Exploring Kiva: An understanding on postmodern consumers and

Exploring Kiva: An understanding on

postmodern consumers and relationship concepts

Master Thesis

MA Corporate Communication

Århus School of Business, Århus University

June 2012

Author: Supervisor:

Anda Iulia Ionescu Anne Ellerup Nielsen

Exam Number / Student Number:

401926/AI89665

No. of characters (no spaces):

123,573

Anda Iulia Ionescu, 401926

Master Thesis - Master of Arts in Corporate Communication 2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to shed light on today‟s world of consumption,

increasingly characterized by communality and socialization, by means of Kiva, pioneering non-

profit and digital micro-lending organization. In this respect, the paper aims to investigate how

Kiva members make sense of relationship concepts in consumption, as proposed by

postmodernism.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The research at hand is guided by the social constructivist

meta-theoretical paradigm and takes an interpretive approach; by developing a qualitative

analytical method inspired from critical discourses analysis, the undertaken research employs a

three-phase analysis on texts produced by Kiva members on Kivafriends.org, aiming to grasp the

meanings they attribute to relationships, and ultimately understand Kiva and the way it facilitates

relationships for and with consumers, in a postmodern context.

Findings: The findings point towards eight main discourses - affiliation/connectivity;

competitiveness; self-identification; (group) responsibility; peer recognition; sharing;

involvement; solidarity – which Kiva members draw on in conceptualizing relationships, both

with peers and with Kiva. In the light of postmodernism and consumer culture, findings are to be

interpreted, finally illustrating how Kiva members constitute an online brand community, regard

Kiva as a relationship partner, and show interest in engaging in co-creation practices.

Value: The research provides value by contributing in understanding postmodernism in its

interest for communality instead of individualism, and providing a practical insight into central

relationship constructs, with the exemplary case of Kiva. Additionally, the study is valuable for

organizations interested in making use of relationship concepts to address postmodern consumers

appropriately, in terms of their need for a sense of connectivity and affiliation. Finally, the study

at hand may become premise for further research towards the consolidation of relationship

theory in a consumer perspective.

Keywords: Postmodernism, Consumer culture, Communal consumption, Relationships,

Consumer centricity



Table of contents

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 5

1.LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................ 11

1.1.Postmodernism and consumer culture........................................................................ 14

1.2.The relationship concept............................................................................................. 20

1.2.1.Brand-consumer relationships........................................................................... 20

1.2.2.Communal consumption: an alternative understanding on relationships.......... 23

Brand communities............................................................................................ 24

Tribes................................................................................................................. 26

Tribes vs. Brand communities........................................................................... 28

1.2.3.Co-creation....................................................................................................... 30

1.2.4.The online environment and social media: catalyzing relationships................ 32

2.METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 35

2.1.Research philosophy and approach............................................................................ 35

2.2.Research strategy and method.................................................................................... 37

2.2.1.Data collection................................................................................................. 39

2.2.2.Data analysis.................................................................................................... 40

2.2.3.Delimitations.................................................................................................... 43

3.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS......................................................................................... 45

3.1.Kiva Friends............................................................................................................... 45

3.2.Description phase....................................................................................................... 46

3.3.Interpretation phase.................................................................................................... 51

3.4.Explanation phase...................................................................................................... 55

3.5.Summary of findings.................................................................................................. 56

4.DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 58

4.1.Implications............................................................................................................... 58

4.2.Limitations................................................................................................................. 61

4.3.Other research directions.......................................................................................... 62



CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................... 72



INTRODUCTION

As citizens of the 21st century and inhabitants of the postmodern world, understanding the

environment we live in should be of interest for all, whether individuals, consumers, managers,

or any other actors of society. Postmodernism, which contemporary times are identified with

(Firat and Venkatesh, 1995, Cova and Cova, 2002), is widely recognized as a period of

individualism, instability, alienation and paradoxes (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995, Arnould and

Thompson, 2005). Interestingly, at the same time, signs of connectivity and an increasing need

for affiliation and socialization are depicted in contemporary society, despite the individualism

that frames it (Lipovetsky, 2005); in fact, Fournier and Lee (2009: 105) argue for this instance

and highlight that “in today‟s turbulent world, people are hungry for a sense of connection”.

Therefore, in a consumption and marketing context, the importance of these two main

postmodern positions has led to a need for a better understanding of consumers‟ desires and

pursuits, and the culture they manifest in.

Postmodern consumers seek not only individualistic but also communal experiences (Cova and

Pace, 2006 ap. Simmons, 2008). Literature discloses the tension in the postmodern consumption

world between individualistic desires and new, social forms of consumption, based on

relationship building (Simmons, 2008). Simmons (2008: 301) explicitly describes these

developments, in a nutshell: “There is a growing counter-argument within the literature which

posits that postmodernity is a period which will encourage a move away from individualism

towards a search for more social bonds due to alienation – introducing the concept of neo-tribes,

networks of people gathering homogeneously together for social interaction, often around

consumption and brands” (Maffesoli, 1996; Cova, 1997; Kozinets, 2001, 2002; Thompson and

Troester, 2002; Dholakia et al., 2004; Johnson and Ambrose, 2006; Cova and Pace, 2006; Cova

et al., 2007 ap. Simmons, 2008: 301).

Further on, relationships, in their variety of forms, are increasingly recognized as prominent in

postmodern consumer markets (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006, Fournier, 2008). The



“fashionability” of the relational approaches in both marketing and consumer research is derived

from their potential to provide better answers to several contemporary marketing questions,

respectively from “the intuitive appeal of the relationship concept to us as human beings”

(Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10), thus pointing towards a more consumer oriented

understanding of the relationship issue.

Directing the attention towards consumers and taking into account their perspective is also a

result of the new, empowered status consumers behold nowadays. With the rise of Internet

comes the dissolution of geographical borders in terms of information diffusion, enabling

consumers to get informed independently of organizations, to express themselves and enter in

dialog with peers and organizations; thus, they become more active than ever before, and

increasingly worthy of attention (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).

Consequently, the postmodern condition comes to challenge organizations and marketers, who

must understand consumers differently and address them accordingly; along with seeing

consumers in their fragmented lives, should come the awareness of their need for connectivity, as

well as their interest and power in influencing businesses.

One player in the postmodern field is KIVA, a non-profit and digital micro-lending organization,

“one of the pioneers in the provision of microfinance” (Gajjala et al., 2011: 884). Founded in

2005, in California, the organization aims to “empower people around the world with a $25

loan” (http://www.kiva.org/) and “connect people through lending for the sake of alleviating

poverty” (http://www.kiva.org/about). Basically, Kiva provides an online fundraising platform

on kiva.org, which functions as a “person-to-person micro-lending website” (Gajjala et al.,

2011: 884), where individuals choose one or more entrepreneurs in the developing world whom

they provide a loan to, so as to enable them to lift out of poverty. The lending process may be

summarized as follows, together with an identification of the main actors involved: lenders select

an entrepreneur or a business (borrowers) according to their profile description on kiva.org, to

whom they provide a loan of “as little as $25” on the Web, through Kiva

(http://www.kiva.org/about); at the same time, a number of local financial institutions (MFIs

acting as field partners), providing non-profit microfinance services, constantly discover

entrepreneurs that need help with starting a business so as to make a living, and build their

http://www.kiva.org/

http://www.kiva.org/about

http://www.kiva.org/about



profiles on Kiva.org, for lenders to browse and make a decision regarding who they whish to

help; in addition, several volunteers (Kiva fellows) are out in the field, with the task of

supervising, keeping track of the borrowers, and reporting back to the field partners, Kiva

lenders and the general public. Finally, the loan is to be repaid, and lenders may choose to re-

invest in another business or an entrepreneur in need.

“Through Kiva, not only people lend money to help those in need, but they also have the

opportunity to connect and potentially to build relationships” (Gajjala et al., 2011: 884). All parts

involved in a Kiva lending process - that is Kiva members (lenders and supporters), borrowers

(local entrepreneurs), Kiva fellows (volunteers), Kiva field partners (MFIs) – become members

of the Kiva digital community. In this sense, lenders may gather around the same borrowers and

establish teams to help those in need, uniting their power for common sake. Also, “the „Kiva

community‟ [...] includes various categories by which teams of lenders are organized” (Gajjala et

al., 2011: 884-885) such as ones built around the same political views („Team Obama‟), religious

views („Kiva Christians‟), nationality („Australia‟), or life-style choices („GLBT‟)

(http://www.kiva.org/community). Lenders have also built their own Kiva forum

(http://www.kivafriends.org/) to interact with each other. In addition, lenders and all general

public may interact with Kiva fellows, particularly by means of the Kiva fellow blog

(http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/), and keep track of what is happening in the field. Last but not least,

Kiva encourages interaction and facilitates connectivity by means of a blog that provides up-to-

date information about developments and events (http://kivanews.blogspot.com/) and on the

Kiva Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/kiva), where people may comment, like/dislike,

or launch different topics.

At this point, considering the aforementioned, “it goes without saying that Kiva fosters

networking” (Gajjala et al., 2011: 886) and facilitates relationship building. Thus, Kiva is not

only an example to look at for its interesting genre as a hybrid organization, that combines

philanthropy with business (O‟Brien, 2008) in a unique way, for succeeding to empower

individuals, for being born digital, global and sustainable at the same time, in a world where

NGOs are proliferating and ethical concerns are on the rise (Newholm and Shaw, 2007) – but

also for the way it activates individuals to build communities and the way it facilitates peer

http://www.kiva.org/community

http://www.kivafriends.org/

http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/

http://kivanews.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/kiva



relations. In such reasoning, Kiva proves to be a powerful example, and a great choice for

investigating relationship constructs in postmodern society.

Therefore, the research at hand is essentially motivated by the importance of understanding

contemporary consumption, postmodern consumers and their interest in communal affiliation

and relationship building, along with the relevance of a practical insight on these matters,

provided with the aid of an efficient postmodern organization such as Kiva. As such, the

proposed research is positioned within the frame of postmodernism and centres on the

relationship concept, taking a consumer perspective that, as argued before, is much needed in

today‟s marketing studies. All these have determined the undertaken research to address the

following problem: In today‟s world of consumption, increasingly regarded in terms of

connectivity, how is Kiva, as an efficient postmodern organization, seen from a consumer

perspective?

This problem statement calls for the following research question and sub-question to be

answered:

How do consumers understand Kiva in terms of the relationship construct that prevails in

postmodern consumption?

- What meanings do Kiva members (lenders and supporters) attribute to the

relationship concept and how are these constructed?

The overall aim of the problem and thus, of investigating how consumers make sense of the

relationship concept with respect to Kiva, is to provide a better understanding on today‟s world

of consumption and on the environment contemporary organizations must perform in.

Ultimately, an insight into such an issue serves as important knowledge for any postmodern

organization, in its trial to become efficient by addressing consumers‟ interest for socialization

and by understanding consumer culture.

The set out research problem is thus more of a practical nature, i.e. related to a specific

organization, and not purely theoretical or philosophical (Olsen and Pedersen, 2005). The

undertaken research aims to develop on the two research questions so as to guide the paper in a

direction that would finally address the overall problem. In this sense, the research starts out by



providing relevant theoretical background that would contextualize the problem and frame the

postmodern context in which Kiva performs; what follows allows for a more practical use, and

aims to investigate what meanings do Kiva lenders and supporters hold for relationships.

In this light, the purpose of the proposed research can be classified as exploratory (Saunders et

al., 2003), in the sense that it is aimed at seeking “new insights” into postmodernism, consumers,

and relationships, and gaining understanding of such phenomena (ibid: 96). This frames the

research process as flexible and adaptable – the researcher is an „explorer‟, while the research

process is a „journey‟ (ibid: 97), both being influenced by and open to all insights and adventures

encountered during the process, where interests might seem “broad and scattered” (V.S. Naipaul,

1989: 222 ap. Saunders et al., 2003: 97) in the beginning, but become increasingly focused

towards the end.

Finally, the structure of the paper is outlined in the following. The starting point is the

introduction at hand, which aimed to account for the motivation and the importance of carrying

out the present research, to establish the problem statement and subsequent research questions to

address, as well as to indicate the overall purpose of the study and the direction it is to take.

Further on, the first chapter presents a literature review that contextualizes the set out problem

and is relevant in conceptualizing Kiva as a postmodern organization: it gathers theories on

postmodernism and consumer culture, as well as on forms of relationships, communal

consumption and the influence of the online environment. Methodology is the subject of the

second chapter, which aims to present and argue for how the set out research is carried out;

research choices are to be discussed in this part, such as the meta-theoretical paradigm that

guides the research, the approach taken, the methods employed for collecting and analyzing the

data, as well as the delimitations to be aware of in the set out research process. The third chapter

corresponds to the empirical study and thus directs the attention towards Kiva, aiming to

investigate how Kiva members make sense of the relationship concept and what are the

meanings they attach to it. Chapter four initiates a discussion on the main findings of the

research in relation to existent theoretical work, and reflects on the wider implications of the

study, the limitations encountered during the research process, as well on other possible research

directions that could have potentially been developed. Lastly, the paper at hand is completed



with an overall conclusion on all that has been achieved, summarizing what can be learned from

the research in the light of the set out problem.



1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The starting point of the research at hand is a literature review that synthesizes some of the main

concepts inspired by postmodernism and consumer culture, towards a better understanding on

today‟s world of consumption and on the environment that postmodern organizations have to

perform in. This supports the paper‟s proposed problem statement, that of investigating how

Kiva fits in the postmodern consumption context and what are the principles that an efficient

postmodern organization makes use of, as seen with the eyes of consumers. Hence, for the

purpose of the paper at hand, the present section is organized in a way that helps answering the

problem statement, by designing the theoretical perspective used for conceptualizing Kiva as a

postmodern organization and framing a consumption context in which Kiva fits. Then, the

theoretical conceptualizations are to stand as an argument for empirical reflections on how

consumers see Kiva in terms of their postmodern expectations and pursuits.

The corpus of theories that shapes the literature review, and thus the background of the

undertaken research, has been chosen in the light of the set out purpose of the study, that of

investigating postmodernism, consumers relationships, and ultimately aiming to frame the

context in which an organization such as Kiva is functioning. Firstly, theories on postmodernism

and consumer culture have been gathered, to set the ground for understanding the contemporary

world of consumption. In this respect, Firat and Venkantesh (1995) paint a comprehensive

picture of postmodernism, while Lipovetsky (2005, 2009) takes on a similar view, but recognizes

postmodern consumers‟ orientation towards emotionality, moral values and ethical concerns, in a

„hyperconsumer society‟; the works of Holt (2002) and Arnould and Thompson (2005, 2011) are

then chosen, since they define and characterize consumer culture, building on postmodern

themes, while recognizing relationships, forms of communal consumption, and the need for

connectivity as main concepts that prevail in contemporary consumption, against the

individualism that has been set out to define postmodern individuals (Firat and Venkantesh,

1995). Secondly, works of several scholars who concentrate on relationships in their variety of

forms are chosen. In this sense, works of Susan Fournier, who has repeatedly shown interest in

investigating relationships - Fournier, 1998, Fournier and Avery, 2011, Fournier and Lee, 2009 –



are utilized, especially with a focus on brand-consumer relationships; Patterson and O‟Malley

(2006) come to discuss the same concept, but complement it with an alternative view on

relationships, i.e. brand communities; Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) are further chosen on the basis

of their exploration of the brand community concept; following is the work of Cova and Cova

(2002) and Cova et al. (2007), who dedicated a consistent collection of work on tribes, as an

alternative form of relationship building and communal consumption; last but not least, Prahalad

and Ramaswamy (2004) and Prahalad et al. (2000) have an important contribution in establishing

co-creation as an upgrade of relationship practices, whilst arguing for the central role consumers

have in postmodern society. Altogether, the chosen bodies of literature aim to grasp into how the

aforementioned concepts, all rooted in postmodern consumer culture, are intertwined, how they

evolved, and what is their place within the wider context of postmodernity, thus constituting as

the basis of the theoretical discussion.

