Moving Towards Pluralism: Psychology, Sociology, and Qualitative Market Research III

 As we’ve seen in the previous articles (part 1 and part 2), qualitative market research (QMR) tends to frame itself through a psychological lens, drawing especially on psychoanalysis and its metaphors of depth and unconscious meaning.

This framing is not inherently problematic. Depth Psychology has made valuable contributions to how we understand motivation. But when it becomes the only frame, or when it absorbs other traditions under its label, the result means we limit how we view the world.

In the previous article, I examined one consequence of this narrowing: the vanishing of structure. When we focus on the individual, the patterned, rule-governed dimensions of meaning-making are easily overlooked.

This third and final article explores two further consequences of narrowing our view. Together, they illustrate what is lost when sociological perspectives are disavowed. This affects not just theory, but the practical conduct and future viability of QMR.

Consequence 1: Overemphasis on Depth and Data Generation

One of the most visible consequences of psychological dominance is a focus on depth. This is often framed as accessing the “inner” world of consumers. This orientation is heavily influenced by Freuds topographical model of the psyche.[i] In this model, interviews become excavations; the goal is to descend into the unconscious, surface buried meanings, and retrieve “authentic” insights.

In practical terms, this logic manifests itself in the widespread use of “deep dives.” These are not just metaphorical devices; they shape how research is designed, conducted, and evaluated. Techniques like depth interviews or narrative elicitation are presented as tools to unlock hidden meanings, often through client-facing language that emphasizes their transformative character.

But what gets lost in this framing is the process of analysis. Once the data is ‘extracted’ the researcher’s job is often seen as done. Insights are treated as found objects, not as constructed interpretations. This dynamic leads to a subtle devaluation of analysis. As a slower and more iterative process, it lacks the immediacy and performative appeal (especially for clients) often attributed to data generation.

By contrast, sociological approaches emphasize that insight emerges through analysis, not before it. Meaning is not something hidden beneath the surface waiting to be uncovered. Rather, it is something produced through structured processes: in situated interactions, institutional logics, and historically embedded discourses. From this perspective, the psychological focus on “depth” often replaces analytic rigor with metaphorical appeal. It suggests that meaning is found behind what is said, rather than being constituted through what is said, how it is said, and under which social and discursive conditions it becomes sayable at all.

Consequence 2: The Talent Pipeline Problem

A second consequence of constricting QMR to a single perspective is how it attracts talent. If QMR continues to present itself as “applied psychology,” one might assume that psychology graduates would flow naturally into the industry. But the reality is quite different, especially in the German context. 

Academic psychology is overwhelmingly quantitative. Qualitative methods are marginal at best and remain underrepresented in training curricula.[ii] As a result, psychology students often lack both the methodological foundation, and the interpretive mindset required for qualitative research.

However, sociology graduates are often much better prepared. In Germany, sociology programs offer balanced training in qualitative and quantitative methods, and provide exposure to topics like grounded theory, ethnomethodology, and discourse analysis.[iii]

However, the field’s symbolic allegiance to psychology means that these candidates often do not see themselves reflected in its professional self-image. 

This creates a talent bottleneck. Researchers who are most methodologically aligned with qualitative practice are systematically discouraged by the field’s self-description. What’s missing is not competence, but a discursive bridge between disciplinary training and professional identity.

Moving Towards Pluralism

Qualitative market research is at a turning point. As generative AI reshapes the research landscape, the field is being challenged to rethink its foundations. The signifier of psychology, which once offered legitimacy, now risks becoming a bottleneck.

Reclaiming sociology means recovering a toolkit that enables researchers to ask new kinds of questions, interpret data on multiple levels, and build stronger connections with the next generation of sociologists.

Anthropology offers a further, equally vital resource. Especially in its interpretive strands, it brings a distinctive sensitivity to cultural objects and material practices. Although not discussed in this series of articles, an anthropological approach could also greatly expand the analytical capabilities of qualitative market research.

The future of qualitative market research lies in recognizing and actively cultivating its methodological and theoretical diversity. This plurality should replace the shadow of psychological over-coding and be acknowledged as a strength. The goal is not to dismiss psychology, but to move beyond a self-imposed monoculture towards an interdisciplinary dialogue that better captures the complexity of human meaning-making and behavior. The legitimacy of qualitative market research derives not from its alignment with a single discipline but from its ability to integrate multiple perspectives in a transparent and methodologically reflective way, grounded in real-world market contexts.

[i] Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (S. E., Vols. 4–5). London: Hogarth.

[ii] Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (2020). Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie: eine Kartierung. In Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18234-2_1

[iii] DGS. (2023). Bericht des Ausschusses „Evaluation der Methodenlehre“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie (DGS). In dgs-methoden.de. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie. Retrieved June 2, 2025, from https://www.dgs-methoden.de/fileadmin/content/dokumente/2023/BerichtEvaluationMethodenlehreDGS.pdf