Exploratory research design

The research design chosen for this research is the exploratory research design. In the following, a detailed explanation of both the research approach and the research design will be displayed, as well as the philosophical considerations made in order to fulfil the goal of answering the research gap.

4.1.1 Research Approach

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016), there are three main research approaches:

deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning.

The first, deductive approach, is connected to top-down research, illustrating theories before doing research (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Following this method, theory suggests assumptions that are subsequently examined by means of empirical data. If the data matches the defined assumptions, then it is approved, otherwise the assumptions will be rejected.

The second, inductive approach, creates new theories based on empirical data and patterns which can be observed through research. This method is mainly used in research fields where no or only limited theory exists. Inductive reasoning is an appropriate approach often selected to generate knowledge (Bryman & Bell, 2014).

However, it rarely happens that a pure form of either a deductive or inductive reasoning is followed (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Therefore, the research methods can be complemented by adding an abductive approach. This follows the idea that a set of observations lead to the most likely inference (Saunders et al., 2016). In this way, researchers are able to formulate arguments that are based on a prior theory and to explore new themes at the same time.

Regarding the present study, an abductive research approach has been selected because it takes into account both approaches (Danermark, 2002). Abduction makes sense of reality by utilizing incomplete specific information and organising them following existing structures and theories (Danermark, 2002). Hence, the underlying research aim of the present paper is to expand the existing literature in the field of Brand Authenticity, Brand Equity and Luxury Brands and to close the selected research gap. For this purpose, it was crucial to introduce a theoretical framework prior to research, knowing that these two are in constant interaction throughout the process (Saunders et al., 2016).

All in all, an abductive approach has been considered in the research as the most suitable method for the explorative design that is adopted to close the identified gap (see intra 3.0 Research Gap).

4.1.2 Research Design

The following research design delineates the general strategy of how the authors plan to answer the defined research question and it justifies why these research methods have been chosen.

According to Saunders et al. (2016), the research purpose that are more often used in research methods are descriptive, explanatory and exploratory. The research question of the present paper indicates that the purpose of this research is to make an exploratory study. This exploratory purpose offers a valuable means to evaluate phenomena under a new light and to clarify the understanding of a problem (Saunders et al., 2016). Particularly, the present exploratory study seeks to gain insights into the phenomena of authenticity, looking if it can influence Brand Equity from the perspective of Louis Vuitton’s current and prospect customers.

Thereby, the aim of the research is to investigate authenticity in a new light, which could lead to uncover new insights (Saunders et al., 2016).

In this context, in order to close the gap, the use of a qualitative research design is prominent, because it allows to investigate subjective interpretations of the stakeholders in focus, being also in line with the interpretative philosophy discussed below.

Qualitative Approach

The authors decided to follow the qualitative research method, which is advantageous when dealing with human’s perceptions and opinions, settled in a specific and dynamic context

(Stake, 2010). Qualitative methods have the goal to analyse personal experiences, attitudes and impressions in order to contribute to the existing literature with an empirical study (Stake, 2010). Therefore, the researchers believe that this method fits the aim and the structure of the current study about perceived Brand Authenticity and its influence on Brand Equity from a customers’ point of view, in which the theory is developed from the data collected.

This method also gives researchers the possibility to keep the area of inquiry broad, without having particular restrictions and to better investigate the different dynamics and aspects of the interesting relationship between Brand Authenticity and Brand Equity (Robson, 2002).

The qualitative approach has the advantage to be rather flexible, giving the opportunity to the researchers to iteratively modify the research strategy even during the research process.

Therefore, researchers should not act as neutral entities in the field, but they should take part to what is being observed, making participants reflect upon their lives (Robson, 2002). Moreover, as Robson (2002, p.63) said, the qualitative methods are “the best way to capture complex and fluid streams of events taking place” when processes including people are in the middle of research. Finally, qualitative strategies do not demand for a rigid and precise framework for collecting data contrary to the quantitative method that require close-ended surveys and questionnaires (Bryman & Bell, 2014).

The qualitative method also reduces the contamination of the social world and allow a holistic view of it. This give to the researchers the opportunity to be the only potential source of bias in defining how to collect and interpret data (Bryman & Bell, 2014).

The goal of qualitative research is to produce knowledge that is practically relevant for producing solutions to empirical problems (Flick, 2007).

4.1.3 Philosophical considerations

In the following paragraph, the two main philosophical consideration will be discussed:

epistemology and ontology. For both, the two main views on the subject will be briefly discussed, followed a focus on interpretivism and constructivism, in line with the qualitative approach chosen and described above.

Epistemological considerations - interpretivism

“An epistemological issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline” (Bryman, 2012, p.27). These considerations regard mainly the question whether the same principles, approaches and methods used in natural science can and should be applied in the social world as well.

On the one hand, for quantitative methods the answer is easy: this approach uses the same principles as natural science, where all the phenomena and the data can be measured and replicated. Here, the acceptable knowledge can be described as “positivistic”, since the data collected constitute a “truth”, they represent knowledge and can be replicated and generalised.

On the other hand, qualitative methods are dynamic and focus on people: the distinctiveness of humans must be taken into account and the empathic understanding of the human action needs to be considered (Bryman, 2012). In other words, people have an active role in this kind of research method and they “can attribute meaning to events and to their environment” (Bryman

& Bell, 2011, p. 16), differentiating the study of social world from natural science. That is why the present study follows an interpretivist doctrine.

This specific epistemological consideration aims at understanding human behaviours instead of explaining them, which means that it pursues perceiving and interpreting the intrinsic meanings of things (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Interpretivism is focused on the individuals’ experiences and background, so the researcher should be aware that reality is something subjective and manifold, that is why a greater effort should be put in collecting and analysing data.

Consequently, this represents both the point of strength and the weakness of this philosophy:

reality could assume different meanings, bringing the attention on elements never considered before; on the other hand, it almost makes it impossible to generalise the results. That is why a different sample or different researchers conducting the same study could lead to different results (Bryman, 2012).

Ontological considerations – constructivism

The ontological considerations explore the extent to which “the social world is regarded as something external to social actors or as something that people are in the process of fashioning”

(Bryman, 2012, p. 19). This means that researchers need to contemplate whether reality is external to social actors (objectivism) or a construction of perceptions and actions of the social

actors (constructivism). In the method applied to this research, the constructivist perspective was followed. In fact, in qualitative methods the reality is “socially constructed” by the interaction of, for example, the interviewer and the interviewee. These two together create the meaning of the different dimensions of authenticity and Brand Equity that will be discussed (see intra 5.1.1 Interview Design), which is specifically constructed in that time and place and among these specific people (Bryman, 2012). As it will be explained later (see 5.0 Data Sources), semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be used as research methods, and these follow by definition a constructivist approach: in fact, the interviews follow a semi-structured guide, meaning that the researcher conducting the interview will tailor-make it depending on the interviewee and his or her interpretation of the questions; in the same way, focus groups are even more constructivist, since responses are built over other participants’

interventions (Bryman, 2012). This means that the same study performed in a different environment or with different people could bring to completely different results, annulling generalisation.

In the previous section, the research approach, design and philosophy applied to the current research have been presented. In the following, a brief explanation of the method chosen is delineated, with a presentation of the chosen brand for the analysis.