customer motivations towards online shopping and factors influencing the perception of online...

8/2/2019 Customer Motivations Towards Online Shopping and Factors Influencing the Perception of Online Shopping Experien

1/63

Qualitative Research Methods in Business Studies

Shopping Study:

Customer motivations towards online shopping and factors

influencing the perception of online shopping experiences

Maxime Graux

05/03/2012


2/63

Table of content

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

1. Aim of the joint study .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Philosophy of science ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Presentation of core questions, key concepts and definitions ......................................... 4

2.1.2 Overview of the different paradigms and strategies/approaches in scientific research .. 6

2.2.3 Personal view on philosophy of science ......................................................................... 10

2.2. Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2.1 Theoretical framework on sampling ............................................................................... 11

2.2.2 Sampling strategy ............................................................................................................ 14

2.2.3 Justification of this choice ............................................................................................... 15

2.3 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Observation method and structure ................................................................................ 17


2.4. Interviews .............................................................................................................................................. 21

2.4.1 Literature review on interviews as a method ................................................................. 21

2.4.2 Our interview strategy .................................................................................................... 23


2.4.4 Useful interview techniques and hints ........................................................................... 26

2.5. Analyses ................................................................................................................................................. 27

2.5.1 Theoretical framework on qualitative data analysis........................................................ 27

2.5.2 Choice of the strategy of analysis and justification of this choice ................................... 28

2.5.3 Data organization and data reduction: categorization, abstraction and

dimensionalization ................................................................................................................... 29

2.5.4 Exploration of the categories: comparisons and integration ......................................... 32

3. Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 33

4. Quality of Research....................................................................................................................................... 36

4.1. Theoretical framework on quality of research ...................................................................................... 36

4.2. Evaluation of the quality of the study ................................................................................................... 38

Appendix 1 - Screenshots from the videos of shopping observations ............................................................ 41

Appendix 2 - Expanded field notes from the shopping observations ............................................................. 42

Appendix 3 - Interview guide............................................................................................................................ 44

Appendix 4 - Interview transcript ..................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix 5 - Contact summary sheet for video observation 1 ........................................................................ 60



References ....................................................................................................................................................... 63


3/63

Introduction

Over the last decade, the Internet revolution created a new type of shopping called online

shopping (or e-shopping). It is a form of commerce where consumers directly buy products or

services from a seller via the Internet without any other intermediary service. Because of the

possibilities that Internet offers, it is now possible for consumers to order almost everything

over the Internet, via an exponentially-increasing number of online shops and service providers.

Thus, consumers have nowadays an easier access to more products and services, to lower prices

and to cross-border shopping, that is why the emergence of e-shopping changed shopping

behaviors on a global scale. For this study about shopping, we decided to focus on this new way

of shopping which is currently building new shopping habits, behaviors and attitudes all over

the world. We decided to investigate more precisely the various consumer motives of onlineshopping, and the different perceptions and behaviors related to this new type of shopping

experience, aiming at finding the key factors influencing these perceptions and behaviors.

1. Aim of the joint studyOur topic for this study involves two major questions on online shopping: what motivates

consumers from the generation Y to use online shopping, and what are the factors influencing

their perception of the experience?

Via qualitative research, our aim is to provide an overview of nowadays experiences of online

shopping, through the analysis of the reasons why generation Y consumers use this new

shopping tool, and through the investigation of the specific factors influencing the perception of

these e-shopping experiences. Explaining the consumers reactions to different online shopping

situations and measuring the importance of several factors influencing e-shopping behaviors is

also a major concern in our study.

In this study, our goals include understanding the shoppers buying habits when he/she is

shopping over the Internet, describing and understanding the overall e-shopping experience, and

assessing to which degree consumers have adopted online shopping. We want to explore the

perceived advantages and disadvantages of online shopping for consumers. We also want to use

the qualitative data we will collect in order to build different categories of e-shoppers, different

typical profiles in online shopping. We will analyze the qualitative data to reveal patterns, habits

and behaviors which are characteristic to e-shopping. We will also try to determine if there are

significant differences between male and female e-shopper, concerning their adoption of e-


4/63

shopping and their behaviors while shopping online. We will also compare the awareness of

online shoppers, depending on their age, gender and their background. We will determine to

which extent the e-shoppers path is influenced by the media and by social community. And

finally we will evaluate the impact of the different factors which can motivate online shopping.

We think that our findings will help recognizing the different factors which drive consumers to

buy online and will help companies developing more successful e-marketing strategies.

2. Method2.1. Philosophy of science

2.1.1 Presentation of core questions, key concepts and definitions

The notion of paradigm is very important in philosophy of science. The most commonly

accepted definition of paradigm is Thomas Kuhns definition: he describes it as a set of linked

practices and assumptions about the world which is shared by a community of scientists. To

him, a paradigm is a universally recognized scientific achievement that, for a time, provide

model problems and solutions for a community of researchers (Kuhn, 1962). Both quantitative

and qualitative research methods are strongly linked to their theoretical paradigms, and how

researchers use these paradigms for their theoretical studies. So in this theoretical framework, I

will build a typology of the major paradigms in scientific research, focusing on the available

paradigms for qualitative research.

But first, it is important to define precisely what kind of questions the paradigms in scientific

research answer. According to Patton (2002, p134), the diversity in the paradigms used in

qualitative research is distinguished by answering six core questions:

-What do we believe about the nature of reality?: this question concerns ontological issues

about the possibility of a verifiable reality/truth against the existence of several realities which

are socially constructed.

-How do we know what we do? : this question concerns epistemological issues, such as

objectivity versus subjectivity, debates over the validity of data and the possibilities to

generalize results.


5/63

-How should we study the world?: this question concerns methodological issues about the

type of data and design that researchers need to fit the purpose of their study.

-What is worth knowing?: this question is about philosophical issues on what really matters in

the world.

-What question should we ask?: this question concerns disciplinary issues about inquiry

traditions and areas.

-How do we personally engage in inquiry?: this question concerns praxis issues, questionning

whether or not the researcher should use his personnal experience and values in the research

process.

The various available paradigms in the philosophy of science in qualitative research propose

different views on these six main debates. Each paradigm tackles ontologogical,

epistemological, methodological, philosophical, disciplinary and praxis issues, and I will do an

overview of the paradigms in the next part, presenting each paradigm through their position

towards the six main debates Patton evocated. Yet, for Patton the distinctions between

paradigm, strategy and theoretical approach are arbitrary and arguable, so I will for examplepresent ethnography in the next part of this paper, which is an overview of available paradigms,

eventhough is can be considered a research strategy more than a paradigm (Patton, 2002).

Concerning the other important issues related to phlisophy of science in qualitative research that

will be discussed throughout the paper, Gummesson (2000) evocate among others:

-The notions of pre-understanding, personal experience and access to data for the researcher: he

considers pre-understanding as an attitude and commitment that should be used carefully, as it

can strongly influence the study. For Gummesson, pre-understanding is precisely insights into

a specific problem and social environment before starting a research program or consulting.

-The types of theories which are produced: the substantive theory and the formal theory.

Substantive thory is created by studying concrete social situations, or one particular context, and

applies only to the setting of the situation which is studied. On the other hand, formal theory is

developped from substantive theory, is adapted to many different setting, conceptual and reach

higher generality (Daymon & Holloway, 2011).