One additional aspect is to be mentioned, relevant for the purpose of the paper and commonly

traced in the works of the proposed scholars - the importance of a consumer perspective on

matters is mainly advocated, whether the scholars stream from marketing and sociology, in

general, or anthropology, most particularly when discussing communities and tribes. For this

reason, the works of other scholars such as Egan (2004) or Barnes (2003), for instance, who have

dedicated extensive work to relationship marketing approaches, have been left out - they focus

on a strategic perspective on relationship building and account for how organizations may foster

relationships with consumers, taking an isolated view of the two relationship partners.

Further on, a guiding model is proposed and illustrated below, towards orienting the reader

throughout the literature review and introducing him/her to the main theoretical concepts to be

presented along this chapter, together with some of their underlying relations and reflections; the

structural model functions as an overview on the chosen theoretical contributions and as the

underlying structural logic of this section.



Based on the aforementioned theories, the model indicates that the first sub-chapter of the

literature review section is dedicated to postmodernism and consumer culture, which, amongst

others, recognizes the increasing interest for relationships and its existence in various forms of

manifestation, or, alternatively put, the presence of brands-consumer relationships, brand

communities, tribes, co-creation practices, all organized for structural reasons under the general

construct of relationship. Thus, the second sub-chapter of the theoretical section deals with the

relationship concept. The sub-chapter is presented under a consumer perspective; however,

acknowledging that relationships may be discussed from the marketer‟s perspective is necessary,

and the two instances must be distinguished if addressed alternatively. The relationship chapter

debuts with brand-consumer relationships; then, taking into consideration the wider network of

consumers and the need to address them in their collectivity, brand communities are to be

discussed as a form of consumer-brand-consumer relationship; following are tribes, in the

argument of consumer-to-consumer relationships as being primary to brand involvement. In this



sense, the model illustrates how relationship forms may be classified according to the role of the

brand in the relationship. Further on, co-creation is introduced as a more comprehensive view on

relationships, encompassing consumers, brands, organizations, up to whole business networks. In

the end, the role Internet, as embedded in culture, has on the way relationships develop is briefly

acknowledged. Finally, the model aims to highlight that all concepts expanded upon throughout

this section are, in turn, not only defined and characterized separately, but also presented in

relation with some of the other concepts, regarded as embedded in culture and situated within the

postmodern frame.

1.1. Postmodernism and consumer culture

Postmodernism has emerged as a critique of modernism, and in the same time, as a new cultural

and philosophical movement (Borgmann, 1992, Vattimo, 1992 ap. Firat and Venkatesh, 1995).

According to this scenario, postmodernism is seen as an alternative to modernism and its

limitations (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995), such as not being able to regard reality in its complexity,

the human experience in its richness, or the individual/consumer beyond his limited position of a

merely cognitive agent. Such critique points out some of the major differences between

postmodernism and modernism, and constitutes the foundation for postmodernism‟s

characteristics and central themes, as it is to be seen in what follows.

Amongst the central themes of postmodernism, which also stand as conditions for postmodern

consumption, one of the most relevant is the reversal of production and consumption (Firat and

Venkatesh, 1995). Postmodernism is a culture of consumption, while modernism is a culture of

production, regarding consumption only as secondary, for “pure use, devouring and destruction”

(Firat and Venkantesh, 1995: 246). Meanwhile production was considered the only valid source

of value, “a body of knowledge examining consumption as a sociocultural process” (ibid) began

to appear and the emergence and rise of consumer society became acknowledged throughout

specialized literature (McKendrick, Brewer and Plumb, 1982 ap. Firat and Venkatesh, 1995:

247), suggesting a society increasingly organized around consumption and symbolic value rather

than production. This does not assume that production is ignored, but that the focus on

consumption resulted from the need to discuss both processes simultaneously, dismissing the

modern separation between them (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 258). Further on, Lipovetsky



(2005, 2009) argues that the consumer society has currently entered a new phase which he labels

„hyperconsumer society‟, characterized by a consumption craze, highly individualized consumer

habits leading to personalized consumption, an increasing obsession to consume, the

proliferation of brands and the rise of their power, together with the high demand of aesthetic,

story-telling and lifestyle-enhancing brands. In this respect, the hyperconsumer society praises

the immaterial, the imaginary and the symbolic more than the material, the palpable.

“As the consumption sector turns more and more toward the consumption of images, the society

at large becomes more and more a society of spectacle.” (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 250) The

concept of society as spectacle is developed with the aid of hyperreality (Baudrillard, 1983: 147,

ap. Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 251), another central theme of the postmodernist contemporary

society, which assumes that one can always propose a better version of what is commonly

regarded as reality - therefore, reality is symbolic and can be constructed, blurring the distinction

between real and non-real. Firat and Venkatesh (1995: 245) propose hyperreality as “a more

plausible version of reality”, treating “the human subject not as a centered, unified subject, but as

decentered and fragmented” (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 245).

Thus, both fragmentation and the decentering of subject also constitute as characteristics of

postmodernism. Lipovetsky (2009: 2) signals the emergence of a new consumer profile -

“nomadic, volatile, unpredictable, fragmented”. Firat and Venkantesh (1995: 252) support the

same view, and account fragmentation for “multiple, disjointed consumption experiences”, for an

affirmed “divided self” of the consumer and a questioned “authentic self”. In this sense,

fragmentation stands to describe consumers‟ lack of commitment and instability with respect to

most of their experiences, as well as the concomitant existence of many potential selves.

Touching upon the idea of „self‟ and the eventual lack of commitment to one‟s authentic self,

questions of identity are much discussed in relation to the postmodern consumer: while Gould

and Lerman, 1998, Murray, 2002 (ap. Ahuvia, 2005) or Ekström and Brembeck (2004) argue

that a minimum of stable traits of personality and a sense of coherent identity are inherent to any

individual, Gergen (1995) challenges the premise that a coherent sense of identity is required for

the happiness and health of the individual, arguing how one may carry many potential selves, all

of them authentic, revealed in different social settings. Further on, the decentered subject as

postmodern feature questions modernism notions such as “self-knowing”, “cognitive” and



“independent” human subject, replacing them with “historically and culturally constructed”

human subject, with “language, not cognition, as the basis for subjectivity” (Firat and Venkatesh,

1995: 254). This is to be understood in that the postmodern individual becomes a product of the

culture and activities that he takes part in, and is constantly influenced and constructed through

communication, interaction and emotion, as opposed to being rational, unified and independent

of everyday practices.

All the aforementioned main themes reflect the idea that postmodernism as an alternative to

modernism and its limitations offers a „liberatory‟ potential on consumption (Firat and

Venkatesh, 1995: 239): fragmentation should not be seen negatively, since it allows for

liberation from the dominance of an absolute truth and permits the existence of several valid

„regimes of truth‟; the process of consumption is liberatory since it is no longer evaluated under

the logic of production and does not take place in the “capitalist market logic”(i.e. through

monetary exchange) anymore (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 150); and the idea that one can

consume objects, images, or symbols gains greater acceptance. Thus, “the consumer finds his/her

liberatory potential in subverting the market rather than being seduced by it.” (Firat and

Venkatesh, 1995: 251)

Nonetheless, postmodernism has also raised criticism. Habermas‟s critique (1981, ap. Firat and

Venkatesh, 1995: 244) relates to its “nihilistic posture [that is] more apparent than real”, resulted

from attacking the very foundations of modernism as, actually, postmodernism proposes a

sensible, aesthetic and human space, a qualitative, emotional and individualized consumer.

Lipovetsky (2009: 5) agrees with this instance, arguing that values are still important in

postmodern society, where individuals show interest for connectivity with peers or ethical

concerns, at is to be discussed later on in the present subchapter.

These thoughts on postmodernity are very much connected to the cultural meaning of

contemporary life and are further reflected in consumer culture (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 244).

The postmodern age - the age of spectacle and symbolism - thus proposes the “aestheticization”

and “spectacularization” of consumer culture, marking the postmodern phase of culture and

consumption, along with the triumph of consumption over production (Firat and Venkatesh,

1995: 250).



The concept of consumer culture refers to a collection of behaviors and attitudes associated with

the consumption process. It represents the dominant mode of consumption, the “ideological

infrastructure that undergirds what and how people consume and sets the ground rules for

marketers‟ branding activities” (Holt, 2002: 80). Kozinets (2001 ap. Arnould and Thompson,

2005: 869) conceptualizes consumer culture as “an interconnected system of commercially

produced images, texts and objects” used by groups “to make collective sense of their

environments and to orient their members‟ experiences and lives”. Consumer culture theory is

rooted in consumer research that has broadened its focus to investigate the previously neglected

social, cultural and experiential dimensions of consumption in specific contexts (Belk, 1987,

Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ap. Arnould and Thompson, 2005: 869). Its aim is to investigate

consumption within the wider historical context of sociocultural practices and the dynamic of

markets i.e. “how consumers consume (Holt, 1995) across a gamut of social spaces” (Arnould

and Thompson, 2005: 875).

The postmodern consumer culture certainly builds upon the main traits of postmodernism – in

conceptualizing this issue, Arnould and Thompson (2005, 2011 in Belk and Sherry, 2011) and

Holt (2002) support the emancipatory uses of consumption and the postmodern view of society

as seen by Firat and Venkatesh (1995), providing insights into how consumer culture reflects

these issues. In this sense, consumer culture theory, aligned with postmodern thoughts,

investigates consumer identity projects - such as fragmentation of self, identity makers, inner

contradictions; supports multiple and virtual realities as the nucleus around which consumers

construct their lives and sees consumption as means to experience these realities; and views

consumers as active, interpretative agents rather than passive (Arnould and Thompson, 2005).

At the same time, building on the postmodern tradition and on issues depicted in consumer

culture, Holt (2002) and Arnould and Thompson (2005, 2011 in Belk and Sherry, 2011) signal

the existence of several concepts that have been all given a place in consumer culture theory

(Holt, 2002). They are to be discussed in the following and remaining part of this chapter, in

order to understand how they intertwine in describing postmodern consumer culture.

The connectivity dimension of consumer culture is brought forward by Arnould and Thompson

(2005), both at macro (globally) and micro (amongst individual consumers) levels. In this sense,



consumer culture “describes a densely woven network of global connections and extensions

through which local cultures are increasingly interpenetrated by the forces of transnational

capital and the global mediascape” (Appadurai, 1990, Slater, 1997, Wilk, 1995 ap. Arnould and

Thompson, 2005: 869), but also embraces a socialization component that may be illustrated at

the level of the individual consumers and the connections they create with each other during the

process of construction and negotiation of consumption meanings, carried out in “diverse social

situations, roles and relationships” (Arnould and Thompson, 2005: 869). The same authors

further argue that consumers are in this way culture producers, who construct their worlds in the

pursue of common consumption interests, while the marketplace stands as a mediator of social

relationships and linkages. This idea is based on the concept of neotribalism (Maffesoli, 1996

ap. Arnould and Thompson, 2005: 873). Consumer culture research has shown that “the tribal

aspects of consumption are quite pervasive” and are built on the premise that the potentially

alienating condition of the postmodern individualism determines consumers to participate in

solidarity rituals and to forge collective identifications (ibid: 873-874). The relationship concept

is further mentioned to have a place in the postmodern stand of consumption dominating

production, where consumption is not an end in itself anymore, but a significant moment, a

social act, where symbolic meanings and relationships are produced (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995:

251). In this act, “postmodernism considers both symbolic production and consumption to be

major areas of community participation” (ibid: 243).

Therefore, concepts such as relationships, socialization, tribalization and communal consumption

are developments that postmodernism and consumer culture mention (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995,

Holt, 2002, Arnould and Thompson, 2005, Arnould and Thomspson, 2011 in Belk and Sherry,

2011). Another aspect further mentioned in this context is the proliferation of identity-brands

(Arnould and Thompson, 2005); and in this fashion, in describing postmodern consumer culture,

Holt (2002: 70) signals the pursuit of personal sovereignty through brands, presenting brands as

central elements in the lives of consumers who increasingly view consumption as a way to

autonomously pursue identities, but also as means for individuals to experience the social world.

The author acknowledges: “Even sovereign identities require the interpretative support of others

to give them ballast. Thus, consumers now form communities around brands, a distinctively

postmodern mode of sociality in which consumers claim to be doing their own thing while doing



it with thousands of like-minded others” (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001, Schouten and

McAlexander, 1995 ap. Holt, 2002: 83). In this sense, brands are being introduced as a central

part of this social world described by connectivity and the need for communalization, while it

appears that postmodernism attempts to blur the borders between individualism and

socialization/community in consumption. Furthermore, studies on brand communities and

studies on relationships that occur both between consumers and between consumers and brands,

are now utilized to investigate issues of co-creation, “in which brand communities become

moderating or mediating elements” between consumers and organizations, “rather than

theoretical end in themselves” (Arnould and Thompson, 2011: 8 in Belk and Sherry, 2011).

In describing additional concepts essential to postmodern consumption and to the

„hyperconsumer society‟, as Lipovetsky (2005, 2009) envisions consumption, the author reveals

emotion as primary motivator for the postmodern consumer who is less driven by social

recognition than by the pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, as well as the rising influence of the

online environment and new electronic technologies. Further on, in Lipovetsky‟s work,

hyperconsumer society should not be seen as driven primarily by individualistic acts, as it is

nonetheless a society “accompanied by a strengthening of our shared canon of humanist and

democratic values”: “ethical commitments are on the increase, even with regard to consumption”,

“non-profit organizations and volunteer workers are also proliferating”. Solidarity displays and

values such as friendship, love and justice are still preserved in a society where “not everything

has been colonized by exchange values and market consumerism” (2009: 5).

All in all, postmodern consumer culture is shown to depict an interest in connectivity and

communal consumption, an inclination towards building relationships in various forms, with or

without the contribution of brands, as well as the increasing influence of Internet on consumers‟

practices around the world. In addition, humanistic and solidarity behaviors, together with ethical

concerns, are shown to be reflected in the way individuals shape their consumption experiences.

In this framing, the following chapter of the paper at hand aims to detail such issues that seem to

dominate contemporary consumption.



1.2.The relationship concept

The postmodern focus in both consumer and marketing research is on the „relationship‟ idea. The

increasing use of the relationship concept (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006, Fournier, 1998) in

various forms and “in all manner of situations” (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10) is signaled,

along with the increasing popularity of relationships in marketing/branding literature and the

infiltration of the relationship concept in consumer research (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006).

On this argument, the present chapter is built around the concept of relationship, which is to be

discussed mainly from a consumer perspective, and conceptualized as it traced in marketing,

sociological or anthropological perspectives on consumers; adjacently, main implications that the

concepts presented hold for organizations and their marketing strategies are to be outlined, for an

alternative perspective. Therefore, brand-consumer relationships, brand communities and tribes

as forms of communal consumption, co-creation, the increasing influence that internet as

embedded in postmodern consumer culture has on the way relationships are conceptualized, as

well as the connections between all of these, are issues to be discussed along the present chapter,

towards understanding the various meanings the relationship concept gathers around it in

postmodern society.

