Summary of the article
As it was stated in the introduction part of the article under analysis, a study was conducted to test one hypothesis whether buying motivations of representatives of generation X and generation Y are identical when they reach a particular age.
Providing clear definitions of the two generations, the article discusses the differences in lifestyles and perceptions of jobs and consumer goods in representatives of both generations and marketers’ strategies applied to these age groups.
The study combined three research methods, including those of a survey mailed to high school teachers and college tutors, several day observations conducted by one person at the local mall and interviews with experienced marketers.
The results retrieved from the survey and discussed in this article focused mainly on the demographic characteristics of the participants with only a few sentences devoted to the clothing brands preferred by representatives of different generations.
The discussion of the results of observation and interviews was fragmented and included only a few remarks of particular individuals without detailed summary and critical analysis of the collected data. The article discussed the research limitations which mainly focused on the specifics of the research design. The two tables included into the article contained the summarized information on the survey results.
The discussion of the research results focused mainly on attitudes of representatives of generation X and generation Y to different criteria in making a choice of certain clothing items and a place for shopping.
The conclusions drawn by the author from these results were rather unexpected because they touched upon the dominant personal characteristics of generations and even their attitudes to purchasing the real estate. The following discussion of the advertizing strategies used for each generation were not linked to the research results and based mainly upon the author’s personal opinion.
Even though the author concluded that the hypothesis included into the introduction regarding the identical needs and motivations in representatives of different generations is valid, the rest of the discussion does not support this claim.
Positioning of the paper within the academic area
As it is stated in the title of this article, it was intended to be a practitioner paper and to have certain practical implications. Regarding the positioning of this paper within the academic area, it can be stated that it may be relevant for marketers developing advertizing strategies for clothing companies and clothing malls.
However, analyzing the choice of the hypothesis for this study as well as the discussion of the research findings, it can be stated that the research findings of this paper cannot be readily used by marketers in their professional practice.
This article can be of little value for the marketers because of its limitations and lack of evidence for drawing the conclusions which were made by the author. Dias did not discuss the main motivations for conducting this study which could include the lack of research of certain problems or certain limitations of similar studies which were conducted previously.
The disparity between the research goals, methods, results and conclusions significantly reduces the value of this paper. Its findings could be of potential value for the marketers if the author had aligned the discussion of the research results with the main hypothesis and research objectives.
Critique of the paper: the six strengths of the article
Analyzing the research design, methods and manner of representation of the achieved results, it can be stated that the article under analysis has a number of strengths and weaknesses.
The first strength of this article is the use of the statistics data and precise definitions of the age groups of generation X and generation Y. This characteristic enables the potential readers of this article to obtain a clear understanding of the research question and the main characteristics of the participants. The second strength of this paper is the use of in-text citations.
The parenthetical citations show the amount of preliminary research conducted by the scholar and support the claims made by the author with assumptions of other researchers working in the same domain. The third strength of this article is a detailed description of the research methods, sampling and research participants involved into the study.
This description enables the target audience of this article to evaluate the relevance of the chosen research methods and validity of the received results and conclusions. The fourth strength of this paper is the combination of three research methods.
The combination of different approaches might be helpful for comparing the achieved results to ensure their validity and compensating for particular limitations attributed to each of them. This complex design could have improved the reliability of the study. The fifth strength of the article is the discussion of limitations of each of the three research methods.
According to Bryman and Bell (2007, p. 105), the awareness of limitations of the topic area and research methods can lead the researchers and readers towards better understanding of the research problem. Therefore, the discussion of limitations included into this article demonstrates the author’s broad understanding of the research problem and the potential value of her findings.
The sixth strength of the paper under analysis is a substantial discussion section which was intended to interpret the research findings. The discussion section is valuable for explaining the main conclusions made in the study and pointing out at the major premises making the author to draw such conclusions.
Therefore, the organization of the paper under analysis as well as the research in general has a number of strengths which increase the significance of this paper.
The six weaknesses of the article and suggestions for improvement
Apart from the limitations of the study design discussed by the author, this paper has a number of weaknesses which offer a potential for improvement in case if a similar study is conducted in the future.
The first weakness of this study is the disparity between the reference list and the in-text citations. For instance, in the introduction part Dias (2003, p. 78) mentions a book Generation X by Coupland and even provides particular examples from this book but does not include in-text citations and does not include this source into the reference list.
The same goes for the statistics data retrieved from the US Census Bureau which is not properly cited either. Additionally, in particular episodes the author makes claims without supporting them with citations of certain reliable sources that is inadmissible for a scholarly article. As to the reference list, it contains only four sources which are not enough for conducting a profound research.