6/63

-The choice between inductive, deductive and abductive research. Inductive reasoning starts

with empirical data and then moves to theory, while deductive reasoning moves from theory to

observation and findings. Abductive reasoning is a method where the idea is to choose the

hypothesis which would best explain the available evidence.

Gummesson (2000) considers that the three main challenges for researchers are the access to

reality (how to find empirical data), the pre-understanding and understanding, and the quality, ie

the choice of the various criteria which are used to evaluate the quality of research.

Now that key concepts of philosophy of science in marketing research have been evocated, it is

possible to start the overview of the available paradigms and research strategy for qualitative

research.

2.1.2 Overview of the different paradigms and strategies/approaches in scientific research

Positivism, Post-positivism and Functionalism versus Interpretivism, Radical Humanism and

Radical Structuralism.

Traditionally, the quantitative and the qualitative paradigms are associated with two major

schools of thought, respectively positivism and idealism. In the past, quantitative methods were

usually used to confirm theories, while qualitative methods were used to generate new creative

theories. But philosophy of science in marketing research is nowadays far more complex than

this initial opposition of two schools of thought.

On the one hand we have the positivist, post-positivist and functionalist paradigms, which are

objectivist, realist, determinist and which consider that the veracity of the topics of research can

be studied.

But on the other hand, many non-positivist paradigms emerged, focusing on subjectivity and

considering that what we know is contextual, and that research requires getting an

understanding at an individual level. Silverman states that while quantitative researchers are

often described as being all positivists, there is actually no agreed paradigm underlying all

qualitative research (Silverman, 2006). Hudson and Ozanne consider that the two predominant

approaches in social science are positivism and interpretivism, and that both have strength and


7/63

weaknesses (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). Interpretivism is socially constructed, context-

dependent, interactive, time-bound and based on the cooperation between researchers and

respondents. Interpretists consider that realities are evolving, and that the research design must

constantly adapt. They think that researchers come to the research environment with pre-

understanding and knowledge. As a logical consequence, critics of interpretivism advocate that

results may be biased because of the relationship between the researcher and his interviewees,

influencing answer and data interpretation. The two most used analytic methods in interpretive

research are grounded theory and expansion analysis. Many other paradigms used in scientific

research share this subjectivity and voluntarist attitude with interpretivism: for example radical

humanism and radical structuralism, even though the latter is a bit closer to positivism.

Constructivism/Conctructionism, Critical theory and Emotionalism.

Yet, interpretivism is only one of the non-positivist paradigms, and some others are even more

interesting for our study on philosophy of science in the specific field of qualitative research.

First, we are going to mention constructivism, the constructionist paradigm and critical theory

paradigm, as they emphasize the importance of using both quantitative and qualitative methods

in scientific research. Interpretivism and constructivism are similar on some points, and in both

paradigms the main concern is the subjectivity of meanings. That is why they are both searching

patterns of meaning. But if on the one hand, interpretists consider essential features of shared

meaning and shared understanding, on the other hand, constructivists extend this concept by

considering that knowledge is interpreted to an anti-essentialist level. In Guba and Lincolns

typology (1994), critical theory and constructivist paradigms are a solution to overcome the

rigidity underlying the positivist approach. For them, the constructivist paradigm is

characterized by relativism, with local constructed realities, and by subjectivity, with

transactional created findings. Constructionists argue that knowledge and truth are a result of

perspective, and that is why they are relative to a specific context. They focus their interest on

subjectivity and inter-subjectivity, trying to understand how the features of society are made of

subjective meanings and inter-subjective processes. Silverman (2006) mentions three versions

of interview data through three paradigms: positivism, emotionalism and constructionism.

Within emotionalism and constructionism, the idea is to get an in-depth knowledge of the mind

of the respondent, especially with the use of open-ended interviews, or interviews treated as a

topic (for constructionism).


8/63

Postmodernism and Feminism

According to Crottys typology (1998), within the critical tradition emerged postmodernism and

feminism, characterized by the refusal to accept things the way they are. The critical inquiry

paradigm in general is largely different from the mostly uncritical interpretivist paradigm.

Feminist concerns are at the center of the research questions and interpretations, but yet

researchers use traditional research methods. Feminist empiricists tend to use both qualitative

and quantitative methods, and are similar to interpretivists from an epistemological and

ontological point of view. Feminist perspectives emphasize on the importance of gender in

human relationships and society, and thus feminists orient the topics under study in that

direction (Patton, 2002). Feminist approaches to scientific research use the womens way of

knowing, with for example emotion, intuition, and analytic thought. And they also promote

equality between the researcher and the respondents.

Unlike interpretivists, who consider that experiential and survey methods impose a specific

view of the world on subjects instead of capturing it, critical postmodernists argue that these

imposed view are able to support a specific kind of scientific knowledge, which tend to

reproduce the capitalists structures and the hierarchies of inequality. Postmodernism refutes the

possibility of an ontological grounding, ie no absolute truth is possible, it can only be

constructed. Postmodernism considers that sciences capacity to generate truth is limited,

especially because science depends on socially constructed languages which in some way

provide a distorted vision of reality. The key focus of postmodernism is to search for disguised

contradictions underlying in the various ideologies, thus postmodernists are looking for

structural and historical insight to reveal those contradictions, and they use field research,

historical analysis and dialectical analysis to do so.

Ethnography and Autoethnography

Ethnography is considered by Patton as a research strategy among qualitative inquiry

approaches, whose foundational question is: what is the culture of this group of people?

(Patton, 2002: p81). The central notion in ethnography is the notion of culture, and the central

assumption is that a culture evolves through the interactions between groups of people over

time. Two questions are at the center of this approach: how do the participant sees things? and

how does he do things?. Maynards description of ethnography is a good overview of this

research strategy: The ethnographer, in general, is in the business of describing culture from


9/63

the members point of view (Maynard, 1989: 130). They use the observation of participants

and immersive field work as primary methods. Understanding culture has become more and

more central in organizational studies over the past few years. In autoethnography, the

researcher uses his own experiences to have insights into other cultures or subcultures. So their

analysis and their writing are very personal, that is why critics consider that the subjectivity is

too present in this approach, and that is makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the study.

The autoethnographist starts with his personal life, and use systematic sociological introspection

in order to try understanding how would someone else react. Contrary to the classic

ethnographic approach, autoethnography involves creative elements, and a subjective approach

to social phenomenon. That is why it is considered as a very difficult way of writing, especially

because self-questioning is extremely challenging and because finding an authentic voice is a

real struggle.

Heuristic inquiry

According to Patton, the foundational question in heuristic inquiry is: what is my experience of

this phenomenon and the essential experience of others who also experience this phenomenon

intensely? (Patton, 2002: 107). This approach emphasizes on the personal experience of the

researcher and his own insight. As a consequence, the researcher needs to be really interested in

the phenomenon he studies and it requires personal experience in this domain. Furthermore, if

the researcher works together with other researchers, they need to share the same interests. It is

a strategy of research which focuses more on the quality of data than the quantity of data. The

idea for the researcher is to discover the true essence of the studied phenomenon by sharing his

own personal reflections with other researchers who do the same thing. Tacit understanding is at

the core of this approach. According to Kleining and Witt, among the most important rules in

heuristic inquiry, we find for example: the need for the researcher to be open to new concepts,

his capacity to adapt and change his preconceptions, the fact that the topic under research might

change during the research process, and also the fact that data have to be collected under

structural variation of perspective, ie with an adapted sampling characterized by its diversity

(Kleining & Witt, 2000).