1.2.1. Brand-consumer relationships

In the last decade, “a number of calls” for discussing the relationship between brand and

consumer, and introducing such a perspective within branding literature have been signaled

(Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10). The brand-consumer relationship idea is mainly based on

the concept of anthropomorphisation, i.e. when “human qualities and personalities are projected

on to brands” (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10). Whether and how the anthropomorphizing

property of brands is able to legitimize brands as relationship partners; what is the premise for

strong relationships between consumers and brands; and what other implications arise when

discussing brand-consumer relationships, are issues brought forward throughout the present

subchapter.



One way of understanding the anthropomorphizing property of brands is to regard it as an

extension of the brand personality idea (Blackston, 1992a ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 12):

in this way, as they have personalities, brands may be perceived as people and thus take part in

relationships. However, Fournier (1998) takes the view that in order for a brand to stand as a

legitimate relationship partner, the brand must be able to react and actively contribute to the

relationship, while the brand-consumer relation should be characterized by interdependence.

Thus, Fournier (1998: 345) both proposes anthropomorphisation (i.e. the brand is embedded with

personality qualities and is associated with human characters) and invokes theories of animism

(e.g. the brand is completely anthropomorphized as it receives “the human qualities of

emotionality, thought and volition”), arguing that the simple personification of the brand is

insufficient for it to be considered a reciprocal relationship partner. Fournier further explains

that, in this way, brands are embedded with life; and this is actually the task of the manager

behind the brand, who may perform this activity under the tag of interactive marketing or any

marketing actions/decisions that can ultimately stand as behaviors on behalf of the brand.

In addition, on the premise that brands constitute as legitimate partners for relationship, Fournier

(1998) proposes a relationship-based framework, to study the interactions between consumers

and brands. This framework is built on the view that consumer-brand relationships should be

”treated as if they were interpersonal relationships” (ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 12). In

this sense, Fournier highlights similarities between interpersonal relationships and brand-

consumer relationships and identifies a typology of consumer-brand relationships (1998: 362)

build around six main dimensions indicating their strength (1998: 364-365): love and passion, “a

rich affective grounding”; self connection, “the degree to which the brand delivers on important

identity concerns, tasks or themes”; interdependence, the frequency and intensity of “brand

interactions”; commitment, “the intention to behave in a manner supportive of relationship

longevity”; intimacy, ”elaborate knowledge structures” developed around brands; brand partner

quality, “the consumer's evaluation of the brand's performance in its partnership role”. In an

attempt to expand on the “landscape of brand relationships”, Fournier and Avery (2011: 67) later

on map 18 relationship types, reinforcing the diversity of brand-consumer relationships. There is

no need to detail these relationship types for the purpose of the paper at hand, but solely to show

awareness of these developments, while focusing on the broader discussion of a legitimate



relational perspective on brands and consumers, and the use of the interpersonal relationship

metaphor, described above.

Fournier (1998) argues for the use of the interpersonal relationship metaphor in discussing

brand-consumer relationships: firstly, because it offers an alternative to the brand-consumer

perspective of isolated exchanges, and secondly, because it allows for building on the positive

aspects of interpersonal relationships, when characterizing brand-consumer relationships in a

holistic framework of relationship types (ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006). Barnes (2003)

agrees with Fournier (1998) in that consumers do establish relationships with brands, and these

are comparable to interpersonal relationships; whether some are more meaningful, distant, or

intimate than others, relationships are emotive, and their meaningfulness belongs to the mind of

the consumer, similarly to the constructs of interpersonal relationships (Barnes, 2003: 179).

Nevertheless, Patterson and O‟Malley (2006) draw attention on the pitfalls of seeing the

relationship with brands as interpersonal. Even though the need for a relationship perspective is

recognized throughout literature (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006), and one of the attempts to

demonstrate “utility of the consumer-brand relationship idea as a whole” has been discussed

above (Fournier, 1998: 344), there are some commentators of this approach (Hibbard and

Iacobucci, 1999, O‟Malley and Tynan, 1999 ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10) who consider

some extensions of the relationship concept, such as the interpersonal relationship metaphor, to

be far fetched.

In this respect, Patterson and O‟Malley (2006) develop on the critique of brand-consumer

relationships and the use of the interpersonal relationship metaphor. They argue that the

anthropomorphisation of brands involves a “process of metaphoric transfer” (Patterson and

O‟Malley, 2006: 11) which assumes borrowing concepts from a “source domain” (in this case

the interpersonal relationships) and applying it to a “target domain” (brand-consumer

interaction). Though it results in valuable knowledge, this inter-domain transfer of concepts

assumes that some of the meanings are either lost or are prevailed during the process (ibid). For

instance, the extent to which Blackston (1992a, 1992b, 1993 ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006:

14) extends the interpersonal relationship metaphor upon brands employs equivalence between

brand personality and human personality, which is a disputable issue. The metaphor is too



powerful, and brand-consumer relationships are treated as they were indeed interpersonal

relationships (Bengtsson, 2003 ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 14). Consequently, given the

“obvious differences between social relationships and consumer-brand relationships, it is

important for researchers to not overextend the relationship metaphor” (Aggarwal, 2004: 89 ap.

Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 14). Though a supporter of animism and anthropomorphisation,

Fournier (1998: 345) agrees that, after all, brands are still inanimate objects and not living

entities, and their existence is not objective - rather they exist in the minds of the consumers as a

set of perceptions of the brand management activities.

Moreover, building on the critique of the brand-consumer relationship approach, Patterson and

O‟Malley (2006: 15) elaborate on the idea that “the meanings of brands are works in progress,

constantly acted upon by the brand‟s various publics”. Specifically, they argue that meaning is

shared and constructed amongst consumers, and, consequently, insights in networking are of

increasing importance in today‟s consumer society, whereas individual dyads constitute a limited

unit of research: as such, “the move from dyad to network signaled a maturing of the emerging

relationship literature (Ford, 1990 ap. Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 15). Therefore, while

brand-consumer relationships provide useful insights, Patterson and O‟Malley (2006: 15) suggest

that focusing on them detracts from the wider frame of relationships and from the importance of

considering forms of communal consumption when discussing the relationship concept, a view

that constitutes as the focus of the following subchapter. In addition, as an alternative to brand-

consumer relationships and “stretching the interpersonal relationship metaphor too far”

(Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 10), the authors suggest another perspective on the role of brands

in consumers‟ lives: a brand community perspective, “that acknowledges the network of

connections between a brand‟s various publics” (ibid). Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) agree that

such a perspective could be an essential step in actualizing relationships as a concept in

consumption and marketing literature. This is to be discussed in the following subchapter, in the

context of communal consumption and its manifestation forms.

1.2.2. Communal consumption: an alternative understanding on relationships

In the past years, consumption studies have begun to move their focus from individual

considerations to communal ones (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006, Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001).



Communal consumption acknowledges the importance of recognizing consumer networks when

discussing consumption and it is a concept that has been discussed under various labels, all

gathered around a community feeling (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006). For the purpose of the

paper at hand, two main labels are being distinguished: brand communities (Muniz and O‟Guinn,

2001, Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006, Cova and Cova, 2002) and tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002,

Cova et al., 2007). Both of these types of communities support the idea that people gather and

engage in relationships with other people, while brands have different roles in the way

relationships are constructed. More specifically, brand communities are concerned about

relationships between brand and consumers, while acknowledging and making use of the wider

network of consumers, whereas tribes are mainly concerned about relationships amongst

consumers, regarding consumer interaction and the social links as primary (Cova and Cova,

2002: 603). The present subchapter focuses on defining, characterizing, and contrasting brand

communities and tribes, so as to further contribute to the discussion of the relationship concept in

postmodern times. Finally, a brief discussion regarding the implications of such forms of

communal consumption on marketing is outlined.

Brand communities

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, brand communities may be perceived as a viable alternative

to the brand-consumer relationship idea, which is criticized, amongst other reasons, for

disregarding the interaction between consumers and a communal consumption perspective

(Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006).

This change of focus when discussing relationships, from dyad to network (Patterson and

O‟Malley, 2006: 15), is supported and reaffirmed in Belk‟s work (1998), who states:

“Relationships with objects are never two-way (person-thing), but always three-way (person-

thing-person)” (Belk, 1988: 147 quoted in Ahuvia, 2005: 180). Ahuvia (2005: 180) explains

what Belk specifically means, which is that “part of our desire for an object reflects a

competitive relationship with other people who may also want the object”. Consumption builds

upon the person-thing-person view, and, as such, it denotes social relationships built around a

brand whose meanings are negotiated and shared amongst consumers; and this view constitutes

as the core of brand community literature (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koening 2002; Muniz



and O‟Guinn 2001 ap. Ahuvia, 2005: 180-181). Similarly, Patterson and O‟Malley (2006: 15)

highlight that the essence of the brand community concept resides in “the linking value that

brands provide to individuals”, while Miller (1998: 46 quoted in Ahuvia, 2005: 181) clarifies that

relationships with brands are still definitely important, but they become more important since

“they express and mediate the relationship to other people”. Finally, all these examples “reaffirm

the fundamentally social nature of consumption and reiterate the importance of the trilateral

person-thing-person framing of consumer behavior”, while they stand as arguments for a brand

community perspective on relationships (Ahuvia, 2005: 181).

A brand community is defined as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on

a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand” (Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001: 412).

The definition proposed by Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) may be completed with the insight of

Bender (1978) on traditional communities, who ads that the social relations created within are

“marked by mutuality and emotional bonds” (Bender, 1978: 145 quoted in Muniz and O‟Guinn,

2001: 413).

The concept of community is situated in the time of the critique on modernism (Muniz and

O‟Guinn, 2001: 412) and exhibits three traditional characteristics: shared consciousness, “the

intrinsic connection that members feel toward one another”; a sense of moral responsibility, “a

felt sense of duty or obligation to the community as a whole, and to its individual members”; and

rituals and traditions, “that perpetuate the community‟s shared history, culture and

consciousness” (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001: 413). These “indicators of community” (ibid) are

reflected in brand communities, since the former build upon the traits of the traditional concept

of community.

What is particular for brand communities is that they are communities organized around a brand

that becomes the connecting pretext for consumers. Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001: 415) signal that

brand communities “may form around any brand”, but are in fact most probable to from “around

brands with a strong image, a rich and lengthy history, and threatening competition”.

Furthermore, members of brand communities manifest themselves in particular ways, while still

reflecting the characteristics common for any community. For instance, illustrating the existence

of rituals and traditions, one way of brand community manifestation refers to the stories that



consumers share about the brand and the effect this ritual has on the cohesion of the community.

In this sense, Muniz and O‟Guin (2001: 423) explain: “Storytelling is an important means of

creating and maintaining community. Stories based on common experiences with the brand serve

to invest the brand with meaning, and meaningfully link community member to community

member. [...] The telling of these stories has a ritualistic character about it, and certainly

represents a strong tradition within the brand communities”. Another example of brand

community behavior is the “assistance in the use of the brand”, or, in other words, “looking out

for and helping other members in their consumption of the brand” (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001:

425). Along with integrating and retaining members within the brand community, providing

assistance in the use of brand illustrates moral responsibility and constitutes as a reaction arose

out of a pure sense of responsibility to the group and to its members (ibid).

All in all, brand community may be regarded as “an essential form humans invariably employ in

their social existence” (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001: 426). This implies that consumers are in a

perpetual need of communal affiliation and are eager to foster a sense of connection in whatever

ways (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001, Fournier and Lee, 2009). In addition, “given the

consumption‟s undeniable centrality in contemporary culture”, to “ignore these communities of

commerce” is not an option, as Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001: 426) point out. In these terms, the

notion of brand communities is valuable and contributes to the overall understanding of

community, contemporary society, consumption and consumer culture (Muniz and O‟Guinn,

2001: 428).

Tribes

While discussing brand communities, Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) remind about the work of the

French sociologist Michel Maffesoli (1996) on neo-tribalism, which they consider relevant in

discussing individuals‟ need for communal affiliation in the context of postmodernity. Cova and

Cova (2002, 2007) explain and expand upon Maffesoli‟s work, arguing for and describing the

tribalisation of postmodern society.

Neo-tribalism is the ideology that advances the tribalisation of society, meaning it regards

individuals as organizing themselves into „tribes‟ and forming social networks; this is a result of

people feeling liberated from the modern social constraints, and thus “embarking on a reverse



moment to recompense their social universe”, in “a search for maintaining or (re)-creating the

social link” (Maffesoli, 1996a ap. Cova and Cova, 2002: 596). This is to be understood in that

Maffesoli (1996) proposes that the decline of modern institutions, culture and forms of authority

determine societies to reconsider their organizational principles; in a feeling of nostalgia and a

thirst for social linkage, they turn for inspiration towards those in the past (e.g. tribes as archaic

social arrangement), that have been rejected by modern society. In this sense, Maffesoli (1996,

ap. Cova and Cova, 2002: 596-597) predicted that the postmodern era would be the era of neo-

tribalism. Currently, individuals are seen to be pursuing “alternative social arrangements and

new communities” and “increasingly gathering together in multiple and ephemeral groups” such

as tribes (Goulding et al., 2001 ap. Cova and Cova, 2002: 596). Therefore, “attempts at social re-

composition” as those argued for above are also noticeable in a contemporary era that

postmodernists characterize by individualism and social dissolution (Cova and Cova, 2002: 596),

as elaborated upon in the first chapter of the paper at hand.

Tribalism becomes a characteristic of postmodern social dynamics and postmodern consumption

(Cova and Cova, 2007). Accordingly, the citizen of the „00s is “less interested in the objects of

consumption than in the social links and identities that come with them” (Cova and Cova, 2002:

595). This is referred to as the Latin view on society, built on the principle that “the link is more

important than the thing” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 595). It proposes concentrating on the linking

element, thus looking at the consumer-to-consumer interaction, and hypothesizes that from a

tribal perspective, consumption, through its linking value, supports social interaction of the tribe.

Consequently, The Latin School differs from and offers an alternative to the Northern

approaches in that it rejects their stand for segmentation, individualism and one-to-one

relationships, arguing that people gather in tribes and that in this new sense of social and

affective community resides the future of marketing (Cova and Cova, 2007).

The term „tribe‟, regarded as an outcome of postmodern reality, is borrowed from anthropology

and refers to the returning of archaic values, where “social order was maintained without the

existence of a central power” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 597). A postmodern tribe or neo-tribe “is

defined as a network of heterogeneous persons – in terms of age, sex, income, etc. – who are

linked by a shared passion or emotion; a tribe is capable of collective action, its members are not

simple consumers, they are also advocates” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 602). Similar to the tribes of



the archaic societies, they are mainly characterized by a local sense of identification, group

narcissism, religiosity, emotionality, and assume sharing common passions and experiencing

together. In addition, postmodern tribes are ephemeral; they constantly change, while each

individual may belong to multiple tribes and play different roles in these (ibid). Nevertheless, a

better understanding on tribes and on consumers in this perspective may be achieved by carrying

out a brief comparison with brand communities, since the two concepts may seem very similar,

yet they differ in some essential ways, as it is to be seen in the following.

