Evaluating the Research

Debates about validity in marketing research are common among the consumer research and marketing community (Bergadaà & Nyeck, 1992). This is especially relevant, as the validity measure presented in quantitative research cannot be transferred to qualitative investigation. Thompson et al (1989) explain that interpretive research is similar to

quantitative research, in that is requires to be evaluated for validity. While they consider the discovery of knowledge as being subjective, they explain that the evaluation needs to remain objective. Yet, there is a lack of objective criteria to evaluate an interpretive research.

Objectivity is believed not to be achievable in interpretive research because the results constitute a co-creation where the researcher’s values come into play. This means that the criteria need to be reconsidered in order to fit with the nature of interpretive research without jeopardizing the valuable insights that this type of research allows to uncover.

Moisander and Valtonen, (2006) explain that there is a consensus among the research community on some recurring elements that are validity, reliability and generalization. Yet, they explain that these still remain open to discussion and can be challenged depending on the research context (Moisander & Valtonen, 2006). This is because unlike quantitative research, the cultural researcher cannot claim to provide objective interpretation of reality nor certain solutions. Evaluation remains necessary since one needs to make sure that the interpretations reflect some aspect of reality that is experienced by others.

- Validity:

Lincoln and Guba (1985) make an attempt in providing a guidance to achieve credibility as relates to internal validity (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

They explain that it lies in the ability of the researcher to accurately portray the studied

reality. The objective here is not to seek the unique reality but to provide multiple

perspectives of the researched reality. The researcher ought to give accounts that are truthful and accurate (Moisander & Valtonen, 2006).

In order to fulfill this criterion, we have first undergone an extensive observation of the community (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We have spent over 5 years observing the

community, reading the different messages on a regular basis. We have also made some participant observation where we contributed to the messages in the forums. We have also followed the French media and watched many shows related to the overweight and the challenges they face in the French society. This includes “100% mag” “ Les reines du

shopping”, “Capital” “66minutes”. Also, as per Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) recommendations, we have undergone peer debriefing within our research lab where other PHD students and professors were exposed to our research questions and results. This allowed us to be sensitized to the overlooked implications, and to fine-tune our research questions and interpretations.

Moisander and Valtonen (2006) consider that the validity of research should remain flexible, and can be assessed by the audience of the research report. It is up to the scholars to evaluate the interpretations presented and judge whether they are acceptable or not.

According to them, a valid cultural research needs to shed light on new understandings, and offer new perspectives that challenge the accepted ideas. Our research results have been presented in 5 international conferences and 4 doctoral colloquiums where prominent scholars within the interpretive consumer research field reflected on the research results and provided methodological and theoretical feedback. These included Kozinets, the founder of

Netnography.

- Reliability

This concerns the results of a research that need to be autonomous of any randomness (Bergadaà, 2009). This implies that other scholars should be able to replicate the study, and generate similar results (Moisander & Valtonen, 2006). In order to achieve this, the researcher should strive for transparency concerning their analytical process; and hence describe in details the process of interpretation. The scholar should also clarify the epistemological positioning based on which they have interpreted their data. Moisander and Valtonen (2006) also explain that the researcher should be rigorous when it comes to research implementation,

and should hence gather a significant amount of data to be coded.

In the section describing our methodology, we have provided a detailed description of our epistemological positioning. In the section about Netnography, we provided detailed accounts on how the community has been observed and the process to select the most relevant discussion threads that constitute our data set. We have also provided a detailed description of how we have systematically reviewed all the discussion topics in order to identify the most relevant and elaborate discussion threads to analyze.

In the chapter about data analysis, we explain in detail how we have applied the hermeneutic approach and how the iteration process has been implemented. We have also, with the help of another researcher within the field, implemented double coding of the data (Miles, Huberman, & Rispal, 2003, p. 126) where agreements and disagreements have been identified and discussed. Disagreements between both researchers have been solved through discussion and resulted in fine-tuning some of the themes.

- Generalization.

Moisander and Valtonen (2006) explain that in cultural research, proving that the research is generalizable to the wider population, as it is done in quantitative research, is not relevant. The researcher’s main objective in interpretive research is to focus on providing an understanding of a specific context and on explaining how its relevant meanings and cultural practices are produced.

It is also believed among quantitative scholars that in order for a research to be externally valid, its results should be transferable to different contexts or with other subjects (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). While transferability is also relevant for cultural research, it involves the reader’s ability to link the research findings with similar contexts (Moisander & Valtonen, 2006). In order for this to happen, the interpretive research results need to be highly

descriptive, in order for the audience to be able to make these connections. Many scholars in this field suggest using Geertz’s (1973) “thick description” that implies giving a detailed description of the underlying phenomenon, its cultural and social environment, and the individuals concerned with the phenomenon.

In our research, we aim to provide accounts of overweight stigmatized female

consumers within the French context. While we are studying the occurrence of stigma within a specific European context we have aimed at keeping our research flexible. We wanted the

results to be transferable not only to other stigmas but also to other similar contexts

(Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). For this purpose, we have during our data interpretation, focused not only on the literature relating to the stigma of overweight within the French environment, but we have also used, when relevant, literature pertaining to other stigmas and beyond the French context. We have also provided a detailed literature review of the stigma, and the stigma of overweight, within and outside the French context. The objective is to provide a detailed description of other similar situations that would enable the researcher to understand how the phenomenon occurs in other contexts. Also we have provided a detailed description of our data analysis and included informants’ verbatims to provide the readers with as detailed information as possible to allow for connections between our findings and other research contexts they have been exposed to.