10/63

2.1.3 Personal view on philosophy of science

I consider myself as a constructivist, as I think that what we know is produced by the context,

that it is subjective and that nothing is actually true or untrue. I believe that there is not one

single reality, and that every study is subjective, especially because researchers are not

separated from the research topic: their values influence the way they interpret data. I think that

research requires transactional approaches, with interactions between the researcher and the

respondents. I appreciate critical theory perspectives, which states that there is only a fake

reality resulting from historical factors. , and which insists on the importance of a dialogue

between researchers and interviewees. To me, the reality is not independent from peoples

thoughts and beliefs, that is why studies should always be practical and applied, with the use of

in-depth exploration methods to reveal as many perspectives as possible in the data

interpretation.

I agree with the post-positivist, interpretive and constructionist paradigms, because they focus

on investigation with subjective experience and they use qualitative methods instead of the

positivists quantitative methods. I especially appreciate the fact that in critical theory and

constructivism, the importance of using both qualitative AND quantitative methods is

emphasized.

I think that the key to foster scientific research is the triangulation of procedures. Studying the

same phenomenon with different techniques complementing each other provides the researcher

with a wider view on the topic, deeper understanding, more accurate analysis and opens new

perspectives. It is very common to conduct qualitative and quantitative methods at the same

time in product marketing, and I believe that it is also interesting to do so in the field of

marketing research and theory construction. Like Silverman says, there are different ways to

combine qualitative and quantitative research: we can use qualitative research to explore a topic

and then set up a quantitative study, we can use quantitative data to create a sample and then use

qualitative research to go deeper on the topic, or we can do a qualitative study using quantitative

data to expend the results and make them broader (Silverman, 2006). I think that qualitative

methods are clearly relevant in the field of theory construction, because it is important to have a

subjective point of view, an insiders perspective, and a work based on induction. However, I

think that using quantitative methods is still compulsory to validate a theory and confirm its

reliability. Qualitative methods provide rich and deep data, but I believe it needs to beconfirmed afterwards by quantitative research. That is with I am a proponent of triangulation of


11/63

research methods, using both quantitative and qualitative methods to overcome the weaknesses

of using only one method. I go with Silverman when he states that sometimes, using

quantitative data in qualitative research is very interesting and that sometimes, qualitative

methods might be inappropriate for a particular research question.

That is why, like Patton (2002), I consider the approach and method you choose depend on the

topic of your study. Yet, in my opinion mixed methods globally offer relevant results, whether it

is in scientific research in general, in marketing research or in marketing for companies. I

believe that it is an interesting idea to use qualitative research to try to explain the results of a

prior quantitative study, or on the contrary to explore and get an understanding of a topic with

qualitative research, and then confirm it or generalize it through quantitative research. Like

Deshpande (1983), I am a strong advocate of the triangulation of procedure, and I also think that

Tadajewskis idea of using multiple paradigms in research is a major issue: through the

confrontation of the different paradigms, researchers can create meaning and creative theories

which will improve the biased aspect and narrow representation that research studies relying on

one single paradigm sometimes generate (Tadajewski, 2004).

2.2. Sampling

2.2.1 Theoretical framework on sampling

Sampling consists in the choice of respondents or/and cases in a research process. This selection

of the different cases is a major issue when researchers attempt at building theories from case

studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). A relevant selection of the population (ie the group of

respondents/cases among which the sample is drawn) allows researchers to control

inappropriate variations and to define the limits of the findings in terms of generalization

(Eisenhardt, 1989). According to Silverman, sampling is a statistical procedure for finding

cases to study. It has two functions: it allows you to estimate the representativeness of the study,

and thereby the degree of confidence in any interface you draw from them. (Silverman, 2006:

p404).

Silverman puts the emphasis on the differences between sampling in quantitative research and

sampling in qualitative research. He considers that statistical sampling procedures allow

quantitative researchers to achieve their aim which consists in generalization. These statistical

sampling procedures are based on a representative section of the population, so that assumptions


12/63

about the whole population can be done. Yet, these procedures are irrelevant in qualitative study

(Silverman, 2006). In opposition to these probability sampling procedures focused on the

selection of a random population which is statistically representative of the whole population

(Patton, 1990), authors proposepurposeful sampling (Patton, 1990) and theoretical sampling

(Eisenhardt, 1998; Patton, 2002; Silverman, 2006).

Researchers who aim at building theory rely on theoretical sampling, which consists in

choosing the cases for theoretical reasons instead of statistical reasons. In theoretical sampling,

cases are chosen carefully, either to extend emerging theories, or to fill some theoretical

categories and give examples of different polar types (Eisenhardt, 1989). Gummesson defines

theoretical sampling as an ongoing sampling process in which the researchers simultaneously

collect, code, and analyze their data and decide along this journey what to collect next and

where it may be found (Gummesson, 2000: p95). For Silverman, theoretical sampling is an

issue at the start of the study, but also during the research process, because qualitative research

provides the researcher with a greater flexibility and the possibility to modify the sampling

strategy during the study (Silverman, 2006). This flexibility offered by theoretical sampling has

many advantages: you can adapt your samples if new unexpected factors emerge, you can start

with small samples and then use bigger samples to generalize emerging theories, or you can

look for even more deviant cases if necessary (Silverman, 2006). Silverman states thattheoretical sampling is based on deviant-case analysis and the constant comparative method,

and that it is a very efficient tool to avoid some of the danger linked to random quantitative

research (Silverman, 2006).

Patton prefers the term ofpurposeful sampling to describe this sampling procedure consisting in

seeking cases which are rich in information and can be studied in depth. The aim is to select

specific cases from which the researcher will learn a lot about the central issues fitting the

purpose of the study (Patton, 1990). Patton identifies 16 different types of purposeful sampling

focused on in-depth analysis, which he opposes to the two types of random probability sampling

(simple random sample and stratified random and cluster sample) aimed at generalization. He

describes deviant-case sampling, consisting in a selection of unusual cases showing notable

successes or failures, or involving special events. Silverman also promotes this sampling

strategy, stating that it offers a crucial test for theory, and pointing the fact that seeking out

negative instances is as important as selecting cases which support your argument (Silverman,

2006).Maximum variation sampling is quite similar, but is focused on the analysis of a wide

range of variation on dimensions of interest, and is used to explore the common pattern


13/63

emerging accross these variation. According to Cuba & Lincoln (1985), maximum variation

sampling is the most efficient strategy to determine and describe the central themes which cut

across a great deal of participants/cases. This method can provides detailed descriptions of the

cases while allowing the identification of shared patterns cutting across the studied cases. It is

the opposite strategy in homogeneous sampling, which consists in reducing the sample

variations in order to simplify the analysis, and to make group interviews easier to organize.

Intensity sampling is based on the selection of information-rich cases which show intense

interest in the studied phenomenon, but which are not as extreme as in deviant-case sampling.