Tribes vs. Brand communities

On the one hand, a tribe may be distinguished from the concept of community, which denotes a

group whose members share something in common “without implying the existence of non-

rational and rather archaic bonds” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 598). Nowadays, communities share

interests, which “have little to do with archaic values”, while tribes are seen as an emotional

construct, which assumes they “are more than just communities of interests” (Cova and Cova,

2002: 615).

On the other hand, tribes differ from brand communities, mainly since “brand communities are

explicitly commercial, whereas tribes are not” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 603). This means that

while brand communities gather around a brand, tribes may or may not accept a brand passed on

by companies/organizations that hope to make use of the tribal consumption benefits. Thus, one

important issue results, that of tribes being essentially concerned with consumer interaction,

while brand communities emphasize the role of the brand as partner in the relationships amongst

consumers. However, “when a tribe is organized around a same passion for a cult-object [...] it

exhibits many similarities with brand community” - e.g. Harley Davidson (ibid). Finally, brand

communities are seen as more stable and more committed then tribes, since the latter appear to

be social gatherings in a constant change, thus reflecting the identity shifting that characterizes

the postmodern consumer (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001: 414-415).



Forms of communal consumption such as brand communities and tribes, as they have been

discussed until this point in the present subchapter i.e. from a consumer perspective, have wider

implications for branding and marketing strategies. In a shift of focus from consumers to an

organizational perspective, it is worth mentioning that understanding these concepts provides

valuable knowledge for organizations seeking to approach consumers by means of relationship

building. For instance, engaging in tribal marketing assumes knowing which tribe to support,

how tribes function, and what advantages may such an approach to marketing bring (Cova and

Cova, 2007). Moreover, the success of tribal marketing is conditioned not only by supporting the

functioning of a tribe by means of products “that hold people together as a group of enthusiasts

or devotees (Cova and Cova, 2002: 603), but also by authentically getting involved as a marketer

“with members of the tribe in shared, high emotion and ritual experiences” (ibid: 613).

Nonetheless, whether they engage in tribal marketing or in building brand communities,

organizations should recognize they must partner with consumers rather than remain positioned

as “a pole of the relationship” (ibid: 604). It is this short-sighted view of the firm and the

consumer as the two distinct parts of the relationship that dethrones traditional marketing (i.e.

one-to-one marketing based on exchange) and relationship marketing (i.e. building profitable

relationships with consumers) in favor of tribal marketing and community building, since none

of the former facilitates “emotional bond of collective nature” (Cova and Cova, 2002: 604).

Changes in the way marketing is done also relate to the fact that businesses move to a

“consumer-centric view” as opposed to the traditional “product-centric view” (Prahalad et al.,

2000: 76), as a consequence of the development of brand communities and communal

consumption, the increasing influence of consumers on businesses, and the refinement of

consumers‟ demands. This means that businesses learn to change their structure as to embrace

relationship and networking principles, and must set a goal in regarding consumers in their

complexity and obtaining a “360-degree-view” of each, while also understanding them in their

collectivity, rather than individually (Prahalad et al., 2000: 74). A further step is that firms begin

to allow consumers to get involved in the process of value creation, while listening to their voice

and paying attention not only to their interaction with the firm but also on their interaction with

their peers – this signals what Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) refer to as co-creation practices,



a new perspective on relationships in postmodern era, that is to be discussed in the following

subchapter.

1.2.3. Co-creation

A postmodern consumer culture in which Internet and the opportunities it provides, or the desire

and power of consumers to network and create collective knowledge with other consumers are

prominent features, sets the frame for the new, empowered type of consumer who increasingly

becomes informed about companies and brands independently of their control. These are active

consumers, who not only speak out and engage in dialogues with companies, but may also

expect to participate in the development of products and services and become business

collaborators. Businesses must embrace such a scenario of consumer centricity, showing

awareness of the important role consumers have nowadays and aiming to understand the culture

they manifest in. It is these “informed, networked, empowered, and active consumers [that] are

increasingly co-creating value with the firm” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004: 5).

Co-creation assumes joint creation of value between consumers and organizations and

recognizing the need for consumer-community-company interaction; it describes an environment

characterized by continuous two-way and personalized dialogue, where meanings are shared

between consumers, firms and communities (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004: 11). However, it

should be distinguished that co-creation does not mean that consumers detain supremacy, nor

that organizations should resume simply at product or service customization, which gives

consumers the mere choice to choose from a predetermined range of standard options (ibid).

The challenge of co-creating resides particularly in succeeding to establish and maintain its

defining features: open dialog amongst all parts involved in co-creation, transparency and access

for consumers and organizations in all respects of the production/consumption process, as well as

risk assessment of the implications co-creation assumes (Prahald and Ramaswamy, 2004). This

is what Prahalad and Ramaswamy refer to as the four „building blocks‟ that define co-creation

(2004: 9).

Understanding co-creation from the consumer‟s perspective enables companies to better foster

co-creative practices (Nuttavuthisit, 2010). In learning why consumers co-create, there are two



main reasons to be remembered: consumers may co-create for „self‟, that is for their own

practical or psychological benefits, or for „others‟, which highlights the current importance of

collective consumption and community development (Nuttavuthisit, 2010: 317). Further on, two

main ways in which consumers engage in co-creation may be distinguished, according to the

type of interaction with the company. These are „participation‟, or voluntary cooperation of the

consumer and reaction to the various incentives designed by the company, and „creation‟, a

process developed at consumer level only, referring to the instances in which the consumer is

pro-active and becomes the initiator of the co-creation process (ibid).

Turning the attention towards consumers and their stand on co-creation, and more generally,

understanding their culture and their need for communalization, has determined firms to no

longer see the market as a “target” but an “ecosystem” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000: 68), in

other words a network of naturally interacting consumers. In a similar way, companies

themselves must be regarded as “part of an enhanced network – one that includes its suppliers

and partners, and its customers”, what Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000: 68) call the “consumer-

to-business-to-business relationship”, that comes to replace the classical business-to-business or

business-to-consumer perspective on relationships.

For co-creation to happen, an environment such as described above is prerequisite. Starting from

this a view, Hatch and Schultz (2010) further extend the idea of co-creation to the branding

domain, developing on what they refer to as „brand co-creation‟. Brand co-creation is build by

making use of the brand community and co-creation ideas (Hatch and Schultz, 2010).

Specifically, brand communities are regarded as contexts for co-creation: companies interested to

engage consumers in co-creation can make use of the brand community idea, in the view that

relationships between consumers influence the relation between the consumer and the company,

and, thus, they aid companies to set up dialogue with consumers. Moreover, Hatch and Schultz

(2010) take the view that all stakeholders are engaged in co-creation, thus the meaning of the

brand is co-created amongst the variety of stakeholders, as a result of the brand‟s multiple

interpretations. Consequently, brand co-creation assumes that brand value is “co-created through

network relationships and social interactions among the ecosystem of all stakeholders” (Hatch

and Schultz, 2010: 592).



All in all, as far as the concept of co-creation is concerned, it must be noted that both consumers

and managers need to adjust in the process. Co-creation assumes an intertwining of their worlds,

and it must start from understanding that dialog, transparency, mutual understanding, as well as

taking responsibility for the consequences of such a relationship, have critical importance for the

success of achieving mutual benefits, and constitute as the basis of “the next practice of value

creation” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004: 14).

1.2.4. The online environment and social media: catalyzing relationships

The Internet and social media as one of its essential developments are important aspects of

culture (Nuttavuthisit, 2010: 317). In an increasingly fragmented postmodern world, the Internet

“has emerged as the virtual glue” which individuals make use of to bond (Simmons, 2008: 305).

From a consumption perspective, Internet does not only offer consumers a platform to “develop

social ties”, but it becomes a marketing tool by means of which an increasing number of

companies attempt to engage with consumers (Alon and Brunel, 2007: 371). More specifically,

Internet and social media enable consumers to generate content and share it with peers, in the

“extended network of many-to-many relationships” (Nuttavuthisit, 2010: 317); by these means,

“postmodern consumers are finding a public forum in which they can express, define and

differentiate themselves to those that matter, through their consumption” (Hagel and Armstrong,

1997; Banks and Daus, 2002; Gruen et al., 2005 ap. Simmons, 2008: 304). As such, the Internet

allows consumers to communicate one with the other about brands and companies, while it also

facilitates communication between organizations and consumers (Mangold and Faulds, 2009).

Before going further, there is a need to briefly note how social media is defined and what its

main functions are. “Social media refers to activities, practices, and behaviors among

communities of people who gather online to share information, knowledge, and opinions using

conversational media. Conversational media are Web-based applications that make it possible to

create and easily transmit content in the form of words, pictures, videos and audio” (Safko and

Brake, 2009: 6). Social media may be classified in various ways and allows for many examples –

whether it is blogs, forums, networking sites (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn etc.) or many

others (Mangold and Faulds, 2009: 358), what they all have in common is that they “serve

valuable community functions” (Fournier and Lee, 2009: 109). In this sense, social media allows



for social interaction, relationship and community building, peer recognition and validation of

information; thus it takes advantage of all benefits provided by the Internet, while it highlights

„the social‟ aspect of communication (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009).

Internet and social media are thus seen as community enhancers. Taking this view, Simmons

(2008) notes how the online environment facilitates the creation of brand communities. Online

brand communities are increasingly popular – they are described as “a virtual platform, centred

around the brand, where like-minded (but individualistic!) postmodern consumers can discuss

their opinions on anything and everything” (Simmons, 2008: 305). Further on, Cova and Cova

(2002) signal how the tribal phenomenon is also amplified with the rise of Internet: “On the

Internet, virtual tribes structured around a shared passion are growing rapidly” (Rauch and

Thunqvist, 2000 ap. Cova and Cova, 2002: 615).

Community consumption and the development of Internet and social media altogether offer an

alternative perspective on consumers: “Online consumers are much more active, participative,

resistant, activist, loquacious, social and communitarian than they have previously been thought

to be” (Kozinets, 1999: 261 quoted in Cova and Cova, 2002: 615). Thus, Internet empowers

consumers, who increasingly become independent from the information provided by firms, since

they are able to seek the information they want and develop their own tools to aid them in

choosing who they want to engage with in a relationship (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).

Further on, consumers may easily “interact in a meaningful way with companies […] developing

a rapport which creates a relationship that allows these consumers to have a say in the online

creation of product and service experiences, which are tailored to their individualised needs”

(Simmons, 2008: 303). This mainly refers to online customization as one way of co-operating

with firms; however, this collaboration is even further encouraged with the help of Internet and

the opportunities it provides, enhancing co-creation. Hatch and Schultz (2010) explain that social

media has an important role in co-creation by enabling access for stakeholders and facilitating

transparency and dialogue for organizations, conditioned that it is used effectively.

To conclude, the present subchapter has highlighted how Internet and the tools it provides

support and facilitate the building of relationships, and how the concepts discussed throughout

the chapter, such as brand communities, tribes, or co-creation, may be leveled up in such a



context. Last but not least, it has been revealed how a culture of digitalization contributes in

shaping the new type of individual, empowered, in control of information, participative and

increasingly social.



2. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the unfolding chapter is to provide information on how the research at hand is

approached and carried out, and, in this sense, it may be regarded as “the natural history of the

research” (Silverman, 2010 quoted in Daymon and Holloway, 2011: 335).

In order to develop on the research questions and finally address the problem statement, as they

have been previously set out and argued for in the introductive section, the first objective in the

research process embedded a theoretical dimension: reviewing literature that comes to support

and contextualize the problem, thus drawing the main concepts in the postmodern world of

consumption, relevant for conceptualizing Kiva as a postmodern organization. The second

objective relates to a more practical dimension: analyzing and discussing relationships in

consumption as proposed by postmodernism, in the way they are understood by Kiva supporters

and lenders. Ultimately, attaining both of these research objectives would shed light on the

overall problem, which aims to provide a better understanding on the way postmodern

consumers engage with organizations that facilitate relationship building, in today‟s world of

consumption, increasingly characterized by communality and socialization.

2.1. Research philosophy and approach

The undertaken research aims to understand and gain deep insight into phenomena and the way

they occur - with particular focus on the consumer‟s point of view, thus implying that social

reality is to be understood from individuals‟ point of view. For this reason, the research takes an

interpretive stand, which prioritizes “understanding over scientific explanation” and “is

interested in both the unique and the individual” (Daymon and Holloway, 2011: 102).

Interpretivism proposes that the social world does not exist separately from the individual and,

thus, reality is subjective and open to change (ibid). An interpretive worldview is chosen over a

positivist one, since positivism builds upon the view that social reality is objective and singular,

the same as the material world (Daymon and Holloway, 2011). Therefore, it is a tradition

regarded as highly structured and strict in methodology, aiming to create generalizations and/or

„laws‟ from the carried out research and to promote unbiased interpretations about the collected



data (Saunders et al, 2003). This is where the interpretive view largely differs, as it argues that

reality is much more complex, and thus it cannot be simply categorized or become subject of

generalization; interpretivism fundamentally “aims to capture the rich complexity of social

situations” and focuses on particularities (Saunders et al, 2003: 84).

Furthermore, the choice of the interpretive tradition naturally supports and aids in understanding

social constructivism as the meta-theoretical paradigm (i.e. “a perspective or framework for how

to view the world, how to determine which questions are relevant, how to argue”, Olsen and

Pedersen, 2005:141) for the undertaken research. Social constructivism “follows from the

interpretivist position” (Saunders et al, 2003: 84) and suggests that reality is socially constructed:

meanings, interpretations, emotions are constructed in social interaction and are context bound,

thus, the researcher must aim at understanding the subjective reality of the research participants

and make sense of their actions and interactions in the way that is meaningful to them. In this

view, the social reality people live in is not a given, but is constructed by people through

communication, social interaction, and a shared history (Daymon and Holloway, 2002). The

research at hand has set out to deal with consumers‟ own understandings and perspectives, and

with emotions and relationships, notions difficult to be referred to as fixed realities, as they are

experienced differently amongst individuals. From this perspective, the social reality can be

argued to be subjective and constructed, and thus the social constructivism paradigm is

considered to most properly suit the purpose of the paper at hand.

Paradigmatic thinking influences further choices for the research process (Daymon and

Holloway, 2011). Though not always, but usually, researchers in the interpretive stance are

inclined to use an inductive approach as opposed to the deductive one, mostly associated with

positivism. Such associations reside in the common ground between interpretivism and

induction, both focusing on understanding and particularity, as well as between positivism and

deduction, that are rigorous, objective, and focused on explaining causal relationships (ibid). In

this reasoning, this research calls for an inductive approach, that concerns delving into the data

and developing theory as a result of the data analysis, rather than starting with a hypothesis based

on what is known about a certain domain and aiming to test it empirically (Bryman, 2008). Even

though the two approaches differentiate in respect to the relationship between empirical research

and theory, it is also possible that an inductive approach takes on some elements of a deductive



one; as such, an orientative corpus of theory may still be still developed at the commencement of

an inductive research - as it is the case of the research at hand - which suggests that, in practice,

research sometimes combines elements of both approaches (Saunders et al, 2003). Though this is

a debated upon issue, there is agreement in that making use of existing theoretical developments

so as to define the object of study and frame the research questions is of great utility,

disregarding the approach taken (Daymon and Holloway, 2011, Saunders et al., 2003, Phillips

and Hardy, 2002).

The above argues for and develops on the present research taking an interpretive stand, hence a

social constructivist meta-theoretical paradigm, and an inductive approach, to gather knowledge

in response to the problem statement. Further on, considerations on the research process are to be

made, including strategies and methods for data collection and data analysis.

