Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comparison
Aims
of
the
papers
All
scientific
studies
conducted
share
a
similar
type
of
framework;
one
of
the
most
significant
fea-
tures
of
this
framework
is
the
purpose
statement.
The
purpose
statement
allows
the
author
of
a
study
to
be
explicit
about
what
the
study
in
questions
aims
to
uncover.
The
aim
of
the
paper
is
beneficial
for
both
the
reader
and
researcher
since
it
functions
as
an
outline
for
the
particular
subject,
which
the
paper
intends
to
investigate
upon,
furthermore,
the
researcher
can
create
co-
herence
by
having
the
purpose
statement
in
mind
when
conducting
the
study.
Both
of
the
studies,
which
this
paper
compares,
contain
purpose
statements.
Although
the
studies
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010;
Lee
et
al.
2009)
utilize
a
purpose
statement,
it
is
re-
quired
of
the
reader
to
do
a
detailed
reading
of
the
studies
in
order
to
identify
what
the
aims
of
the
papers
are,
since
they
do
not
write
it
explicitly.
It
is
also
a
similarity
that
the
two
studies
op-
erate
within
the
same
field
-
this
being
the
field
of
anti-consumption
and
brand
avoidance.
The
nature
of
research
sets
the
framework
for
the
direction
of
the
purpose
statement.
Despite
working
within
the
same
field,
the
two
studies
still
manage
to
set
up
to
different
sets
of
aims;
it
is
evident
that
the
two
studies
have
had
different
motives
for
conducting
the
studies.
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
indicate
clearly
why
a
study
on
anti-consumption
and
brand
avoidance
is
needed;
accordingly,
brand
avoidance
is
rarely
mentioned
as
a
concept
in
other
scientific
studies
and
no
clear
definition
of
the
concept
exists
(Lee
et
al.
2009:
169-170).
Furthermore,
Lee
et
al.
(2009:170)
imply
that
former
research
done
on
brand
avoidance
and
anti-consumption
has
been
one-dimensional;
former
studies
focus
on
singular
reasons,
but
according
to
Lee
et
al.
(2009:170)
brands
have
more
than
one
dimension;
therefore
there
might
be
more
than
one
reason
to
why
brand
avoidance
and
thereby
anti-consumption
exist.
These
arguments
are
the
incentives
for
Lee
et
al.
(2009);
these
incentives
lead
to
the
aim
of
the
study,
which
seeks
to
determine
what
can
cause
brand
avoidance
and
whether
there
are
any
limits
to
brand
avoidance
(Lee
et
al.
2009:170).
Whereas
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
are
more
focused
on
brand
avoidance
and
the
causes
behind
this
phenomenon,
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
apply
a
slightly
wider
focus
by
looking
at
anti-consumption
at
a
more
general
level
instead
of
brand
specific;
it
is
a
characteristic
for
this
study
that
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:413)
examine
anti-consumption
among
consumers
in
East
Germany.
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:415)
indicate
that
the
aim
of
the
study
is
to
understand
how
extensive
the
ethic
of
anti-
consumption
of
East
German
culture
is,
and
what
has
caused
this.
Furthermore,
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:415)
are
also
interested
in
identifying
the
main
reasons
for
anti-consumption;
this
relates
to
the
purpose
statement
of
Lee
et
al.
(2009),
which
aims
to
find
the
more
general
reasons
for
an-
ti-consumption
and
brand
avoidance.
Despite
having
constructed
different
purpose
statements,
the
two
studies
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010;
Lee
et
al.
2009)
share
similarities,
which
make
the
studies
comparable.
Methods
So
far,
this
paper
has
focused
on
the
aims
of
the
two
studies
by
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
and
Lee
et
al.
(2009).
It
was
possible
to
detect
both
similarities
and
differences
in
the
two
purpose
state-
ments.
The
aims
of
the
papers
are
not
the
only
topic,
where
the
two
studies
are
comparable;
when
looking
at
the
data,
especially
how
the
information
is
collected
it
is
possible
to
see
similari-
ties
as
well
as
differences.
Both
studies
take
on
a
qualitative
approach
by
conducting
interviews
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010:
415;
Lee
et
al.