Patton also describes one hand critical case sampling, aimed at producing logical generalization

through the study of a single critical case, and on the other hand typical case sampling which is

based on the analysis of various normal/average cases. Stratified purposeful sampling combines

typical case sampling with a less extreme type of maximum variation sampling, in order to

capture major variations instead of focusing on the identification of a common core. It means

that there are different strata which propose variations, but within these strata the sample is quite

homogeneous. Snowball sampling (or chain sampling) is a bit different from the other

strategies, as it is an approach to identify critical cases and cases which will provide rich

information for the study. Criterion sampling consists in picking cases which meet some

specific criterion, to be sure to get information rich data. Theory-based sampling is a formalversion of criterion sampling, where the sample is representative of the theory which is studied.

Patton also mentions other strategies, like the one consisting in confirming or disconfirming

cases, opportunistic sampling, random purposeful sampling, the sampling of politically

important cases. And he finishes with a warning about convenience sampling, which is easy and

fast but should be the last option to be considered by researchers, and also put the emphasis on

the possibility of mixed purposeful sampling through the triangulation of methods, in order to

meet multiple needs and interests (Patton, 1990).

One of the importance choices in sampling is the choice of the sample size. Patton considers that

there are no rules concerning the sample size in qualitative research (Patton, 1990: p184). Every

study is unique, and the researcher needs to adapt the sample size to the specific purpose of the

study, depending on what he wants to know, and on credibility, time and resources issues.

Basically, the choice is between a small sample allowing in-depth analysis, and a large sample

seeking breadth. In-depth analysis of small sample can be very valuable if the sample provides

the researcher with rich data, while large samples allow exploring a phenomenon and show

diversity. According to Gummesson, the sample size is determined by saturation: the researcher


14/63

has to stop enlarging the sample size when the utility of adding a new case is close to zero. He

talks about the diminishing marginal contribution of each additional case (Gummesson, 2000:

p96). For Silverman, there is a quality issue: a small sample is enough if the researcher is

perfectly aware of its limitation and can provide a sufficient quality of analysis (Silverman,

2005, p. 39). He also states that the researcher has always the possibility to change the sample

size at any time during the research process. No matter what the size of sample is, the main idea

is always to maximize information and to adapt constantly the sample to the final purpose of the

study.

2.2.2 Sampling strategy

Based on Pattons typology of purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990), and the specific purposes of

our study, we have decided to rely on a mixed purposeful sampling strategy for our piece of

research on online shopping.

Our sampling strategy is a combination of three types of purposeful sampling which are:

intensity sampling, stratified purposeful sampling and chain sampling. This triangulation of the

three aforementioned strategies allows us to capture major variations concerning online

shopping motivations and behaviors, through the analysis of a sample consisting of various

information-rich cases manifesting an interest in online shopping.

Concretely, our sample is composed of people belonging to the Generation Y, who have already

experienced online shopping and show interest in this new way of shopping. Yet, in order to get

a more complete overview, to facilitate comparisons and to explore a wider range of online

shopping patterns, we include some variations in the sample: on the one hand, some respondents

will be occasional online shoppers, and on the other hand, some informants will be regular

online shoppers. With these two different strata of cases, we will obtain a wider insight, instead

of only focusing on a common core. Moreover, our sample is made of a mix of male and female

respondents, and shows some age variations, in order to facilitate comparisons and to provide a

larger overview on the topic of our qualitative study. Last important point: we added other types

of variation, concerning other units of analysis. First, the types of products in the observations

will be different (high-tech products, clothes etc). Second, will observe two types of

shopping: first, free shopping, ie when somebody want to do shopping but has no particularidea about what he/she wants to buy; and second, purposeful shopping, ie when the buyer


15/63

already knows exactly what type of product he wants. And finally, different nationalities will be

represented in the sample (Finnish, French, and German).

2.2.3 Justification of this choice

We have decided to favor a qualitative approach based on purposeful sampling, by conducting

an in-depth study based on information-rich cases, and determine central issues and emerging

patterns related to online shopping.

In this logic, intensity sampling is a strategy that allows us to determine a sample which is

information-rich, and have an obvious interest in the main subject of our study. In our casestudy, we are trying to determine a sample consisting of young people, who are familiar with

online shopping on a regular basis. This way, we are more likely to meet people who can share

several interesting online shopping experiences and feelings, and thus it will help us determine

motivations and perceptions about the online shopping process. Using this method also allows

us to put aside any deviant or unusual case which reflects unique behaviors: studying extreme

behaviors towards online shopping would be irrelevant for the specific purpose of our study,

and would be time-consuming, as we would only come up with limited and non-representative

conclusions about the phenomenon. On the contrary, a sample strategy based on intensity

sampling will certainly be information-rich concerning common motivations towards online

shopping and average behaviors in the new type of shopping, allowing us to come up with

several conclusions to help with our analysis.

This kind of sampling requires some exploratory work in order to get information about what

kind of sample we wish to come up with, this is the reason why we need to resort to some other

complementary approaches. Another approach seems very interesting for our sampling strategy,

and is in accordance with the purpose of our study: stratified purposeful sampling approach. By

adding above and below average cases of online-shoppers to our sample (ie regular e-shoppers

versus occasional e-shoppers), we can then proceed to comparisons and identify major

variations in online shopping experiences, in addition to common patterns.

In order to locate information-rich cases which will compose our sample, our preliminary

approach is to resort to snowball sampling (also called chain sampling). This particular process

starts with a phase of inquiring among the population from which our sample will be drawn. So


16/63

we will start by asking other people among our acquaintances, who will then provide us with

information and recommendation about the various reliable sources for our study, ie people who

are regular or occasional e-shoppers meeting our criteria. We can then afterwards narrow down

our sources to contacts those who have been mentioned frequently. With this snowball sampling

strategy, we are sure to obtain information-rich respondents.

We excluded random probability strategies and purposeful random sampling strategies because

for the purpose of our study, we are focusing on the particular subgroup of young online

shoppers, excluding all people who have never shopped online. The purpose of probability

sampling is to facilitate generalization, it is also more adapted for large samples, thus this kind

of approach does not match the requirements for our study, since we need to find information-

rich cases to constitute a small and relevant sample.

Among all the possible strategies included in purposeful sampling, we have excluded all those

which dont match with our study requirements. For instance, extreme case sampling focuses on

cases which are unusual, and it is important for our specific study to avoid extreme and deviant

cases, because they might lead to false conclusions about the reality of the phenomenon studied,

while we prefer studying normal e-shopping behaviors and attitudes.

Maximum variation sampling strategy could have been an interesting approach for our study,

however we will be observing a very small sample and this method requires a higher number of

participants in order to determine central themes and behaviors.

Typical sampling on the other hand focuses on determining what is the typical or average in a

particular phenomenon, whereas we wish to come up with a large range of conclusions.

Criterion and theory-based sampling are two particular strategies that require to have

predetermined parameters before proceeding to sampling. One of the main purposes of our

study is to observe the motivations behind the act of online shopping, without having any

preconceived ideas about the outcomes and conclusions. We tried also to avoid establishing one

particular criterion for our sample, and chose informants with different backgrounds who can

share diverse experiences.

