbook of Market and Opinion Research, ESOMAR Publications, Amsterdam. Catterall, M. (1998), Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 69-76. Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. (1998), Using computer software for the analysis of qualitative market research software, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 207-22. Cooper, P. (1997), The evolution of qualitative research: from imperialism to synthesis, ESOMAR Seminar on Qualitative Research. Cooper, P. and Pinijarom, J. (1996), The role of qualitative research in Asia, ESOMAR East and South East Asian Conference. Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000), International Marketing Research, Wiley, New York, NY.

Ritzers McDonaldization

309

QMRIJ 8,3

Deal, K. and Hodson, T. (1997), Electronic and conventional focus groups: comparisons and relative merits, Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 61-71. Desai, P. (2003), Methods beyond Interviewing in Qualitative Market Research, Sage, London. Finkelstein, J. (1999), Rich food: McDonalds and modern life, in Smart, B. (Ed.), Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

310

Francis, E. and Parker, K. (2003), Tonight, Matthew, Im going to be . . ., Proceedings of the Market Research Conference. Gabriel, C. (1990), The validity of qualitative research, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 507-20. Gordon, W. (2001), Research, No. 426, November. Imms, M. and Ereaut, G. (2003), An Introduction to Qualitative Market Research, Sage, London. Jones, C. (2003), Research, No. 443, April, pp. 17. Mooij, M.K. (1998), Global Marketing and Advertising, Sage, London. Nancarrow, C. (1997), Symbiosis how academics and qualitative research practitioners can nurture each other, AQRP Forum, October. Nancarrow, C. and Barker, A. (1998), Plug and play: stemming the qualitative brain drain, AQRP Trends Day. Nancarrow, C., Barker, A and Wright, L.T. (2001), Engaging the right mindset in qualitative market research, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-44. ONeill, J. (1999), Have you had your theory today?, in Smart, B. (Ed.), Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Parsons, J. (2004), Powerpoint is not written in stone: business communication and the lost art of story-telling, Market Research Society Annual Conference, London. Pawle, J. (1999), Mining: the international consumer, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 41 No. 1. Ritzer, G. (1983), The McDonaldization of society, Journal of American Culture, No. 6, pp. 100-7. Ritzer, G. (2000), The McDonaldization of Society, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Seale, C. (1999), The Quality of Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Smart, B. (1999), Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sweeney, J., Soutar, J., Hausknecht, D., Dallin, R. and Johnson, L.W. (1997), Collecting information from groups: a comparison of two methods, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 397-411. Sykes, W. (1991), Taking stock: issues from the literature on validity and reliability in qualitative research, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3-12. Usunier, J-C. (1993), International Marketing: A Cultural Approach, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Van Raaij, F.W. (1978), Cross-cultural research methodology as a case of construct validity, in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Association for Consumer Research, Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Further reading Barker, A. and Nancarrow, C. (1999), The shock of the new: the technological revolution in qualitative marketing research, Proceedings of the ESOMAR Congress The Race for Innovation, Paris. Bhaduri, M., de Souza, M. and Sweeny, T. (1993), International qualitative research: a critical review of different approaches, Marketing & Research Today, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 171-8. Hall, E. (1983), The Dance of Life, Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York, NY. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. Weinstein, D. and Weinstein, M. (1999), McDonaldization enframed, in Smart, B. (Ed.), Resisting McDonaldization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ritzers McDonaldization

311