2009:
171),
but
the
way
the
approaches
are
conducted
were
different.
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:415)
conducted
12
informal
interviews
and
20
formal
inter-
views;
furthermore,
follow-up
interviews
were
conducted
over
a
period
of
5
years
to
see
if
the
East
German
consumers
would
change
their
opinion
on
anti-consumption.
This
differs
from
the
approach
of
Lee
et
al.
(2009:171),
who
started
with
conducting
three
very
detailed
interviews
to
test
the
interviewing
protocol.
This
proved
successful;
therefore,
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
conducted
in-
depth
interviews
with
all
23
participants.
Lee
et
al
(2009:171-172)
made
sure
to
constantly
com-
pare
the
data
gathered
from
the
interviews
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
findings
are
coherent
with
the
field
of
study.
When
comparing
and
contrasting
the
methods
of
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
and
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
it
is
not
enough
to
solely
look
at
how
the
information
is
gathered;
it
is
also
of
great
importance
to
look
at
how
the
data
is
analysed.
It
is
clear
that
both
studies
have
chosen
discourse
analysis
as
the
method
of
analysis.
This
type
of
analysis
is
relevant
since
the
statement
proclaimed
by
the
interviewee
is
more
important
than
the
actual
textual
structure.
The
use
of
discourse
analysis
is
evident
in
one
of
the
interviews
conducted
by
Lee
et
al.
(2009:173),
where
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
con-
clude
that
the
interviewee
creates
her
own
identity
and
appearance
through
the
choices
she
makes
on
brand
avoidance
and
anti-consumption.
As
stated,
it
is
not
only
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
who
use
discourse
analysis;
an
example
of
the
same
type
of
analysis
can
be
found
in
the
study
of
Al-
binsson
et
al.
(2010:418),
where
the
authors
in
question
have
interviewed
a
man,
Norbert,
who
states
that
nothing
is
thrown
way
if
it
still
can
operate.
They
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010:418)
then
use
discourse
analysis
to
interpret
what
type
of
person
Norbert
is
and
how
this
can
relate
to
anti-
consumption
among
East
German
consumers.
It
is
also
relevant
to
this
section
that
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
refer
to
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
in
the
text;
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:419)
analyse
the
discourse
of
Norbert
based
on
the
knowledge
derived
from
the
study
by
Lee
et
al.
(2009).
As
with
the
aims
of
the
papers,
the
two
studies
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010;
Lee
et
al.
2009)
share
similar
features
in
the
methods
section.
Both
studies
agree
on
the
qualitative
method,
but
the
ap-
proach
is
different.
The
method
of
analysis
is
also
related
by
using
discourse
analysis.
This
view
on
discourses
as
well
as
identity
and
personality
fits
very
well
with
the
scientific
tradition
of
so-
cial
constructivism
(Burr
2011),
where
identity
is
negotiated
through
discourses.
Although
ex-
amples
of
this
scientific
tradition
could
be
found
throughout
the
texts,
this
is
not
the
focus
of
this
paper
and
will
therefore
not
be
elaborated
further
on.
Conclusions
As
mentioned
earlier
in
this
paper,
scientific
studies
share
similar
framework;
the
conclusion
is
one
of
the
most
important
features
in
this
framework.
The
conclusion
allows
the
authors
to
finish
up
their
study
by
concluding
on
their
respective
purpose
statements,
which
they
initially
set
out
to
investigate
on.
Together
with
the
purpose
statement,
the
conclusion
is
able
to
give
the
study
coherence.
Both
of
the
studies
in
question
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010;
Lee
et
al.
2009)
have
reached
their
respective
conclusions.
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010:422)
conclude
that
East
German
consumers
are
reluctant
to
hyperconsume,
which
is
a
characteristic
of
the
Western
society.
This
type
of
throwaway
society
does
not
fit
well
with
the
East
German
culture
and
these
consumers
tend
to
avoid
Western
products
due
to
lower
quality
standards
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010:
422).