Critical case sampling strategy and sampling politically important cases focus on studying a

very limited number of critical cases. We didnt choose these methods because of the difficulty

to find relevant critical cases/unit of analysis without previous research work to determine what


17/63

could be the criteria characterizing a critical case in online shopping. Second, we consider that

these methods dont permit to generalize and get a wide overview on a subject, and we feared

that relying on only one or two critical cases wouldnt give us credible and reliable findings.

Confirming and disconfirming cases are useful to test ideas and patterns which emerge during a

study or an observation and opportunistic sampling permits to take advantage of unforeseen

cases which can emerge during fieldwork. Those are interesting approaches to conduct in-depth

analysis when there is a sufficient number of relevant informants who can be included

afterwards in the sample, it is however difficult to apply this method in the context of our study,

because the period of observation and analysis is limited. The specific structure of the

assignments makes it difficult for us to change the sample between the different parts of the

study. So we excluded these methods.

2.3 Observations

We decidedto use videographic methods in order to collect data. Because it is now really easy

to record digital media in good quality with modern smartphones, we considered that recording

videos of the various observations would an efficient, convenient and reliable method to collect

data and analyze these observational data concerning online shopping. We used video as a

purposeful way to watch AND listen to our studied phenomenon as it takes place (Kumar,

2005), in order to capture at the same time what our informants do, and the perception they have

on what they do.

2.3.1 Observation method and structure

Our videographic method presents these characteristics:

-Type of data: video records (+ expanded field notes and contact summary sheet).

-Record device: the observations were recorded with an iPhone 4.

-Respondent information: before each observation, we fully explained to the informant the aim

of our study, the structure of the upcoming observation, and the fact that we might ask questions

during the observation, in order to get further explanations about the informants behaviors.


18/63

-Initial question: we decided to ask the informants about the reasons why they chose e-shopping

over traditional shopping before starting the actual shopping observation.

-What is recorded: we decided to videotape directly the respondent while he/she was answering

the first question about his/her motivation in online shopping, and then we videotaped thecomputer screen during the actual shopping act, to see exactly how the respondent was using

Internet in a context e-shopping.

-Type of observation: we chose to conduct aparticipant observation. As researchers, we had a

role during the observations: we were involved in the activities through the different questions

we asked during the shopping act, in order to get additional data and to get a deeper insight

about the respondents shopping behaviors. Our aim was to experience the e -shopping event in

the exact manner the respondent experience it (Kumar, 2005).

-Role of the observer: we had an overt level of agreementwith the people under study. We

asked the observed for agreement, and conducted an open observation, ie the respondents were

all aware that we were filming, and we would use this footage for analysis in the context of our

study.

-Level of involvement of the observer: we were complete observers, detached from the e-

shopping activities being observed (Kumar, 2005). We didnt comment on the respondents

choice, we didnt give advice and we observed objectively the respondents e-shopping

behaviors, only asking questions from time to time to get explanations from the respondents

about their choices.

-Data Collection: we decided to use an unstructured method, so that the respondents feel free

and act naturally, as if they were not observed.

-Field notes: after each observation, we watched the footage and wrote expanded field notes

about the various interesting points that we saw or heard in the video.

-Contact summary sheet: after writing the expanded field notes and summarizing them a little

bit, we filled the contact summary sheet for each respondent.


First, we agreed on our global data collection strategy. Our data collection approach was mostly

consisting ofmarket-oriented ethnography, as we tried to establish context and subjective


19/63

significance of e-shopping experiences, also comparing and interpreting cultural difference and

socially-influenced shopping behaviors, in order to understand the different patterns of action in

e-shopping (Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994). Thus, we followed the four main features that

Arnould & Wallendorf consider to be typical of ethnographers research practices to achieve the

abovementioned goals: data collection based on recording human actions in natural setting,

participation by the researcher (participant observation) with real-time interpretive insights,

interpretations that the observed person finds credible, and the incorporation of multiple sources

of data (Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994).

Then we decided to use video recording to capture the observations. The use of video presents

many advantages, which motivated us to prefer this method for our observations of e-shopping

situations. First, it engages the respondent with a multi-sensory set of materials, which allows us

to get both emotional and cognitive knowledge on the topic of our study (Belk & Kozinets,

2005). Second, and maybe our main reason to use video footage, it allows the capture the

respondents explanations of his/her behavior at the same time that she is performing online

shopping actions, and we can ask the respondent about his/view on what he/she is doing. All in

all, the use of video was for us the best way to capture at the same time what customers do, what

they think they do, and why they do it. Thus, we got a more complete view about the e-

shoppers behaviors and shopping pattern than with basic field notes or with photographsanalysis. With this observation method, we gained data on what people do, on what they say

that they do, we gained a context-specific understanding on e-shopping and we got an insight

about the online shopping processes (Silverman, 2006).

The topic of our study is online shopping, so it is easy to obtain video footage, because we

didnt need specific authorization from shop managers for example. That is the first reason why

we decided to videotape three different e-shopping situations: it was convenient, and videos

provide more information than pictures.

As Belk & Kozinets noticed, it is nowadays really easy and cheap to record video footage in

good quality, whether it is with a camera or with a smartphone, that is why is has become

common for companies and researchers to use the power of video-based research (Belk &

Kozinets, 2005). As we possess iPhones allowing us to videotape observations in good quality,

it was again really convenient and efficient to conduct videographic observations.


20/63

We decided to conduct overt and open observation. Thus we tried to create trust, informalityand confidentiality, to improve the quality of the relationship with the informant, the confidence

of the informant, and the quality/reliability of our study. We chose overt observation because we

wanted to be able to interact with the informants during the observations, whether it is to have

their perception on what they do, or to try investigating during the observation why they have

specific behaviors or show interesting patterns in their shopping experience. This choice of open

observation was logically followed by the choice of an unstructured way of collective data: we

wanted the observed customers to feel free to act as they wanted, and we wanted to feel free to

ask them questions at any time during the observations.

We are aware that videotaping has some drawbacks. First, some people may act slightly

differently when they notice the presence of a camera. It is true that the presence of a camera

alters the interviewer-interviewee relationship (Belk & Kozinets, 2005). We tried to find some

solutions to this problem: first, we explained clearly to the informant the structure of the

observation, what we were going to observe and what we were expecting from him, before

filming the observation, so that the informant feels confident and to help discharge negative

emotions that the respondent could have (Belk & Kozinets, 2005). We tried to create a good

atmosphere for the observation, and we allowed the respondents to do their e-shopping in their

mother tongue (ie on websites using languages they are perfectly confident with), again in orderto help the respondent feel confident and so that he acts naturally. And because we were filming

the computer screen most of the time, the camera was only semi-obtrusive and the respondents

acted naturally. In the end of the observation, they were not even noticing that the camera was

still filming because they were focused on the screen and on their shopping activity. It is

possible that the observed persons sometimes forget about the recording and start engaging

various intimate behaviors on-camera, even though they previously gave their consent to be

videotaped (Belk & Kozinets, 2005). Belk, Sherry & Wallendorf insisted on the fact that the

presence of the camera was only a problem in the first moments in the interview, and that

respondents usually become habituated to this presence (Belk, Sherry & Wallendorf, 1988). But

to be more certain that the e-shoppers we observed would act naturally and to improve the

quality of our research, we decided to film mostly what was happening on the screen, so that the

respondent feels less pressure, acts more freely, and to be able to analyze the customer path and

his choices afterwards. Moreover, if body language is often considered to be as important as

oral language in communication (Belk & Kozinets, 2005), the body language is limited in the

specific case of e-shopping, which almost exclusively consists in clicking; thus, it was a better


21/63

option to film the computer screen to get more information about the respondents shopping

behaviors.