2.2. Research strategy and method

In the following, a plan concerning how to go about in answering the research questions is

presented. This includes data collection and method for data analysis, as well as concerns

regarding the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of the chosen direction.

The purpose of the research at hand demands employing a qualitative method of research, as this

provides an in-depth view of a certain issue and is used to “understand and gain insight over the

apparent problem” (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002: 196). Qualitative research is concerned with

exploring, in-depth understanding, interpreting and answering the „what‟ and „how‟ questions

(Daymon and Holloway, 2002); in this light, issues like how is Kiva understood by consumers

and what meanings do consumers attribute to the relationship notion can only be addressed by

means of qualitative research. Therefore, the use of a qualitative method has the advantage of

uncovering a more deeply-rooted view of the problem, which a quantitative approach that is

categorizing, statistical, interested in causal explanations and in “bringing numeric data” (Ghauri

and Grønhaug, 2002: 197) cannot provide. Furthermore, qualitative methods are rooted in the

interpretative worldview, are most usually associated with an inductive approach and are most

appropriate for delving into meaning and the social construction of reality (Daymon and

Holloway, 2011), which lends further credibility to the choice of this sort of method for the paper

at hand, in the light of the proposed paradigmatic thinking. Last but not least, qualitative research



is most appropriate “in the increasingly interconnected, complex and volatile nature of the

postmodern world” (Daymon and Holloway, 2011: 5), a world that this study is aiming to

investigate, where narratives, discourses, language, particularisms, and subjective experiences

are the dominating visions (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995: 244).

The next decision regarding the research process is influenced by this postmodernist perspective:

thus, a qualitative analytical approach inspired from Discourse analysis is proposed. Before

defining discourse analysis, this must be distinguished not only as a method, but as a

methodology, as it comprises both a philosophical perspective explaining how to look at social

reality and a useful set of methods (for data collection and data analysis) employed for studying

it (Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 3). Discourse analysis is a „package‟ (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002):

making use of its method implies accepting the philosophy it embodies i.e. “a „strong‟ social

constructivist view of the social world” (Gergen, 1999 ap. Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 5). The

research at hand accepts the social constructivist take, as argued for in the beginning of this

chapter; and since social constructivism is often concerned with language and assumes that the

world “is constituted in one way or another as people talk it, write it and argue it” (Potter, 1996:

98 quoted in Bryman, 2008: 20), Discourse analysis proves to be most appropriate to gain insight

into how consumers attach meanings to various interpretations of the relationship concept that

surrounds Kiva as an organisation.

Discourse may be defined as “an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of their production,

dissemination and reception, that brings an object into being” (Parker, 1992 ap. Phillips and

Hardy, 2002: 3). It assumes that interaction amongst individuals and amongst individuals and

organizations is of interest to show how different concepts are constructed by means of

communication and language; therefore, discourse does not reflect a pre-existing view of the

world, but it constructs versions of it (Daymon and Holloway, 2011). However, “discourse is

more than language because it constitutes, or produces, a particular view of social reality” (ibid:

166). Phillips and Hardy (2002) take on Fairclough‟s view (1992) and propose a three-

dimensional approach to the study of discourse i.e. the interplay between text, context and

discourse must be recognized in order to refer to Discourse analysis. This means that corpuses of

texts are studied for clues to sorts of discourses, since discourses cannot be found entirely in a

single body of text, while at the same time, reference to the social context where the texts are

https://www.google.dk/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Marianne+J%C3%B8rgensen%22&sa=X&ei=pz-9T-fZDIeu8AOD19Eq&ved=0CF8Q9Ag



found and discourses emerge must be made – it is specifically in this relation between discourse

and social reality that resides the usefulness of Discourse analysis as a way of studying social

phenomena (Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 5).

Based on the features of both qualitative methods and Discourse analysis, what follows comes to

build and critically reflect on an analytical method appropriate for the purpose of this research.

2.2.1. Data collection

The starting point for the empirical study is selecting a corpus of data which would finally

generate knowledge on how consumers understand relationships in the postmodern context, in

the case of Kiva. In this direction, a site where the data will be collected from is selected; data

should pertain to sites that are “transparent”, meaning that they should make the topic of interest

for the research visible (Eisenhardt, 1989 ap. Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 67). For the research at

hand, the data is gathered from Kiva members‟ online communication platform: the Kiva

supporters‟ forum (http://www.kivafriends.org), where the discursive activity of Kiva lenders,

supporters or other participants in the discussion is potentially noticeable, since the platform is

dedicated to such a purpose. Specifically, the collected data consists of online content (comments

and posts) generated by Kiva members and debate participants. Therefore, the collected data is

primary, i.e. “original data, collected by us for the research problem at hand” (Ghauri &

Grønhaug, 2010: 90) and constitutes as written text, as opposed to talk and nonverbal interaction,

images, video material, symbols, or other sorts of media which Discourse analysis may

investigate.

When discussing the data collection procedure, sampling considerations must also be made. To

start with, qualitative research is not dependant on sample size (Daymon and Holloway, 2011:

171): samples are rather small, since research is concerned with the uniqueness of contexts; they

are flexible and adjustable during research. However, there is always need for some sort of

sampling (Saunders et al., 2003); from thousands of comments posted on kivafriends.org, after

careful and intensive scanning, only a few have been selected, on the basis of revealing

something meaningful for the purpose of the paper at hand (Daymon and Holloway, 2011). The

selection includes what is considered “sufficiently representative”, such as “important” texts

(Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 68) that present any sort of clues to relationships and the discourses




this notion draws on, in relation to Kiva. Also, “theoretical sampling” is applied (Phillips and

Hardy, 2002: 68), meaning that data is “chosen based on the likelihood that they will provide

theoretically relevant results (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, Yin, 1984 ap. Phillips and Hardy, 2002:

68). In addition, it is worth mentioning that, purposively, no time frame for the production of the

texts has been set out as selection criteria: such a decision would have prevented from an

overview on the general topics to be addressed, since a forum is structured according to the

subjects it proposes for discussion, and, thus, the same conversation might be continuously

developed on a significant period of time. Finally, the criteria employed for the selection of data

follows the argument that qualitative and discursive research come to an end not when the data is

exhaustively analysed and it provides no new insight, but rather when the researcher considers

the data is sufficient to make a point (Wood and Kroger, 2000 ap. Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 74).

In this respect, the process of collecting data for the research at hand ceases when relevant

examples of discourses that relationships may draw upon are found. The aforementioned criteria

for data collection are employed due to the fact that even if qualitative research assumes the data

collection process is rather subjective, it does not mean that the process should not be argued for

and explained within the possible limits.

2.2.2. Data analysis

Discourse analysis as method is considered to be subjective and freed from rigorous constraints;

however, this is due to the fact that being too systematic “undermines the very basis of discourse

analysis” which is to interpret and understand phenomena by grasping the meanings of texts

(Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 74). For this reason, standard procedures or templates for data

analysis are difficult to render, and researchers usually choose to build up and justify their own

approach, according to the purpose of their own study (ibid). The analytical approach for the

undertaken research builds on this argument: the remainder of this sub-section deals with how

the analytical approach has been structured to serve this specific research, and in what way it is

inspired from Discourse analysis theory.

An overall view on the various forms of discourse analysis that exist is necessary for choosing an

appropriate one to build the discursive analytical method of this research. Phillips and Hardy

(2002: 20) propose two dimensions that help in distinguishing between major discourse



approaches: the interest of the researcher in text vs. context and a pure social constructivist

concern vs. a more critical stand. Though discourse analysis implies being concerned with both

text and context along discourse, as mentioned previously in this chapter, it is impossible for any

researcher to focus on all in the same way – thus, the research questions should guide such

choices (ibid). In order to investigate what meanings do consumers attribute to relationships and

how this aids in understanding Kiva as a postmodern organisation, the research at hand aims to

identify what are the discourses that Kiva members draw on in constructing meanings for the

relationship notion and how are these related to the wider consumption context. This indicates a

concern for the macro-context rather than a micro-textual analysis, the latter providing insight

into how Kiva members use language rather than what they discuss about. Further on, in the

same rationale, the analytical approach draws more on critical discourse analysis (CDA). This

approach to discourse analysis (Focault, 1972, Fairclough, 1995 ap. Phillips and Hardy, 2002) is

mostly preoccupied with “the distal context” (ibid: 25) i.e. social order and issues of power

dynamics, history and ideology, rather than viewing text and language in isolation. For the

proposed problem statement, exposing power relations in society and ideology concerns are not

of interest, however, an approach that favours the macro-context instead of detailed textual

analysis is still required in response to the research questions.

Therefore, the analytical method is inspired from Norman Fairclough‟s approach to critical

discourse analysis, more specifically his Three Dimensional Model (Fairclough, 1995), which

proposes text, discourse practice, and socio-cultural practice as dimensions for analysis

(Fairclough, 1995: 98). The model is illustrated and described below.

The Three Dimensional Model (after Fairclough, 1995: 98)



Fairclough takes the view that language is a component of society, meaning that any means of

interaction and communication amongst individuals are socially determined. In this way,

investigating language solely by analyzing texts detracts from the wider implications of language

as discourse and embedded in social reality (Fairclough, 2001). Further on, Fairclough‟s model

suggests that a communicative act involves (1) text and the text production process, (2) discourse

and the interpretation process of the text - discourses may be traced in macro-topics that prevail

in any linguistic act, and (3) social practice, meaning that language is also defined by societal

elements, not only linguistic characteristics (ibid: 20-22). While illustrating the idea of text being

embedded in a wider context and the correlation between text, context and discourse, the model

proposes three dimensions for critical discourse analysis and thus provides a structured three-

phase way of conducting analysis of texts: (1) description or text analysis, (2) interpretation or

processing analysis, and (3) explanation or social analysis (Fairclough, 1995: 95-98).

From a more instrumental perspective, the analysis part of the research at hand is carried out in

the following stages, under the influence of Fairclough‟s Three Dimensional Model (1995) and

with the guidance of some of the most common techniques used in any sort of Discourse

Analysis (Daymon and Holloway, 2011):

1. Description phase. Operating with text, identifying topics (Fairclough, 1995) - the

interest is not in individual words, but in “whole chunks of text” (Daymon and Holloway,

2011: 173); topics are identified by looking for “regularities and variabilities in the

language used” and then selecting an appropriate label for them (ibid), while also

inferring on the text production process (Fairclough, 1995).

2. Interpretation phase. Interpreting text in the light of participants‟ social interaction - the

focus is on the intended purpose of the text; investigating whether the text is derived from

any metaphors and which ones, which is referred to as identifying “interpretive

repertoires” (Potter and Wetherell, 1987 ap. Daymon and Holloway, 2011: 173) or

relating previously found topics to macro-topics (Fairclough, 1995) i.e. discourses.

3. Explanation phase. Reflecting on the wider context i.e. contextualizing the texts

(Daymon and Holloway, 2011: 174), which indicates awareness of the “important notion

of intertextuality [that] highlights the existence of discourse beyond the micro-context of

the word usage” (ibid); paying attention to the “social and historical contexts in which



discourse is embedded” (ibid) – focus is placed on social structures and the social

interactions that influence and are influenced by these social structures; more complex

reasoning is made in this phase, since analysis aims to explain the culture and society

where the text is produced (Fairclough, 1995).

2.2.3. Delimitations

The choice for any research method, however useful and appropriate it is, also brings along

disadvantages which researchers must consider carefully. Qualitative methods are criticized for

being too subjective, difficult to reproduce, to generalise and account for their rigor, as well as

for lacking transparency in the selection, collection and analysis of the data (Daymon and

Holloway, 2011). In addition, a discourse analytic approach raises criticism for being narrowly

focused, difficult to carry out, too theoretical, ambiguous and complex, with no patterns for

conducting the analysis and risky when evaluated for its rigour as a method (Phillips and Hardy,

2002, Daymon and Holloway, 2011). Nevertheless, such criticism can be somewhat overcome if

taking into consideration aspects such as the following.

To begin with, legitimacy of a qualitative study or one inspired from Discourse analysis does not

reside in classical evaluation criteria such as validity and reliability. Validity, or “the idea that

the research closely captures the „real‟ world” and reliability, or “the idea that results are

„repeatable‟” are not relevant in world regarded as subjective and socially constructed, where

generalisations are avoided in favour of the uniqueness of the subject; instead, research is judged

on its logical argumentation, plausibility of the results, and the pertinence of the proposed

analytical scheme (Phillips and Hardy, 2002: 79-80). Nevertheless, Daymon and Holloway

(2011) argue that it is important to provide credibility of the findings and to assure they are not

opinion-made but grounded in research and data, and propose that qualitative research is judged

according to the criteria of trustworthiness and authenticity, instead of validity and reliability.

Authenticity is derived from documents that are “genuine, complete, reliable and of unquestioned

authorship” (Daymon & Holloway, 2011: 281) and from a research strategy that aims to reflect

research participants‟ ideas. In this sense, the undertaken research gathers and analyzes texts that

are originally produced by Kiva lenders, supporters, or other participants in the conversation as



posts on the official Kiva Facebook page and the Kivafriends.org forum. Therefore, making use

of the participants‟ own words as data, authenticity is considered to be a fulfilled criterion.

As far as trustworthiness is concerned, four other criteria must be fulfilled (Daymon and

Holloway, 2011). Credibility, which requires the researcher to set out the research process so as

to facilitate the readers‟ own understanding of the topic is achieved by means of the present

chapter and the overall structure of the paper that aim to explain and support how the research is

carried out. Transferability is attained if the findings of the research may be transferred or related

to, and is achieved ensuring that the research topic can be related to academic literature or if the

study is descriptively enough as to enable readers to make their own judgements; in this sense,

the present research paper has constantly provided literature as support for choices and has set

out to relate the results to the wider context of consumption that has been outlined prior to the

empirical study. Dependability i.e. consistent and accurate research is set to be fulfilled by a

clear flow of the decision-making throughout the research at hand. Lastly, if the findings achieve

the purpose of the study; if data are shown to be linked with their sources so that readers can

interpret them in their own way; and if the researcher proves to be critical regarding the way

he/she carried out the research; then the confirmability criteria is achieved. In this respect, the

present research manages to provide answers to the research question in the final chapter i.e.

Conclusion; provides transparent data by attaching all original posts included in the analysis (see

Appendix for print-screens); while the researcher shows awareness on the need to reflect on the

choices made in order to be as least biased as possible, as well as admits her direct involvement

in shaping the social reality together with the research subjects, by means of interpretation.

To conclude, the chosen approach has been explained and argued for with respect to the purpose

of the undertaken research and the questions it seeks to answer, having in mind the opportunities

it provides, as well as its potential weaknesses and the means by which these are overcome.

Finally, the present chapter reaches an end in the belief that there is more to gain from the chosen

approach, than there is to lose from its limitations.



3. ANALYSIS AND FINDIGS

In the unfolding chapter, a three-phase analysis is carried out, structured under the guidance of

the Three Dimensional Model of Fairclough (1995) approaching discourse analysis. As already

set out in the previous chapter, the analysis is to incorporate three levels: (1) a description phase,

operating with textual material that is significant in demonstrating positions attributed to

relationships by Kiva lenders, supporters and other participants in the discussions on

kivafriends.org; (2) an interpretation phase, aimed to correlate the texts to potential discourses

they draw on; and (3) an explanation phase, meant to contextualize the issues raised so far. The

analysis proceeds by briefly introducing kivafriends.org and concludes with a summary of all

findings.