Although
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
concludes
on
the
first
part
of
the
purpose
statement,
they
are
not
fully
able
to
conclude
on
the
second
part
of
their
purpose
statement
what
the
more
general
causes
for
anti-consumption
are.
Furthermore,
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
do
not
offer
ideas
for
fur-
ther
research
or
how
Western
product
manufacturers
or
scholars
can
use
the
findings
of
this
re-
search
in
order
to
optimize
products
or
studies.
Despite
not
proposing
further
research,
Albins-
son
et
al.
(2010:421)
are
aware
that
the
study,
which
they
conducted,
is
of
a
small
size,
which
might
hold
several
implications
for
the
conclusion
and
validity
of
the
study.
Like
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010),
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
do
not
conclude
on
what
causes
anti-consumption
in
general,
since
the
study
had
a
narrower
field
of
focus
the
rejection
of
particular
brands.
Lee
et
al
(2009:178)
conclude
that,
unlike
former
studies
conclusions,
several
things
such
as
unsatis-
factory
experiences,
ideological
conflicts,
and
symbolic
unsuitability
can
cause
brand
avoidance.
Dissimilar
to
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010),
Lee
et
al.
(2009:179)
are
aware
that
further
research
on
this
topic
can
be
done;
furthermore,
they
(Lee
et
al.
2009:179)
direct
their
findings
at
product
manufacturers
so
they
can
gain
advantage
from
this
knowledge.
This
is
not
the
only
difference
in
the
critique
of
the
conclusions;
whereas
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
are
aware
of
the
implications,
which
the
size
of
the
study
might
cause,
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
do
not
mention
it
in
their
conclusion.
They
(Lee
et
al.
2009:179)
state
that
this
conclusion
might
not
apply
to
everybody,
but
nothing
is
said
about
the
size
of
the
study,
which
is
approximately
the
same
as
the
study
by
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010).
Conclusion
This
paper
set
out
to
create
an
overview
of
a
topic,
where
there
is
a
lack
of
research.
Through
a
comparison
of
two
studies
(Albinsson
et
al.
2010;
Lee
et
al.
2009)
with
the
focus
on
the
aspects
of
aims
of
the
papers,
methods
and
the
conclusions,
an
overview
of
anti-consumption
and
brand
avoidance
has
been
established.
The
two
studies
in
question
originate
from
the
same
field
of
research,
but
contain
different
an-
gles
on
the
same
topic.
The
studies
share
many
similar
features
one
of
them
being
the
method
section,
where
both
studies
have
a
qualitative
approach
and
implement
discourse
analysis.
De-
spite
the
similarity
in
choice
of
approach,
the
way
the
study
is
conducted
differs
from
Albinsson
et
al.
(2010)
to
Lee
et
al.
(2009).
The
different
purpose
statements
has
lead
to
different
conclu-
sions;
Lee
et
al.
(2009)
state
that
there
are
three
main
factors,
which
might
influence
the
con-
sumer
to
avoid
particular
brands.
As
stated
in
the
paper,
Albinsson
et
al.
(2009)
have
a
broader
focus
on
anti-consumption.
The
conclusion
brought
forward
by
Albinsson
et
al.
(2009)
indicates
that
East
German
consumers
are
not
in
favour
of
the
Western
society,
which
they
define
as
a
hy-
perconsumptive
and
a
throwaway
society.
These
studies
could
be
of
great
relevance
to
both
businesses
and
scholars,
since
this
is
a
sub-
ject
where
the
possibilities
for
further
research
are
great.
Bibliography
Albinsson,
P.A.,
Wolf,
M.
and
Kopf,
D.A.
(2010)
Anti-consumption
in
East
Germany:
Consumer
re-
sistance
to
hyperconsumption.
Journal
of
Consumer
Behaviour
9,
412-425.
Burr,
V.
(2001)
An
introduction
to
social
constructionism.
[online]
Available
at:
http://lib.asb.dk.www.baser.dk/ecompendium/6223_Burr.pdf
[Accessed
02
January
2013]
Lee,
M.S.W.,
Motion,
J.
and
Conroy,
D.
(2009)
Anti-consumption
and
brand
avoidance.
Journal
of
Business
Research
62,
169-180.