|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910451285703321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Developments in human observation methodologies [[electronic resource] /] / guest editore Nick Lee and Amanda J. Broderick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Bradford, England, : Emerald Group Publishing, c2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-280-84755-7 |
9786610847556 |
1-84663-417-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (105 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Qualitative Market Research, an international journal ; ; 10, no. 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
LeeNick |
BroderickAmanda J |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Marketing research |
Qualitative research |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Cover; CONTENTS; EDITORIAL ADVISORY AND REVIEW BOARD; Note from the publisher; Editorial; Exploring the determinants of success/failure of the advertising agency-firm relationship; A qualitative exploration of a consumer's value-based e-trust building process; Projective techniques in Taiwan and Asia-Pacific market research; Laddering: how (not) to do things with words; Identification of ambiguity in the case study research typology: what is a unit of analysis?; Auto-ethnographic consumer research and creative non-fiction; Book review; Practitioner perspectives; Internet section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The editors' intention with this e-book was to collect a set of papers which primarily look to the future of observational research in marketing, while remaining in some way cognizant of the rich history of observational research. To the editors, observational research is any research which collects empirical data not by questioning respondents, but by observing behavior and/or other forms of activity. In keeping with this, the papers which make up this special issue do not share a common epistemological or ontological basis, nor should they be expected to. Instead, what binds these papers tog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|