2.4. Interviews

2.4.1 Literature review on interviews as a method

In a way, interviews in qualitative research simply consist in asking open-ended questions,

recording the answers and listening to them, and then adding relevant questions (Patton, 1987).

Silverman considers that doing an interview is maybe the most natural thing in the world

(Silverman, 2010). But depth interviewing is actually far more complex than this, and requires

many different skills from the interviewer. Patton even consider interviewing as an mix between

art and science, requiring sensitivity, understanding, mental acuity, insight, and concentration

among other skills (Patton, 1987). Yet, it doesnt require extraordinary skills (everyone can

become a good skilled interviewer) and no one interviewing style is considered the best

(Silverman, 2006).

Depth interviewing is one of the most important sources when you want to evaluate qualitative

data. It is a way to enter another persons perspective, in order to understand his opinions,

thoughts and feelings (Patton, 2002). The aim of an interview is to find out what are the

respondents views on the topic of your study. It is a way to learn about things which are

difficult (or even impossible) to observe: for example feelings, some specific behaviors or

intentions (Patton, 1987).

According to Patton, the job of the interviewer is to provide a framework within which people

can respond comfortably, accurately, and honestly to open-ended questions (Patton, 1987,

p109). The fundamental principle of depth interviewing is to create a framework where

respondents can express their understanding with their own words. And the key to achieve rich

data is active listening, ie giving the interviewee the freedom to talk and express himself while

keeping in mind the objective of your project and trying to understand the respondent from his

viewpoint (Silverman, 2006).

Silverman consider that there are three different interview perspectives, three version ofinterview data, depending if you are positivist, emotionalist or constructionist (Silverman,


22/63

2006). In the positivist paradigm, the emphasis is put on the accumulation of reliable and valid

knowledge. The collected data is made of facts about attitudes and behaviors, and positivists

tend to use random samples with standardized questions (Silverman, 2006). In opposition,

emotionalists are looking for authentic experiences of reality from the point of view of their

respondents, and try to elicit them. They tend to use unstructured and open-ended interviews

(Silverman, 2006). So they avoid manipulating the respondents, and use their own experiences

to build a good rapport with the interviewee. Basically, positivists try to capture facts from their

interviewees, while emotionalists try to capture emotions (Doudon & Ryan, 2010). Both

approaches have in common the fact that they consider interviewees as objects, while

constructionists think that they are subjects. For constructionists, the goal of an interview is to

elicit how the respondents talk, and what their vision of reality really is (Doudon & Ryan,

2010). They consider that the data is mutually constructed by both the interviewer and the

interviewee, and treat interviews as a topic (Silverman, 2006).

Patton considers that there are three main types of interview in qualitative research. First, there

is the informal conversational interview, in which questions are not prepared and simply emerge

from the context, following the natural flow of the interview. This method increases the

relevance and the naturalness of the responses, and such interviews can be matched to specific

circumstances and individuals. It enables in-depth communication with the respondent, and theinterview can be highly responsive, so that he can adapt his questions to the situation and to the

informants responses. Yet, problems appear ifcertain important questions dont arise naturally,

and the analysis and data comparison are difficult, because these interview are context-specific

(Patton, 2002). There is also the interview guide approach, where issues and topics to be

covered during the interview are determined in advance, but where the interviewer is still free to

choose the order of the questions and the wording during the interview. It makes the data

collection easier and systematic, and it enables the anticipation of logical gaps in data. Yet,

some important topic can be inadvertently omitted, and it is sometimes difficult to compare data

which are collected by different interviewers, because the questions themselves and their

sequencing can vary a lot (Patton, 2002). And finally, there is the standardized open-ended

interview approach. In this method, the sequencing and the wording of the question are decided

before the interview, so that all the interviewers ask exactly the same questions in the same

order. Thus, it is easy to compare the collected data, it reduces variations in interviews due to

interviewer effects and bias, and it facilitates the analysis of your data. However, there is almost

no flexibility in this method, and it can limit the naturalness and the relevance of the


23/63

respondents answers (Patton, 2002). The interview is limited to the answers of the questions

which have been determined before the interview.

Silverman proposes slightly different options in his typology of interview strategies. He first

considers structured interviews, where no improvisation is possible. Then he mentions semi-

structured interviews, characterized by a deeper rapport with the interviewee, and in which

understanding perfectly the aim of your research project is critical. Then he talks about open-

ended interviews, which are flexible and especially require active listening. And finally, the last

possibility is the focus group interview, where you can use the dynamic of the group to make

deep data and new interesting topics emerge (Silverman, 2006). According to Silverman,

conducting a focus group before individual interviews can also be an interesting strategy in

order to clarify the issues that the researcher wishes to raise (Silverman, 2010).

Dundon and Ryan think that there is not one interview type which is superior to the others in

terms of knowledge generation and data collection (Dundon & Ryan, 2010). They consider that

their common point, and also the most important part in depth interviewing, is the respondent

rapport. Building a nice relationship with the interviewee during the interview, some

conversational bonds, is of paramount importance for every interview approach. For Patton, the

common characteristic between the different qualitative approaches to depth interviewing is that

the interviewee responds in his own words to express his personal perspectives (Patton, 1987,

p115). There are different interview strategies, where the wording and the sequencing of the

questions are not the same, but in the end, the format of the response is always open-ended.

All in all, what really distinguishes the qualitative approach in depth interviewing from the

closed interviews and questionnaires used in quantitative research, is the fact depth interviewing

doesnt force the respondent to fit his knowledge, his experiences and feeling into the categories

that the researcher constructed before the interview (Patton, 1987).

2.4.2 Our interview strategy

We decided to use mostly Pattons standardized open-ended interview method for our two

interviews. This approach consists in a set of questions carefully worded and arranged with the

intention of taking each respondent through the same sequence and asking each respondent the

same questions with essentially the same words (Patton, 2002, p342). So we carefully wrote


24/63

the different questions, in a specific order to reduce the variations in data due to the fact that two

different interviewers conducted interviews. We paid attention to write real open-ended question

as often as possible, so that our informants use their own words, thoughts and insights while

answering these questions. To build the interview guide, ie the question that we planned to ask

and their specific order, we used Pattons 6 kinds of questions: experience/behavior questions,

opinion/belief questions, feeling questions, knowledge questions, sensory questions and

background questions (Patton, 2002). We used different time frames, and sequenced the

questions following Pattons suggestions about the order in which these 6 types of question

should be asked to get better results.

Yet, in the strict standardized open-ended interview approach that Patton defines, flexibility is

limited and this approach restricts the pursuit of topics which were not anticipated when the

interview was written. So we took three steps to improve the flexibility of this method and get a

wider view on the interviewees thoughts.

-First, we added a second part in the interview, based on narratives and storytelling. We think

that it was important to ask the respondents to describe in details of particularly good online

shopping experience, and one particularly bad, in order to analyze in-depth their behaviors and

their expectancies in an e-shopping situation. So we asked two specific questions to the

respondents, so that they describe two memorable online shopping experiences that they had.

