Global Journal of Management and Business Research, E: Marketing, Volume 23 Issue 1

Methodological Nature and Epistemological bases of Qualitative Studies in Marketing Janaína Gularte Cardoso α , Kleiton Luiz Nascimento Reis σ , Martin de La Martiniere Petroll ρ & Rudimar Antunes da Rocha Ѡ Author α ρ Ѡ: Programa de Pós-graduação em Administração da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. e-mails: janaina.gularte.cardoso@ufsc.br , martin.petroll@ufsc.br, rrudimar@hotmail.com Author σ : Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia e Gestão do Conhecimento da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. e-mail: kleitonluiz.reis@gmail.com This research portrays the epistemological bases on which qualitative studies in marketing are based. In the meantime, the main objective was to analyze how qualitative research published in the Revista Brasileira de Marketing is constructed, based on conventional and unconventional epistemologies. The methodological design was that of documentary research with content analysis. The under- standing and interpretation of the articles, as well as the critical evaluation carried out, allow inferring that qualitative studies in marketing have a strong emphasis on the conventional basis and have positivism and the empiricist-systemic-functionalist approach as their central assumption. Furthermore, the influence of unconventional epistemological bases, in two articles, signals the emergence of critically oriented studies. Even so, they are approximations, flirtations, rather than critical studies per se, because they do not widely appropriate the general categories that characterize, guide and found the critical theoretical-methodological scheme. Keywords: epistemology, qualitative research, marketing, epistemology in marketing. I. I ntroduction pistemology is a field of knowledge that elaborates a critical discourse on the sciences (SERVA, 2014). Lima, Kraemer and Rossi (2014), when investigating the epistemological discussion in marketing, emphasize the importance of these studies, as they promote the development of theories in marketing, as well as a critical evaluation of the discipline's theories and the production of pragmatic knowledge. It should also be noted that the hegemonic paradigm in marketing is positivism and its functional- structuralist derivations. Furthermore, the inclusion of categories generated in other fields such as psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, does not mean an epistemological rupture within the discipline, but instrumentalization for empirical verification, maintaining the positivist approach (LIMA, KRAEMER and ROSSI, 2014). As a result, it can be conjectured that specific epistemological analyses, such as in the field of marketing, envisage a critical debate that allows reviewing its foundations, its methods, revealing its paradigms and the structure of its field; allow under- standing the set of assumptions on which research in the area is based, promoting a reflective analysis. The legitimacy of quantitative research in studies in the field of marketing can be understood from its relationship with positivist thinking, which still predominates in the area. This statement is corroborated by Motta and Iizuka (2016) who, when analyzing the Journal of Marketing publications, found that the methodology used in the area is predominantly quantitative. Following this perspective, marketing as a scientific discipline is anchored in the logical-empiricist paradigm, in which it seeks to prove the consistency of its studies through statistical models, measurements and validity criteria (SCUSSEL, 2017). Arndt (1985) points out that marketing follows an empiricist logic that values rationality, objectivity, measurement, and neglects alternative research approaches. This prerogative seems to have been maintained over time, as stated by Castro Junior et al. (2015), logical empiricism is the dominant paradigm within the evolution of marketing thinking. And yet, as evidenced by Lima et al. (2014), the vast majority of research published in the most important marketing journals is empirical in nature. Furthermore, the objection regarding marketing does not refer to its form or content, but to its method (BOAVA and MACEDO, 2012). This situation perpetuates the quantitative versus qualitative debate that, on the one hand, calls for the need for qualitative studies that help the researcher to understand the complexity of the phenomena; and, on the other hand, defends quantitative studies and their objectivity as the best way to explain the world (CASTRO JÚNIOR et al., 2015). The search for recognition of studies with qualitative bases establishes, in the field of marketing, a methodological debate that has as its backdrop the belief in a dichotomy between qualitative and quanti- tative research that, for Vieira (2004), is false. In this controversy, the defense of the superiority of quantitative research prevails over qualitative research, arising from its supposed objectivity and greater scientific rigor. Furthermore, according to Diniz et al. (2016), studies focused on the critical approach are incipient and distanced from marketing theory. Particularly in the E 21 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( )E © 2023 Global Journals Abstract-