3.1. Kiva Friends

Kivafriends.org constitutes as a virtual “community for lenders – by lenders”

(http://www.kivafriends.org/, Appendix 1) and began as an extension of the Kiva Yahoo Group

(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kivaloans/). The online platform was founded in March 2007 by

Kiva lenders, independently of Kiva but with the organization‟s acknowledgement, and is

moderated by users „Diane Charlie‟ and „Joe‟. With a total of 6532 registered members

(http://www.kivafriends.org/, visualized on the 9th

of May, 2012), Kiva Friends gather lenders,

supporters of Kiva, as well as potentially new members of Kiva, and essentially anyone of the

general public interested in the conversations carried out on the platform. The thousands of

topics for debate include a wide range of issues adjacent to Kiva and its supporters‟ lives, from

micro-lending to sustainable development, from personal interests to various off-topic subjects,

and have generated 94243 posts so far (http://www.kivafriends.org/, visualized on the 9th

of May,

2012). Finally, it is to mention that Kiva supports Kiva Friends – staff members follow and

participate in the discussions, while also recommending the site for further interaction with peers

and gathering useful information in their journey with Kiva.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kivaloans/





3.2. Description phase

After a close investigation of the texts gathered from kivafriends.org and inferring on the text

production process, a number of themes or topics have been identified and labeled accordingly:

groups and teams; self - others; integration and assistance; common interests; call for action and

support; Kiva stories. In the following, all of these topics are to be described in turn, and

illustrated with specific textual examples extracted from users‟ comments and posts on

kivafriends.org.

Groups and teams. Kiva Friends constantly show preoccupation in gathering into groups and

forming teams. Whether they propose potential new teams, they express their considerations

regarding existing teams on kivariends.org, or they promote forms of gathering according to

various purposes and search for adherents, quite a number of posts produced by Kiva Friends

revolve around he „team‟ or „group‟ idea.

To begin with, the following examples illustrate the need to create some sort of grouping form,

as it is expressed by some of the users on kivafriends.org:

(1) “Wouldn't it be great if there were a way to have lender groups built in to kiva? (Appendix 2)

“I think it'd be great if lenders could found and join groups on Kiva.” (Appendix 3)

The aforementioned examples correspond to the initiation of the idea of what later on became the

„team lending feature‟ proposed by Kiva. It appears that Kiva took on the initiative proposed by

users of kivafriends.org, as one of the Kiva staffers explains:

(2) “Kiva is planning to roll out a "team lending" feature this Fall to the website. This feature will allow Kiva

users to affiliate with teams (e.g. school, company, religious organization). […] We are looking for Kiva

users who are potentially interested in starting a lending team.” (Appendix 4)

Consequently, the „team‟ topic is further on triggered in the posts and comments describing

reactions to the „team lending feature‟, as well as announcements and introductions of newly

formed teams, and invitations to join.

(3) “How about a Kiva Friends Team?”/“Sounds great!” (Appendix 4)

(4) “I've just started this new group: Kivans support group loans” (Appendix 5)

“Hello. We are a new lending team, Accountants for Social Good. We are a new team, so if anyone has any

advice or experience they would like to share with us, please do, it will be very much appreciated.”

(Appendix 6)



“Would anyone else be interested in joining a team specifically focused on funding housing loans?”

(Appendix 7)

“If you want to know more about is you can find us here […] If you want to join us you are very

welcome.” (Appendix 8)

Last but not least, besides objectively discussing this topic, users of kivafriends.org may also

take a reflective stand on the matter, recognizing the implications such forms of gatherings have,

and challenging peers to take the same position.

(5) “It's really fun and motivating for all of us to lend together! Social lending is just more fun! […] What do

you guys think?” (Appendix 2)

“Obviously, lenders at this forum want to hook up with like-minded folks.” (Appendix 9)

“Sooooo.. If I said the term, "Team Lending," what would it mean to you?” (Appendix 10)

Self - others. There are several instances in which texts posted on the Kiva Friends forum depict

a connection between a more explicit concern for the „self‟, for the „others‟, or for the „self‟ in

relation to „others‟. Describing the upcoming examples sheds light on this topic.

One instance refers to Kiva members interested in connecting with like-minded individuals, who

share the same lifestyle choices; in this sense, they express their desire to relate with others,

while maintaining a preoccupation for the self and approaching relationships from this premise.

Examples include individuals of specific religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or with particular

lifestyle choices, such as vegetarians or sporty people, all aiming to connect with and obtain

support from others of the same beliefs as them:

(6) “I have been struggling with eating meat for years, and have very recently decided that I want to become a

vegan. […] is anyone here vegetarian or vegan? If you could share with me how it was for you in the

beginning and how it is now I would deeply appreciate it.” (Appendix 11)

“Just curious if there are other gay and lesbian folks and couples actively lending on Kiva...

would love to chat in here.” (Appendix 12)

“I'm starting this thread so that anyone who's in the same boat can join me... or if not... then just

to fish for a tiny bit of support from my k-friends. I'm embarking on a No-TV-Month for July

with the purpose of spending more time working out, and de-stressing.” (Appendix 13)

“For a few days I was doubting whether or not to join the Christian Team. […] Looking for

another team to join I realised that there wasn't any religious team I felt I really belonged to, so

after a while I decided to create a team I'd like to join.” (Appendix 14)



Further on, some of the textual examples gathered reflect that relating to others may be outstand

by a competitive spirit, thus pointing towards a more explicit concern of the respectively text-

producers for the self. The extracts below describe taking a competitive stand.

(7) “We fully hope that the "Kiva Friends" Lending Team will be one of the first (and most active!)

teams” (Appendix 4)

“I think it'd be great if lenders could found and join groups on Kiva. […] Nothing like a little

competition amongst friends ” (Appendix 3)

The following examples describe two main positions regarding the „self‟ - „double agents‟ and

„sticklers‟ - which may be attributed to the users who a response to the question “How about a

KivaFriends team?” (Appendix 4):

(8) “Sounds great! How many teams can one lender be on? (I‟m at least a double agent!)” (Appendix 4)

“Yes PLEASE, but I‟m a stickler.. Make it the KivaFriends.org team” (Appendix 4)

Therefore, the „double agent‟ describes the user as pertaining to more than one team, thus

indicating a primary concern to his interests, whereas the „stickler‟ adheres to stability and favors

the team spirit. In the same tone of identifying instances where focus is on reflecting the self or

the others, the two text excerpts below must be considered:

(9) “Would anyone else be interested in joining a team specifically focused on funding housing loans? […] I

don't want to wind up making a team that nobody will be interested in, but if people are interested I might

have to put one together.” (Appendix 7)

“I decided to create a team I'd like to join. I have no idea if others would like to join a team like that too,

but here we go.” (Appendix 14)

It appears that the user who produced the former of the two previous examples is working in the

interest of the other members, offering to implement a team if it would be of general use;

oppositely, the latter example indicates how the user made a decision primarily of self-

convenience, and has placed the concern for others‟ way of relating to it as subsequent.

Integration and assistance. The topics labeled under integration and assistance are derived from

comments and posts regarding the interaction rules of Kiva Friends on the forum, such as

welcoming new members, helping out and answering questions, addressing requests, appraising

and encouraging activity, as well as showing concern for other Kiva Friends.



For instance, the following describe initiating and encouraging members as part of the

integration in the group:

(10) “Welcome aboard, Armanie”/“thanks for the warm welcome!” (Appendix 15)

“That was pretty cool, Peter!” (Appendix 16)

Assistance is best described by asking for and offering help and guidance into whatsoever

problems, from kivafriends.org and properly using its features, to Kiva and the lending process,

and to everything else that may or may not be connected directly to Kiva.

(11) “Is there a procedure for getting approval to start a new "common interest" team where the common

interest is supporting a philanthropic organization?” (Appendix 17)

“Thank you, Peter, for asking prior to posting the details and welcome to KF. […] The moderators will

thus gladly discuss your request and let you know” (Appendix 18)

“Joe... GREAT work! “/“Thanks guys. I'm just glad I could fulfill a request and help out. “(Appendix 19)

“Before I bother Joe - has anyone else had this problem?”/“Yes I had the same problem, that is when I

clicked on […] Now it works.” (Appendix 20)

In addition to reflecting the assistance process, the above textual examples also reinforce the

encouragement/initiation idea, discussed previously. Finally, the latter example (Appendix 20)

introduces the idea of concern for other members, also part of the topic under discussion. A

further example of showing concern is the following:

(12) “Apologies if this team already exists […] I did look!” (Appendix 7)

Common interests. Common interests refer to anything that participants are preoccupied with,

additionally to Kiva (Appendix 21). There are many examples of posts and comments gathering

under this label, describing favorite movies, books, music, art etc. (Appendix 22).

Texts such as the ones below are illustrative of this idea, while also indicating that

kivafriends.org is an appropriate place for exchanging information in such a way:

(13) “So, just in case anyone wants to turn over a new year‟s leaf early and take advantage of the fact that we

have a perfect place, here, for turning one another onto treasures that we, ourselves, have lucked upon,

here‟s a thread where you can Turn, Turn, Turn, (postandshare) if you feel like it.” (Appendix 23)

“I just had to share this video – I have no words to describe” (Appendix 24)

Furthermore, while illustrating the „common interests‟ topic, the following extracts may be

described as reflecting positive reactions for taking the initiative of sharing information of

common interest.



(14) “Peter---the video was great! Thanks for sharing” (Appendix 25)

“Thanks Fred for that superb chase from Ronin - I hadn't seen it before.” (Appendix 26)

“That was a great video Margie...Ill definitely be passing this one on...” (Appendix 27)

Considering the last of the examples above (Appendix 27), an additional idea is transmitted: if

information and materials reflect interests or passions that members share, they are to be further

distributed in the wider networks of the members.

Call for action and support. Another theme that has been identified while investigating

kivafriends.org refers to the appeals Kiva Friends make to their peers in getting involved in and

adhering to causes for the greater good. This topic has been depicted in texts such as the ones

below:

(15) “be nice to help them out more but borrowers arent giving there , most of the country doesnt even have

electricity ....” (Appendix 28)

“Here‟s my little bit: […] I am willing to contribute $25 toward the restoration and rebuilding of

Haiti*** for each Kiva Friend who either reads or who re-reads at least a hundred pages of Mountains

Beyond Mountains and who will post about it. My thought is that caring often begins with “story,” with

our having our consciousnesses raised.” (Appendix 29)

“I'm certain that you and I and just about everyone else here reading at KivaFriends wishes that […] the

sad reality that it bespeaks never would have been there in the first instance […] What a crazy, totally

upside-down world […] I am so sorry for all the people in Uganda who, now, will have to be feeling even

additional fear and prejudice on top of what they, undoubtedly, had had to experience before. the only

chance we have of really eradicating terrorism and poverty, is by supporting and encouraging

EDUCATION.” (Appendix 30)

Along with militating for taking certain actions, phrases such as “be nice to help them out”,

“caring often begins with […] having our consciousnesses raised” or “I am sorry for all the

people in Uganda” point towards building the call for support and action on understanding,

awareness, and empathy.

Kiva stories. Sharing experiences regarding Kiva, whether with respect to the lending process, to

Kiva as an organization, or to the feelings and emotions Kiva generates amongst peers, Kiva

Friends seem to be concerned with sharing stories about Kiva.

The first example in this sense would be illustrating the following texts, which denote the Kiva

lending experience and the experience with Kiva, the organization.

(16) “I've had exchanges with folks from Houston ("Hey, I see you're from Houston. How are you and your



family?") and other places based on something about their profile or photo that resonated with me.”

(Appendix 31)

“I've become addicted to the kiva fellows blog. It's simply amazing. Today, though, I read that kiva asked

the fellows to restrict their blog entries to microfinance only. I'm rather upset with that.” (Appendix 32)

A different type of „Kiva story‟ constitutes as part of the „inside stories‟ on the forum, which are

initiated amongst members, and thus, they can not always be understood by uninvolved parts,

such as it is the case of the author and the reader of the paper at hand. For instance:

(17) “OK, so here's the loan description that made me laugh so much: "Oranges, bananas, pineapples, mangos,

apples, pears and bees in search of sweet fruit are part of the daily life of Ramón (who is known as

Moncho)".” (Appendix 33)

“I've been blaming my addiction on Kiva Friends […] A couple of years ago, Lynn coined a term

"KivaNut".”(Appendix 34)

Usually, such stories reflect strong emotions, which Kiva Friends held with respect to the

organization and the experiences it provides. All the above posts under the „Kiva stories‟ come to

support this: “I‟ve become addicted”, “made me laugh so much”, “that resonated with me”, “I‟m

rather upset”. These emotions are reflected in the text production process, and thus can be

depicted in the final textual form. Therefore, Kiva appears as personalized, illustrative of the

emotions Kiva Friends hold for it. Such an example is the term “KivaNut” (Appendix 34). In the

following, another two examples may be found in this respect: “Kivans” and “KivAddict”.

(18) “And I'm KivAddict.” (Appendix 35)

“But wouldn't it be nice if Kiva had a way to send invites from us to other Kivans? “(Appendix 36)

Finally, the description phase reaches an end by establishing six main themes predominant in the

comments and posts on kivafriends.org. Once the textual analysis is completed and the topics

have been identified, the next stage in the proposed three-phase analysis is to commence – the

interpretation phase.

3.3. Interpretation phase

In the present section, the previously analyzed texts are to be interpreted in the light of their

intended purpose. The six topics identified thus become clues for macro-topics, i.e. discourses

they draw on, which are to be detailed, in turn. Therefore, eight main discourses have been

depicted: affiliation/connectivity; competitiveness; self-identification; (group) responsibility;

peer recognition; sharing; involvement; solidarity. It is to be mentioned that these are only the



major discourses that became apparent and have been established in accordance with the purpose

of the paper at hand, however, they are neither the only ones possible, nor exclusive. Each of the

texts proposed for analysis may draw on several discourses, in a similar way that the six

identified topics may each point to more that one discourse, as it is to be expanded upon in the

following.

Affiliation and connectivity. Topics such as „groups and teams‟ or „self-others‟ are the most

indicative examples of discourses on affiliation and connectivity. Firstly, the very proposition of

gathering in online groups and forming teams has arisen out of a need for affiliation. This

instance has been grasped by Kiva staff members, and it may be detected in the response of Kiva

staff regarding the decision to launch a team lending feature on the official Kiva website: “this

feature will allow Kiva users to affiliate with teams (text sample (2) in the previous section of the

analysis; Appendix 4). Secondly, the „self-others‟ topic points toward the need to connect with

like-minded individuals and the importance of achieving a sense of belonging. This is mostly

derived from the examples describing a more explicit concern for the „other‟ and an inclination

for acting in the interest of the group (text samples (8) and (9); Appendix 4, respectively

Appendix 7).

Competitiveness. The „self-others‟ topic draws on competitiveness, as well. However, this is

reflected only in the instances where users take the position of prioritizing their ambition,

competitive spirit, and thus the importance of self-actualization, in the wider context of

networking and connecting with peers. Examples in the corpus of text (7) (Appendix 3 and 4) are

illustrative in this direction, denoting how a „friendly‟ competition appears appealing to some of

the Kiva Friends.