-Second, following one of Pattons suggestions on style combinations, we decided to allow the

interviewer to pursue any interesting subject evocated during the first part of the interview, in a

third part consisting of an informal conversation about some topics which caught the attention

of the interviewer during the interview.

-Third, we decided to give the interviewer the possibility to use probes and some basic follow-

up questions in order to increase the richness of the data that we would obtain (Patton, 2002).

These probes, like the basic who, where, what, when, and how, would be used only

to get more details on a specific answer, not to talk about a topic not directly related to the

original question. Of course, we didnt restrict the use of clarification probes, in case the

interviewer would need more information, more context, or a re-statement of an answer.

NB: our interviews were recorded simultaneously with two different tape-recorders, in order to

avoid problems in case there were technical problems with one of the devices.


25/63


We decided to rely on the standardized open-ended interview approach for different reasons.

First, we wanted to minimize the variations in the questions because we are two different

interviewers with different skills, and the two interviews were going to be conducted

individually. To compare the answers, it was easier to have the same questions asked the same

way in both interviews. Our aim was to minimize the effects/bias of the interviewer and to

reduce the need for interviewer judgments and opinions during the interview (Patton, 2002).

Thus, the most efficient method to avoid variation in the data was to carefully word the

questions in advance, using the standardized open-ended interview approach. Moreover, this

method facilitates the analysis because responses are easy to find out compare (Patton, 2002).

Yet, this method is not really flexible, so we decided to adapt it a little for the purpose of our

study. We combined this rigid approach with two other methods, in order to find new areas of

inquiry and to obtain a globally wider (and better) data collection. So first, we decided to use a

narrative-based approach in the second part in the interview. This narrative perspective allows

analyzing the subjective constructions of reality from the respondents point of view and it

captures the informants interpretations of reality (Dundon & Ryan, 2010). Thus, this method

was, in our opinion, a good way to liberate the respondent after a rigid standardized open-ended

interview approach in the first part of the interview, so that we may discover unexpected topics

and new areas in our research. The in-depth analysis of the respondents experiences through a

narrative method is a relevant option to generate in-depth knowledge and accentuate the

processes though which consumers go while purchasing online, and also a way to find out how

the respondent interprets reality (Dundon & Ryan, 2010).

Then, we also decided to keep some time at the end of the standardized open-ended interview to

talk about subjects of interest that were evocated during the interview, but that we had to avoidon purpose to stay in the guidelines of our method. So we followed Pattons suggestion in his

paragraph about style combinations in interviews (Patton, 1987, p114). We wanted to keep this

opportunity to go deeper on some unexpected subjects with the use of informal conversations in

the end of the interview, in order to be able to discuss about some topics/issues that we could

have forgotten while we were writing the interview guide.


26/63

2.4.4 Useful interview techniques and hints

The literature provides us with many techniques to conduct interviews, and also some hints in

case the interview is difficult to conduct, because for example of a reluctant respondent.

Hopefully, we didnt really have reluctant or resisting respondents in the end, but we were

aware of these techniques.

First, we paid attention to the different pieces of advice that Patton gives about interviews. For

example, we used what he calls sensitivity question. It means that we worded a question so

that the interviewee really cares about the question and provides high quality information

(Patton, 2002). The question provides a context, and tells the respondent that the choices he has

to make in his answer concern one of his close friends. So we are sure that his answer will be

relevant and carefully thought. We also followed Pattons suggestions on how to maintain the

control of an interview. We tried to control efficiently the interviews by knowing exactly what

we wanted to find out with each question, and by giving appropriate feedback to the interviewee

before, during, and after the interview (for example head nodding, notes and silent probes). Our

aim was to facilitate the desired responses (Patton, 2002). Sometimes, it is necessary to interrupt

the interviewee, but we followed Pattons suggestions on how to tell politely the interviewee

that we have to interrupt his response because we need the interview to keep moving along in

order to cover all the questions (Patton, 2002). Among the other important guidelines/techniques

that we followed, you can also find: the neutrality of the interviewer regarding the content of the

interviewees answers, the importance of asking only one question at a time, and the use of clear

questions, explanations and reformulation if the respondent is puzzled by a specific question.

Then we also took into consideration the hints that Dundon and Ryan give in their article about

how to deal with reluctant respondents (Dundon & Ryan, 2010). We found really interesting

their idea of finding a switch, a diversion of off-topic talk to facilitate the flow of dialogue, incase the respondent doesnt feel at his ease and doesnt give interesting and relevant answers.

With reluctant respondents, promoting conversation and finding a diversion (proposing a coffee

is an option, for example in Dundon & Ryans narrative) are some things that can improve the

quality of the data embedded in the interview. Dundon and Ryan also insist on the importance

of developing early bonds with the interviewee, in order to help achieving the purpose of your

qualitative research (Dundon & Ryan, 2010). That is why we decided to talk with the

respondents before their interview, to create a good atmosphere and know them better before

actually starting the interview process.


27/63

2.5. Analyses2.5.1 Theoretical framework on qualitative data analysis

The first challenge in qualitative data analysis is to reduce the volume of information comingfrom the raw data (films, photos, field notes, interview transcripts etc). The aim is to find

patterns, to look for common behaviors within the respondents, and to put the collected data into

relevant and meaningful categories (Silverman, 2006). The final goal of the analysis is to

summarize the essence of your findings and to construct a framework that you will be able to

communicate to others.

According to Silverman, there several questions that you need to ask yourself when you are

planning to analyze qualitative data: what are the different element which emerge from the raw

data? Are these element linked to each other? Is it possible to create some categories? To what

kinds of settings, circumstances and consequences are these categories related? Do some new

possible research questions emerge from the data? (Silverman, 2006)

Spiggle distinguishes seven operations in qualitative analysis, divided in two main steps. First,

there is the organization of the data, through categorization/coding and then abstraction. And

then, there is a second step consisting in the exploration of the categories which were

developed, through comparison, dimensionalization, integration, iteration and refutation. These

seven operations form the analytic part of the study (Spiggle, 1994).

Categorization consists in classifying different units of data, during a process that Spiggle all

coding. The aim of coding is to create rich theoretical categories that the researcher will use to

identify the main themes and constructs related to the study. Categorization can use deductive

reasoning or inductive reasoning (Spiggle, 1994).Abstraction comes just after categorization,

and elevate the concepts which emerged during the categorization phase to a higher analytical

level, by grouping the previously found categories into general conceptual classes, in order to

develop clear and useful theoretical constructs. The aim is to obtain fewer more general

categories (Spiggle, 1994). Comparison focuses on identifying the similarities across incidents

within the collected data (Spiggle, 1994).Dimensionalization consists in identifying the various

properties, dimensions and variations of the categories and constructs which emerged from the

categorization and abstraction phases (Spiggle, 1994).Integration aims at building a theoretical

framework from the data, by exploring the relationships between categories and/or developing aparadigm model (Spiggle, 1994). The coding of categories can be axial, by specifying the


28/63

conditions, context, strategies and outcomes related to the categories, in order to integrate the

theory in a paradigm model. Or the coding can be selective, based on finding relationships

between the developed constructs (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The purpose ofiteration is to

improve the analysis, by repeating the different steps (categorization, abstraction,

dimensionalization etc) and the different movement between the steps. And finally, the aim of

refutation is to try to find data that contradicts the results in order to deepen the analysis. It is

also possible to test the results in other settings and under other conditions to get a wider view

(Spiggle, 1994).

