MRKT 600 Week 3 DB Forum 2 Example

Discussion Board Forum 2: Thread and Two Replies

MRKT 600 Applied Market Research, Discussion Board Forum 2 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; the textbooks and published studies are real; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for MRKT 600.

Thread

My approved topic asks how adults weigh star ratings against written comments when they choose a new primary care physician. Before choosing a design, I asked what kind of evidence would answer that question. It splits into two questions. One concerns weight: when a high average and a negative comment conflict, which one moves the choice more? The other concerns reasons: why do people trust one over the other? Those parts call for different methods.

The first part is quantitative. A survey can include a short choice experiment in which respondents see pairs of physician profiles that differ in star average, number of reviews and the tone of the comments, and choose one. Moskowitz and Gofman (2007) describe this kind of experiment, in which systematically varied combinations of features reveal what actually drives choices, often better than asking people directly. Alreck and Settle (2004) explain that surveys are well suited to measuring choices and attitudes across many respondents but warn that respondents often cannot report their own reasons accurately, which is why I would not rely on a survey question asking which feature mattered more.

The second part is qualitative. Interviews can explore why a participant trusted a specific complaint about wait times over a 4.7 average, or why another ignored comments altogether. Creswell (2014) calls the arrangement I need explanatory sequential: numbers gathered and analyzed first, then conversations used to account for what the numbers show, and that order matches my question: the survey finds the pattern, and the interviews explain it.

For this course, the design would be small: a convenience sample for the survey and the two interviews the course requires. But the logic would hold for the full prospectus. A larger study could draw its survey sample from a health system's new-patient list and then select interviewees from respondents whose choices contradicted their stated preferences, which is exactly where explanation is most needed. The order also protects against a common trap: interviews done first can lead a researcher to build a survey that only confirms what a few talkative participants said.

Classmates: does your question have a weight part and a reasons part, and does that point you toward mixed methods?

Reply to Vanessa

Vanessa, your plan to study why shoppers join and leave grocery loyalty programs through open-ended interviews is a good fit for qualitative work, since the motives are not well understood and may differ from what the programs assume. Your thread also said you would interview "shoppers of all ages across the region," though, and I wonder whether that scope will let you go deep enough.

Creswell (2014) describes qualitative research as exploring meaning with a purposefully selected group of participants, and narrowing the group often makes the meanings clearer, because participants who share an experience can be compared on the details. You might focus on people who joined a program in the past year and stopped using it, since your question is really about leaving. With the course's two interviews, you could talk with one shopper who left because of digital coupons and one who left because of store changes, which would test whether your categories hold.

Alreck and Settle (2004) suggest that exploratory interviews often generate the items for a later survey, so your interviews could also feed the survey instrument due in Module/Week 7. Who would be the easiest former members for you to reach, and would the store share a list of lapsed members?

Reply to Jason

Jason, your quantitative plan to survey online shoppers about abandoned carts at your outdoor gear retailer is well structured, and your list of possible reasons, shipping costs, surprise fees, account creation and slow checkout, comes straight from the industry reports you cited.

I wonder whether a survey alone can answer your question, which asks why shoppers abandon carts rather than how often they do. Alreck and Settle (2004) caution that respondents often give socially acceptable or simplified reasons and may not know their own motives well. A shopper who checks "shipping cost" may really have been comparison shopping with no intention of buying that day, and the survey would record a pricing problem that does not exist. Creswell (2014) describes an explanatory sequential design that could help: run your survey first, then interview a few respondents whose answers surprise you to see what lies behind them.

Moskowitz and Gofman (2007) also describe experiments that vary features systematically and let choices reveal what matters. A short checkout experiment, showing respondents versions with and without a fee disclosed early, might measure the effect of fees more directly than a self-reported reason. Would your employer let you test checkout versions on a small share of site visitors, perhaps for two weeks?

References

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Moskowitz, H. R., & Gofman, A. (2007). Selling blue elephants: How to make great products that people want before they even know they want them. Wharton School Publishing.