Self-identification. The idea of identifying oneself both with peers and with Kiva is most

prominently induced by topics centered on „self-others‟ and „Kiva stories‟. As far as the relation

between the self and the others involved in the discussions is concerned, a need for gathering

around peers that allow identification with the self may be noticed. More specifically, Kiva

Friends want to connect with other Kiva friends sharing the same life views or life styles, since

they can better identify one with the other. As some of the texts ((6), Appendix 11-14)

exemplify, Christians are in search for other Christians, vegetarians for vegetarians, LGBT



fellows for other LGBT fellows. Regarding the way Kiva Friends identify themselves with Kiva

as an organization, brand, or with the individual members of Kiva staff or Kiva fellows,

examples under the topic labeled „Kiva stories‟ provide clarification. Strong emotions such as

addiction or empathy have been depicted during the textual analysis (texts (16); Appendix 31,

32), feelings that arise from a strong sense of identification of self with the causes Kiva promotes

and the set of moral principles Kiva members detain.

Group (Responsibility). Discourses on responsibility may be depicted in Kiva Friends‟ concern

over all members of kivafriends.org. It is not only the moderators who are concerned to integrate,

engage, and support other members on kivafriends.org, but it is also the other users who express

concern regarding the perceived influence or utility of their posts/requirements/questions for he

other members. Such reasoning is supported by the examples under the „integration and

assistance‟ topic, more specifically corpus of text (11) which synthesizes responsible positions

adopted by users and moderators – asking for and providing guidance, welcoming and

encouraging, attempting ease certain processes (Appendix 17-20).

Peer recognition. The desire of being recognized by peers appears to motivate some of the users‟

in sharing interesting posts, responding promptly to other users‟ appeal for help in whatever

situations, or fishing for support in their ambitious plans. Topics such as „common interests‟,

„integration and assistance‟ or „self-others‟ seem to point towards „peer recognition‟: Kiva

Friends share videos, quotes, music etc. and are praised for their inspiration to do so („common

interests‟ topic, texts (14); Appendix 25-27); they offer support to their peers and their efforts are

acknowledged in this respect („integration and assistance‟ topic, texts (11); Appendix 19); in

addition, they expect being recognized for their personal achievements and expect support in

carrying out challenging plans (texts (6); Appendix 13).

Sharing. The overall purpose of kivafriends.org and the activity carried out by its members

revolves around „sharing‟. Whether it is opinions, thoughts, interests, news etc., the gathered

textual materials convey clues to the discourse of sharing, the importance of sharing, and the

emotions sharing generates for both the receiver and the initiator. Examples in this sense are

suggested under the topic of „common interests‟ (texts (13) and (14); Appendix 23-27) where

texts bear the marks of the social interaction and emotion that comes with sharing.



Involvement. The „calls for action and support‟ ((15); Appendix 28-30) are most likely to be

interpreted as involvement in different causes, projects, and activities in line with the moral

beliefs of Kiva Friends and with the principles Kiva is defined by. Kiva Friends not only prove

to get involved and commit to their beliefs and Kiva‟s goal, but they also show involvement in

the Kiva Friends group and kivafriends.org. The latter is inferred from their pro-active take on

technical and maintenance issues arisen on kivafriends.org, which are illustrated under the

„integration and assistance‟ label (texts (11); Appendix 17, 18, 20).

Solidarity. Discourses on solidarity may be traced in most of the discussions Kiva Friends launch

or engage in on kivafriends.org, and this may be interpreted as related to the nature Kiva as an

organization has – concerned with the welfare of individuals in poverty and, in this sense, the

instigation to solidarity – since Kiva is, essentially, the center of discussions on kivafriends.org.

Therefore, this type of discourse is tracked in topics such as „call for action and support‟, that

essentially reflect members‟ preoccupation for ethical concerns and their desire to determine

others to take the same view, by appealing to solidarity and empathy (texts (15); Appendix 28-

30).

All in all, the interpretation phase of the analysis terminates with depicting eight major

discourses, related to the previously established topics and the intended purpose of the texts

proposed for analysis. Certainly, some of the discourses indentified within this section may

encompass more than just the topics that have been ascribed to them. For instance, sharing, or

affiliation and connectivity, may be traced throughout most of the topics debated on

kivafriends.org, or at least in all of the six topics identified, since by the very nature of a forum,

networking, sharing, and connecting with peers around a favorite brand is a constant aim of

members; thus, this may also be reflected in the language they use and the topics they initiate.

However, the interpretation phase has been structured around discourses coupled with the major

topics that illustrate them more clearly, since further combinations would have become

increasingly subjective.



3.4. Explanation phase

In the last phase of the proposed analysis, the gathered texts are to be contextualized. With

reference to the societal context that language is embedded in, more specifically postmodernism

and consumer culture, the previously identified discourses are explained in the following.

The first step in contextualizing the findings gathered until this point of the analysis is reflecting

on who are the actors involved in the text production process, what roles they play in this process

and how they interact. In this respect, it is to say that the digital community kivafriends.org is

built up of individuals acting as Kiva members (lenders and supporters) or as interested users,

but non-associated to Kiva. On kivafriends.org, these individuals may play further roles:

moderators, guests, recently joined members, old members etc., some of them more active,

others less. Disregarding the roles, all the individuals in these groups interact on their own behalf

and may freely participate to any discussions; meanwhile, other individuals may intervene,

acting as representatives of the Kiva staff.

Further on, an understanding on why the subjects of investigation produce the texts as they do,

and draw on discourses such as those identified, is required. For this purpose, zooming out even

more, to capture the wider context in which these interactions take place and in which the texts

are produced, allows for shedding light on how findings gathered so far make sense in

contemporary society; ultimately, this will contribute to gaining insight into the relational aspects

on kivafriends.org. The so far gathered results are firmly placed within postmodern society and

consumer culture, and regarding them in this perspective facilitates their explanation.

Regarded as produced within the postmodern context, the identified discourses make sense in the

light of the tension between individualism and socialisation, both characterizing the postmodern

world (Lipovetsky, 2005). Affiliation and connectivity are prominent discourses identified

amongst Kiva Friends, which along with sharing or group responsibility, are justified having in

mind postmodern consumers‟ pursuit for “a sense of connection” (Fournier and Lee, 2009). At

the same time, postmodernism is framed by individualism, which explains the need to affirm

oneself, to position the self in relation to others, the need to be recognized and validated by



peers, and the potential prominence of competitive spirits. In addition, in a postmodern society

that moves away from individualism towards embracing socialization and networking,

recognizes no general single truth, and allows the coexistence of opposites, the existence of

competitiveness or the need of self-identification with the others do not exclude, neither

undermine, the need and importance of affiliation and connectivity, the concern for others and

responsibility towards the group, or the importance of sharing.

Understanding consumer culture further aids in explaining the prevalence of such discourses as

those identified by means of users‟ interactions on kivafriends.org. Postmodern consumer culture

views consumers as active agents, acknowledges the existence of global connections, and

indicates the prominence of relationships, community participation and involvement (Arnould

and Thompson, 2005). This allows for an understanding on how Kiva Friends take proactive

stands, and construct their discourses around the importance of getting involved in actions that

may help improve the lives of disadvantaged people around the world, or getting involved in

matters the concern the online community they pertain to. In addition, a consumer society

depicting emotion and moral values as motivators for postmodern consumers‟ choices and

pursuits, as well as the rise of ethical concerns and displays of solidarity or love (Lipovetsky,

2009) constitutes as a reinforcement of the way Kiva Friends make sense of their social reality,

and the way they choose to reflect it in their discourses.

Therefore, reflecting on the postmodern worldview and consumer culture allows for a

contextualization of the issues raised up to this point. The existence of topics such as those

depicted during the analysis, and of the discourses they draw on, may be explained in the light of

the wider context they are embedded in, while their interconnectivity may becomes justified.

3.5. Summary of findings

In the chapter at hand, a three-phase analysis inspired from Fairclough‟s (1995) Three

Dimensional Model approaching critical discourse analysis has been carried out. Accordingly, in

the first phase – description – a corpus of textual materials gathered from kivafriends.org have

been analyzed in search for the topics they address. In this respect, six main topics have been

identified: groups and teams; self-others; integration and assistance; common interests; call for

action and support, Kiva stories. In the second phase – interpretation – topics have been related



to eight macro-topics, i.e. discourses: affiliation and connectivity; competitiveness; self-

identification; (group) responsibility; peer recognition; sharing; involvement; solidarity. In

addition, each of the topics has proved to draw on several discourses. Finally, in the third phase

of the analysis – explanation – texts have been contextualized, with reference to society and

culture: postmodernism and consumer culture. The table below provides a summary of all

findings.



4. DISCUSSION

The unfolding chapter aims to reflect on the findings of the undertaken research, and provide a

discussion regarding their implications. In this respect, what is to follow hereupon includes an

interpretation of the findings in the light of previous theoretical work. As such, questions

regarding the meaning of the texts and the topics identified within, of the discourses they draw

on, and of the way they are embedded within the social context are to be answered in relation to

the theoretical contributions proposed in the beginning of the paper at hand. Finally, some of the

main limitations encountered during the study, as well as other directions of research that could

we have been taken, are part of the discussion chapter.

4.1. Implications

The results of the undergone analysis provide meaningful and practical insight into relationship

concepts, as they are conceptualized in consumer and marketing research, and into the way Kiva

is understood by consumers, in terms of the relationships it facilitates. The identified six topics,

eight discourses, and their place within the social context, indicate how to look at Kiva Friends,

Kiva, and their interaction, and understand how this is reasoned. To begin with, it appears that

Kiva is regarded by Kiva Friends as a relationship partner. Texts produced by users on

kivafriends.org that are indicative of a brand-consumer relationship (Patterson and O‟Malley,

2006) have been mostly labeled under the „Kiva stories‟ topic, and provide examples of the way

Kiva Friends personalize the Kiva brand as a result of the strong connection they feel towards it,

and, thus, how they invest it with meaning: users identify themselves as “Kivans”, “KivAddicts”

or “KivaNuts” (Appendix 34-36). This is what Fournier (1998) refers to as anthropomorphisation

of the brand, meaning that the brand is transferred human characteristics, which allows for it to

be regarded as relationship partner.

Further on, zooming out on the relationships amongst Kiva Friends, as they interact one with the

other on kivafriends.org, is essential, since they represent the very purpose of building an online

platform for the gathering of Kiva lenders and supporters. As Patterson and O‟Malley (2006)

suggest, consumer networking cannot be ignored when discussing relationships with brands.



Therefore, the relationships built amongst Kiva Friends are important to investigate, in addition

to focusing on the way they relate to Kiva. Such a perspective enables and understanding on

Kiva Friends as a brand community, in which consumers are explicitly gathered around Kiva

since it provides “linking value” (Patterson and O‟Malley, 2006: 15). The results of the

undertaken analysis indicate that Kiva Friends exhibit defining characteristics of a brand

community. One of them is “shared consciousness” (Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001: 412), reflected

in the intrinsic connection Kiva members feel one towards the other – they share common

interests, moral values, and similar lifestyles, they identify one with the other in these terms, and

display support and involvement in the way they relate to one another, as far as the resulted

topics and discourses they draw on, in the analysis section, illustrate. Another characteristic that

positions Kiva Friends as a brand community is the “sense of moral responsibility” for the group

(Muniz and O‟Guinn, 2001: 412) that drives members to show concern towards their peers, assist

them when in need, integrate and retain them within the community; this is resulted from the

way Kiva Friends draw on discourses on responsibility in expressing concern towards peers. Last

but not least, Kiva Friends share stories around Kiva and the experiences they live in relation to

Kiva, as well as inside-stories that only members of the community may understand - Muniz and

O‟Guinn (2001: 412) refer to these as “traditions”, or ritualistic manifestations, characteristic for

any brand community. Therefore, kivafriends.org may be conceptualized as an online brand

community, a virtual platform where like-minded individuals preoccupied with Kiva get together

and create links. However, having in mind traditional forms of community, the research at hand

raises the question of whether kivafriends.org, and generally online communities, may thus be

regarded only as imagined or conceptual. This issue may be debatable; nevertheless, one way of

seeing it is that, since Internet appears as the virtual social glue which allows people to connect

in a similar way to being in proximity by destroying geographical barriers (Simmons, 2008),

there is no reason not to accept that online communities are as real as any other forms of

community.

Moreover, while still having in mind primarily the interaction between Kiva Friends, the results

of the analysis imply that the way in which they bond traces some of the characteristics of tribal

consumption. Kiva friends share passions, emotions, and interests as it results from their „calls

for action and support‟ with respect to ethical causes they strongly believe in, and the „common



interests‟ that unite them and generate emotion; also, they constantly show interest in the social

links that come with engaging with Kiva and in finding like-minded individuals by these means -

illustrated by instances when Christians, vegetarians, or homosexuals make use of the linking

value Kiva provides and try to trace other members in their “virtual tribe” (Rauch and Thunqvist,

2000 ap. Cova and Cova, 2002: 615). In addition, Kiva Friends not only get involved in the Kiva

lending process, but they are also advocates of other unrelated ethical causes („call for action and

support‟ topic). Cova and Cova (2002) identify these as tribal manifestations. However,

considering the fact that the primary purpose of these individuals gathering is Kiva, and it is not

Kiva as a brand that is passed on to them as already formed tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002), it is

more appropriate to resume the discussion at understanding Kiva Friends as brand community.

Another issue that arises from the analysis and findings proposed by the research at hand is that

Kiva Friends are “informed, networked, empowered, and active consumers” (Prahalad and

Ramaswamy, 2004: 5). The opportunities the Internet provides, as well as the need for „sharing‟,

„affiliation and connectivity‟ have empowered Kiva lenders and supporters to gather

independently of Kiva‟s support and create kivafriends.org, a place where they network and

become increasingly informed regarding Kiva with the help of their peers. Kiva Friends are also

increasingly active, showing „involvement‟ whether with regard to kivafriends.org and the

„assistance and integration‟ of their peers; to Kiva and the lending process, as „Kiva stories‟

illustrate; or to generic ethical concerns, such as demonstrated in their „calls for action and

support‟.

These are the types of consumers that “are increasingly co-creating value with the firm”,

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004: 5) point out. And, as a matter of fact, signs of co-creation may

be tracked in the case of Kiva Friends. As far as the co-creation process concerns the users of

kivafriends.org, they have been depicted to be pro-active in co-creation - the instance of Kiva

Friends initiating the idea of gathering in lending teams is illustrative of this issue (Appendix 2

and 3). Nuttavuthisit (2010: 317) refers to such an instance as “creation”, one of the potential

ways in which co-creation is recognized at consumer level. Further on, with reference to the

above exemplified instance, by implementing the team-lending feature on kiva.org (Appendix 4),

Kiva demonstrated its interest to follow discussions on kivafriends.org and take into

consideration Kiva members‟ opinions; this illustrates the organization‟s preoccupation to listen



to its supporters, engage in dialog with them, and encourage co-creation. In addition, by

supporting its brand community and participating in discussions carried out on kivafriends.org,

Kiva appears to exploit brand community as a context for co-creation (Hatch and Schultz, 2010),

acknowledging that Kiva supporters and lenders are part of an extended network, where

meanings of the brand are negotiated and co-created amongst consumers (ibid).

All in all, the proposed discussion articulates the findings of the analysis in terms of relationship

concepts, in the way they are conceptualized according to the corpus of theory suggested in the

beginning of the paper. In summary, findings imply that Kiva Friends constitute a strong brand

community and perceive Kiva as a significant relationship partner, while they also detain the

potential and interest to co-create together with the organization. In this light, Kiva may only be

understood as a powerful brand – it is around strong brands that brand communities, an

especially such devoted communities as Kiva Friends, are most likely to form (Muniz and

O‟Guinn, 2001: 415).

4.2. Limitations

The discussion continues by pointing out and reflecting on the main limitations of the study at

hand; besides the limitations that come together with the chosen method for analysis (qualitative,

inspired from discourse analysis), which have been anticipated and presented in the methodology

chapter (more specifically subchapter 2.2.3. Delimitations), further practical limitations have

been encountered during the analysis and data collection process.

One of them is that several additional topics might have been derived from the data available on

kivafriends.org, and, in consequence, several other discourses. Examples of potential topics

include suggestions for Kiva, asking for peer opinions, sustainability concerns, Kiva

transparency issues etc. Nevertheless, for manageability reasons, not all topics could be included,

and not all the data available on kivafriends.org (which includes 94243 posts so far -

http://www.kivafriends.org/, visualized on the 9th

of May, 2012) could become subject of

analysis.

Further on, having in mind the textual material analyzed and the topics depicted, there is a need

to acknowledge that the interpretation phase might have been carried out at a deeper level, and




thus, the eight proposed discourses might have also been related to other topics amongst the

proposed ones, in addition to the ones already ascribed to each discourse. For instance,

affiliation/connectivity has been mainly discussed in relation to „groups and teams‟ and „self-

others‟. However, most texts or topics may be thought to point towards a discourse on the need

and importance of connecting, after all, this resides in the nature of a blog. It is because such

interpretations become increasingly subjective and intuitive, that the analysis took into

consideration only the instances in which the relation between discourses and texts could be

more clearly justified.

Another limitation resides in the fact that not enough texts reflecting the relationship Kiva

Friends have with Kiva as organization, or with Kiva staff, have been gathered, compared to the

ones focusing on peer relations. Therefore, it has proved to be difficult to infer much about how

Kiva Friends make sense of their relationship with Kiva as an organization, and thus, gain a

better understating on how they co-create value. An analysis of the interactions that take place on

the official Kiva Facebook page might have completed the picture in this respect. However, it

was necessary to narrow the angle of research due to space limitations, and focus solely on

kivafriends.org, which ultimately provides the benefit of being more specific and detailed

regarding the aspects approached so far. Nevertheless, considering the approach taken, it might

have been useful to employ a complementary analysis method, in order to gain another

perspective on the same matter, or go more in depth with what has been achieved so far. The

latter option might have called for carrying out some interviews with some of the kivafriends.org

users. In any manner, gathering more information and shedding light on deeper aspects of the

proposed research topic constitutes the subject of a more extensive study.

4.3. Other research directions

The latter remark brings about the idea of possibly engaging into other directions of research

regarding Kiva. This particular organization is quite complex, which offers the opportunity to

analyze and discuss it from multiple perspectives. For instance, a focus on consumers from a

consumer behavior perspective, under the guidance of Arnould, Price and Zinkhan (2003),

Assael (1995) or other behaviorists, might have shed light on why consumers engage in ethical

consumption after all, and particularly with Kiva. In this respect, the issue might have been



investigated in relation to consumers‟ needs, motivations and perceptions, or in relation to the

environmental factors, such as the social context of consumption, or lifestyle and personality

characteristics. In addition, investigating identity issues such as how consumers‟ identity

narratives influence the choices they make in consumption (Ahuvia, 2005, Ekström and

Brembeck, 2004) might have also lead the discussion into a possibly useful direction, providing

insight into why consumers would opt to engage with Kiva, or, narrowly, why Kiva lenders

choose borrowers according to the way their stories reflect lenders‟ identity, lifestyle and own

endeavors. Otherwise, a research direction concerning an organizational perspective on

relationship building with consumers might have been chosen; based on relationship marketing

theory (Egan, 2004, Barnes, 2003), this perspective would illustrate how Kiva approaches

consumers in terms of relationship strategies, to provide knowledge for any other postmodern

organization that aims to enhance relationships with consumers. Nevertheless, one of the most

pertinent directions of research would be that of ethical concerns, considering what the very aim

of Kiva as an organization is. An insight into why consumers engage in ethical endeavors may be

developed starting from understanding the new economic system based on social production, co-

existing with capitalism, which Arvidsson (2008) refers to as „the ethical economy‟, together

with the rise of the ethical consumer (Newholm and Shaw, 2007) and ethical consumption, in

postmodern fashion (Cherrier, 2007, Carrington et al, 2010).



CONCLUSION

As the undertaken research approaches to an end, this final section aims to recapitulate the main

findings so as to indicate how they respond to the set out research questions, towards finally

addressing the problem statement.

The paper at hand has endeavored to explore Kiva and investigate postmodern consumers and

the meanings they ascribe to relationship concepts, with the overall purpose to shed light on the

postmodern world of consumption and the environment contemporary organizations must

perform in. In this respect, the following problem has been has been set out to be addressed: In

today‟s world of consumption, increasingly regarded in terms of connectivity, how is Kiva, as an

efficient postmodern organization, seen from consumers‟ perspective? This problem calls for one

main research question to be answered, i.e. How do consumers understand Kiva in terms of the

relationship construct that prevails in postmodern consumption? and one sub-question, i.e. What

meanings do Kiva members (lenders and supporters) attribute to the relationship concept and

how are these constructed?

The study commenced with a literature review aimed to shed light on postmodernism, consumer

culture, and forms of relationships as prevailing within this context, thus designing a theoretical

frame what would conceptualize Kiva as a postmodern organization and point out the

consumption environment that Kiva performs in. Further on, following social constructivism as

guiding meta-theoretical paradigm, a qualitative analytical method inspired from Norman

Fairclough‟s (1995) Three Dimensional Model approaching critical discourse analysis has been

developed, to guide the research into a direction that would answer the proposed question and

sub-question, to ultimately address the problem statement.

Providing an answer to the main research question is conditioned by firstly shedding light on its

sub-question. In this respect, the analytical tool has been employed to investigate textual material

produced by Kiva members (lenders and supporters) on kivafriends.org. In the first phase of the

analysis, six main topics have been identified and labeled accordingly: groups and teams; self -



others; integration and assistance; common interests; call for action and support; Kiva stories.

These topics provided clues for discourses they potentially draw on; consequently, in the second

phase of the analysis, eight discourses have been depicted, which include:

affiliation/connectivity; competitiveness; self-identification; (group) responsibility; peer

recognition; sharing; involvement; solidarity. The last step in the analysis was concerned with

contextualizing discourses, thus providing an explanation of the results in the light of

postmodernism and consumer culture. Therefore, the findings of the analysis indicate that Kiva

members make sense of relationships out of social interaction with their peers and involvement

with Kiva; in addition, relationships are attributed meanings such as connectivity, affiliation,

competition, sharing, solidarity, self-identification with peers and the Kiva brand, feeling a sense

of responsibility towards members of the group, peer recognition, and involvement with Kiva as

organization and the principles it promotes, with the Kiva Friends community, or with generic

ethical concerns. As such, having answered the set out sub-question, the next aim was to address

the main research question, based on the insight gained so far.

The paper at hand has conducted a discussion on the implications of the findings and their

meaning in the light of the previous established theoretical work. This allows for providing an

answer in relation to the main research question, that of how consumers understand Kiva in

terms of the relationship construct that prevails in postmodern consumption. In this sense, it is

concluded that Kiva Friends (i.e. lenders and supporters) regard Kiva as a relationship partner

and display strong emotions in this respect; in addition, they constitute a brand community and

often take a reflective stand on this matter, showing awareness of the importance of connecting

with peers and experiencing a sense of affiliation, as well as of the significant role that Kiva

plays in their lives. Last but not least, it is concluded that Kiva members are open to co-creation

and perceive Kiva to take a similar stand – though limitations of the study in certifying this as a

valid conclusion have been pointed out during the discussion section.

Having answered both the research question and its sub-question, and having designed a

theoretical framework that sheds light on today‟s world of consumption and the way in which it

is increasingly regarded in terms of connectivity, the set out problem is finally addressed. It is

only left to articulate how Kiva is seen as an efficient postmodern organization, and in this sense,

the research concludes by reinforcing that the subjects of investigation are passionate about Kiva,



and this is reflected in the way relationships are built around and with the brand. It appears that

Kiva makes great use of postmodern knowledge – enhances relationships in several possible

ways, appeals to and generates intense emotions, displays ethical concerns and fights for

sustainability, and is born and operates digitally, thus succeeding to engage its members and

supporters in a unique and durable way.

Finally, the paper at hand concludes in the enthusiasm that, even though the research carried out

and its findings cannot be standardized due to the interpretive approach and focus on

particularity that it employs, it still proves to be valuable in several respects. It provides

academic value by contributing on understanding postmodernism in interest for communality

despite the individualism that characterizes it, and shedding light on important and fashionable

relationship constructs, with the exemplary case of Kiva. In addition, it provides value for

marketers and managers who are in an endeavor to master relationship principles and gain more

in-depth insight on how consumers make sense of the relationship concepts and what their

postmodern expectations and pursuits are. Last but not least, the research at hand can be used as

premise for further research towards the consolidation of relationship theory in a consumer

perspective.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers‟ Identity

Narratives. In Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 32. Iss. 1. pp. 171-184

Alon, A. T. & Brunel, F. (2011). Dynamics of community engagement: The role of interpersonal

communicative genres in online community evolutions. In Belk, R. W. & Sherry, J. F. (2011).

Consumer culture theory. Research in consumer behavior. Vol. 11. Emerald Group Publishing

Limited. pp. 371- 400

Arnould, E. J., Price, L. & Zinkhan, G. M. (2003). Consumers. Second edition. McGraw – Hill/

Irwin

Arnould, E. J. & Thompson C. (2011). Consumer culture theory (and we really mean theoretics).

In Belk, R. W. & Sherry, J. F. (2011). Consumer culture theory. Research in consumer behavior.

Vol. 11. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 3-22

Arnould, E. J. & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of

Research. In Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 31

Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction. In Journal of

macromarketing. Vol. 28. Sage. pp. 326-338

Assael, H. (1995). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Fifth edition. Kent

Barnes, J. G. (2003). Establishing meaningful customer relationships: Why some companies and

brands mean more to their customers. In Managing Service Quality. Vol. 13. Iss. 3. pp. 178-186

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Third edition. Oxford University Press

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A. & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don‟t walk

their talk. In Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 97. pp. 139–158



Cherrier, H. (2007). Ethical consumption practices: Co-production of self-expression and social

recognition. In Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Vol. 6. Published online in Wiley InterScience.

pp. 321-335

Cova, B.& Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the

conduct of marketing. In European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 36. Iss. 5/6. pp. 595-620

Cova, B., Kozinets, R. V. & Shankar, Avi. (2007). Consumer tribes. First edition. London.

Butterworth-Heinemann

Daymon, C.& Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and

Marketing Communications. London. Routledge

Daymon, C.& Holloway, I. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and

Marketing Communications (2nd Edition). Abingdon. Oxon. Routledge

Egan, J. (2004). Relationships in marketing. Chapter 1. In Egan, J. Relationship Marketing:

Exploring relational strategies in marketing. Second edition. pp. 3-31. Prentice Hall

Ekström, K. M. & Brembeck, H. (2004). Elusive Consumption. Berg Publishers

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. Harlow.

Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. Second edition. Harlow. Longman.

Firat, A. F. & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of

Consumption. In: Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 22. Iss. 3. pp. 239-267.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer

Research. In The Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 24, Iss. 4. pp. 343-373

Fournier, S. & Avery, J. (2011). Putting the Relationship Back Into CRM. In MIT Sloan

Management Review. Vol. 52. Iss. 3. pp. 63-72



Fournier, S. & Lee, L. (2009). Getting brand communities right. In Harvard Business Review.

(April 2009). pp: 105-111

GajjalaV., GajjalaR., Birzescu A. & Anarbaeva S. (2011). Microfinance in online space: a visual

analysis of kiva.org. Development in Practice. Vol. 21:6. pp. 880-893

Gergen, K. J. (1995). The healthy happy human being wears many masks. Chapter 21. In

Anderson, W. T. The truth about the truth: de-confusing and re-constructing the postmodern

world. pp. 136-144. Tarcher/Putnam

Ghauri, P.& Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research Methods in Business Studies – A Practical Guide.

Prentice Hall

Holt, D. B. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture

and Branding. In Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Iss. 1. pp 80-90.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. In Business Horizons. Vol. 53. Iss. 1. pp. 59-68

KIVA


http://www.kivafriends.org

http://kiwanews.blogspot.com


http://www.facebook.com/kiva

http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/

http://blog.build.kiva.org/

Lanier, C. D. & Schau, H. J. (2011). Culture and co-creation: Exploring consumers‟ inspirations

and aspirations for writing and posting on-line fan fiction. In Belk, R. W. & Sherry, J. F. (2011).

Consumer culture theory. Research in consumer behavior. Vol. 11. Emerald Group Publishing

Limited. pp. 321 – 342



http://kiwanews.blogspot.com/


http://www.facebook.com/kiva

http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2009/01/07/the-story-of-a-kiva-loan/

http://blog.build.kiva.org/



Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks. Sage

Lipovetsky, G. (2009). Consumption in a hypermodern society. Document from the conference:

Marketing Communications in a hypermodern world

Lipovetsky, G. (2005). Hypermodern Times. Polity Press. London

Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. J. (2007). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion

mix. In Business Horizons. Vol. 52. Iss. 4. pp. 357-365

Muniz, A.M. Jr. & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. In Journal of Consumer Research.

Vol. 27. Iss. 4. pp. 412-432

Newholm, T. &Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: a review of research. In Journal

of Consumer Behaviour. Vol. 6. Wiley&Sons. pp. 253-270

Nuttavuthisit, K. (2010). If you can't beat them, let them join: The development of strategies to

foster consumers' co-creative practices. In Business Horizons. Vol. 53. Iss. 3. pp. 315-324

O'Brien, J. M. (2008). The Only Nonprofit That Matters. Fortune. Vol. 157 Iss. 4.pp. 37-42

Olsen, P. B.& Pedersen, K. (2005). Problem-Oriented Project Work - A workbook. First

edition.Roskilde University Press

Patterson, M. & O'Malley, L. (2006). Brands, consumers and relationships: A review. In Irish

Marketing Review. Vol. 18. Iss. 1/2. pp. 10-20

Phillips, L. & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as Theory and Method.Thousand

Oaks. Sage

Phillips, N.& Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social

Construction. Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods. Vol. 50.

Thousand Oaks. Sage

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy

and Leadership. Vol. 32. Iss. 3. pp. 4-9



Prahalad, C. K. &Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value

creation. In Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 18. Iss. 3

Prahalad, C. K., Ramaswamy, V.& Krishnan, M. S. (2000). Consumer centricity. In

InformationWeek (April2010). ProQuest Research Library. pp. 67

Safko, L. & Brake, D.K. (2009). The social media bible. New Jersey. John Wiley&Sons

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Third

edition. London. Prentice Hall-Financial Times

Simmons, G. (2008). Marketing to postmodern consumers: introducing the internet chameleon.

In European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 42 Iss. 3/4. pp 299 – 310



APPENDIX

Exploring Kiva: An understanding on postmodern consumers and

Documents

Transcript of Exploring Kiva: An understanding on postmodern consumers and