Even though these sources are relevant and significant, they are insufficient for a scholarly research. The recommendation for improvement is to include a more detailed literature review, add up to twenty sources to the reference list and use in-text citations when making certain claims for which support of legitimate sources is necessary.
The second weakness of this paper is the disparity between the research goals and methods. The three research methods are aimed at collecting the data which is irrelevant for supporting the main claim made in the introduction part of the article.
According to Adams, Raeside, and Khan (2007, p. 32), to evaluate the quality of a particular research, one should answer the question whether the conclusions made by the author make logical sense in their relation to the hypotheses formulated at the beginning. Analyzing the initial hypothesis and the conclusions drawn by the scholar, it can be stated that they make logical sense.
However, taking into consideration the methods used in this research, the survey and observation results, it can be stated that the conclusions concerning the identity of the buying motivations in representatives of different generations could not be drawn from the research results discussed in this article.
Therefore, even though the conclusion is linked to the initial hypothesis, it does not have logical sense, taking into account the research results and the argumentation provided by Dias. The recommendation for improvement of this point is to align the research methods with the main hypothesis and objectives.
The third weakness of this paper is the use of observation method for defining the consumers’ buying motivations. Cooper and Schindler (2011, p. 215) noted that one of the main limitations of the observation method is its inappropriateness for gathering information on such topics as preferences and attitudes. Therefore, the method of observation is not suitable for the research question.
The suggestion for improvement would be to replace the method of observation with a more appropriate technique. The fourth weakness of this article is the inappropriate distribution of surveys for gathering the information on the attitudes of generation X and generation Y. By sending these surveys to colleges and high schools, the scholar could not access the representatives of both generations.
Though the age of college students can vary, the majority of college population is no older than 23. Consequently, taking into account the year 2003 when the survey was conducted, it can be stated that both groups of participants belonged to the generation Y who were born between the years 1981 and 2002.
The suggestion for improvement of this significant weakness is to send a part of surveys to enterprises and ask the employees to answer them.
The fifth weakness was discussion of limitations before the discussion of the research results. This feature can reduce the validity of the research results. The recommendation for improvement is to include this section before the main conclusion. The section of limitation is valuable but it should be one of the final parts of the scholarly article because it offers the improvements and directions for further research of the topic.
The sixth weakness is the tables on page 84 which are difficult to interpret and are not the best way for presenting the research results. The improvement of this point can be achieved by changing the structure of these tables and their graphical layout.
Consequently, this article has a number of significant weaknesses which substantially decrease the value of this paper.
Validity and reliability of the research findings
Judging from the weaknesses of this article which were discussed in the previous section, it can be stated that the findings of this study cannot be regarded as valid and reliable.
The inappropriateness of research methods for exploring this topic, the inconsistency of the research goals, methods and outcomes, not to mention the overall organization of report and insufficient references decrease the value of this article and do not allow making any generalizations.
Not to mention the convenient sampling that was mentioned by the author as one of the limitations of the study, the sample was not representative and even did not include the required number of representatives of the generation X. Additionally, the results of the recent studies have presented conclusions opposite to the conclusion made by Dias (2003).
Van Den Bergh, Behrer and Kerkstoel (2011, p. 11) noted that generation can be defined as a product of current times and people cannot become identical to their parents when reaching a particular age.
The assumption made by Dias (2003, p. 85) concerning the same categories of products as their parents bought, including cars and baby clothing does not mean that generation Y will select the same products and the same brands. Therefore, this claim cannot be a basis for generalization.
In general, the findings of this article could be of practical value for marketers, but further research is required for investigating this question and minimizing the limitations.
Conclusion
As it can be seen from the critique of the main strengths and weaknesses of the article by Dias, the study of generational buying motivations had significant limitations which reduce the validity, reliability and practical value of its findings.
Due to the inappropriate research methods and the discrepancy between the research goals and methods, on the one hand, and the research results and conclusions, on the other hand, the argumentation provided by Dias (2003) cannot be regarded as sufficient for supporting her hypothesis.
References
Adams, J., Raeside, R., & Khan, H. (2007) Research methods for graduate business and social science students. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods. New York, Oxford University Press.
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. (2011) Business research methods. 11th edition. New York, McGraw Hill.
Dias, L. P. (2003) Generational buying motivations for fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 7 (1), pp. 78 – 86.
Van Den Bergh, J., Behrer, M. & Kerkstoel, G. (2011) How cool brands stay hot: Branding to generation Y. Philadelphia, Kogan Page Limited.