2.5.2 Choice of the strategy of analysis and justification of this choice

When I started the analysis part of this study, my aim was first to find out what elements were

the most important in the data I collected, including the video observations and the interviews. I

followed Silvermans suggestions concerning the main questions to ask yourselfwhen

analyzing qualitative data: can I find relations between these elements? Can I code/categorize in

order to cover and describe the data? What are the different settings and circumstances within

these categories? (Silverman, 2006). Then, another critical issue was to find out how to interpret

these categories, by identifying the main concepts and dimensions within these categories,

finding common traits between the categories and eventually different stages in global online

shopping experiences (Spiggle, 1994).

My strategy of analysis included two main phases: first,I organized and reduced the data (the 3

video observations + the 2 interviews) into categories, and then I tried to explore the meaning

of these categories, by using various analytical operations, which were suggested by Spiggle

(1994).

I mostly used the 4 qualitative data manipulation operation that Spiggle considers to be

fundamental: categorization, abstraction, comparison and integration. These four basic

analytical operations enabled me to construct a coherent conceptual framework (Spiggle, 1994).

I used categorization and abstraction in order to reduce the data and organize it into different

relevant categories. And I used comparison and integration to explore the significance of these

categories (Spiggle, 1994). Concerning the integration phase, I mostly used an axial coding of

categories approach, by considering circumstances, settings and strategies to integrate

categories and constructs. Yet, I also used selective codingof categories at some specific


29/63

moments, when strong relationships between categories naturally appeared during the analysis.

During the whole analysis process, I favored what Spiggle calls iteration to move through the

collected data: I moved back and forth between the different stages of the analysis, reviewing

the observations and interviews after having developed main themes and categories from

analyzing the interviews separately (Spiggle, 1994). I used this back-and-forth procedure on the

entire data set, reading the expanded field notes from the observations and the transcripts of the

interview a first time to make categories emerge, and then re-reading the material to go deeper

in the analysis of these categories and comparing the various informants attitudes towards these

categories.

I also used dimensionalization to stimulate the development of constructs and categories, by

identifying the various dimensions and variations in them. It helped me in the theory

construction by enriching the conceptual meaning behind each construct which emerged during

the categorization and abstraction phases, and it helped me define the relationships accros

categories/constructs (Spiggle, 1994).

I moved through the data horizontally, trying to group indicators of categories and fragmenting

cases, and I tried to make relevant and fruitful comparisons between the different interviews and

observations, and between the categories which emerged. Concerning the coding approach

during the categorization phase, I favored inductive reasoning, by trying to identify the

different categories emerging from the data collected through the interview and the

observations, and without using any specific theoretical model.

2.5.3 Data organization and data reduction: categorization, abstraction and

dimensionalization

Step 1: coding and categorizing

Category /

ConstructExamples

Price

sensitivity

Observation 1 : price helped the final decision between the two favorite products

Observation 2: highly price sensitive, took the cheapest product that the product comparison

website showed

Product

comparison

Observation 1 : the final comparison is between the products in the basket

Observation 1 : the respondent insisted on how easy it is to compare product in e-shopping

Interview 1: you can get lost online (), and you have so many options that you dont knowwhat to do anymore or, it can be confusing sometimesInterview 1 on product comparison websites: I use them every time for plane tickets, every

time


30/63

Time spent

Observation 1 : the respondent switched products really fast and was skimming quickly the

webpages

Observation 2: the search phase was very fast, thanks to the product comparison website.

Interview 1: If you really know what youre looking for, then its no waste of time to go tothe (physical) place, its less time consuming, if Im looking for something specific thenno, its should be quite fastInterview 2: Online shopping is a way for me to avoid crowded shops and also to managemy time better and you can access to a lot of online stores in a short delay but alsoWhen youre online you hesitate a lot because you cant see the real product

Online

baskets

Observation 1: the final choice between the favorite products is done in the basket > putting a

product in the basket doesnt necessarily means buying it.

Trust /

Security

Observation 2 : complete trust in product comparison websites for cheap products/services

Observation 2: the respondent doesnt completely trust E-shopping security when she has topay big amount by credit card.

Interview 1: the respondent just checks if there is the secure website logo when she pays,but overall she completely trust the websites when she pays online.

Interview 2: I will never buy products that comes from not secured websites, I use the

most famous websites () They are all famous websites with secured payment andshipping, I never pay on online stores I dont know, it has to be famous. and you arenever sure until you get it delivered, and sometimes you have to ship it back.

Search

engines

Google was used in every observation, Amazon was mentioned in both interviews, product

comparison websites were used in one observation. Google is even used as a product

comparison website actually.

Interview 1: Im a Google addict

Type of

shopping

Observation 1 : not purposeful shopping, the respondent doesnt know exactly what she wantsObservation 2 and 3, Interview 1: purposeful shopping, looking for a specific product.

Interview 2: I go directly to the product I needObservation 2 and Interview 1: evocation of mixed shopping, with prior research andproduct comparison on the Internet, but final purchase in a physical store, or at least trying or

seing the product in real life. Interviewee 1: Maybe you can check before online, but youwouldnt purchase it online.

Online

advertisingIn all the observations, no attention was paid to the ads which appeared on the websites.

Trying the

product

Observation 1 : its hard to know your size in online shopping, so its better if you alreadyvisited the physical shop before, to try the different sizes

Interview 1: trying the product is compulsory for specific types of products, and that make e-

shopping impossible: not clothes, because I like to try them before, not shoes for the samereason.

Product

information

Observation 1 : the respondent used the websites option to rank the products by size andprice

Observation 2: easy to specify the product/service characteristics that you demand.

Interview 1: I would try to go on forums and see if people bought it already, and their

impressions. > perceived advantage in comparison to shopping in physical stores: theconsumers are not biased, when the salesmen in stores are almost never impartial.

Interview 1: on the advantages of real life shopping > because you have the sales personadvice and that could make sense too. If you dont know exactly what youre looking for Ithink it makes sense if you have someone to help you.

Impulsive

shopping

Interview 1: Im thinking about, Amazon, when you write the name of a book, then downthe page you have other purchases made by those who have purchased this one, then

sometimes Im like: yeah, I like this one too, maybe. I think its really clever to do that.

Special dealsObservation 3: the respondent favored e-shopping over physical shopping because he had

special prices and benefits if he ordered via the website of a specific company.Delivery / Interview 1 : I was supposed to get it 10 days later


31/63

shipment Interview 2: the products where the shipping is from Hong Kong or somewhere else reallyfar, because there is for me a risk of buying counterfeit products, the shipping delay isimportant, you can ship the product to the places you are going, I was expecting 3 days

of shipping delay, and it took like 3 weeks

Websitequality

Observation 2: the website was not clear, the informant had trouble finding the correct section

for the product she wanted.

Interview 1: Amazon seems to be a good website > because I really know the website andusually there is no problems with it, and, because, mostly when I buy its books, so, I would

say Amazon

Perceived

risks

Interview 1: you order online and then you have to wait and eventually, it will never comebecause of some problem on the way.

Customer

customer motivations towards online shopping and factors influencing the perception of online...

Documents