Purpose – This paper aims to outline the fundamental assumptions regarding the laddering methodology (Reynolds and Gutman), examine how some “hard” laddering approaches meet or violate these assumptions, provide a review and comparison of a series of studies using “soft” and “hard” laddering approaches to examine the hierarchical structure of means‐end theory, and assess if the discrepant conclusions from this series of studies may be attributed to violations of the fundamental assumptions of the laddering methodology. Design/methodology/approach – A series of published empirical works using “hard” and “soft” laddering approaches, which aim to examine the hierarchical structure of means‐end theory (Gutman), are reviewed and compared to integrate research findings and to examine discrepancies. Discrepant conclusions, which appear to be attributable to violations of the assumptions underlying the laddering methodology, are explored through a reanalysis and reclassification of the content codes. Findings – The paper validates the case for laddering and the care needed to gauge how conclusions can be affected when violations of fundamental assumptions of the laddering methodology occur. Research limitations/implications – Means‐end chain research and, more specifically, the laddering methodology are in need of investigations that assess the importance of its underlying assumptions. Additional work validating both the “hard” and “soft” laddering approaches is also needed. Practical implications – Results of means‐end research are more interpretable and less ambiguous when the fundamental assumptions of the laddering methodology are met. In practice, means‐end theory benefits managers by providing a useful structure to aid in the interpretation of laddering data. Originality/value – This paper outlines the fundamental assumptions regarding the laddering methodology to provide methodological guidelines for laddering researchers. This paper also reviews the academic literature examining the hierarchical structure of means‐end theory and explores how violations of the fundamental assumptions of the laddering methodology may impact research findings.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jan 16, 2009
Keywords: Qualitative research; Interviews
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera